Danish Cartoon backlash, there embassy is blown up in pakistan!!!!!!!!!!!!

No Sam. The Russians were very, very bad to Afghani people. They burned down trees and crops, they rapes women with impunity, kidnapped young children, they captured all young men in villages and put them to a firing squad, and they fired indiscriminantly at civilians in marketplaces. Not to mention the suppression of Islam in Afghanistan.

The Americans aren't much different, however, nowadays. All these things still go on under new foreign occupiers. Afghanistan has always been under occupation or at a state of war with invaders for the past 100 years. It's very unfortunate for the people living there.

All invasions are bad. But the Soviets did not invade until their hands were forced. Read some neutral history on this topic. The Russians and Afghanis were allied. Imported trained insurgents are no better than imported liberators, no matter red or blue or white
 
Its about drawing the Prophet as a terrorist.



Geez Louise. India has excellent relations with the US. :crazy:

And terrorists attract Americans like flies, they don't repel them. One sure way to get an Americans attention is to yell, terrorist!!. Try it. :D

as long as the Americans are there indians cant take a hold. its obvious. no wonder its done in secrecy. how else can you eat the cake and leave it full?
 
So what are you saying that Muslims honestly believe what they do is alright?

Of course, just like George Washington or the French resistance. And GW was happy to be butchering natives to liberate himself.

In 1779, George Washington instructed Major General John Sullivan to attack Iroquois people. Washington stated, "lay waste all the settlements around...that the country may not be merely overrun, but destroyed". In the course of the carnage and annihilation of Indian people, Washington also instructed his general not "listen to any overture of peace before the total ruin of their settlements is effected". (Stannard, David E. AMERICAN HOLOCAUST. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. pp. 118-121.)

Anyone thinks of him as a terrorist? Well maybe teh Iroquois would. Anyone else?
 
Of course, just like George Washington or the French resistance. And GW was happy to be butchering natives to liberate himself.



Anyone thinks of him as a terrorist? Well maybe teh Iroquois would. Anyone else?

the russians butchered afganis with the indians support.
 
Anyone with sense would have supported the Soviet Union over the US. Under the Soviets, the Afghanis were running hippy camps. Under the Americans they are running terrorist training camps; guess who was arming the fundamentalist insurgents at that time?

You've got to be kidding me. Osama decided to travel to Afghanistan in response to the Soviet invasion, alongside many other determined Muslims fighting to halt the Soviet advance. There, he helped finance and organize the Muslim volunteers, occassionally participating in the actual warfare himself. Before Osama traveled to Afghanistan, the incumbemt pro-Soviet government of Afghanistan was the biggest target of the Mujuahideens. The Afghan government seeked Soviet assistance in crushing the insurgency, which resulted in the Soviet-led invasion of Afghanistan, leading to a subsequent rise in the numbers of Muslim fighters in the region, flooding in from various countries.

Muhammad Daoud, the progressive President of Afghanistan during the '70s, earned the brunt of the Soviets for cutting personal relations between the two countries, and for signing a military treaty with Egypt. Fearing Afghanistan's continuous distancing from the Soviet Union, the KGB organized and funded numerous raids and coups, executed by Soviet loyals in Afghanistan. Eventually, Dauod was assassinated, and a pro-Soviet government took its place. In a nutshell, many Muslims felt the Soviet intervention as a hostile act, and didn't feel as if a government which pandered to unIslamic neighbours was worthy of power. Essentially, the Soviet occupation was so brutal that Muslims from all over the world flooded the region to participate in the battle for independence. The rest, as we know it, is history.

I'm still a little surprised as to how you sugar-coated the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Sure, they were not as heinous and resource-seeking as the Americans today, but they weren't much better by any stretch of the imagination.
 
I'm still a little surprised as to how you sugar-coated the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Sure, they were not as heinous and resource-seeking as the Americans today, but they weren't much better by any stretch of the imagination.

I do not think the Soviet occupation was a good idea. But it would not have happened without underhanded dealings from the Americans. Carter's secretary of state himself has admitted it. They used Afghanistan for a proxy war against Russia, just like they used Vietnam for a proxy war against China.

Zbigniew Brzezinski:
How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujahideen
 
Of course, just like George Washington or the French resistance. And GW was happy to be butchering natives to liberate himself.

Anyone thinks of him as a terrorist? Well maybe teh Iroquois would. Anyone else?

I think your pulling and Ad Hominem Tu Quoque, we are not judging the west right now, one murder here does not make a murder their any less so.

For what is worth, yes George Washington did many horrible things, the founding fathers were grossly racist, sexist, enslavers and even genocidal, terrorist, sure. Now I ask you do you not see any problem with the killings done by fundamentalist Islam?
 
I do not think the Soviet occupation was a good idea. But it would not have happened without underhanded dealings from the Americans. Carter's secretary of state himself has admitted it. They used Afghanistan for a proxy war against Russia, just like they used Vietnam for a proxy war against China.

Zbigniew Brzezinski:
How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujahideen

Heh, well I know that, Sam. I'm just saying that the Soviets weren't pushovers, and they're to be held accountable for their actions. Same goes for America, though. I could write numerous essays dealing with how the U.S. did everything in its power to make the Soviets invade Afghanistan and to arm the Muslims there to the teeth with weapons and money.
 
All invasions are bad. But the Soviets did not invade until their hands were forced. Read some neutral history on this topic. The Russians and Afghanis were allied. Imported trained insurgents are no better than imported liberators, no matter red or blue or white

The invasion of Afghanistan was pure selfish ambition and selfish interest. The ultimate goal was to secure Pakistan's harbors to the south to have access to the warm water oceans. The Russians trained and put into power their own puppets, who were against the freedom and independence of Afghanistan and whose ambition was to see other Muslim countries such as Iran and Pakistan to fall under Soviet rule.

the russians butchered afganis with the indians support.

India fully supported Russia in its invasion in Afghanistan, with an eye on eliminating Pakistan in the near future, as this was Russia's ultimate objective.

You've got to be kidding me. Osama decided to travel to Afghanistan in response to the Soviet invasion, alongside many other determined Muslims fighting to halt the Soviet advance. There, he helped finance and organize the Muslim volunteers, occassionally participating in the actual warfare himself. Before Osama traveled to Afghanistan, the incumbemt pro-Soviet government of Afghanistan was the biggest target of the Mujuahideens. The Afghan government seeked Soviet assistance in crushing the insurgency, which resulted in the Soviet-led invasion of Afghanistan, leading to a subsequent rise in the numbers of Muslim fighters in the region, flooding in from various countries.

Muhammad Daoud, the progressive President of Afghanistan during the '70s, earned the brunt of the Soviets for cutting personal relations between the two countries, and for signing a military treaty with Egypt. Fearing Afghanistan's continuous distancing from the Soviet Union, the KGB organized and funded numerous raids and coups, executed by Soviet loyals in Afghanistan. Eventually, Dauod was assassinated, and a pro-Soviet government took its place. In a nutshell, many Muslims felt the Soviet intervention as a hostile act, and didn't feel as if a government which pandered to unIslamic neighbours was worthy of power. Essentially, the Soviet occupation was so brutal that Muslims from all over the world flooded the region to participate in the battle for independence. The rest, as we know it, is history.

I'm still a little surprised as to how you sugar-coated the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Sure, they were not as heinous and resource-seeking as the Americans today, but they weren't much better by any stretch of the imagination.

Yes, I could not have stated it better myself. Russia has committed many sins and transgressions on the Afghani people. None of this can be whitewashed.

Americans today are just as bad, if not worse than the Russians ever were in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is centrally located as a gate to the Middle East via Iran, South Asia via Pakistan, and Central Asia via Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikstan.
 
I think your pulling and Ad Hominem Tu Quoque, we are not judging the west right now, one murder here does not make a murder their any less so.

For what is worth, yes George Washington did many horrible things, the founding fathers were grossly racist, sexist, enslavers and even genocidal, terrorist, sure. Now I ask you do you not see any problem with the killings done by fundamentalist Islam?

Yup and thats the "Father of Our Nation". Right? After killing more Americans than bin Laden.
 
Yup and thats the "Father of Our Nation". Right? After killing more Americans than bin Laden.

Sure, I have no problem.

Again your argument fails to account for guilt: Bill Clinton easily caused more deaths then Ted Bundy does that mean Ted Bundy was not accountable for his actions?

Again I ask you do you not see any problem with the killings done by fundamentalist Islam?
 
Heh, well I know that, Sam. I'm just saying that the Soviets weren't pushovers, and they're to be held accountable for their actions. Same goes for America, though. I could write numerous essays dealing with how the U.S. did everything in its power to make the Soviets invade Afghanistan and to arm the Muslims there to the teeth with weapons and money.

Sure, but they left, just like the British did. The Americans are still there and worse than ever. Now they are bombing anyone and everyone from the air and refusing to acknowledge the dead.

And getting worse and worse by the day:


Bush 'plans Iran air strike by August'


What do you think this will lead to?
 
Sure, but they left, just like the British did. The Americans are still there and worse than ever. Now they are bombing anyone and everyone from the air and refusing to acknowledge the dead.

Of course, but even the Americans will leave after the Karzai government becomes strong enough to look after America's interests in Afghanistan.


I predicted this a few months ago, or have you forgotten already? This stuff doesn't surprise me.
 
Sure, I have no problem.

Again your argument fails to account for guilt: Bill Clinton easily caused more deaths then Ted Bundy does that mean Ted Bundy was not accountable for his actions?

Again I ask you do you not see any problem with the killings done by fundamentalist Islam?



One man's President is another man's Hamas. Go read a book, like this one:

http://www.amazon.com/Dying-Win-Strategic-Suicide-Terrorism/dp/1400063175

FACT: Suicide terrorism is not primarily a product of Islamic fundamentalism.

FACT: The world’s leading practitioners of suicide terrorism are the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka–a secular, Marxist-Leninist group drawn from Hindu families.

FACT: Ninety-five percent of suicide terrorist attacks occur as part of coherent campaigns organized by large militant organizations with significant public support.

FACT: Every suicide terrorist campaign has had a clear goal that is secular and political: to compel a modern democracy to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland.

FACT: Al-Qaeda fits the above pattern. Although Saudi Arabia is not under American military occupation per se, one major objective of al-Qaeda is the expulsion of U.S. troops from the Persian Gulf region, and as a result there have been repeated attacks by terrorists loyal to Osama bin Laden against American troops in Saudi Arabia and the region as a whole.

FACT: Despite their rhetoric, democracies–including the United States–have routinely made concessions to suicide terrorists. Suicide terrorism is on the rise because terrorists have learned that it’s effective.
 
Coalition forces using airstrikes (read, sitting at safe distance and pressing buttons to kill people) have been killing people on a regular basis next door in Afghanistan. About 55 of them killed over the last couple of days alone. They cannot identify or count teh bodies, but they can clearly make out they are "insurgents". So yeah, everyone is sharing in the "peace" there.

She's derailing. Mods, delete and ban!
 
Why do you keep ignoring the question? I don't care what one mans garbage is another treasure, I completely agree that morality is relative, but I'm asking you personally: Do you not see any problem with the killings done by fundamentalist Islam?

you dont get it. SAM wants india to control Afghanistan. they already have a secret presence there.
 
Back
Top