6 Americans killed in one day in Afghanistan - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Robbi;37203287]Can you please tell me what is so dumb about my posts? I asked PinkPanzer, the 1st guy who to rate me dumb and he couldn't answer it. Please tell me, I'm dying to know.[/QUOTE] No I said your posts were stupid and had no facts and blocked you cause I am sick of you trying to argue with me on steam about everything. [editline]12th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Bobie;37206373]the dumb rating really just shows an incompetence for debate; it's essentially an ad hominem in a simple, clickable form.[/QUOTE] No it means your post is bad and you should feel bad.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;37206703]Decades? Hahaha Try centuries[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/05/27/once_upon_a_time_in_afghanistan?page=full[/url] [QUOTE=Robbi;37206290] There should be a age restriction on the dumb button.[/QUOTE] [editline]13th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=CabooseRvB;37206733]Yeah by executions and using backwards practices. That's a great way to keep order[/QUOTE] The point is they did it and in a short period. Meanwhile Afghanistan 11 years later after 9/11 is still considered unsafe. To the people who lost loved ones, Im sure your opinion is irrelevant.

[QUOTE=C47;37207218] The point is they did it and in a short period. Meanwhile Afghanistan 11 years later after 9/11 is still considered unsafe. To the people who lost loved ones, Im sure your opinion is irrelevant.[/QUOTE] And what of the people who lost loved ones to these taliban executions you're justifying? Seems a bit silly to not to consider their opinion, considering their family members are dead.

people seem to be quite confused about Afghanistan. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Afghanistan_(1978%E2%80%931992)[/url] Afghanistan is the way it is quite simply because of imperialism, dating from the arab invasion to today. Even the US itself funded the Taliban for the sake of belligerence towards the Soviet Union. culturally, politically, and structurally Afghanistan is in complete shambles, there's no hope and the Taliban will continue long after we've decided that we don't want to fight anymore.

[QUOTE=C47;37207218] The point is they did it and in a short period. Meanwhile Afghanistan 11 years later after 9/11 is still considered unsafe.[/QUOTE] [img]http://colorlines.com/assets_c/2010/08/time_cover_0809-thumb-640xauto-486.jpg[/img] Yeah all that being done in a short period of time.

[QUOTE=thisispain;37207750]people seem to be quite confused about Afghanistan. [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Afghanistan_(1978–1992)[/URL] Afghanistan is the way it is quite simply because of imperialism, dating from the arab invasion to today. Even the US itself funded the Taliban for the sake of belligerence towards the Soviet Union. culturally, politically, and structurally Afghanistan is in complete shambles, there's no hope and the Taliban will continue long after we've decided that we don't want to fight anymore.[/QUOTE] Correction: The U.S. never funded the Taliban, they didn't exist until five years after the war against the Soviets ended. They were formed in the chaotic years following the war when the loosely allied Mujaheddin groups (which are who you're thinking of and were the groups backed by the U.S.) began fighting each other. Their primary backers were the ISI and Saudi Arabia although it's highly probable that some of the U.S. supplied weaponry from the previous decade was at some point used by them Taliban [URL]http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/afghan2/Afghan0701-02.htm[/URL] I do agree with the rest of what you said, I'm just pointing out a slight factual error.

BrainDeath, thebadboy91, Jocke, TM Gmod, Yawn, Aperture Adam, JWG, LaughBann, Exxon, C47 Real funny guys

[QUOTE=RBM11;37207954]Correction: The U.S. never funded the Taliban, they didn't exist until five years after the war against the Soviets ended. [/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#United_States[/url] depends on how strongly you take allegations of CIA funding and support of the Taliban. we've done it before with jundallah

Can't fight the americans? Pretend to want to do good and join their team! Then shoot them in the back I thought they were cowardly before with their IEDs but jesus fucking tittysprinkles these guys have no guts or sense of honor

[QUOTE=Robbi;37203287]Can you please tell me what is so dumb about my posts? I asked PinkPanzer, the 1st guy who to rate me dumb and he couldn't answer it. Please tell me, I'm dying to know.[/QUOTE] You don't seem to put two and two together. Why would anyone in Afghanistan give a fuck if the Russian's never invaded? Because then there would be no mujahadeen, to which there would be no reason for the CIA to hand them weapons, which wouldn't create the Northern Alliance and the Taliban, which would have never harbored Osama Bin Laden, to which we would never invade, and we'd never be having this conversation. Things happen for reasons. I thought it was pretty straight forward but you not understanding me is surprising.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;37206371]You're getting rated dumb for defending them, regardless of what their goals are, their methods are the same, murder, threats, and terror.[/QUOTE] But I'm not fucking defending them, I'm just saying that the USA aren't any good either. It's not fucking black and white. I hate both sides. [editline]13th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=purvisdavid1;37213165]You don't seem to put two and two together. Why would anyone in Afghanistan give a fuck if the Russian's never invaded? Because then there would be no mujahadeen, to which there would be no reason for the CIA to hand them weapons, which wouldn't create the Northern Alliance and the Taliban, which would have never harbored Osama Bin Laden, to which we would never invade, and we'd never be having this conversation. Things happen for reasons. I thought it was pretty straight forward but you not understanding me is surprising.[/QUOTE] You could also argue that if the USA didn't give them weapons and training in the first place we wouldn't be having this conversation either, so stop blaming it on Russia. Also, there are plenty of other Islamist militant political organizations that have managed to arm them selves and grow strong with out any major external help. It's silly to say the Taliban wouldn't be here if it weren't for the Russians/Americans.

[QUOTE=Robbi;37214542]But I'm not fucking defending them, I'm just saying that the USA aren't any good either.[/QUOTE] We're a hell of a lot better than them. We don't blow up civilains to prove a point, we don't target civilians, use civilians as shields, or threaten to raze their villages if they don't do our bidding. Say all you want, we're nowhere near as bad as they are.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;37214883]We're a hell of a lot better than them. We don't blow up civilains to prove a point, we don't target civilians, use civilians as shields, or threaten to raze their villages if they don't do our bidding. Say all you want, we're nowhere near as bad as they are.[/QUOTE] Sure you don't but you support nations who do that [sp]Israel[/sp] and in my eyes that is just as bad.

[QUOTE=Robbi;37216498]Sure you don't but you support nations who do that [sp]Israel[/sp] and in my eyes that is just as bad.[/QUOTE] So because something is bad you should defend something that is just as bad? I don't like Israel either but I don't let it cloud my personal scheme of thinking. I'm trying to display my opinions and you're here to spread bias. Israel has nothing to do with why Afghanistan is in its state, I've told you the basic history of Afghanistan from the 80's up.

[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;37219643]So because something is bad you should defend something that is just as bad? I don't like Israel either but I don't let it cloud my personal scheme of thinking. I'm trying to display my opinions and you're here to spread bias. Israel has nothing to do with why Afghanistan is in its state, I've told you the basic history of Afghanistan from the 80's up.[/QUOTE] Jesus Christ, I am not defending the Taliban, I hate those scumbags. I'm just saying your precious Ammuricah is a bit better, yes, but still pretty shitty. A lesser of two evils. Also I know that Israel has nothing to do why Afghanistan is Afghanistan but I am pointing out that USA supports Israel and they do horrific things, just like the Taliban do horrific things.

[QUOTE=evilweazel;37207563]And what of the people who lost loved ones to these taliban executions you're justifying? Seems a bit silly to not to consider their opinion, considering their family members are dead.[/QUOTE] well im talking of stability/security by executing criminals. about out of marriage sexual relations, well, thats their law. cant exactly say that the country is not secure because the government is executing those engaging in what they consider immoral (ie adultery). [QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;37214883]We're a hell of a lot better than them. We don't blow up civilains to prove a point, we don't target civilians, use civilians as shields, or threaten to raze their villages if they don't do our bidding. Say all you want, we're nowhere near as bad as they are.[/QUOTE] Oh no no, you just decide to decimate a country's entire infrastructure (bomb power stations, water plants, telecommunications - Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan etc), seed the country with contaminants (white phosphorus, agent orange, depleted uranium bullets) so that entire generations are born with cancers, and on top of that put on economic and medical sanctions just for the extra lulz. Oh lets not forget the friendly governments supported (Israel), who do actually target civilians, or threaten to raze their villages if they don't do our bidding. not even mentioning funding of other terrorist groups in countries which are not friendly (iran). :v: Keep dreamin, people don't hate America's foreign policy for nothing [QUOTE=CabooseRvB;37207904]*picture of girl with nose cut* Yeah all that being done in a short period of time.[/QUOTE] [B]Graphic images below (click at your own risk)[/B] [url]http://traumaviolence.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/womens_aid1.jpg[/url] (USA) [url]http://jmcolberg.com/weblog/archives/IsabellaDemavlys.jpg[/url] (India) Good job blaming domestic violence on governments. :v: [QUOTE=DamagePoint;37207961]BrainDeath, thebadboy91, Jocke, TM Gmod, Yawn, Aperture Adam, JWG, LaughBann, Exxon, C47 Real funny guys[/QUOTE] What next, your with us or against us? God forbid if we try to point out facts about the enemy, its treason blablabla.

[QUOTE=C47;37223893]well im talking of stability/security by executing criminals. about out of marriage sexual relations, well, thats their law. cant exactly say that the country is not secure because the government is executing those engaging in what they consider immoral (ie adultery).[/QUOTE] It's not law when people are not subject to a trial. It's not law when the law is simply a Taliban official's word. It's not law when women are forced to wear the burqa, cannot laugh in public and are denied access to health care and education. It's not law when the only religion is Islam, and Hindus must wear identification that they are Hindus, have yellow flags outside their houses, and cannot live with Muslims. It's oppression. The Taliban shoot people in soccer stadiums, how can you justify such a brutal and public execution? Stability? Hardly. It's order through fear. Ahmad Shah Massoud knew this. He stood up against the Taliban's islamofacist oppression, and they killed him for it. [QUOTE]Oh no no, you just decide to decimate a country's entire infrastructure (bomb power stations, water plants, telecommunications - Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan etc),[/QUOTE] Ever heard of "dual-use" targets? They are targets used both by civilians and the military. They include TV stations, power plants, factories, and bridges. If NATO spared infrastructure simply because it was also used by civilians, bombing would be ineffective. Also claiming that the US destroyed "the entire infrastructure of Afghanistan" is a gross exaggeration considering Afghanistan had almost no infrastructure to begin with. [QUOTE]seed the country with contaminants (white phosphorus, agent orange, depleted uranium bullets) so that entire generations are born with cancers, and on top of that put on economic and medical sanctions just for the extra lulz.[/QUOTE] White phosphorus was used in combat in Fallujah, when the city was held entirely by militants. The allegation that WP was used on civilians has been drummed up by the media, as George Monbiot writes: [QUOTE]The media couldn't have made a bigger pig's ear of the white phosphorus story. So, before moving on to the new revelations from Falluja, I would like to try to clear up the old ones. There is no hard evidence that white phosphorus was used against civilians. The claim was made in a documentary broadcast on the Italian network RAI, called Falluja: the Hidden Massacre. It claimed that the corpses in the pictures it ran "showed strange injuries, some burnt to the bone, others with skin hanging from their flesh ... The faces have literally melted away, just like other parts of the body. The clothes are strangely intact." These assertions were supported by a human-rights advocate who, it said, possessed "a biology degree". I, too, possess a biology degree, and I am as well qualified to determine someone's cause of death as I am to perform open-heart surgery. So I asked Chris Milroy, professor of forensic pathology at the University of Sheffield, to watch the film. He reported that "nothing indicates to me that the bodies have been burnt". They had turned black and lost their skin "through decomposition". We don't yet know how these people died. But there is hard evidence that white phosphorus was deployed as a weapon against combatants in Falluja. As this column revealed last Tuesday, US infantry officers confessed that they had used it to flush out insurgents.[/QUOTE] It should be noted that George Monibot was a vocal opponent of the Iraq War. Bringing up the agent orange ordeal is like beating a dead horse. The US paid $60 million for clean up to Vietnam, and the US is actually starting to conduct clean up operations themselves. The US plans to spend another additional $48 million to clean up 28 hot spots around Vietnam. The US also has an additional $32 million allocated for the project. These figures are not counting the donations that US veterans and citizens make, or the annual AO payments the US government makes which range from $12-$18 million a year. It is important to recognize that AO was deployed as a herbicide, not a chemical weapon. AO was used by Canada, Korea, and Thailand to deforest certain areas, before adverse side effects were known. Many US troops have suffered adverse effects from AO in addition to all the Vietnamese people who have also been harmed, in fact the VA recognizes AO poisoning as a legitimate claim. AO was thought to be harmless at the time it was deployed and was used on American bases inside the US and in American National Forests. The chemical companies responsible for producing AO have been sued by veterans and settled for $180 million. Although, the companies claim that AO produces no adverse health effects, and blame the US gov't. Claiming that the US knowingly poisoned the Vietnamese people and their future generations with AO is blatantly false. The use of depleted uranium also runs a similar story. The UK, US, and UN all maintain that DU is harmless, and the WHO maintains [QUOTE] no consistent or confirmed adverse chemical effects of uranium have been reported for the skeleton or liver. and no reproductive or developmental effects have been reported in humans.[/QUOTE] Many nation use DU including Russia and China. I support the notion that DU is in fact harmful to the civilians who have to live in areas where DU was used. Fact of the matter is, no government considers DU to have long term adverse effects (except Belgium), and there has yet to be a study of DU in Iraq properly done. For unknown reasons the Iraqi government refuses to conduct proper studies on DU contamination. I expect, much like the use of AO, the US will acknowledge much later what had happened. [QUOTE]Oh lets not forget the friendly governments supported (Israel), who do actually target civilians, or threaten to raze their villages if they don't do our bidding.[/QUOTE] The US supports Israel because of the terrorism they face, not for the violations they commit. Israel feels constantly threatened, and the Arab nations surrounding Israel have not done anything to assuage the fear. There is a line between anti-zionist and anti-semite, and I'm suprised at how often that line is crossed, particularly by members of Arab governments. All things considered is no surprise that Israel acts heavy handed when it faces threats. [QUOTE]not even mentioning funding of other terrorist groups in countries which are not friendly (iran). [/QUOTE] Terrorism in Iran? Don't give me that bullshit. The PKK is a terrorist organization according to America and NATO, and so is MEK. There are no terrorists that the US supports simply because they target Iran. The US had nothing to do with the assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists, if you can even call that terrorism, they were carried out by MEK on the behalf of Israel. [QUOTE][B]Graphic images below (click at your own risk)[/B] [url]http://traumaviolence.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/womens_aid1.jpg[/url] (USA) [url]http://jmcolberg.com/weblog/archives/IsabellaDemavlys.jpg[/url] (India) Good job blaming domestic violence on governments. :v:[/QUOTE] Except according to Time magazine: [QUOTE]It is a portrait of Aisha, a shy 18-year-old Afghan woman who was sentenced by a Taliban commander to have her nose and ears cut off for fleeing her abusive in-laws.[/QUOTE] It's not domestic violence, its a draconian punishment enforced by some uneducated extremists in a position of authority. Don't even compare it to domestic violence. This is a case of the Taliban cutting off someones nose and scarring them for life because they RAN AWAY FROM ABUSIVE IN-LAWS. Just goes to show you how medieval and backwards the Taliban truly is. They have no place in the modern world, and no place in a modern Afghanistan. [QUOTE]What next, your with us or against us? God forbid if we try to point out facts about the enemy, its treason blablabla.[/QUOTE] Yeah, but your not pointing out facts. Sometimes you outright lie, or severely distort the facts to give your view some legitimacy when it clearly has very little.

Thank you I was tired of bickering with misinformed idiots.

[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;37233861]Thank you I was tired of bickering with misinformed idiots.[/QUOTE] Leave it to me. C47 is one of my personal favorites.

[QUOTE=Disotrtion;37233985]Leave it to me. C47 is one of my personal favorites.[/QUOTE] Please never leave FP.

[QUOTE=Disotrtion;37233413]It's not law when people are not subject to a trial.[B] They had a court system. Fail.[/B] It's not law when the law is simply a Taliban official's word. [B]Whoever said that a Taliban official/members word was taken as the final verdict (assuming the Taliban was involved in the case).[/B] It's not law when women are forced to wear the burqa, cannot laugh in public and are denied access to health care and education. [B]They were provided healthcare and education. Burqa argument is irrelevant. So its not law in france when women cant even wear a headscarf out of religious beliefs?[/B] It's not law when the only religion is Islam, and Hindus must wear identification that they are Hindus, have yellow flags outside their houses, and cannot live with Muslims. [B]they were given identification so that they were not subjected to the same treatment of muslims, ie prayer time, people were forced to shut-down their shops and go to pray. but non-muslims were not required to do so. it wasnt for humiliation, it was to identify them so certain laws applicable to muslims wouldnt be enforced on them. the living along with muslims is unheard of, same for the yellow flags. dont try to put this is the same bullshit as the nazi jew yellow tag thing.[/B] It's oppression. [B]What constitutes oppression is a matter of opinion[/B] The Taliban shoot people in soccer stadiums, how can you justify such a brutal and public execution?[B] whats brutal about publicly prosecuting a criminal psychopath? the netherlands might have their standards for punishments, doesnt mean everyone has to agree with it or gtfo[/B] Stability? Hardly. It's order through fear. [B]Fear of prosecution is a method for averting crime, some might call it medieval others agree with it. just because its popular nowadays, doesnt mean its the right way.[/B] Ahmad Shah Massoud [B]Ahmad Shah Massoud was actually worse off than the Taliban if not on the same level, during his rule all of the above happened (well except the burqa part), you'd expect better treatment from taliban soldiers than Massouds commanders and armies. having a guy like dostum under massoud is so great eh? or how about the only opium production coming from Afghanistan during taliban rule was the 10% area controlled by your hero Massoud[/B] [/QUOTE] Reply in bold. [quote]Ever heard of "dual-use" targets? They are targets used both by civilians and the military. They include TV stations, power plants, factories, and bridges. If NATO spared infrastructure simply because it was also used by civilians, bombing would be ineffective. Also claiming that the US destroyed "the entire infrastructure of Afghanistan" is a gross exaggeration considering Afghanistan had almost no infrastructure to begin with.[/quote] Can you provide a source for your claims? When did NATO even say that the targets were dual-use for the indiscriminate bombings in Serbia? Heck on the contrary they reveal their disgusting attitude of targeting civilians to pressure the governing authority. [B]Savages in uniform at best.[/B] [quote]While Yugoslav military casualty figures in the first 60 days of the attacks were estimated at being "in the hundreds," NATO had in that time killed as many as 1500 civilians.(4) Further, [B]in the third week of May NATO began to commit textbook war crimes, aimed at depriving the civilian population of Serbia of water and electrical power, and [U]explicitly not aimed at military forces[/U] in Kosovo.[/B] ... [B]NATO's strategy[/B] is not to attack Yugoslavia's army directly, but rather[B] to destroy Yugoslavia itself[/B], in order to weaken the army. With this strategy it is military losses that are "collateral damage," because [B]most of the attacks are aimed at civilian targets[/B] ... On April 25, the Washington Times reported that[B] NATO planned to hit "power generation plants and water systems, taking the war directly to civilians."[/B] NATO generals told the Philadelphia Inquirer on May 21 that [B]"Just focussing on fielded forces is not enough ... . The people have to get to the point that their lights are turned off, their bridges are blocked so they can't get to work."[/B] Note that the purpose of destroying these bridges is not military; but this was clear when NATO destroyed the bridges in Novi Sad, 500 km. from Kosovo, installations which clearly did not make the "effective contribution to military action" in Kosovo that would have rendered them legitimate targets under Article 52 of Protocol I additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions. ... That [B]NATO planned from the start to hit civilian targets was made clear to me a few days before the attacks began by an employee of a U.S. intelligence organization who said that the CIA had been charged with preparing lists of Yugoslav economic assets and that, "basically, everything in the country is a target unless it's taken off the list.[/B]" This was nothing new: as Michael Walzer notes,[B] in the Gulf War in 1990, "the coalition decided (or the U. S. commanders decided) that the economic infrastructure of Iraqi society -- all of it -- was a legitimate military target,"[/B] and that while similar strategic targeting had been common in World War II, what was new was the attempt to deprive the Iraqi population of clean water. However, Walzer notes drily, perhaps that "wasn't technically feasible in the 1940s.[/quote] [URL]http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/hayden.htm[/URL] Please go ahead and still say that you guys dont kill civilians :v: I have a couple of Serbian friends who hate the US and NATO for what they did their country. They also hated Milsovic before you say they were probably pro-Milsovic. The above confirms it all. [quote]On June 7, [B]NATO planes again bombed the oil refineries in Novi Sad and Pancevo, [U]both centers of opposition to Milosevic[/U][/B]. The Pancevo refinery burst into flames, [B]releasing a huge cloud of toxic fumes[/B], shown in a photo accompanying a New York Times story of July 14, which discussed the [B]severe economic and health effects.[/B] Amnesty International reported at the year’s end that “[B]Violence against Serbs, Roma, Muslim Slavs and moderate Albanians in Kosovo has increased dramatically over the past month[/B],” including “murder, abductions, violent attacks, intimidation, and house burning...on a daily basis,” as well as torture and rape, and attacks on independent Albanian media and political organizations in what appears to be “an organized campaign to silence moderate voices in ethnic Albanian society,” [B]all under the eyes of NATO forces[/B]. [/quote] [URL]http://www.chomsky.info/articles/200005--.htm[/URL] [quote]Bringing up the agent orange ordeal is like beating a dead horse. The US paid blablabla[/quote] Kinda late dont you think when the damage was already done? What, they didnt know using chemical weapons would be bad in the long term for the land and its civilians? [quote]The use of depleted uranium also runs a similar story. The UK, US, and UN all maintain that DU is harmless, and the WHO maintains Many nation use DU including Russia and China. I support the notion that DU is in fact harmful to the civilians who have to live in areas where DU was used. Fact of the matter is, no government considers DU to have long term adverse effects (except Belgium), and there has yet to be a study of DU in Iraq properly done. For unknown reasons the Iraqi government refuses to conduct proper studies on DU contamination. I expect, much like the use of AO, the US will acknowledge much later what had happened. [/quote] Use of DU ammo was actually confirmed by the "international bodies" to be behind the surge in cancer cases in Iraq (sometime in 2000), I dont remember if it was WHO or some arm of the UN. It was later rejected by the same body for unknown reasons (2001?). The Iraqi's werent the ones who prevented proper studies, it was these organizations who seem interested after rejecting them and simply closing the issue. [quote]Israel poor lonely state amongst savage arab states bla bla bla[/quote] So you'd support this terrorist state [quote]The Lavon Affair refers to a failed Israeli covert operation, code named Operation Susannah, conducted in Egypt in the Summer of 1954. As part of the false flag operation,[1] a group of Egyptian Jews were recruited by [B]Israeli military intelligence for plans to plant bombs inside Egyptian, American and British-owned targets.[/B] The[B] attacks were to be blamed on the Muslim Brotherhood[/B], Egyptian Communists, "unspecified malcontents" or "local nationalists" with the [B]aim of creating a climate of sufficient violence and instability[/B] to induce the British government to retain its occupying troops in Egypt's Suez Canal zone. ... [B]The goal of the Operation was to carry out[/B] bombings and other [B]acts of terrorism in Egypt[/B] with the aim of creating an atmosphere in which the British and American opponents of British withdrawal from Egypt would be able to gain the upper hand and block the British withdrawal from Egypt.[/quote] [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair[/URL] Israel is a terrorist state, that believes in killing civilians, just to change political climate in a country. USA supports them. Its no different than Al-Qaeda wanting to kill civilians and the Taliban supporting them. [quote]In their 1979 book, The Untold History of Israel, Israeli journalists Jacques Derogy and Hesi Carmel relate that in 1954[B] Israel’s army intelligence section conceived a plan to attack British personnel seconded to King Hussein’s government in Jordan[/B]. The [B]purpose was to sour relations between Britain and Jordan[/B] as well as between both Jordan and Britain on the one hand and Egypt, which would be blamed for such attacks.[/quote] There is ofcourse the USS Liberty too, but then you'all gonna dismiss it as a conspiracy theory. [quote]Terrorism in Iran? Don't give me that bullshit. The PKK is a terrorist organization according to America and NATO, and so is MEK. There are no terrorists that the US supports simply because they target Iran. The US had nothing to do with the assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists, if you can even call that terrorism, they were carried out by MEK on the behalf of Israel.[/quote] Say what? [quote]In April 2012, the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh reported that the [B]US Joint Special Operations Command had trained MEK operatives[/B] at a secret site [B]in Nevada from 2005 to 2009[/B]. According to Hersh, [B]MEK members were trained in intercepting communications, cryptography, weaponry and small unit tactics at the Nevada site up until President Barack Obama took office in 2009[/B].[/quote] There are even calls within the US for removing MEK from the list of terrorist organizations. Just so that the US can more openly collaberate with a terrorist organization just to get at Iran. [quote]In 2011, several former senior US officials, including Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, three former chairmen of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, two former directors of the CIA, former commander of NATO Wesley Clark, two former US Ambassadors to the United Nations, the former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, a former White House Chief of Staff, a former commander of the United States Marine Corps, former U.S. National Security Advisor Frances Townsend, and US President Barack Obama's retired National Security Adviser General James L. Jones called for the[B] MEK to be removed from its official listing on the U.S. State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations, on the grounds that they constituted a viable opposition to the Iranian regime[/B][/quote] Lulz [quote]retard taliban commander cuts of girl's nose as reported by time magazine[/quote] so what? one idiot doesnt represent the actions of the whole? want me to list the despicable actions of committed by individuals in the US forces in the last 10 years? Abu Ghuraib ring a bell? Let me then just be an idiot and brush all americans in the same category. [quote]Yeah, but your not pointing out facts. Sometimes you outright lie, or severely distort the facts to give your view some legitimacy when it clearly has very little. [/quote] Im not trying to distort anything, and I dont intend to lie because I dont have any hidden agenda. When shit is wrong, I say its wrong no matter who/what/where it is. Like I said, I provide an alternative view which is not so common because US/UK media (CNN/BBC etc) are as biased as RT. On the contrary as I have proved, you seem to be lying outright and distorting events. 10 naive people. Go ahead rate me dumb :P

you're crazy stupid [editline]14th August 2012[/editline] stopped reading when you used the word fail in that kind of context you're dumb [editline]14th August 2012[/editline] im gonna add that your usage of fail makes you look dumb [editline]14th August 2012[/editline] [quote]They had a court system. Fail.[/quote] eat the peanuts out of my shit [editline]14th August 2012[/editline] [quote]Fail.[/quote] eat them

[QUOTE=W0w00t;37244878]you're crazy stupid [editline]14th August 2012[/editline] stopped reading when you used the word fail in that kind of context you're dumb [editline]14th August 2012[/editline] im gonna add that your usage of fail makes you look dumb [editline]14th August 2012[/editline] eat the peanuts out of my shit [editline]14th August 2012[/editline] eat them[/QUOTE] LOL, your having such a hard time accepting reality, poor you :v: Edit: I dont expect any quality replies anyway ^^

It's people like him who try to find the better things in islamofacism that allowed that to happen. No matter how many arguments you could come up to validate things, you're wrong. Rule through fear is rule, but it isn't right, it isn't defensible, and you're a piece of shit for trying to spin one shade of shit for another. Besides in all honesty when will Afghanistan really ever see peace? If it's not external influences, it's internal. How did we even get onto the fact that Israel is a terrorist state, you mother fuckers with your agenda with hate on Israel and by proxy the US for its support of them. I don't like it just like anyone else but I don't let it cloud my god damn judgement when it comes to individual countries, individual foreign policies, and individual incidents. Knock it off man.

[QUOTE=C47;37244925]LOL, your having such a hard time accepting reality, poor you :v: Edit: I dont expect any quality replies anyway ^^[/QUOTE] you are quite the stupid man. willfully ignorant. maybe even egotistical about it. probably sitting on your computer, fat, dumb, and happy with the way you are and your false perceptions. what a shame. [editline]14th August 2012[/editline] i still want you to eat the peanuts out of my shit [editline]14th August 2012[/editline] [img]http://mitglied.multimania.de/kubrickodyssee/fullfoto3.JPG[/img]

You know C47, for someone who isn't a Taliban sympathiser, you sure like going out of your way to defend them against any accusations. Maybe the US aren't God's little angels, but they don't hold a candle to the evils of the Taliban. The Taliban are horrible, oppressive, and barbaric, whether you choose to realise that or not.

[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;37244938]It's people like him who try to find the better things in islamofacism that allowed that to happen. No matter how many arguments you could come up to validate things, you're wrong. Rule through fear is rule, but it isn't right, it isn't defensible, and you're a piece of shit for trying to spin one shade of shit for another. Besides in all honesty when will Afghanistan really ever see peace? If it's not external influences, it's internal.[/QUOTE] Its naive minds like you who believe everything the media says, and then find it ok to go after extreme actions. One could give the Holocaust as an example. The only difference nowadays is that Islam is the new Judaism. Afghanistan was under peace. Taliban wouldve had full control over the country if it wasnt for the US backing the Northern Alliance before 9/11.

[QUOTE=C47;37245021]Its naive minds like you who believe everything the media says, and then find it ok to go after extreme actions. One could give the Holocaust as an example. The only difference nowadays is that Islam is the new Judaism. Afghanistan was under peace. Taliban wouldve had full control over the country if it wasnt for the US backing the Northern Alliance before 9/11.[/QUOTE] Yes you are right you are just too [B][U]~~~*~~~[I]EDGY[/I]~~~*~~~[/U] [/B]for us.

holy shit youre dense

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;37244992]You know C47, for someone who isn't a Taliban sympathiser, you sure like going out of your way to defend them against any accusations. Maybe the US aren't God's little angels, but they don't hold a candle to the evils of the Taliban. The Taliban are horrible, oppressive, and barbaric, whether you choose to realise that or not.[/QUOTE] Nah, i dont care about the taliban, but i like to play the devil's advocate, and only when justified (this might be an oxymoron). Unlike most of the kids here on FP, I wasnt born yesterday. Been following news for the past 20 years, and I noticed the sudden change of attitude towards the Taliban is press and everything. That and Bush's ultimatum and threat to everyone. So much freedom right? But atleast you accept that the US's track record isnt that great either.