For anyone who'd like some in depth nuanced info about IS rather than muslims are just the victims and it's all nawdy Amewicas fault, please listen to this.

https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/inside-the-crucible-syria-and-the-islamic-state

In private encounters with other world leaders, Obama has argued that there will be no comprehensive solution to Islamist terrorism until Islam reconciles itself to modernity and undergoes some of the reforms that have changed Christianity.

Though he has argued, controversially, that the Middle East’s conflicts “date back millennia,” he also believes that the intensified Muslim fury of recent years was encouraged by countries considered friends of the U.S. In a meeting during apec with Malcolm Turnbull, the new prime minister of Australia, Obama described how he has watched Indonesia gradually move from a relaxed, syncretistic Islam to a more fundamentalist, unforgiving interpretation; large numbers of Indonesian women, he observed, have now adopted the hijab, the Muslim head covering.

Why, Turnbull asked, was this happening?

Because, Obama answered, the Saudis and other Gulf Arabs have funneled money, and large numbers of imams and teachers, into the country. In the 1990s, the Saudis heavily funded Wahhabist madrassas, seminaries that teach the fundamentalist version of Islam favored by the Saudi ruling family, Obama told Turnbull. Today, Islam in Indonesia is much more Arab in orientation than it was when he lived there, he said.

“Aren’t the Saudis your friends?,” Turnbull asked.

Obama smiled. “It’s complicated,” he said.

Obama’s patience with Saudi Arabia has always been limited. In his first foreign-policy commentary of note, that 2002 speech at the antiwar rally in Chicago, he said, “You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East—the Saudis and the Egyptians—stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality.” In the White House these days, one occasionally hears Obama’s National Security Council officials pointedly reminding visitors that the large majority of 9/11 hijackers were not Iranian, but Saudi—and Obama himself rails against Saudi Arabia’s state-sanctioned misogyny, arguing in private that “a country cannot function in the modern world when it is repressing half of its population.” In meetings with foreign leaders, Obama has said, “You can gauge the success of a society by how it treats its women.”

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/

Which suggests that the Saudis and the Egyptians and their allies are oppressing their own people not because of religious beliefs but rather political reasons to suit a politcal purpose Soren, now doesn't it?   

Anyway, I was always under the impression that Israel was responsible for the creation of IS...   ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D

GordyL wrote on Mar 11^th, 2016 at 7:19pm:

For anyone who'd like some in depth nuanced info about IS rather than muslims are just the victims and it's all nawdy Amewicas fault, please listen to this. https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/inside-the-crucible-syria-and-the-islamic-state

Surprisingly I am not opposed to that concept, even though it is somewhat of a sweeping statement. However, I would more specifically point out that Obama withdrew US forces from Iraq which left an opportunity (vacuum) for ISIS to be formed from the 'leftovers' of Saddam's military and Iraqi military hierarchy in hiding, intermixed with the remnants of AQ and other terrorist clans.

The US Military didn't want to leave the job unfinished, but Obama did.

Soren wrote on Mar 14^th, 2016 at 10:19am:

In private encounters with other world leaders, Obama has argued that there will be no comprehensive solution to Islamist terrorism until Islam reconciles itself to modernity and undergoes some of the reforms that have changed Christianity. Though he has argued, controversially, that the Middle East’s conflicts “date back millennia,” he also believes that the intensified Muslim fury of recent years was encouraged by countries considered friends of the U.S. In a meeting during apec with Malcolm Turnbull, the new prime minister of Australia, Obama described how he has watched Indonesia gradually move from a relaxed, syncretistic Islam to a more fundamentalist, unforgiving interpretation; large numbers of Indonesian women, he observed, have now adopted the hijab, the Muslim head covering. Why, Turnbull asked, was this happening? Because, Obama answered, the Saudis and other Gulf Arabs have funneled money, and large numbers of imams and teachers, into the country. In the 1990s, the Saudis heavily funded Wahhabist madrassas, seminaries that teach the fundamentalist version of Islam favored by the Saudi ruling family, Obama told Turnbull. Today, Islam in Indonesia is much more Arab in orientation than it was when he lived there, he said.

Gandalf is predicting the opposite - that Indonesia is the next great economic superpower. Fortunately he has ceased holding up Malaysia as an example of a good Muslim country.


Quote:

Which suggests that the Saudis and the Egyptians and their allies are oppressing their own people not because of religious beliefs but rather political reasons to suit a politcal purpose Soren, now doesn't it?

How exactly does it suggest that? Do they oppress their women to give American political leaders some talking points?


Quote:

The US Military didn't want to leave the job unfinished, but Obama did.

How long does it take to 'finish the job' in a Muslim country? 20 years? 50? 200? Can you cite any non-Muslim countries where it has taken so much effort to do the same thing?

freediver wrote on Mar 14^th, 2016 at 7:18pm:

How long does it take to 'finish the job' in a Muslim country?

Does it matter? Unless you plan to see it through, don't start the job.

freediver wrote on Mar 14^th, 2016 at 7:18pm:

How long does it take to 'finish the job' in a Muslim country? 20 years? 50? 200? Can you cite any non-Muslim countries where it has taken so much effort to do the same thing?

When leaving the 'job' unfinished results in worldwide terrorism as the alternative, with the consequent loss of life and movement of populations, one has to weigh up which is the more globally beneficial.

Leaving a vacuum, as Obama did, was and is an ongoing catastrophe for the rest of the world.

John Smith wrote on Mar 14^th, 2016 at 7:20pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 14th, 2016 at 7:18pm: How long does it take to 'finish the job' in a Muslim country? Does it matter? Unless you plan to see it through, don't start the job.

Good idea.

Keep them out, have nothing to do with them.

There is NO job. treat them like the incompatible non-jobs they are.

John Smith wrote on Mar 14^th, 2016 at 7:20pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 14th, 2016 at 7:18pm: How long does it take to 'finish the job' in a Muslim country? Does it matter? Unless you plan to see it through, don't start the job.

Do you recall all those people demanding the troops come home? It matters to them.


Quote:

When leaving the 'job' unfinished results in worldwide terrorism as the alternative, with the consequent loss of life and movement of populations, one has to weigh up which is the more globally beneficial.

Seeing as you have your crystal ball out, tell us whether you think more or fewer people would have died if we had continued to occupy Iraq.

Soren wrote on Mar 14^th, 2016 at 8:01pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 14th, 2016 at 7:20pm: freediver wrote on Mar 14th, 2016 at 7:18pm: How long does it take to 'finish the job' in a Muslim country? Does it matter? Unless you plan to see it through, don't start the job. Good idea. Keep them out, have nothing to do with them. There is NO job. treat them like the incompatible non-jobs they are.

Well, we did let you in, dear. Somebody must have wanted a stool softener/bed warmer.

Alas, that was before you had your turn. You must have been.most productive back in the day, no?

Still, every day in every way you’re getting better and better.

Keep repeating that, dear boy.

freediver wrote on Mar 14^th, 2016 at 8:40pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 14th, 2016 at 7:20pm: freediver wrote on Mar 14th, 2016 at 7:18pm: How long does it take to 'finish the job' in a Muslim country? Does it matter? Unless you plan to see it through, don't start the job. Do you recall all those people demanding the troops come home? It matters to them. Quote: When leaving the 'job' unfinished results in worldwide terrorism as the alternative, with the consequent loss of life and movement of populations, one has to weigh up which is the more globally beneficial. Seeing as you have your crystal ball out, tell us whether you think more or fewer people would have died if we had continued to occupy Iraq.

you mean the same people that demanded they don't send them there in the first place? Why does it matter now when you didn't give a fig what they said earlier?

What makes you think that John?

And why does every discussion with you turn into you endlessly making up random crap and attributing it to me? It's like you think every one of the several dozen people you argue with here are the same person.

a touch sensitive tonight FD, what's up? the fish bite you back?

I wasn't talking about you specifically, I was talking about the war mongers that were demanding we go to war with Iraq.

Quote:

I wasn't talking about you specifically

;D

freediver wrote on Mar 14^th, 2016 at 8:40pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 14th, 2016 at 7:20pm: freediver wrote on Mar 14th, 2016 at 7:18pm: How long does it take to 'finish the job' in a Muslim country? Does it matter? Unless you plan to see it through, don't start the job. Do you recall all those people demanding the troops come home? It matters to them. Quote: When leaving the 'job' unfinished results in worldwide terrorism as the alternative, with the consequent loss of life and movement of populations, one has to weigh up which is the more globally beneficial. Seeing as you have your crystal ball out, tell us whether you think more or fewer people would have died if we had continued to occupy Iraq.

It appears that you have your 'crystal ball' out, so why don't you answer your own question.

Karnal wrote on Mar 14^th, 2016 at 9:00pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 14th, 2016 at 8:01pm: John Smith wrote on Mar 14th, 2016 at 7:20pm: freediver wrote on Mar 14th, 2016 at 7:18pm: How long does it take to 'finish the job' in a Muslim country? Does it matter? Unless you plan to see it through, don't start the job. Good idea. Keep them out, have nothing to do with them. There is NO job. treat them like the incompatible non-jobs they are. Well, we did let you in, dear. Somebody must have wanted a stool softener/bed warmer. Alas, that was before you had your turn. You must have been.most productive back in the day, no? Still, every day in every way you’re getting better and better. Keep repeating that, dear boy.

I am not an illegal immigrant or a country shopper, PB. In your stupid and dishonest way you now try to conflate legal and illegal immigrants. It tells us just how stupid and dishonest you really are.


Have another shite sandwich. Have two. You know you want to.  Miam miam and all that.

Not a country-shopper, eh?

Which fine country did you study in again? If I’m not mistaken, the specialty there is meat. Smallgoods, I believe.

Miam miam indeed.

freediver wrote on Mar 14^th, 2016 at 8:40pm:

Do you recall all those people demanding the troops come home? It matters to them.

Did you recall all those people demanding we didn't go and illegally invade and destroy a sovereign nation based on lies in the first place? There were quite a lot you know. John's question is perfectly valid - if the powers that be and their useful idiots ignored the groundswell of opposition to the invasion, why should their opinion regarding the occupation suddenly matter? 

What created ISIS were Sunni Muslims who believe in a very barbaric form of Islam. The Americans gave them an opportunity to gain power. America didn't create this form of belief. Islam did.

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 9:35am:

What created ISIS were Sunni Muslims who believe in a very barbaric form of Islam. The Americans gave them an opportunity to gain power. America didn't create this form of belief. Islam did.

The apologists will tell you what ISIS believe isn't Islam.

That's a bit like a white trash bogan with a Ned Kelly neck tattoo calling an inner city hipster un Australia.

They're both Australian, just different.

Actually Mr Hammer, ISIS was created by ex-Saddam loyalists - in particular a Baathist intelligence officer who lost his job after the US invasion. He then became active in the resistance, using his very sophisticated network of informers that he had meticulously developed over the years to create the sunni resistance group then known as Al Qaeda in Iraq. ISIS is just the same group re-branded after AQII was forced underground after the surge. Its a very interesting story about this fellow - Der Spiegel had an expose' on him soon after he was killed in a firefight in early 2014.

Point is, without the US invasion, ex-Baathist officers wouldn't have gone about setting up a sunni resistance movements; and without the invasion their wouldn't be a large pool of disaffected, unemployed sunni males who sign up to such resistance movements - that eventually morphed into what we know as IS.

So the question is, given all that happened as a direct result of the US invasion, is there any point at all at which we can say the US, if not created, was responsible for the creation of IS?

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 9:54am:

Actually Mr Hammer, ISIS was created by ex-Saddam loyalists - in particular a Baathist intelligence officer who lost his job after the US invasion. He then became active in the resistance, using his very sophisticated network of informers that he had meticulously developed over the years to create the sunni resistance group then known as Al Qaeda in Iraq. ISIS is just the same group re-branded after AQII was forced underground after the surge. Its a very interesting story about this fellow - Der Spiegel had an expose' on him soon after he was killed in a firefight in early 2014. Point is, without the US invasion, ex-Baathist officers wouldn't have gone about setting up a sunni resistance movements; and without the invasion their wouldn't be a large pool of disaffected, unemployed sunni males who sign up to such resistance movements - that eventually morphed into what we know as IS. So the question is, given all that happened as a direct result of the US invasion, is there any point at all at which we can say the US, if not created, was responsible for the creation of IS?

If you don't have the belief system you don't have the organisation. This belief system is a branch of Islam. The organisation developed around these beliefs. It's just a fact. Sorry.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 9:54am:

Actually Mr Hammer, ISIS was created by ex-Saddam loyalists - in particular a Baathist intelligence officer who lost his job after the US invasion. He then became active in the resistance, using his very sophisticated network of informers that he had meticulously developed over the years to create the sunni resistance group then known as Al Qaeda in Iraq. ISIS is just the same group re-branded after AQII was forced underground after the surge. Its a very interesting story about this fellow - Der Spiegel had an expose' on him soon after he was killed in a firefight in early 2014. Point is, without the US invasion, ex-Baathist officers wouldn't have gone about setting up a sunni resistance

So given a chance at a new start once Saddam was gone, instead of breathing a sigh of relief and singing kumbaya they had a sectarian bloodbath along sectarian lines...of ISLAM.

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 10:00am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 9:54am: Actually Mr Hammer, ISIS was created by ex-Saddam loyalists - in particular a Baathist intelligence officer who lost his job after the US invasion. He then became active in the resistance, using his very sophisticated network of informers that he had meticulously developed over the years to create the sunni resistance group then known as Al Qaeda in Iraq. ISIS is just the same group re-branded after AQII was forced underground after the surge. Its a very interesting story about this fellow - Der Spiegel had an expose' on him soon after he was killed in a firefight in early 2014. Point is, without the US invasion, ex-Baathist officers wouldn't have gone about setting up a sunni resistance movements; and without the invasion their wouldn't be a large pool of disaffected, unemployed sunni males who sign up to such resistance movements - that eventually morphed into what we know as IS. So the question is, given all that happened as a direct result of the US invasion, is there any point at all at which we can say the US, if not created, was responsible for the creation of IS? If you don't have the belief system you don't have the organisation. This belief system is a branch of Islam. The organisation developed around these beliefs. It's just a fact. Sorry.

Its a rather simple formula which you haven't addressed:
before US invasion = no ISIS, after US invasion = ISIS. You can fall back on arguments like "the belief system is a branch of Islam", but in specific relation to the question in the OP, its neither here nor there. Simply dismissing the issue on the basis that muslims  are simply "ISIS prone" anyway doesn't necessarily absolve the US of the role they played in its creation. To put it in your terms, it can be argued that both Islam and the US shared responsibility for its creation. 

Now to the issue at hand, you either argue that its pure coincidence that such an organisation only emerged after the invasion, or you accept that there is some causal relationship. If its the former, you need to present some counter-argument for why my previous point about how the invasion at the very least helped create the conditions for ISIS to emerge is invalid. But if you do entertain the latter (and I frankly can't understand how any sane person wouldn't), then your outright dismissal of the very idea in the OP and elsewhere becomes contradictory.

GordyL wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 10:05am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 9:54am: Actually Mr Hammer, ISIS was created by ex-Saddam loyalists - in particular a Baathist intelligence officer who lost his job after the US invasion. He then became active in the resistance, using his very sophisticated network of informers that he had meticulously developed over the years to create the sunni resistance group then known as Al Qaeda in Iraq. ISIS is just the same group re-branded after AQII was forced underground after the surge. Its a very interesting story about this fellow - Der Spiegel had an expose' on him soon after he was killed in a firefight in early 2014. Point is, without the US invasion, ex-Baathist officers wouldn't have gone about setting up a sunni resistance  So given a chance at a new start once Saddam was gone, instead of breathing a sigh of relief and singing kumbaya they had a sectarian bloodbath along sectarian lines...of ISLAM.

Yes, because everyone is naturally going to sing kumbaya after their country is occupied by a hostile invader who creates mass unemployment and generally throws the country into chaos  ::)

No, nothing at all to do with invasion and occupation based on lies - must be just Islam.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 11:05am:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 10:00am: polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 9:54am: Actually Mr Hammer, ISIS was created by ex-Saddam loyalists - in particular a Baathist intelligence officer who lost his job after the US invasion. He then became active in the resistance, using his very sophisticated network of informers that he had meticulously developed over the years to create the sunni resistance group then known as Al Qaeda in Iraq. ISIS is just the same group re-branded after AQII was forced underground after the surge. Its a very interesting story about this fellow - Der Spiegel had an expose' on him soon after he was killed in a firefight in early 2014. Point is, without the US invasion, ex-Baathist officers wouldn't have gone about setting up a sunni resistance movements; and without the invasion their wouldn't be a large pool of disaffected, unemployed sunni males who sign up to such resistance movements - that eventually morphed into what we know as IS. So the question is, given all that happened as a direct result of the US invasion, is there any point at all at which we can say the US, if not created, was responsible for the creation of IS? If you don't have the belief system you don't have the organisation. This belief system is a branch of Islam. The organisation developed around these beliefs. It's just a fact. Sorry. Its a rather simple formula which you haven't addressed: before US invasion = no ISIS, after US invasion = ISIS. You can fall back on arguments like "the belief system is a branch of Islam", but in specific relation to the question in the OP, its neither here nor there. Simply dismissing the issue on the basis that muslims  are simply "ISIS prone" anyway doesn't necessarily absolve the US of the role they played in its creation. To put it in your terms, it can be argued that both Islam and the US shared responsibility for its creation.  Now to the issue at hand, you either argue that its pure coincidence that such an organisation only emerged after the invasion, or you accept that there is some causal relationship. If its the former, you need to present some counter-argument for why my previous point about how the invasion at the very least helped create the conditions for ISIS to emerge is invalid. But if you do entertain the latter (and I frankly can't understand how any sane person wouldn't), then your outright dismissal of the very idea in the OP and elsewhere becomes contradictory.

I'll ask you a question. Why does the blame always lie somewhere else when something bad comes out of Islam? Al Qaeda ( America ) Osama Bin Laden (America) Twin Towers (America) ISIS (America). It's a familiar pattern. America puts their nose in but they are constructions from Islamic people.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 11:09am:

GordyL wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 10:05am: polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 9:54am: Actually Mr Hammer, ISIS was created by ex-Saddam loyalists - in particular a Baathist intelligence officer who lost his job after the US invasion. He then became active in the resistance, using his very sophisticated network of informers that he had meticulously developed over the years to create the sunni resistance group then known as Al Qaeda in Iraq. ISIS is just the same group re-branded after AQII was forced underground after the surge. Its a very interesting story about this fellow - Der Spiegel had an expose' on him soon after he was killed in a firefight in early 2014. Point is, without the US invasion, ex-Baathist officers wouldn't have gone about setting up a sunni resistance  So given a chance at a new start once Saddam was gone, instead of breathing a sigh of relief and singing kumbaya they had a sectarian bloodbath along sectarian lines...of ISLAM. Yes, because everyone is naturally going to sing kumbaya after their country is occupied by a hostile invader who creates mass unemployment and generally throws the country into chaos  ::) No, nothing at all to do with invasion and occupation based on lies - must be just Islam.

I don't deny USA had a role. I just don't like the USA created ISIS line. I prefer to describe it as ISIS was always there, lets call them a nasty spider trapped under a glass. Saddam was the glass and USA set it free.

If it wasn't USA eventually Saddam would have died, or been over thrown and we'd be where we are now.

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 10:00am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 9:54am: Actually Mr Hammer, ISIS was created by ex-Saddam loyalists - in particular a Baathist intelligence officer who lost his job after the US invasion. He then became active in the resistance, using his very sophisticated network of informers that he had meticulously developed over the years to create the sunni resistance group then known as Al Qaeda in Iraq. ISIS is just the same group re-branded after AQII was forced underground after the surge. Its a very interesting story about this fellow - Der Spiegel had an expose' on him soon after he was killed in a firefight in early 2014. Point is, without the US invasion, ex-Baathist officers wouldn't have gone about setting up a sunni resistance movements; and without the invasion their wouldn't be a large pool of disaffected, unemployed sunni males who sign up to such resistance movements - that eventually morphed into what we know as IS. So the question is, given all that happened as a direct result of the US invasion, is there any point at all at which we can say the US, if not created, was responsible for the creation of IS? If you don't have the belief system you don't have the organisation. This belief system is a branch of Islam. The organisation developed around these beliefs. It's just a fact. Sorry.

No, Amerika has "made" all sorts of genocidal resistance movements over the years. The Khmer Rouge is one - the result of US attacks on Cambodia. The support of multiple military coups are another - the Shah of Iran, Suharto, Pinochet - these regimes tortured and killed millions. They were backed, funded and armed by Uncle. Kissenger formally recognized the Khmer Rouge as the legitimate government of Cambodia. It took the newly liberated nation of Vietnam to depose Pol Pot. Uncle looked the other way.

The Muselman does not have a monopoly on killing. The belief system that justifies these sorts of atrocities is nothing more than the defence of power. In WWII, the Soviet Army set up machine guns behind the front lines to kill its own soldiers who retreated. The message was clear: fight or die. Countless regimes in the last century alone have had similar policies, and many have been sponsored by Amerika. Today, Uncle supports the most barbaric regime of all: Saudi Arabia. The reason Islamic fundamentalist extremism has spread is Saudi funding, facilitated by all that oil Uncle's friends pipe out and ship off to the four corners of the globe. By backing the House of Saud, the US has inadvertently enabled Wahabist propaganda to flow out of the Saudi desert and into places as far afield as Pakistan and Indonesia.

Who's fault is this? As Obama says, it's complicated.

Karnal wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 1:09pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 10:00am: polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 9:54am: Actually Mr Hammer, ISIS was created by ex-Saddam loyalists - in particular a Baathist intelligence officer who lost his job after the US invasion. He then became active in the resistance, using his very sophisticated network of informers that he had meticulously developed over the years to create the sunni resistance group then known as Al Qaeda in Iraq. ISIS is just the same group re-branded after AQII was forced underground after the surge. Its a very interesting story about this fellow - Der Spiegel had an expose' on him soon after he was killed in a firefight in early 2014. Point is, without the US invasion, ex-Baathist officers wouldn't have gone about setting up a sunni resistance movements; and without the invasion their wouldn't be a large pool of disaffected, unemployed sunni males who sign up to such resistance movements - that eventually morphed into what we know as IS. So the question is, given all that happened as a direct result of the US invasion, is there any point at all at which we can say the US, if not created, was responsible for the creation of IS? If you don't have the belief system you don't have the organisation. This belief system is a branch of Islam. The organisation developed around these beliefs. It's just a fact. Sorry. No, Amerika has "made" all sorts of genocidal resistance movements over the years. The Khmer Rouge is one - the result of US attacks on Cambodia. The support of multiple military coups are another - the Shah of Iran, Suharto, Pinochet - these regimes tortured and killed millions. They were backed, funded and armed by Uncle. Kissenger formally recognized the Khmer Rouge as the legitimate government of Cambodia. It took the newly liberated nation of Vietnam to depose Pol Pot. Uncle looked the other way. The Muselman does not have a monopoly on killing. The belief system that justifies these sorts of atrocities is nothing more than the defence of power. In WWII, the Soviet Army set up machine guns behind the front lines to kill its own soldiers who retreated. The message was clear: fight or die. Countless regimes in the last century alone have had similar policies, and many have been sponsored by Amerika. Today, Uncle supports the most barbaric regime of all: the Saudis. The reason Islamic fundamentalist extremism has spread is Saudi funding. By backing the House of Saud, the US has inadvertently enabled Wahabist propaganda to flow out of the Saudi desert and into places as far afield as Pakistan and Indonesia. Who's fault is this? As Obama says, it's complicated.

Not this again. the Khmer Rouge was a result of the  power vacuum caused by the fall of western imperialism after ww2. When the French left Cambodia it became unstable. America didn't invent the Khmer Rouge. Same thing with Vietnam. The Khmer Rouge invented The Khmer Rouge like how ISIS invented ISIS . I know history isn't one of you stronger subjects but p[lease get your facts right sugar muffin.

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 1:15pm:

Karnal wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 1:09pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 10:00am: polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 9:54am: Actually Mr Hammer, ISIS was created by ex-Saddam loyalists - in particular a Baathist intelligence officer who lost his job after the US invasion. He then became active in the resistance, using his very sophisticated network of informers that he had meticulously developed over the years to create the sunni resistance group then known as Al Qaeda in Iraq. ISIS is just the same group re-branded after AQII was forced underground after the surge. Its a very interesting story about this fellow - Der Spiegel had an expose' on him soon after he was killed in a firefight in early 2014. Point is, without the US invasion, ex-Baathist officers wouldn't have gone about setting up a sunni resistance movements; and without the invasion their wouldn't be a large pool of disaffected, unemployed sunni males who sign up to such resistance movements - that eventually morphed into what we know as IS. So the question is, given all that happened as a direct result of the US invasion, is there any point at all at which we can say the US, if not created, was responsible for the creation of IS? If you don't have the belief system you don't have the organisation. This belief system is a branch of Islam. The organisation developed around these beliefs. It's just a fact. Sorry. No, Amerika has "made" all sorts of genocidal resistance movements over the years. The Khmer Rouge is one - the result of US attacks on Cambodia. The support of multiple military coups are another - the Shah of Iran, Suharto, Pinochet - these regimes tortured and killed millions. They were backed, funded and armed by Uncle. Kissenger formally recognized the Khmer Rouge as the legitimate government of Cambodia. It took the newly liberated nation of Vietnam to depose Pol Pot. Uncle looked the other way. The Muselman does not have a monopoly on killing. The belief system that justifies these sorts of atrocities is nothing more than the defence of power. In WWII, the Soviet Army set up machine guns behind the front lines to kill its own soldiers who retreated. The message was clear: fight or die. Countless regimes in the last century alone have had similar policies, and many have been sponsored by Amerika. Today, Uncle supports the most barbaric regime of all: the Saudis. The reason Islamic fundamentalist extremism has spread is Saudi funding. By backing the House of Saud, the US has inadvertently enabled Wahabist propaganda to flow out of the Saudi desert and into places as far afield as Pakistan and Indonesia. Who's fault is this? As Obama says, it's complicated. Not this again. the Khmer Rouge was a result of the  power vacuum caused by the fall of western imperialism after ww2. When the French left Cambodia it became unstable. America didn't invent the Khmer Rouge. Same thing with Vietnam. The Khmer Rouge invented The Khmer Rouge like how ISIS invented ISIS . I know history isn't one of you stronger subjects but p[lease get your facts right sugar muffin.

The Khmer Rouge is the result of the vacuum that occurred when the US bombed Cambodia. Of course the US didn't "create" the Khmer Rouge, their actions precipitated it. Whenever a country or a people are under attack, armed movements form to defend them.

This is precisely how ISIS came about in Syria and Iraq - they gained support by defending Sunni Muslims. The "belief systems" of such resistance movements depend on their leaders' ambitions. ISIS use the millennial idea of the caliphate. The Khmer Rouge decided to reset time: Year Zero. Sure, such belief systems define how we view them, but they are not the cause. Such ideas emerge along the way, victory by victory.

Sure, ISIS is a Muslim problem. I would not say the Khmer Rouge was a communist problem - no reading of Marx could support this. I'd say Fascism is a nationalist problem: an excess of nationalism will inevitably lead to such views.

I don't think the same can be said of ISIS and Islam. The views of ISIS are a contorted form of fundamentalist dogma. They are what you get, I think, when you descend into warring tribalism. They are not entirely different from fascist thinking: strong leaders, clear gender roles, an obsession with military power and the use of extremist violence to enforce the law.

Such views can be countered using Islamic thought, and predominantly are. Where Islam comes into it is the Islamic admonition to defend fellow Muslims. This is how all Islamic extremism has spread in recent times, from the Mujahidin in Afghanistan to the conflict in Kashmir to Israel/Palestine. I.e, they come from war, and Muslims are recruited to fight.

It is only recently that the defence of fellow Muslims has been turned into an expansionist crusade; the call to create a new caliphate.

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 11:15am:

I'll ask you a question. Why does the blame always lie somewhere else when something bad comes out of Islam? Al Qaeda ( America ) Osama Bin Laden (America) Twin Towers (America) ISIS (America). It's a familiar pattern. America puts their nose in but they are constructions from Islamic people.

To be fair, I did volunteer that both Islam and America could be to blame.

Nonetheless, the argument is not completely without merit: with regards to bin Laden and AQ, they did make a habit of pointing out that their war was a defensive one against American imperialism. It might surprise you to learn that bin Laden wasn't actually interested in this 'global caliphate' we always hear about. He just wanted the US out of the muslim world and after that he had no beef with them - he made that clear in his many recordings he sent to Al Jazeera.

No one denies there isn't a virulent form of Islam that is domineering and violent. But in its practical implementation in the real world, it almost never exists outside the context of western interference and aggression.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 2:06pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 11:15am: I'll ask you a question. Why does the blame always lie somewhere else when something bad comes out of Islam? Al Qaeda ( America ) Osama Bin Laden (America) Twin Towers (America) ISIS (America). It's a familiar pattern. America puts their nose in but they are constructions from Islamic people. To be fair, I did volunteer that both Islam and America could be to blame. Nonetheless, the argument is not completely without merit: with regards to bin Laden and AQ, they did make a habit of pointing out that their war was a defensive one against American imperialism. It might surprise you to learn that bin Laden wasn't actually interested in this 'global caliphate' we always hear about. He just wanted the US out of the muslim world and after that he had no beef with them - he made that clear in his many recordings he sent to Al Jazeera. No one denies there isn't a virulent form of Islam that is domineering and violent. But in its practical implementation in the real world, it almost never exists outside the context of western interference and aggression.

There have been Islamic caliphates all through history. What are you talking about. Forms of ISIS have happened way before America came along. Muslims created ISIS. That's the truth and a fact.

You've got facilitation and creation mixed up. America "FACILITATED" a situation where ISIS could come to power. ISIS "CREATED" ISIS

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 2:12pm:

You've got facilitation and creation mixed up. America "FACILITATED" a situation where ISIS could come to power. ISIS "CREATED" ISIS

That's right.

Happy?

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 2:10pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 2:06pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 11:15am: I'll ask you a question. Why does the blame always lie somewhere else when something bad comes out of Islam? Al Qaeda ( America ) Osama Bin Laden (America) Twin Towers (America) ISIS (America). It's a familiar pattern. America puts their nose in but they are constructions from Islamic people. To be fair, I did volunteer that both Islam and America could be to blame. Nonetheless, the argument is not completely without merit: with regards to bin Laden and AQ, they did make a habit of pointing out that their war was a defensive one against American imperialism. It might surprise you to learn that bin Laden wasn't actually interested in this 'global caliphate' we always hear about. He just wanted the US out of the muslim world and after that he had no beef with them - he made that clear in his many recordings he sent to Al Jazeera. No one denies there isn't a virulent form of Islam that is domineering and violent. But in its practical implementation in the real world, it almost never exists outside the context of western interference and aggression. There have been Islamic caliphates all through history.

Have there?

Karnal wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 2:26pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 2:12pm: You've got facilitation and creation mixed up. America "FACILITATED" a situation where ISIS could come to power. ISIS "CREATED" ISIS That's right. Happy?

So how did America invent the Khmer Rouge candy ass?

Karnal wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 1:42pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 1:15pm: Karnal wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 1:09pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 10:00am: polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 9:54am: Actually Mr Hammer, ISIS was created by ex-Saddam loyalists - in particular a Baathist intelligence officer who lost his job after the US invasion. He then became active in the resistance, using his very sophisticated network of informers that he had meticulously developed over the years to create the sunni resistance group then known as Al Qaeda in Iraq. ISIS is just the same group re-branded after AQII was forced underground after the surge. Its a very interesting story about this fellow - Der Spiegel had an expose' on him soon after he was killed in a firefight in early 2014. Point is, without the US invasion, ex-Baathist officers wouldn't have gone about setting up a sunni resistance movements; and without the invasion their wouldn't be a large pool of disaffected, unemployed sunni males who sign up to such resistance movements - that eventually morphed into what we know as IS. So the question is, given all that happened as a direct result of the US invasion, is there any point at all at which we can say the US, if not created, was responsible for the creation of IS? If you don't have the belief system you don't have the organisation. This belief system is a branch of Islam. The organisation developed around these beliefs. It's just a fact. Sorry. No, Amerika has "made" all sorts of genocidal resistance movements over the years. The Khmer Rouge is one - the result of US attacks on Cambodia. The support of multiple military coups are another - the Shah of Iran, Suharto, Pinochet - these regimes tortured and killed millions. They were backed, funded and armed by Uncle. Kissenger formally recognized the Khmer Rouge as the legitimate government of Cambodia. It took the newly liberated nation of Vietnam to depose Pol Pot. Uncle looked the other way. The Muselman does not have a monopoly on killing. The belief system that justifies these sorts of atrocities is nothing more than the defence of power. In WWII, the Soviet Army set up machine guns behind the front lines to kill its own soldiers who retreated. The message was clear: fight or die. Countless regimes in the last century alone have had similar policies, and many have been sponsored by Amerika. Today, Uncle supports the most barbaric regime of all: the Saudis. The reason Islamic fundamentalist extremism has spread is Saudi funding. By backing the House of Saud, the US has inadvertently enabled Wahabist propaganda to flow out of the Saudi desert and into places as far afield as Pakistan and Indonesia. Who's fault is this? As Obama says, it's complicated. Not this again. the Khmer Rouge was a result of the  power vacuum caused by the fall of western imperialism after ww2. When the French left Cambodia it became unstable. America didn't invent the Khmer Rouge. Same thing with Vietnam. The Khmer Rouge invented The Khmer Rouge like how ISIS invented ISIS . I know history isn't one of you stronger subjects but p[lease get your facts right sugar muffin. The Khmer Rouge is the result of the vacuum that occurred when the US bombed Cambodia. Of course the US didn't "create" the Khmer Rouge, their actions precipitated it. Whenever a country or a people are under attack, armed movements form to defend them. This is precisely how ISIS came about in Syria and Iraq - they gained support by defending Sunni Muslims. The "belief systems" of such resistance movements depend on their leaders' ambitions. ISIS use the millennial idea of the caliphate. The Khmer Rouge decided to reset time: Year Zero. Sure, such belief systems define how we view them, but they are not the cause. Such ideas emerge along the way, victory by victory. Sure, ISIS is a Muslim problem. I would not say the Khmer Rouge was a communist problem - no reading of Marx could support this. I'd say Fascism is a nationalist problem: an excess of nationalism will inevitably lead to such views. I don't think the same can be said of ISIS and Islam. The views of ISIS are a contorted form of fundamentalist dogma. They are what you get, I think, when you descend into warring tribalism. They are not entirely different from fascist thinking: strong leaders, clear gender roles, an obsession with military power and the use of extremist violence to enforce the law. Such views can be countered using Islamic thought, and predominantly are. Where Islam comes into it is the Islamic admonition to defend fellow Muslims. This is how all Islamic extremism has spread in recent times, from the Mujahidin in Afghanistan to the conflict in Kashmir to Israel/Palestine. I.e, they come from war, and Muslims are recruited to fight. It is only recently that the defence of fellow Muslims has been turned into an expansionist crusade; the call to create a new caliphate.

America didn't bomb all of Cambodia. Only along the border of Vietnam/Cambodia along the Ho Chi Mihn Trail. The Khmer Rouge was a result of a Cambodian Monarchy propped up by the French that didn't look after all of the population. Communism was running right throughout that part of the world at that time. America had nothing to do with this communist surge.

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 2:33pm:

America didn't bomb all of Cambodia. Only along the border of Vietnam/Cambodia along the Ho Chi Mihn Trail.

Where did you read this? I'm curious.

The US itself has acknowledged the mass bombing of Cambodia - as far back as 1972, when it became public knowledge. This was not confined to the Vietnamese border. The US sought to reach enemy forces "deep inside" Indochine, including Laos. The statistic usually quoted is that the US dropped more TNT on Cambodia alone than they dropped on Europe in WWII.

And yes, this fact alone is universally accredited with "facilitating" the rise of the Khmer Rouge.

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 2:10pm:

There have been Islamic caliphates all through history. What are you talking about.

I was actually talking about Al Qaeda.

But I agree with you about facilitation, not creation. And yet, I have a sneaking suspicion that if I went around saying America "facilitated" the rise of ISIS, AQ, bin Laden etc, it will be met with healthy doses of moral indignation from the usual suspects.

Would you be so bold as to equate "facilitated" with "responsible for"?

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 2:46pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 2:10pm: There have been Islamic caliphates all through history. What are you talking about. I was actually talking about Al Qaeda. But I agree with you about facilitation, not creation. And yet, I have a sneaking suspicion that if I went around saying America "facilitated" the rise of ISIS, AQ, bin Laden etc, it will be met with healthy doses of moral indignation from the usual suspects. Would you be so bold as to equate "facilitated" with "responsible for"?

Responsible- no. Partly given them OPPORTUNITTY - yes. The Sunni/Shite divide and Koranic interpretation is more responsible than anything.  I don't agree that America had anything to do with the rise of Osama Bin laden. He made his way up through the ranks during the Afghan Civil War. His money pushed him along. AQ was formed to fight America. I can't see America creating an enemy. America gave the Mujahideen stinger missiles to shoot down Russian helicopters because  the Russians backed the Afghan communists. American didn't create the tribal civil war that occurred afterwards in which Osama Bin Laden came to power in where he became leader of the Taliban. The Taliban was created more by tribalism and strict Koran interpretation than anything else.

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 3:32pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 2:46pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 2:10pm: There have been Islamic caliphates all through history. What are you talking about. I was actually talking about Al Qaeda. But I agree with you about facilitation, not creation. And yet, I have a sneaking suspicion that if I went around saying America "facilitated" the rise of ISIS, AQ, bin Laden etc, it will be met with healthy doses of moral indignation from the usual suspects. Would you be so bold as to equate "facilitated" with "responsible for"? Responsible- no. Partly given them OPPORTUNITTY - yes. The Sunni/Shite divide and Koranic interpretation is more responsible than anything.

So why was this not an issue under Saddam, Homo?

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 3:32pm:

American didn't create the tribal civil war that occurred afterwards in which Osama Bin Laden came to power in where he became leader of the Taliban.

Sorry?

Karnal wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 3:41pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 3:32pm: American didn't create the tribal civil war that occurred afterwards in which Osama Bin Laden came to power in where he became leader of the Taliban. Sorry?

That tribal crap has been going on in Afghanistan for thousands of years Knowledge. Don't lay that on some other country.

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 3:44pm:

Karnal wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 3:41pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 3:32pm: American didn't create the tribal civil war that occurred afterwards in which Osama Bin Laden came to power in where he became leader of the Taliban. Sorry? That tribal crap has been going on in Afghanistan for thousands of years Knowledge. Don't lay that on some other country.

Osama bin Laden was a Saudi, Homo. What was he doing leading the Taliban?

Karnal wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 3:46pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 3:44pm: Karnal wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 3:41pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 3:32pm: American didn't create the tribal civil war that occurred afterwards in which Osama Bin Laden came to power in where he became leader of the Taliban. Sorry? That tribal crap has been going on in Afghanistan for thousands of years Knowledge. Don't lay that on some other country. Osama bin Laden was a Saudi, Homo. What was he doing leading the Taliban?

Because he moved there to fight with them and made his way up the rankings? :-? Look it up Sugar Muffin.

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 3:48pm:

Karnal wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 3:46pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 3:44pm: Karnal wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 3:41pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 3:32pm: American didn't create the tribal civil war that occurred afterwards in which Osama Bin Laden came to power in where he became leader of the Taliban. Sorry? That tribal crap has been going on in Afghanistan for thousands of years Knowledge. Don't lay that on some other country. Osama bin Laden was a Saudi, Homo. What was he doing leading the Taliban? Because he moved there to fight with them and made his way up the rankings? :-? Look it up Sugar Muffin.

He ran the Taliban? What do you think I'll find if I look this up, Homo?

I'm curious.

bin Laden wasn't leader of the taliban.

Officially Al Qaeda were guests of the taliban, who desperately needed their funding. But in reality there was resentment between them - AQ wanted a global fight, while the taliban were only interested in securing Afghanistan. The taliban were also not blind to the threat posed by AQ to their hold on power - and were horrified when 9/11 happened.

You're also not quite right about the rise of bin Laden and AQ. His global campaign of terror was instigated directly by the US occupation of Saudi Arabia to protect the oil fields from Saddam. Listen to his messages - the presense of US bases in Saudi Arabia is one of, if not the key element of his global jihad - not the local Afghan conflict.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 3:53pm:

bin Laden wasn't leader of the taliban.

Now now, G, we'll let Homo be the judge of that.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 3:53pm:

bin Laden wasn't leader of the taliban. Officially Al Qaeda were guests of the taliban, who desperately needed their funding. But in reality there was resentment between them - AQ wanted a global fight, while the taliban were only interested in securing Afghanistan. The taliban were also not blind to the threat posed by AQ to their hold on power - and were horrified when 9/11 happened. You're also not quite right about the rise of bin Laden and AQ. His global campaign of terror was instigated directly by the US occupation of Saudi Arabia to protect the oil fields from Saddam. Listen to his messages - the presense of US bases in Saudi Arabia is one of, if not the key element of his global jihad - not the local Afghan conflict.

Osama was leader of AQ right who wanted a global fight like you just said. But before you said Osama didn't want a global fight. Make up your mind. Didn't Osama Bina  A Hiden lead the Taliban in Afghanistan when the Americans landed??? These organisations are very connected.

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 3:57pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 3:53pm: bin Laden wasn't leader of the taliban. Officially Al Qaeda were guests of the taliban, who desperately needed their funding. But in reality there was resentment between them - AQ wanted a global fight, while the taliban were only interested in securing Afghanistan. The taliban were also not blind to the threat posed by AQ to their hold on power - and were horrified when 9/11 happened. You're also not quite right about the rise of bin Laden and AQ. His global campaign of terror was instigated directly by the US occupation of Saudi Arabia to protect the oil fields from Saddam. Listen to his messages - the presense of US bases in Saudi Arabia is one of, if not the key element of his global jihad - not the local Afghan conflict. Osama was leader of AQ right who wanted a global fight like you just said. But before you said Osama didn't want a global fight. Make up your mind. Didn't Osama Bina  A Hiden lead the Taliban in Afghanistan when the Americans landed??? These organisations are very connected.

You listen to Homo, G.


Quote:

I know history isn't one of you stronger subjects but p[lease get your facts right sugar muffin.

But sugar muffin, AQ and the Taliban were fighting together against the Americans lead by OBL. That's what I have been taught. Is that wrong??

Karnal wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 3:55pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 3:53pm: bin Laden wasn't leader of the taliban. Now now, G, we'll let Homo be the judge of that.

But baby, he was. He ruled it all. He was head chief of all of it sugar button.

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 4:01pm:

But sugar muffin, AQ and the Taliban were fighting together against the Americans lead by OBL. That's what I have been taught. Is that wrong??

There are no right or wrong answers here, Homo. What do you think I'll find when I Google this?

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 4:01pm:

That's what I have been taught.

Oh, sorry, Homo. You're not saying this is a "fact", just what you've been taught. That clears that one up, then.

What else have you been taught?

Karnal wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 4:13pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 4:01pm: But sugar muffin, AQ and the Taliban were fighting together against the Americans lead by OBL. That's what I have been taught. Is that wrong?? There are no right or wrong answers here, Homo. What do you think I'll find when I Google this?

The Taliban and AQ are connected dearest. AQ financed , trained, gave weapons to etc etc etc. It's the same with ISIS . It's a big organisation of off shoots. You'll get a simple answer that doesn't explore the complexity of it. OBL fought for years with various groups in Afghanistan including the Taliban. Loads of his money went to them. He was 2nd in command to Mullah Omarin in Afghanistan. You need to explore the subject.

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 4:19pm:

Karnal wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 4:13pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 4:01pm: But sugar muffin, AQ and the Taliban were fighting together against the Americans lead by OBL. That's what I have been taught. Is that wrong?? There are no right or wrong answers here, Homo. What do you think I'll find when I Google this? The Taliban and AQ are connected dearest. AQ financed , trained, gave weapons to etc etc etc. It's the same with ISIS . It's a big organisation of off shoots. You'll get a simple answer that doesn't explore the complexity of it. OBL fought for years with various groups in Afghanistan including the Taliban. Loads of his money went to them. He was 2nd in command to Mullah Omarin in Afghanistan. You need to explore the subject.

Sorry, did you just say he was second in command?

How have you managed to explore this subject after you said he was leader? Did you Google it?

Karnal wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 4:22pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 4:19pm: Karnal wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 4:13pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 4:01pm: But sugar muffin, AQ and the Taliban were fighting together against the Americans lead by OBL. That's what I have been taught. Is that wrong?? There are no right or wrong answers here, Homo. What do you think I'll find when I Google this? The Taliban and AQ are connected dearest. AQ financed , trained, gave weapons to etc etc etc. It's the same with ISIS . It's a big organisation of off shoots. You'll get a simple answer that doesn't explore the complexity of it. OBL fought for years with various groups in Afghanistan including the Taliban. Loads of his money went to them. He was 2nd in command to Mullah Omarin in Afghanistan. You need to explore the subject. Sorry, did you just say he was second in command? How have you managed to explore this subject after you said he was leader?

Your knowledge of the tank Stream made me realise how much history you know. Writing miam miam is as good as it gets.

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 4:24pm:

Karnal wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 4:22pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 4:19pm: Karnal wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 4:13pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 4:01pm: But sugar muffin, AQ and the Taliban were fighting together against the Americans lead by OBL. That's what I have been taught. Is that wrong?? There are no right or wrong answers here, Homo. What do you think I'll find when I Google this? The Taliban and AQ are connected dearest. AQ financed , trained, gave weapons to etc etc etc. It's the same with ISIS . It's a big organisation of off shoots. You'll get a simple answer that doesn't explore the complexity of it. OBL fought for years with various groups in Afghanistan including the Taliban. Loads of his money went to them. He was 2nd in command to Mullah Omarin in Afghanistan. You need to explore the subject. Sorry, did you just say he was second in command? How have you managed to explore this subject after you said he was leader? Your knowledge of the tank Stream made me realise how much history you know. Writing miam miam is as good as it gets.

I'm not sure what you mean, Homo. Was Osama bin Laden the leader of the Taliban or not? We'll need to clear this up before we move on.

Karnal wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 4:25pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 4:24pm: Karnal wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 4:22pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 4:19pm: Karnal wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 4:13pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 4:01pm: But sugar muffin, AQ and the Taliban were fighting together against the Americans lead by OBL. That's what I have been taught. Is that wrong?? There are no right or wrong answers here, Homo. What do you think I'll find when I Google this? The Taliban and AQ are connected dearest. AQ financed , trained, gave weapons to etc etc etc. It's the same with ISIS . It's a big organisation of off shoots. You'll get a simple answer that doesn't explore the complexity of it. OBL fought for years with various groups in Afghanistan including the Taliban. Loads of his money went to them. He was 2nd in command to Mullah Omarin in Afghanistan. You need to explore the subject. Sorry, did you just say he was second in command? How have you managed to explore this subject after you said he was leader? Your knowledge of the tank Stream made me realise how much history you know. Writing miam miam is as good as it gets. I'm not sure what you mean, Homo. Was Osama bin Laden the leader of the Taliban or not? We'll need to clear this up before we move on.

Oh yes . He was the king radical jihadist of the world princess until he became fish bait. King of all of it.

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 4:28pm:

Karnal wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 4:25pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 4:24pm: Karnal wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 4:22pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 4:19pm: Karnal wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 4:13pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 4:01pm: But sugar muffin, AQ and the Taliban were fighting together against the Americans lead by OBL. That's what I have been taught. Is that wrong?? There are no right or wrong answers here, Homo. What do you think I'll find when I Google this? The Taliban and AQ are connected dearest. AQ financed , trained, gave weapons to etc etc etc. It's the same with ISIS . It's a big organisation of off shoots. You'll get a simple answer that doesn't explore the complexity of it. OBL fought for years with various groups in Afghanistan including the Taliban. Loads of his money went to them. He was 2nd in command to Mullah Omarin in Afghanistan. You need to explore the subject. Sorry, did you just say he was second in command? How have you managed to explore this subject after you said he was leader? Your knowledge of the tank Stream made me realise how much history you know. Writing miam miam is as good as it gets. I'm not sure what you mean, Homo. Was Osama bin Laden the leader of the Taliban or not? We'll need to clear this up before we move on. Oh yes . He was the king radical jihadist of the world princess until he became fish bait. King of all of it.

We're talking about the Taliban, Homo. You seem to be distancing yourself from your earlier claim.

You tend to do this a fair bit - no problem. There are no right or wrong answers here. It's just strange when you post things like this:


Quote:

I know history isn't one of you stronger subjects but p[lease get your facts right sugar muffin.

I'm curious. Have you switched from your earlier empirical perspective to a more hermeneutic view of historiography?

Karnal wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 2:26pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 2:10pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 2:06pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 11:15am: I'll ask you a question. Why does the blame always lie somewhere else when something bad comes out of Islam? Al Qaeda ( America ) Osama Bin Laden (America) Twin Towers (America) ISIS (America). It's a familiar pattern. America puts their nose in but they are constructions from Islamic people. To be fair, I did volunteer that both Islam and America could be to blame. Nonetheless, the argument is not completely without merit: with regards to bin Laden and AQ, they did make a habit of pointing out that their war was a defensive one against American imperialism. It might surprise you to learn that bin Laden wasn't actually interested in this 'global caliphate' we always hear about. He just wanted the US out of the muslim world and after that he had no beef with them - he made that clear in his many recordings he sent to Al Jazeera. No one denies there isn't a virulent form of Islam that is domineering and violent. But in its practical implementation in the real world, it almost never exists outside the context of western interference and aggression. There have been Islamic caliphates all through history. Have there?

yes.

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 4:34pm:

Karnal wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 2:26pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 2:10pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 2:06pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 11:15am: I'll ask you a question. Why does the blame always lie somewhere else when something bad comes out of Islam? Al Qaeda ( America ) Osama Bin Laden (America) Twin Towers (America) ISIS (America). It's a familiar pattern. America puts their nose in but they are constructions from Islamic people. To be fair, I did volunteer that both Islam and America could be to blame. Nonetheless, the argument is not completely without merit: with regards to bin Laden and AQ, they did make a habit of pointing out that their war was a defensive one against American imperialism. It might surprise you to learn that bin Laden wasn't actually interested in this 'global caliphate' we always hear about. He just wanted the US out of the muslim world and after that he had no beef with them - he made that clear in his many recordings he sent to Al Jazeera. No one denies there isn't a virulent form of Islam that is domineering and violent. But in its practical implementation in the real world, it almost never exists outside the context of western interference and aggression. There have been Islamic caliphates all through history. Have there? yes.

How many have there been? Please be specific, Homo. I'll give your answer a mark out of ten.

You can make up a few points by filling us in on the bombing of Cambodia - correctly this time. If you'd like to clarify which place Osama held in the leadership of the Taliban, that would be good too.

Actually, you might want to go back and clear up every other point you've made in this thread, after you've articulated your historiographical influences. 

If you get a good mark, you can be history lecturer again.


Quote:

I know history isn't one of you stronger subjects but p[lease get your facts right sugar muffin.

Brittanica .com

There were three caliphs between 680 and 685, and only by nearly 20 years of military campaigning did the next one, ʿAbd al-Malik, succeed in reestablishing the authority of the Umayyad capital of Damascus. ʿAbd al-Malik is also remembered for building the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem. Under his son al-Walīd (705–715), Muslim forces took permanent possession of North Africa, converted the native Berbers to Islam, and overran most of the Iberian Peninsula as the Visigothic kingdom there collapsed. Progress was also made in the east with settlement in the Indus River valley. Umayyad power had never been firmly seated, however, and the Caliphate disintegrated rapidly after the long reign of Hishām (724–743). A serious rebellion broke out against the Umayyads in 747, and in 750 the last Umayyad caliph, Marwān II, was defeated in the Battle of Great Zab by the followers of the ʿAbbāsid family.


There's been loads of Islamic caliphates. Don't be so lazy and look it up.

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 4:46pm:

Brittanica .com There were three caliphs between 680 and 685, and only by nearly 20 years of military campaigning did the next one, ʿAbd al-Malik, succeed in reestablishing the authority of the Umayyad capital of Damascus. ʿAbd al-Malik is also remembered for building the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem. Under his son al-Walīd (705–715), Muslim forces took permanent possession of North Africa, converted the native Berbers to Islam, and overran most of the Iberian Peninsula as the Visigothic kingdom there collapsed. Progress was also made in the east with settlement in the Indus River valley. Umayyad power had never been firmly seated, however, and the Caliphate disintegrated rapidly after the long reign of Hishām (724–743). A serious rebellion broke out against the Umayyads in 747, and in 750 the last Umayyad caliph, Marwān II, was defeated in the Battle of Great Zab by the followers of the ʿAbbāsid family. There's been loads of Islamic caliphates. Don't be so lazy and look it up.

Sorry, how many did you say?

Bombing in Cambodia had nothing to do with the overthrow of The Cambodian monarchy by the KR. The Americans were attacking the Vietnamese Communists. Different people sugar plum.

Karnal wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 4:48pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 4:46pm: Brittanica .com There were three caliphs between 680 and 685, and only by nearly 20 years of military campaigning did the next one, ʿAbd al-Malik, succeed in reestablishing the authority of the Umayyad capital of Damascus. ʿAbd al-Malik is also remembered for building the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem. Under his son al-Walīd (705–715), Muslim forces took permanent possession of North Africa, converted the native Berbers to Islam, and overran most of the Iberian Peninsula as the Visigothic kingdom there collapsed. Progress was also made in the east with settlement in the Indus River valley. Umayyad power had never been firmly seated, however, and the Caliphate disintegrated rapidly after the long reign of Hishām (724–743). A serious rebellion broke out against the Umayyads in 747, and in 750 the last Umayyad caliph, Marwān II, was defeated in the Battle of Great Zab by the followers of the ʿAbbāsid family. There's been loads of Islamic caliphates. Don't be so lazy and look it up. Sorry, how many did you say?

I don't know. Several. Look it up. You didn't believe they had existed and I answered it. You've been proved wrong again.

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 4:49pm:

Bombing in Cambodia had nothing to do with the overthrow of The Cambodian monarchy by the KR.

Sorry? I'm confused.

Karnal wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 4:51pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 4:49pm: Bombing in Cambodia had nothing to do with the overthrow of The Cambodian monarchy by the KR. Sorry? I'm confused.

That's not my problem. So bombing in eastern Cambodia caused the overthrow of a Cambodian monarchy to communism? How?

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 4:50pm:

Karnal wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 4:48pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 4:46pm: Brittanica .com There were three caliphs between 680 and 685, and only by nearly 20 years of military campaigning did the next one, ʿAbd al-Malik, succeed in reestablishing the authority of the Umayyad capital of Damascus. ʿAbd al-Malik is also remembered for building the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem. Under his son al-Walīd (705–715), Muslim forces took permanent possession of North Africa, converted the native Berbers to Islam, and overran most of the Iberian Peninsula as the Visigothic kingdom there collapsed. Progress was also made in the east with settlement in the Indus River valley. Umayyad power had never been firmly seated, however, and the Caliphate disintegrated rapidly after the long reign of Hishām (724–743). A serious rebellion broke out against the Umayyads in 747, and in 750 the last Umayyad caliph, Marwān II, was defeated in the Battle of Great Zab by the followers of the ʿAbbāsid family. There's been loads of Islamic caliphates. Don't be so lazy and look it up. Sorry, how many did you say? I don't know. Several. Look it up. You didn't believe they had existed and I answered it. You've been proved wrong again.

Homo, I'm not sure I can give you any marks for "look it up", but I'm quite sure I never indicated Muslim caliphates did not exist.

Remember, there are no right or wrong answers here. Can I ask what position Osama had in the Taliban?

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 4:54pm:

Karnal wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 4:51pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 4:49pm: Bombing in Cambodia had nothing to do with the overthrow of The Cambodian monarchy by the KR. Sorry? I'm confused. That's not my problem. So bombing in eastern Cambodia caused the overthrow of a Cambodian monarchy to communism? How?

That's a question, Homo. I'm trying to help you with answers.

Karnal wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 4:56pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 4:54pm: Karnal wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 4:51pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 4:49pm: Bombing in Cambodia had nothing to do with the overthrow of The Cambodian monarchy by the KR. Sorry? I'm confused. That's not my problem. So bombing in eastern Cambodia caused the overthrow of a Cambodian monarchy to communism? How? That's a question, Homo. I'm trying to help you with answers.

You obviously know so tell me. I need to be educated??

Karnal wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 4:55pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 4:50pm: Karnal wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 4:48pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 4:46pm: Brittanica .com There were three caliphs between 680 and 685, and only by nearly 20 years of military campaigning did the next one, ʿAbd al-Malik, succeed in reestablishing the authority of the Umayyad capital of Damascus. ʿAbd al-Malik is also remembered for building the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem. Under his son al-Walīd (705–715), Muslim forces took permanent possession of North Africa, converted the native Berbers to Islam, and overran most of the Iberian Peninsula as the Visigothic kingdom there collapsed. Progress was also made in the east with settlement in the Indus River valley. Umayyad power had never been firmly seated, however, and the Caliphate disintegrated rapidly after the long reign of Hishām (724–743). A serious rebellion broke out against the Umayyads in 747, and in 750 the last Umayyad caliph, Marwān II, was defeated in the Battle of Great Zab by the followers of the ʿAbbāsid family. There's been loads of Islamic caliphates. Don't be so lazy and look it up. Sorry, how many did you say? I don't know. Several. Look it up. You didn't believe they had existed and I answered it. You've been proved wrong again. Homo, I'm not sure I can give you any marks for "look it up", but I'm quite sure I never indicated Muslim caliphates did not exist. Remember, there are no right or wrong answers here. Can I ask what position Osama had in the Taliban?

Why write Have there? Of course there have been. I filled you in. You learnt something.

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 4:59pm:

Karnal wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 4:56pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 4:54pm: Karnal wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 4:51pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 4:49pm: Bombing in Cambodia had nothing to do with the overthrow of The Cambodian monarchy by the KR. Sorry? I'm confused. That's not my problem. So bombing in eastern Cambodia caused the overthrow of a Cambodian monarchy to communism? How? That's a question, Homo. I'm trying to help you with answers. You obviously know so tell me. I need to be educated??

Are you asking me to provide you with the answer? What happened to "don't be so lazy and look it up"?

We all need to be educated, Homo - some more than others. Personally, I'm a student of the more-you-know-the-less-you-know school of thought. I liked this answer:


Quote:

The Taliban and AQ are connected dearest. AQ financed , trained, gave weapons to etc etc etc. It's the same with ISIS . It's a big organisation of off shoots. You'll get a simple answer that doesn't explore the complexity of it.

Unfortunately, it was a way to wriggle out of something else you said.

You could avoid this sort of thing in future, you know. It might sound a little daring, but you could try posting things that you've read about first.

Karnal wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 5:04pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 4:59pm: Karnal wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 4:56pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 4:54pm: Karnal wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 4:51pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 4:49pm: Bombing in Cambodia had nothing to do with the overthrow of The Cambodian monarchy by the KR. Sorry? I'm confused. That's not my problem. So bombing in eastern Cambodia caused the overthrow of a Cambodian monarchy to communism? How? That's a question, Homo. I'm trying to help you with answers. You obviously know so tell me. I need to be educated?? Are you asking me to provide you with the answer? What happened to "don't be so lazy and look it up"? We all need to be educated, Homo - some more than others. Personally, I'm a student of the more-you-know-the-less-you-know school of thought.

Don't avoid a chance to educate. Show me your knowledge on the subject. Otherwise it looks like you are avoiding the chance to educate because you actually know nothing on the subject.

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 3:57pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 3:53pm: bin Laden wasn't leader of the taliban. Officially Al Qaeda were guests of the taliban, who desperately needed their funding. But in reality there was resentment between them - AQ wanted a global fight, while the taliban were only interested in securing Afghanistan. The taliban were also not blind to the threat posed by AQ to their hold on power - and were horrified when 9/11 happened. You're also not quite right about the rise of bin Laden and AQ. His global campaign of terror was instigated directly by the US occupation of Saudi Arabia to protect the oil fields from Saddam. Listen to his messages - the presense of US bases in Saudi Arabia is one of, if not the key element of his global jihad - not the local Afghan conflict. Osama was leader of AQ right who wanted a global fight like you just said. But before you said Osama didn't want a global fight. Make up your mind. Didn't Osama Bina  A Hiden lead the Taliban in Afghanistan when the Americans landed??? These organisations are very connected.

1. I never said OBL didn't want a global fight, I said he didn't want a global caliphate. He attacked America all over the globe- but only justified it in terms of fighting aggression and imperialism. The twin towers represented US-led global trade and the pentagon obviously represents US military power

2. No, OBL did not lead the taliban - it was lead by Mullah Omar at the time of invasion. The taliban was a local Pashtun group who were only interested in ruling Afghanistan. Al Qaeda is global group of jihadis from across the muslim world - but mostly arab. Despite nominal cooperation during the taliban years, the two groups remained very separate.

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 5:06pm:

Karnal wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 5:04pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 4:59pm: Karnal wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 4:56pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 4:54pm: Karnal wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 4:51pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 4:49pm: Bombing in Cambodia had nothing to do with the overthrow of The Cambodian monarchy by the KR. Sorry? I'm confused. That's not my problem. So bombing in eastern Cambodia caused the overthrow of a Cambodian monarchy to communism? How? That's a question, Homo. I'm trying to help you with answers. You obviously know so tell me. I need to be educated?? Are you asking me to provide you with the answer? What happened to "don't be so lazy and look it up"? We all need to be educated, Homo - some more than others. Personally, I'm a student of the more-you-know-the-less-you-know school of thought. Don't avoid a chance to educate. Show me your knowledge on the subject. Otherwise it looks like you are avoiding the chance to educate because you actually know nothing on the subject.

It's test time, Homo. Why didn't you ask this earlier?

No worries. You can always repeat.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 5:09pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 3:57pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 3:53pm: bin Laden wasn't leader of the taliban. Officially Al Qaeda were guests of the taliban, who desperately needed their funding. But in reality there was resentment between them - AQ wanted a global fight, while the taliban were only interested in securing Afghanistan. The taliban were also not blind to the threat posed by AQ to their hold on power - and were horrified when 9/11 happened. You're also not quite right about the rise of bin Laden and AQ. His global campaign of terror was instigated directly by the US occupation of Saudi Arabia to protect the oil fields from Saddam. Listen to his messages - the presense of US bases in Saudi Arabia is one of, if not the key element of his global jihad - not the local Afghan conflict. Osama was leader of AQ right who wanted a global fight like you just said. But before you said Osama didn't want a global fight. Make up your mind. Didn't Osama Bina  A Hiden lead the Taliban in Afghanistan when the Americans landed??? These organisations are very connected. 1. I never said OBL didn't want a global fight, I said he didn't want a global caliphate. He attacked America all over the globe- but only justified it in terms of fighting aggression and imperialism. The twin towers represented US-led global trade and the pentagon obviously represents US military power 2. No, OBL did not lead the taliban - it was lead by Mullah Omar at the time of invasion. The taliban was a local Pashtun group who were only interested in ruling Afghanistan. Al Qaeda is global group of jihadis from across the muslim world - but mostly arab. Despite nominal cooperation during the taliban years, the two groups remained very separate.

Why fight the world if he didn't want to expand Islam. Why not just attack America?? So the Taliban and AQ were never affiliated?

Karnal wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 5:10pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 5:06pm: Karnal wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 5:04pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 4:59pm: Karnal wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 4:56pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 4:54pm: Karnal wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 4:51pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 4:49pm: Bombing in Cambodia had nothing to do with the overthrow of The Cambodian monarchy by the KR. Sorry? I'm confused. That's not my problem. So bombing in eastern Cambodia caused the overthrow of a Cambodian monarchy to communism? How? That's a question, Homo. I'm trying to help you with answers. You obviously know so tell me. I need to be educated?? Are you asking me to provide you with the answer? What happened to "don't be so lazy and look it up"? We all need to be educated, Homo - some more than others. Personally, I'm a student of the more-you-know-the-less-you-know school of thought. Don't avoid a chance to educate. Show me your knowledge on the subject. Otherwise it looks like you are avoiding the chance to educate because you actually know nothing on the subject. It's test time, Homo. Why didn't you ask this earlier? No worries. You can always repeat.

Go and wash the semen off your burqa and leave the history to people who know some. Run along. You have no answers.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 5:09pm:

The taliban was a local Pashtun group who were only interested in ruling Afghanistan. Al Qaeda is global group of jihadis from across the muslim world - but mostly arab. Despite nominal cooperation during the taliban years, the two groups remained very separate.

Now here's an answer with some insight. G shows here that he could never state that Osama was the head of the Taliban. Why?

Because the Taliban are fiercely independent Pashtuns. Afghanis are stubborn that way. The entire source of their pride is the fact that they've kicked out every foreign force in history. Afghans would never allow a rich Arab to call the shots. Osama was only ever a guest, as every schoolboy knows. 

Now thank G for his education, Homo. There goes the bell.

Karnal wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 5:18pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 5:09pm: The taliban was a local Pashtun group who were only interested in ruling Afghanistan. Al Qaeda is global group of jihadis from across the muslim world - but mostly arab. Despite nominal cooperation during the taliban years, the two groups remained very separate. Now here's an answer with some insight. G shows here that he could never state that Osama was the head of the Taliban. Why? Because the Taliban are fiercely independent Pashtuns. Afghanis are stubborn that way. The entire source of their pride is the fact that they've kicked out every foreign force in history. Afghans would never allow a rich Arab to call the shots. Osama was only ever a guest, as every schoolboy knows.  Now thank G for his education, Homo. We'll resume tomorrow.

So OBL wasn't leading anybody when he was running terrorist camps and fighting in the Tora Bora mountains in Afghanistan hey???

Karnal wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 5:18pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 5:09pm: The taliban was a local Pashtun group who were only interested in ruling Afghanistan. Al Qaeda is global group of jihadis from across the muslim world - but mostly arab. Despite nominal cooperation during the taliban years, the two groups remained very separate. Now here's an answer with some insight. G shows here that he could never state that Osama was the head of the Taliban. Why? Because the Taliban are fiercely independent Pashtuns. Afghanis are stubborn that way. The entire source of their pride is the fact that they've kicked out every foreign force in history. Afghans would never allow a rich Arab to call the shots. Osama was only ever a guest, as every schoolboy knows.  Now thank G for his education, Homo. There goes the bell.

Afghans would never allow a rich Arab to call the shots ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 9:29am:

freediver wrote on Mar 14th, 2016 at 8:40pm: Do you recall all those people demanding the troops come home? It matters to them. Did you recall all those people demanding we didn't go and illegally invade and destroy a sovereign nation based on lies in the first place? There were quite a lot you know. John's question is perfectly valid - if the powers that be and their useful idiots ignored the groundswell of opposition to the invasion, why should their opinion regarding the occupation suddenly matter?

Are you suggesting that because some people opposed the invasion and were ignored, we shouldn't have pulled the troops out because that would involve some kind of inconsistency?

But FD, you support the invasion. South Korea, remember. Freeeeedom.