Drone Blowback in Pakistan is a Myth [W:24, 57]

Ah, the recent high school graduate and foreign policy expert chimes in, still trying to decide which branch of the military to enlist in. :doh

oneworld2 said:

Come on , you know full well when they caught up with bin laden they could have brought him into custody in the US , charged him for whatever crimes they had proof for and punished him according to the laws.

The way they offed him was illegal imo , Not only that, I think the decision to not give this sort of people a trial just smacks of damage limitation for those who apprehend them with regards to any potential information that would surface as a result of a trial.

As I said the US were happy to bank roll him when he was killing Russians. What might a trial have revealed about those days and/or subsequent events ?

Click to expand...

No, I don't know "full well" that they could have done that. Unlike you, I'm not underestimating the difficulty of the mission or the conditions involved. I do know that it wasn't worth any SEALs losing their lives in an effort to take him alive.

We still acquired documents and such from the raid, so killing Bin Laden was no big loss in terms of Intel.

Just because you naturally don't trust the West doesn't mean your theories inherently have validity. Bin Laden didn't plan the murder of thousands of Russian civilians.

Thoreau72 said:

Ah, the recent high school graduate and foreign policy expert chimes in, still trying to decide which branch of the military to enlist in. :doh

Click to expand...

I haven't graduated yet and already decided what branch to enlist in but thanks anyway :roll:

Tigerace117 said:

I haven't graduated yet and already decided what branch to enlist in but thanks anyway :roll:

Click to expand...

Thanks for what?

Thoreau72 said:

Thanks for what?

Click to expand...

Have you heard of sarcasm?

Thoreau72 said:

Ah, the recent high school graduate and foreign policy expert chimes in, still trying to decide which branch of the military to enlist in. :doh

Click to expand...

He thinks he knows a lot. We all did when we were in H.S. Let him talk. I'm at least interested in what he says.

Moderator's Warning:

Gentlemen, there is already one warning in this thread about civility, and warning to cease and desist from the personal jabs. Going forward, this is going to be a zero-tolerance thread for personal remarks of a denigrating nature.

Jack Hays said:

Nonsense. We knew OBL had done 9/11 and so did the Taliban. Their "offer" was merely a tactical device. Our "invasion" was a very light undertaking. What we did was bring intra-Afghan rivalries into play in a way productive for us and detrimental to the Taliban. Very deft.

Click to expand...

At the time the US invaded Afghanistan they never knew bin Laden had had anything to do with the planning and execution of the September attacks in the US. Sure you can suspect he did due to previous incidents but you cannot know for sure. And the US certainly didn't present any shred of evidence to support the claim

Additionally , there was a US invasion and subsequent occupation of Afghanistan. Your preference to put the invasion in inverted commas doesn't change those facts. Facts most people wouldn't even consider to be dubious.
As for all of the " what we did " stuff , well , it's just the same textbook imperialist tactics that have been used since forever. You might see it as something new and " very deft " but I assure you that anyone with the remotest knowledge of how imperialists build their empires would have recognized this tried and tested means immediately. Classic imperialist tactics.

oneworld2 said:

At the time the US invaded Afghanistan they never knew bin Laden had had anything to do with the planning and execution of the September attacks in the US. Sure you can suspect he did due to previous incidents but you cannot know for sure. And the US certainly didn't present any shred of evidence to support the claim

Additionally , there was a US invasion and subsequent occupation of Afghanistan. Your preference to put the invasion in inverted commas doesn't change those facts. Facts most people wouldn't even consider to be dubious.
As for all of the " what we did " stuff , well , it's just the same textbook imperialist tactics that have been used since forever. You might see it as something new and " very deft " but I assure you that anyone with the remotest knowledge of how imperialists build their empires would have recognized this tried and tested means immediately. Classic imperialist tactics.

Click to expand...

Uh......that's funny, seeing as we don't own either Iraq or Afghanistan. Or Pakistan, for that matter.

Not only did Osama Bin Laden admit to being behind the attacks, the Taliban--- not just content with conducting mass human rights violations in Afghanistan and Pakistan--- was more than willing to help him escape.

You can moan about "imperialism" all you want, but just like Syria and the Golan Heights, it's the Taliban's own damn fault. Their own actions came back to bite them in the ass and good riddance.

oneworld2 said:

At the time the US invaded Afghanistan they never knew bin Laden had had anything to do with the planning and execution of the September attacks in the US. Sure you can suspect he did due to previous incidents but you cannot know for sure. And the US certainly didn't present any shred of evidence to support the claim

Additionally , there was a US invasion and subsequent occupation of Afghanistan. Your preference to put the invasion in inverted commas doesn't change those facts. Facts most people wouldn't even consider to be dubious.
As for all of the " what we did " stuff , well , it's just the same textbook imperialist tactics that have been used since forever. You might see it as something new and " very deft " but I assure you that anyone with the remotest knowledge of how imperialists build their empires would have recognized this tried and tested means immediately. Classic imperialist tactics.

Click to expand...

Classic leftist nonsense. We knew OBL was responsible even before he proclaimed it.

Jack Hays said:

Classic leftist nonsense. We knew OBL was responsible even before he proclaimed it.

Click to expand...

Classic right wing denial/avoidance .

If you were consistent you would support the right of the likes of Haiti , Cuba , Nicaragua etc etc to invade and occupy the US for ten years with a similar loss of life and destruction dished out to the Afghans , wouldn't you ?

Answers on a postcard to............ lol

Tigerace117 said:

Uh......that's funny, seeing as we don't own either Iraq or Afghanistan. Or Pakistan, for that matter.

Not only did Osama Bin Laden admit to being behind the attacks, the Taliban--- not just content with conducting mass human rights violations in Afghanistan and Pakistan--- was more than willing to help him escape.

You can moan about "imperialism" all you want, but just like Syria and the Golan Heights, it's the Taliban's own damn fault. Their own actions came back to bite them in the ass and good riddance.

Click to expand...

1. I think you're confusing yourself with what consisted of good old fashioned colonialism. It's not fashionable these days to state " ownership " of another state/people. More subtle means are the norm today.

What you have to do nowadays is to build your empires/spread your influence by getting rid of leaderships that you don't have under your control. You can do it in a number of ways . You can initiate internal unrest/support/arm different factions like what has happened in Libya and Syria and other places before them. You can fund/conspire with groups planning coups and give validity to their usurpation of power. Use your secret services to conduct terrorist campaigns that undermine the current leadership etc etc...................... then you help to install people who you have a better level of control over/influence with , not unlike the CIAs use of Saddam Hussein in Iraq or indeed Osama bin Laden usefulness in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation. You can have client state managers like the House of Saud , Uribes Colombia , Pinochets Chile , Duvalliers Haiti , Baptistas Cuba , Somosas Nicaragua, it's a long list for sure.

You gain influence and military bases in regions which give you a global stranglehold. How many US bases are their now dotted around the world in how many different countries ?, Additionally your multinationals will get a better access to resources and markets in these countries. You can all form a daisy chain of diplomatic support and circumvent the likes of the UN. The client state managers usually get rich, have a lot more security and a bit more impunity from the deal and the imperial power doesn't look like they " own " the place. Plus if the client state managers step out of line , they can be hung out to dry.

2. Even if OBL admitted involvement in the attacks in the very beginning it still doesn't justify an attack and occupation of an entire country. AFAIK there is a provision to act in self defence which allows for a " proportional " response. Say , in this case , an attack on AQ bases or Taliban bases in Afghanistan. I'm pretty sure you cannot justify a military invasion , 10+ year military occupation and a enforced change of leadership.

3. Please spare me the faux resort to concern over human rights abuses. Do you only care about them , like so many other posters here , when it is the official state enemies carrying them out ?

Saddam Hussein enjoyed US /Western support when he was gassing Iranian troops and his own people. We knew he had biological/chemical weapons potential because we built the factories and supplied most of the stuff he needed for them.

Did the Shah have a good track record on human rights during his tenure in Iran when he was enjoying Western support on a grand scale ? Do I need to go through all of those death squad nutcase serial human rights abusers in central and Latin America throughout the 70s, 80,s that also enjoyed US/Western support ?

Seriously you are on very , very thin ice with a resort to human rights abuses to try to bolster your weak arguments here.

4. There's quite a few people around the world , forgotten victims of US hegemony amongst them , that might well think , with some justification , that the actions of the US came back to bite them on the arse on 9/11. If you were in any way consistent you would agree with them , not that you will of course. But who said you had to be consistent ?

5. BTW There's another 9/11.One that you, and people like you , probably don't know anything about. And even if you did probably wouldn't care about . It involved the mass detention of 10's of thousands of people for their ideological beliefs , with 10's of thousands being subsequently tortured and murdered. A whole population under the jackboot of a vicious dictator . See who was behind/supporting that dictatorship.

Whilst it might be comforting to believe that your own people are always the good guys , trying to do good in a bad world etc etc it does ,imo , take an enormous degree of selective viewing, denial and historical amnesia to maintain such a view.

oneworld2 said:

1. I think you're confusing yourself with what consisted of good old fashioned colonialism. It's not fashionable these days to state " ownership " of another state/people. More subtle means are the norm today.

What you have to do nowadays is to build your empires/spread your influence by getting rid of leaderships that you don't have under your control. You can do it in a number of ways . You can initiate internal unrest/support/arm different factions like what has happened in Libya and Syria and other places before them. You can fund/conspire with groups planning coups and give validity to their usurpation of power. Use your secret services to conduct terrorist campaigns that undermine the current leadership etc etc...................... then you help to install people who you have a better level of control over/influence with , not unlike the CIAs use of Saddam Hussein in Iraq or indeed Osama bin Laden usefulness in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation. You can have client state managers like the House of Saud , Uribes Colombia , Pinochets Chile , Duvalliers Haiti , Baptistas Cuba , Somosas Nicaragua, it's a long list for sure.

You gain influence and military bases in regions which give you a global stranglehold. How many US bases are their now dotted around the world in how many different countries ?, Additionally your multinationals will get a better access to resources and markets in these countries. You can all form a daisy chain of diplomatic support and circumvent the likes of the UN. The client state managers usually get rich, have a lot more security and a bit more impunity from the deal and the imperial power doesn't look like they " own " the place. Plus if the client state managers step out of line , they can be hung out to dry.

2. Even if OBL admitted involvement in the attacks in the very beginning it still doesn't justify an attack and occupation of an entire country. AFAIK there is a provision to act in self defence which allows for a " proportional " response. Say , in this case , an attack on AQ bases or Taliban bases in Afghanistan. I'm pretty sure you cannot justify a military invasion , 10+ year military occupation and a enforced change of leadership.

3. Please spare me the faux resort to concern over human rights abuses. Do you only care about them , like so many other posters here , when it is the official state enemies carrying them out ?

Saddam Hussein enjoyed US /Western support when he was gassing Iranian troops and his own people. We knew he had biological/chemical weapons potential because we built the factories and supplied most of the stuff he needed for them.

Did the Shah have a good track record on human rights during his tenure in Iran when he was enjoying Western support on a grand scale ? Do I need to go through all of those death squad nutcase serial human rights abusers in central and Latin America throughout the 70s, 80,s that also enjoyed US/Western support ?

Seriously you are on very , very thin ice with a resort to human rights abuses to try to bolster your weak arguments here.

.

Click to expand...

An empire is an extensive group of states or countries under one single supreme authority. There is no soverignity for the member states of an empire. Yet Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistain are all sovereign countries which can make their own decisions, which are clunkers at times, yet they still have the freedom to make them. Ignoring the usual conspiracy theory bluster about how the US is "picking on countries which they don't have under their control" (b y the way, did you ever notice that countries that supposedly aren't under American control are always tolitarian hellholes? Taliban run Afghanistan, Libya, Baathist Iraq, Syria.....)

I certainly can justify kicking the corrupt, brutal Taliban out of power. It's rather hypocritical to protest brutal regimes when the US supports them and not do so when they are anti west, don't you think? Of course, that's the kind of irony that most protesters simply don't get. Not to mention--- what's the point of just "striking AQ and Taliban facilities"? It's already a war--- might as well actually fight it.

Saddam enjoyed a brief period of support because we judged the theocratic dicatatorship in Iran was worse than the secular dicatatorship in Iraq. We then stopped Saddam's excesses and threw him out of power later on while the Iranian theocracy just keeps on chugging along. Hmm......that doesn't mesh with your worldview very well though, so I bet you'll ignore it.

oneworld2 said:

Classic right wing denial/avoidance .

If you were consistent you would support the right of the likes of Haiti , Cuba , Nicaragua etc etc to invade and occupy the US for ten years with a similar loss of life and destruction dished out to the Afghans , wouldn't you ?

Answers on a postcard to............ lol

Click to expand...

Anyone who wishes to invade the US is welcome to try. We owe nothing to Haiti, Cuba or Nicaragua.

Jack Hays said:

Anyone who wishes to invade the US is welcome to try. We owe nothing to Haiti, Cuba or Nicaragua.

Click to expand...

Oh please , spare me that sickening silver back chest thumping come and have a go if you think your hard enough nonsense. It's not even a response to anything in the post it is supposed to have replied to. It's just more avoidance again.

Your argument is that if people from another country attack you in on your own territory then you have the right to invade, occupy and overthrow the leadership of that country. That's your argument.

Yet when you are asked to to be consistent and state whether you would grant that same right to others you completely try to dodge the question. Why ? Because it's copybook hypocrisy ?

I think you ( the US ) owe it to people to stay out of their business and their countries .

Tigerace117 said:

An empire is an extensive group of states or countries under one single supreme authority. There is no soverignity for the member states of an empire. Yet Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistain are all sovereign countries which can make their own decisions, which are clunkers at times, yet they still have the freedom to make them.

Click to expand...

Other people recognize it , why can't you ?

American imperialism is the economic, military and cultural influence of the United States on other countries. Such influence is often closely associated with expansion into foreign territories. The concept of an American Empire was first popularized during the presidency of James K. Polk who led the United States into the Mexican–American War of 1846, and the eventual annexation of California and other western territories via the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the Gadsden purchase.

Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_imperialism

Are you familiar with the fact that Iraqs parliament sits behind the walls of the US built Green Zone ? And that the people of Iraq have been attacking it up to as recently as May this year ? You will likewise be familiar with the US ties to post war Iraq leaders ? Same with Karzai in Afghanistan ?
It's funny you mention Pakistani sovereignty at the same time as the US swoop to kill OBL , maybe, as you like to say yourself , the irony is lost on you this time.

You only have to look at how if any people anywhere vote the wrong way in their own elections , according to the US , they are instantly the focus of a US attack. Be it diplomatically , economic or military or any combination

Ignoring the usual conspiracy theory bluster about how the US is "picking on countries which they don't have under their control" (b y the way, did you ever notice that countries that supposedly aren't under American control are always tolitarian hellholes? Taliban run Afghanistan, Libya, Baathist Iraq, Syria.....)

Click to expand...

Ignore things at your peril , the evidence to support it is enormous. Much more so than your attempts to mask US aggression with a fig leaf of concern for human rights. You will only " notice " what you are conditioned to focus on. That's why you have hardly responded to any of the many examples I gave in the last post here

I certainly can justify kicking the corrupt, brutal Taliban out of power.

Click to expand...

But you chose not too. Duly noted. To invade a country to induce regime change is illegal under international law and is most likely to be deemed a war of aggression. That's what the Nazis were charged with btw

It's rather hypocritical to protest brutal regimes when the US supports them and not do so when they are anti west, don't you think? Of course, that's the kind of irony that most protesters simply don't get. Not to mention--- what's the point of just "striking AQ and Taliban facilities"? It's already a war--- might as well actually fight it.

Click to expand...

The Taliban were/are an awful outfit built by remnants of the US sponsored Mujahideen and the Pakistani leadership of UL Haq , who also enjoyed great Western support. Ooops , haven't thought this one through have you ?

Saddam enjoyed a brief period of support because we judged the theocratic dicatatorship in Iran was worse than the secular dicatatorship in Iraq. We then stopped Saddam's excesses and threw him out of power later on while the Iranian theocracy just keeps on chugging along. Hmm......that doesn't mesh with your worldview very well though, so I bet you'll ignore it.

Click to expand...

Now you are endorsing the US support for the reign of Saddam Hussein , lol. And without understanding that your own government peddled weapons to Iran at the same time. And you expect to be taken seriously ?

There was another choice the US/West could have made with regards to the Iraq/Iran war................. they could have chosen not to interfere , couldn't they ? We supported Ted Bundy because we disliked John Wayne Gacy more hardly qualifies as a justification for not supporting murderers imo. Pity you won't see the irony expressed throughout this post. It would be hilarious if the subjects covered weren't so tragic

BTW the point is , concerning the attacks of September and the responses to it , that you can respond within the law or you can choose to flout it. The US chose to flout it and thus condemned everyone who served in it to a possible charge of being war criminals. And the leadership that prosecuted it

oneworld2 said:

Other people recognize it , why can't you ?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_imperialism

Are you familiar with the fact that Iraqs parliament sits behind the walls of the US built Green Zone ? And that the people of Iraq have been attacking it up to as recently as May this year ? You will likewise be familiar with the US ties to post war Iraq leaders ? Same with Karzai in Afghanistan ?
It's funny you mention Pakistani sovereignty at the same time as the US swoop to kill OBL , maybe, as you like to say yourself , the irony is lost on you this time.

You only have to look at how if any people anywhere vote the wrong way in their own elections , according to the US , they are instantly the focus of a US attack. Be it diplomatically , economic or military or any combination



Ignore things at your peril , the evidence to support it is enormous. Much more so than your attempts to mask US aggression with a fig leaf of concern for human rights. You will only " notice " what you are conditioned to focus on. That's why you have hardly responded to any of the many examples I gave in the last post here



But you chose not too. Duly noted. To invade a country to induce regime change is illegal under international law and is most likely to be deemed a war of aggression. That's what the Nazis were charged with btw




The Taliban were/are an awful outfit built by remnants of the US sponsored Mujahideen and the Pakistani leadership of UL Haq , who also enjoyed great Western support. Ooops , haven't thought this one through have you ?



Now you are endorsing the US support for the reign of Saddam Hussein , lol. And without understanding that your own government peddled weapons to Iran at the same time. And you expect to be taken seriously ?

There was another choice the US/West could have made with regards to the Iraq/Iran war................. they could have chosen not to interfere , couldn't they ? We supported Ted Bundy because we disliked John Wayne Gacy more hardly qualifies as a justification for not supporting murderers imo. Pity you won't see the irony expressed throughout this post. It would be hilarious if the subjects covered weren't so tragic

BTW the point is , concerning the attacks of September and the responses to it , that you can respond within the law or you can choose to flout it. The US chose to flout it and thus condemned everyone who served in it to a possible charge of being war criminals. And the leadership that prosecuted it

Click to expand...

I was unaware that the politicians who were in charge of the Mexican American War were immortal sorcerers and continued to control the United States to this day.

Obviously, the losing side of the war is going to call it imperialism. After all, they didn't want to lose.

The "people of Iraq"? You mean ISIS and the various Islamic radicals? They're about as representative of the Iraqi people as the Waffen SS was of the German people. In other words, fanatical but not exactly a good representation. And where exactly should the Iraqi government meet? In a muddy ditch? The Green Zone works for them.

I'm sure you being an "objective observer" and all that you'll also bring up the actions of the former Soviet Union in sponsoring guerillas in many of those countries, but I doubt it. You don't give a **** about groups like the Khmer Rouge and FARC; their anti American, and that's good enough for you.

Yeah, the evidence to support the conclusion that anti American regimes are more often than not tolitarian hellholes is overwhelming.

Two totally different wars. Two different organizations. The Mujahdeen didn't murder thousands of innocent Russian civillians.

oneworld2 said:

Other people recognize it , why can't you ?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_imperialism

Are you familiar with the fact that Iraqs parliament sits behind the walls of the US built Green Zone ? And that the people of Iraq have been attacking it up to as recently as May this year ? You will likewise be familiar with the US ties to post war Iraq leaders ? Same with Karzai in Afghanistan ?
It's funny you mention Pakistani sovereignty at the same time as the US swoop to kill OBL , maybe, as you like to say yourself , the irony is lost on you this time.

You only have to look at how if any people anywhere vote the wrong way in their own elections , according to the US , they are instantly the focus of a US attack. Be it diplomatically , economic or military or any combination



Ignore things at your peril , the evidence to support it is enormous. Much more so than your attempts to mask US aggression with a fig leaf of concern for human rights. You will only " notice " what you are conditioned to focus on. That's why you have hardly responded to any of the many examples I gave in the last post here



But you chose not too. Duly noted. To invade a country to induce regime change is illegal under international law and is most likely to be deemed a war of aggression. That's what the Nazis were charged with btw




The Taliban were/are an awful outfit built by remnants of the US sponsored Mujahideen and the Pakistani leadership of UL Haq , who also enjoyed great Western support. Ooops , haven't thought this one through have you ?



Now you are endorsing the US support for the reign of Saddam Hussein , lol. And without understanding that your own government peddled weapons to Iran at the same time. And you expect to be taken seriously ?

There was another choice the US/West could have made with regards to the Iraq/Iran war................. they could have chosen not to interfere , couldn't they ? We supported Ted Bundy because we disliked John Wayne Gacy more hardly qualifies as a justification for not supporting murderers imo. Pity you won't see the irony expressed throughout this post. It would be hilarious if the subjects covered weren't so tragic

BTW the point is , concerning the attacks of September and the responses to it , that you can respond within the law or you can choose to flout it. The US chose to flout it and thus condemned everyone who served in it to a possible charge of being war criminals. And the leadership that prosecuted it

Click to expand...

You do realize Iraq had the exact same political system as the Syrian regime you seem to love so much, right?

We sold weapons to the Shah. That's where the American weaponry came from.

I bet you would have loved if the West hadn't interfered. Your beloved tolitarian regimes could have probably gained some geopolitical advantage.

The only people who actually think that charges of war crimes would be legitimate aren't just ****ing naive, they are also not very bright.

oneworld2 said:

Oh please , spare me that sickening silver back chest thumping come and have a go if you think your hard enough nonsense. It's not even a response to anything in the post it is supposed to have replied to. It's just more avoidance again.

Your argument is that if people from another country attack you in on your own territory then you have the right to invade, occupy and overthrow the leadership of that country. That's your argument.

Yet when you are asked to to be consistent and state whether you would grant that same right to others you completely try to dodge the question. Why ? Because it's copybook hypocrisy ?

I think you ( the US ) owe it to people to stay out of their business and their countries .

Click to expand...

Don't you know the US is exceptional and can do as it pleases? That our Unitary Executive, as Richard Nixon saw it, means that if POTUS does anything it is perfectly legal? Not only legal, but moral?

oneworld2 said:

It's not " strong proof " it's speculation.

Even when you caught the guy he never faced any trial which makes me think the evidence against him wasn't that good

Click to expand...

He admitted to it. More than once.

There are videos of him with the hijackers.

His organization has repeated taken credit for 9/11.

The hijackers were members of his organization.....

oneworld2 said:

Oh please , spare me that sickening silver back chest thumping come and have a go if you think your hard enough nonsense. It's not even a response to anything in the post it is supposed to have replied to. It's just more avoidance again.

Your argument is that if people from another country attack you in on your own territory then you have the right to invade, occupy and overthrow the leadership of that country. That's your argument.

Yet when you are asked to to be consistent and state whether you would grant that same right to others you completely try to dodge the question. Why ? Because it's copybook hypocrisy ?

I think you ( the US ) owe it to people to stay out of their business and their countries .

Click to expand...

They certainly have the right to invade us, just as we have the right to resist. The right to self-defense, or to respond to aggression, is not a right to victory. There is nothing inconsistent in my position.

Tigerace117 said:

I was unaware that the politicians who were in charge of the Mexican American War were immortal sorcerers and continued to control the United States to this day.

Obviously, the losing side of the war is going to call it imperialism. After all, they didn't want to lose.

Click to expand...

That era , for most people , is considered to be the start of US imperialism. If you read declassified US government docs and the works of some historians that have used them for their books , recalled statements from past leaderships etc , are aware of the PNAC you will be forced to conclude that the " nascent empire " spoke of by the founding fathers of the US has followed the same path right up to today. Well , I mean you won't , obviously, but people less indoctrinated probably will , albeit reluctantly

The "people of Iraq"? You mean ISIS and the various Islamic radicals? They're about as representative of the Iraqi people as the Waffen SS was of the German people. In other words, fanatical but not exactly a good representation. And where exactly should the Iraqi government meet? In a muddy ditch? The Green Zone works for them.

Click to expand...

Classic strawman. No I didn't mean ISIS

If you had bothered to do a little tiny bit of research you would have found I was talking about Shia Muslims who have been signing up to fight against ISIS who are predominantly Sunnis. Not very good at this are you ? And considering that Shias are the majority in Iraq your words just fall flatter still

I'm sure you being an "objective observer" and all that you'll also bring up the actions of the former Soviet Union in sponsoring guerillas in many of those countries, but I doubt it. You don't give a **** about groups like the Khmer Rouge and FARC; their anti American, and that's good enough for you. ]/quote]

I don't claim to be an " objective observer " and nobody else can imo Complete objectivity is not possible because of our own idiosyncrasies. But I am a hell of a lot more objective than you appear to be based on your contributions , and I use the term lightly , here and elsewhere around the forum

Yeah, the evidence to support the conclusion that anti American regimes are more often than not tolitarian hellholes is overwhelming.

Two totally different wars. Two different organizations. The Mujahdeen didn't murder thousands of innocent Russian civillians.

Click to expand...

You will find that the term " anti American " is used very often to describe people who wish for independent nationalism for their own countries . The threat posed buy national independence in the third world is largely the story of the cold war. Various US government officials have spelled this out over the years in NSC CFR meetings. The " domino effect " or the " virus " etc etc

Over 3/4s of the alleged terrorists responsible for 9/11 were Saudis. Saudi Arabians are renowned for spreading extreme forms of Islam on a global scale. Yet Saudi Arabia remains a client state of the US in the ME. Probably second only to Israel

Click to expand...

Tigerace117 said:

You do realize Iraq had the exact same political system as the Syrian regime you seem to love so much, right?

Click to expand...

Good luck finding posts of mine praising the Assad regime. Fortunately we already have your post here defending the US support for Saddam Hussein at the time he was flinging gas around like confetti. Projection on your behalf duly noted:roll:

We sold weapons to the Shah. That's where the American weaponry came from.

Click to expand...

Nope , the US helped to assist both sides of a war where you claim that the US only supported one side. Wrong

Really ? Youve never read about the Iran-Contra affair ?

You do have that uncanny ability to show off your lack of knowledge with surprising regularity

I bet you would have loved if the West hadn't interfered. Your beloved tolitarian regimes could have probably gained some geopolitical advantage.

Click to expand...

Childish response again

I pointed out that anyone and everyone has the choice to stay out of wars that are occuring 1000.s of miles away. The US being the worst global bully just has to interfere precisely because of its self proclaimed global dominance

The only people who actually think that charges of war crimes would be legitimate aren't just ****ing naive, they are also not very bright.

Click to expand...

Nope they are people who are actually familiar with the laws and have enough objectivity to wish to see them applied universally. That's kinda rules you out I'm afraid

Thoreau72 said:

Don't you know the US is exceptional and can do as it pleases? That our Unitary Executive, as Richard Nixon saw it, means that if POTUS does anything it is perfectly legal? Not only legal, but moral?

Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more .................Manifest destiny I think someone once said. Unfortunately people under the jackboot tend to disagree , spoilsports that they are

Fledermaus said:

He admitted to it. More than once.

There are videos of him with the hijackers.

His organization has repeated taken credit for 9/11.

The hijackers were members of his organization.....

Click to expand...

He also denied it

That's if you believe those tapes are genuine. These are the same people who claimed to have found Mohammad Attas passport looking like it had just been issued

There is a tape of Rumsfeldt shaking hands with Saddam Hussein but I don't think he had anything to do with the gassing of the Kurds

Even so the law provides for a proportional response , the US response was not proportional nor legal imo