California woman charged with sending money to Pakistan to help fund attacks on US military - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Contag;33852689]It's killing, and if you're on the other side, yeah. That's kind of the whole point of war. Killing each other. Obviously it gets murky when you're fighting an asymmetrical war, but then again that's why she's facing a lengthy prison sentence. [editline]23rd December 2011[/editline] With every tax dollar you're contributing to the death of those on the other side, yet that is normally seen as morally acceptable. The difference is that Pakistani terrorists aren't launching drone strikes on America.[/QUOTE] I don't see the soldiers of the US military on the same level as I see the insurgents of the Taliban. I mean, there's really no debating that the Taliban is fundamentally malicious in their actions. Sure, the the US military may use drones, but you must realize that they also provide a lot of humanitarian aid to the people of Afghanistan. Plus, you don't see the Taliban building any hospitals, now do you?

[QUOTE=Cap'nSpacePants;33852925]Like I said earlier, US isn't perfect by a long-shot.[/QUOTE] It wasn't just the US though. France, Germany, Denmark, the UK, Singapore and a few others all had a hand in it.

[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;33852937]I don't see the soldiers of the US military on the same level as I see the insurgents of the Taliban. I mean, there's really no debating that the Taliban is fundamentally malicious in their actions. Sure, the the US military may use drones, but you must realize that they also provide a lot of humanitarian aid to the people of Afghanistan. Plus, you don't see the Taliban building any hospitals, now do you?[/QUOTE] I know I've been defending the US to an extend, but they are still people. Hell I'd respect them as much as OUR soldiers if they weren't supporting a horrid, incredibly oppressive way of ruling over people. [QUOTE=Contag;33852945]It wasn't just the US though. France, Germany, Denmark, the UK, Singapore and a few others all had a hand in it.[/QUOTE] Wow, I for one wasn't aware so many were involved (although I never denied they did either). To be honest I thought it was primarily the US. Least it proves the US aren't the only ones fucking around in the middle east.

[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;33852937]I don't see the soldiers of the US military on the same level as I see the insurgents of the Taliban. I mean, there's really no debating that the Taliban is fundamentally malicious in their actions. Sure, the the US military may use drones, but you must realize that they also provide a lot of humanitarian aid to the people of Afghanistan. Plus, you don't see the Taliban building any hospitals, now do you?[/QUOTE] I'm quite sure they built a few hospitals during their reign. I don't see how you can say fundamentally malicious as though that were true. I imagine their actions have lots of different justifications in their ideological and political discourse. I don't think they managed to win a civil war by simply going "hey let's be really shit for the hell of it" I see both sides and human, and fundamentally understandable. Sure, I agree with the US more than the Taliban, but I'm not going to say that US soldiers killing Taliban is more or less disgusting than the reverse. [editline]23rd December 2011[/editline] Funnily enough, it's the old Taliban that are most receptive to dialogue with US forces, as opposed to the new insurgents. They certainly did a better job than the DEA

[QUOTE=Karlos;33850069]you don't serve shit, you're just a gangster for big business. the only freedom you claim to be a 'guardian for' is the freedom of bourgeois oppression, and people like you will be first against the wall there needs to be a couple thousand more people like this woman; perhaps then the disgusting, constant destruction of infrastructure and lives in the interest of capital will be repelled[/QUOTE] Wow, bourgeois? You make it even better when you imply you wish there were thousands more people possibly funding terrorism. And when did the Washington Post become so vilified? If you ask me the Washington Post is pretty well credited and legitimate. I think you might be thinking of the Washington Times friends. [QUOTE=Karlos;33850367]absolutely what should happen, including the police and national guard; once the machinery of the state's been dismantled the proletariat can instill a true democracy and we can forget this whole capitalist funfare[/QUOTE] Oh God, you one-upped yourself! Did you just discover Karl Marx or something? Class warfare! Fight the power! You do realise the National Guard and police do a lot more than just "suppress the proletariat"? You know, like give aid to those in disaster stricken areas and such?

[QUOTE=imarawrus;33853092]Wow, bourgeois? You make it even better when you imply you wish there were thousands more people possibly funding terrorism. And when did the Washington Post become so vilified? If you ask me the Washington Post is pretty well credited and legitimate. I think you might be thinking of the Washington Times friends.[/QUOTE] What is wrong with the term 'bourgeois'? [editline]23rd December 2011[/editline] Though I'm not how democratic ownership of the means of production go hand in hand with Islamism

[QUOTE=Contag;33853020]I'm quite sure they built a few hospitals during their reign. I don't see how you can say fundamentally malicious as though that were true. I imagine their actions have lots of different justifications in their ideological and political discourse. I don't think they managed to win a civil war by simply going "hey let's be really shit for the hell of it" I see both sides and human, and fundamentally understandable. Sure, I agree with the US more than the Taliban, but I'm not going to say that US soldiers killing Taliban is more or less disgusting than the reverse. [editline]23rd December 2011[/editline] Funnily enough, it's the old Taliban that are most receptive to dialogue with US forces, as opposed to the new insurgents. They certainly did a better job than the DEA[/QUOTE] I'm just saying that I respect the United States military far more than I respect the Taliban. What wrong we've done to the Afghan people pales in comparison to what the Taliban has done throughout their regime since they pushed out the Soviets back in the 1980s. I know the Taliban is composed of people too, but their actions have proven them less deserving of pity.

[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;33853177]I'm just saying that I respect the United States military far more than I respect the Taliban. What wrong we've done to the Afghan people pales in comparison to what the Taliban has done throughout their regime since they pushed out the Soviets back in the 1980s. I know the Taliban is composed of people too, but their actions have proven them less deserving of pity.[/QUOTE] Problem though, is that WE (The US) created the Taliban because "communism is bad", so I can't help but feel somewhat sorry for them.

[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;33853177]I'm just saying that I respect the United States military far more than I respect the Taliban. What wrong we've done to the Afghan people pales in comparison to what the Taliban [B]has done throughout their regime since they pushed out the Soviets back[/B] in the 1980s. I know the Taliban is composed of people too, but their actions have proven them less deserving of pity.[/QUOTE] With the US' backing.

[QUOTE=DesolateGrun;33848921]She's ungrateful to the soldiers out there Most are just kids out of school and she wants them dead? [/QUOTE] Soldiers are hired guns.

[QUOTE=Contag;33853131]What is wrong with the term 'bourgeois'? [editline]23rd December 2011[/editline] Though I'm not how democratic ownership of the means of production go hand in hand with Islamism[/QUOTE] I'm sorry it just seems so childish, this isn't the French Revolution. edit: not childish, "teenage angsty anarchist"

[QUOTE=Marbalo;33853206][I]he wasn't comparing the US to Nazi Germany[/I].[/QUOTE] Reread it, yea I interpreted it wrong.

[QUOTE=aydin690;33853252]Soldiers are hired guns.[/QUOTE] But they have a government paycheck. (at least until the US government freezes their pay anyway) [editline]23rd December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=imarawrus;33853308]I'm sorry it just seems so childish, this isn't the French Revolution.[/QUOTE] It still has some application to social classes in marxist analysis today.

[QUOTE=Contag;33853318]But they have a government paycheck. (at least until the US government freezes their pay anyway) [editline]23rd December 2011[/editline] It still has some application to social classes in marxist analysis today.[/QUOTE] Which happens with more frequency than most people realise. But God forbid you owe them money; they get that shit whether you have it or not.

[QUOTE=imarawrus;33853092]You know, like give aid to those in disaster stricken areas and such?[/QUOTE] aid is the mechanism by which the capitalists enslave the proletariat and force them into a cycle of consumerist dependency or is it the aid the result of interventionist huge government bureaucracy which spends itself into oblivion I'm politically bipolar, you see

[QUOTE=Cap'nSpacePants;33853194]Problem though, is that WE (The US) created the Taliban because "communism is bad", so I can't help but feel somewhat sorry for them.[/QUOTE] If I recall correctly, they formed themselves independently against the Soviet occupation. The United States only armed them with stringer missiles to help them negate the Soviet air superiority. The people of Afghanistan hailed them as heroes, and they were given significant power because of their actions against the Russians. However, they abused their power shortly afterwards, leading to them to commit various acts of rape, murder and pillaging against their own people. So, no, I don't feel bad for them. They don't deserve sympathy after what they've done.

[QUOTE=Contag;33853386]aid is the mechanism by which the capitalists enslave the proletariat and force them into a cycle of consumerist dependency or is it the aid the result of interventionist huge government bureaucracy which spends itself into oblivion I'm politically bipolar, you see[/QUOTE] The government is by no means perfect [editline]22nd December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Cap'nSpacePants;33853194]Problem though, is that WE (The US) created the Taliban because "communism is bad", so I can't help but feel somewhat sorry for them.[/QUOTE] We created the muhjahadeen, if anything. Not the Taliban. The Taliban and the muhjahadeen are two different things.

[QUOTE=imarawrus;33853442] We created the muhjahadeen, if anything. Not the Taliban. The Taliban and the muhjahadeen are two different things.[/QUOTE] Oh, I see. My mistake.

The Taliban were Pashtun muhjahadeen.

[QUOTE=Cap'nSpacePants;33853526]Oh, I see. My mistake.[/QUOTE] The Taliban rose to power because the muhjahadeen were a coalition of different warloads and tribes that had a common enemy, the Soviets, that lost their common bond once the Soviets withdrew. Once the Soviets were no longer around they went back to hating each other and the Taliban filled the vacuum they left in their wake. [QUOTE=Governor Goblin;33853604]The Taliban were Pashtun muhjahadeen.[/QUOTE] True, but they did not make up the whole of the muhjahadeen. That's why we had factions like the Northern Alliance, who were not by any means as hard-line Islamist as the Taliban. And given the Pashtun concept of lokhay they were inclined to accept the Taliban and support them because the Pashtun, once lokhay has been given, cannot rescind it. While the Taliban may have been Pashtun muhjahadeen that does not mean that they were one in the same. They had their own goals and intentions in the resistance that went further that repelling the Soviet invasion. [editline]22nd December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Governor Goblin;33853604]The Taliban were Pashtun muhjahadeen.[/QUOTE] Did not mean to rate that disagree. Though I will say that the Taliban ideals came from Pakistan if I remember correctly.

Really? Five pages and nobody seems to have pointed out the hypocrisy of charging a woman for funding terrorism in Pakistan when the United States government does it officially by providing the obviously back stabbing Pakistani government with massive amounts of funds? REALLY?

[QUOTE=GunFox;33854488]Really? Five pages and nobody seems to have pointed out the hypocrisy of charging a woman for funding terrorism in Pakistan when the United States government does it officially by providing the obviously back stabbing Pakistani government with massive amounts of funds? REALLY?[/QUOTE] oh man, shit just got real

[QUOTE=GunFox;33854488]Really? Five pages and nobody seems to have pointed out the hypocrisy of charging a woman for funding terrorism in Pakistan when the United States government does it officially by providing the obviously back stabbing Pakistani government with massive amounts of funds? REALLY?[/QUOTE] LiquidNazgul, do you really think that Pakistan isn't aiding and abetting the Taliban? They can just walk across the goddamn border anytime they want because they know Coalition troops cannot fire into Pakistan without causing a giant shitstorm. Shit, the fuckers hide up in the hills with their binos locked on the Afghan roadways and their hands on their remote detonators. And somehow the Pakistanis can't find them? They're sitting there thumbing their noses at us as the Pakistanis play a half assed game of "Where's Waldo" that they don't want anyone to win anyways. If they aren't doing it actively they're doing it by being inactive. I mean the world's most wanted terrorist lived 5 fucking miles down the road from their Westpoint and WE were the ones that found him? There's obviously something wrong with that picture.

[QUOTE=GunFox;33854488]Really? Five pages and nobody seems to have pointed out the hypocrisy of charging a woman for funding terrorism in Pakistan when the United States government does it officially by providing the obviously back stabbing Pakistani government with massive amounts of funds? REALLY?[/QUOTE] i was going to, but then i realized it wasn't worth the hate PM's.

Yeah, some losers are just spamming my private messages calling me an idiot. Because god forbid I disagree with them.