Nice smoke screen.
Nice smoke screen.
2)You made specific claims about the Taliban that are factually wrong.
4) It's rather odd seeing someone try to claim an intellectual victory in the above context, but whatever
LMFAO! Have you heard of the Soviet War in Afghanistan, the Mujahideen, and the resulting power vacuum that was left after Soviet troops withdrew? Is this some kind of joke? You can't be serious right now right?Ignoring the simplistic view of american foreign policy, wouldn't this be ignoring that the Taliban arose in the absence of american interference?
All over the Middle East. Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Nobody would have approved of the invasion of a European country after 9/11. Muslim country like Iraq? No problem!Where have we killed people for being muslim?
And what is the "moral" or "ethical" argument you have for killing innocent Muslims? I guess I'm just like 3 steps ahead of you so I will try to slow it down a bit.That isn't identical logic at all. Nothing I asserted claims that it's "ok to kill muslims because they are trying to kill Americans". My argument rested on the fact that disproportionate casualties do not speak to the moral or ethical nature of a conflict.
"It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan
There is the key word, once again! The reason it has become such a large, international movement and the main export besides oil, is because we have propped up that regime for decades. Saddam could have easily crushed Saudi Arabia, or at least embroiled them both in a long drawn out insurgency. We should never have gotten involved, and our interventions continue to bring misery to our country.or from the post above me:
I wonder what else gives fuel to that fire we call radical Islam. Could it be that the west has been ransacking and destroying the Muslim world for the last 50 years, overthrowing governments and propping up dictators as we did in South America, SouthEast Asia, and everywhere else in the world?*
Again, Saudi Arabia was supported by the US and unfortunately still is, but it began to radicalize from within in mid 20th century before wars, interventions, etc by US.
Hence, the cause for radicalization isn't US foreign/intervention policy - at least not the original one, and again...though, I don't like the house of Saud there are more radical movements inside Saudi Arabia.
So...wanna try and come up with another theory to explain the rise of Wahhabi/Salafi movements?
I'm tired of politicians rolling the dice with our kids futures, and sheep like you cheering them on the whole time. Every time they try to play God and "help fix" the Middle East they end up creating disasters and blowback. Just stop ****ing around and stirring the hornets nest already.
"This chaotic social and political environment gave rise to a vacuum of leadership and gave momentum to to the appearance of a political force that promised to stop the infighting and further destruction of the country. Led by Mullah Muhammad Omar, the initial taliban group emerged in the southern part of Kandahar province in 1994 as a local response to the former resistance and resistance forces implicated in banditry, brutality against local residents "
And what caused that chaotic social and political environment? Our intervention! Man oh man, I think I have identified the problem. We are like 10 steps ahead of you and so it's too hard for you to keep up.
afp last saturday, may 18:
Bombs targeting Iraqi Sunnis kill 67Bombs targeting Sunnis, including two near a mosque and one at a funeral procession, killed 67 people in Iraq, officials said, after dozens died in two days of attacks on Shiites.