Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Taliban showing how hard they are
- Thread starter carlzeiss
- Start date
daveinprague
New member
Are they as hard as drones hitting civilians?..your link doesnt work incidentally, but im guessing its the school attack.
GreersElbow
New member
A typical left wing approach, bring up a Western controversial policy to divert attention from crimes against children......
The link, incidentally actually works.
daveinprague
New member
Not really. If you want to disparage a group in a stupid war, where both sides do stupid things, tallk about them as a whole. We knowingly use drones in the knowledge that civilians and children may be killed. Whats the difference....and yep, link is working now.
daveinprague
New member
terryberry1
Well-known member
Scum, that is all they are. The Taliban are a deranged group that still live in the dark ages. As the world moves on they stay the same. Disgusting vile *****.
I am sure the West has never deliberately targeted Children. Whatever your religious and political beliefs. This is a calculated attack to slaughter children. The perpitartors are in human. This isnt religion its psychopathic nutters and incredibly depressing. My daughter is due to be born on 26th December and i really wonder what sort of life and world she is going to see.
daveinprague
New member
No, im certain they dont. They do know its a possibility though. However, we dont know what the Pakistan airforce has been doing in Waziristan etc, which this is a revenge attack for by all accounts. I was just intriqued by the 'showing how hard they are' bit. They have been hard enough fighting the allied forces over the last decade, who came with airpower, drones, and armour, and seem to be blowing themselves up on a daily basis at the moment, so I dont think their 'hardness' is really in question, and the vast majority of their victims are fellow muslims. Its terribly sad.
dingodan
New member
- Feb 16, 2011
- 10,080
So, are you saying that daveinpragues motivation was to "divert attention from crimes against children"?
Why? How can you justify saying that, when it's patently false. Killing children is a crime against children. It's a crime against children when done by anyone, period.
Daveinprague can't have been diverting attention away from crimes against children, because he was raising the issue of the killing of children by drone strike, which is a crime against children. But you dismissed the raising of the killing of children by drone strike as "A typical left wing approach". You diverted attention from crimes against children.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ikes-in-Pakistan-since-start-of-campaign.html
In just a single attack on a madrassah in 2006 up to 69 children lost their lives.
List of children killed by drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen: http://droneswatch.org/2013/01/20/list-of-children-killed-by-drone-strikes-in-pakistan-and-yemen/
brightn'ove
cringe
Typical right wing approach, classing an argument as left wing and dismissing it as 'typical'.
Monsieur Le Plonk
Lethargy in motion
Up to 100 innocent children have been slaughtered and along come some of NSC's class acts. W*nkers
attila
1997 Club
Seeds sown long ago. The West financed and armed the original fundamentalist Taliban lunatics in the late Seventies (then described by the likes of the BBC as 'brave Afghan freedom fighters' and by Ronald Reagan as 'the moral equivalent of America's founding fathers') as they threw acid in the face of teachers, blew up schools and generally did everything they could to stop the then progressive and secular Afghan government from pulling that unfortunate country out of the Dark Ages by instigating land reform, promoting the education of women and so on. This was, of course, BEFORE the Soviet invasion, and was indeed designed to PROVOKE an invasion and create 'Russia's Vietnam'. It succeeded - at the price of creating a seething mass of lunatic Islamists which then spread their evil ideology all over the world. If the West had not backed medievalist lunatics and left the Afghans to sort out their own internal affairs we would not be facing the nightmare of Islamic extremism we do today. And it is indeed a nightmare, one which some on the Left downgrade because of the role the West played in creating it - which is wrong in my opinion. Evil is evil, fascism is fascism, and there is no better definition of fascism than the likes of ISIS and the Taliban.
dingodan
New member
- Feb 16, 2011
- 10,080
More than 100 innocent children have been slaughtered.
GreersElbow
New member
What was his premise and what was he inferring?
Hastings gull
Well-known member
- Nov 23, 2013
- 4,635
Do you not think this is rather simplistic? How do you know that leaving them to sort out their own affairs, as you put it, would not have resulted in exactly the same nightmare.
Common as Mook
Not Posh as Fook
- Jul 26, 2004
- 5,630
Seriously. You are deranged in the extreme to try and spin this. And this is coming from someone with a Muslim background.
daveinprague
New member
There is no spin. The atrocity is horrific, but no more horrific than other atrocities against civilians and children. Personally, I think the taliban are pretty 'hard', as they have kept British, American, and other allied troops fairly busy for the last decade, without the benefit of western resources, ie airforces, armour etc. Apparently a revenge attack for Pakistans actions in Waziristan. No spin. Just a sense of reality im afraid.
attila
1997 Club
A bunch of 8th century fundamentalists based in backward rural areas would not have defeated the Afghan army on their own. And it was policy to deliberately stir up, arm and train the fundamentalists and encourage them to grow.
According to this 1998 interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, the CIA's intervention in Afghanistan preceded the 1979 Soviet invasion. This decision of the Carter Administration in 1979 to intervene and destabilise Afghanistan is the root cause of Afghanistan's destruction as a nation. Interview excerpt:
'The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?
Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise. Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?
B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.
Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?
B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?'
(This interview, of course, took place before 9/11)