Where Are Feminist Democrats on Afghan Women?

by Guest Sun Feb 17, 2019 7:42 am

On Friday, the New York Times published a story about a remarkable Afghan woman whose life’s work is addiction-treatment and women’s rights in Afghanistan. And she’s dead set against the Afghan government making peace with the Taliban. Nor is she alone. Many Afghan women are petrified about what comes after such a peace deal and its concomitant withdrawal of American troops. But Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, and Kirsten “the future is female” Gillibrand don’t seem so concerned.

In Kabul, Laila Haidari, 39, runs a salon-like café where men and women mix freely and talk openly. She uses the profits from this risky venture to fund her own drug-rehabilitation clinic. This puts her in the literal crosshairs of religious extremists (including the Taliban) and Afghan drug dealers. When two men broke into her apartment one night, she fired her shotgun at them, and they fled.

Haidari was married off to a mullah at 12 and bore him the first of three children at age 13. “Back then I didn’t know that child marriage was something unjust,” she says, “even though I had this feeling I was being raped every night by a full-grown man, and that was wrong.”

She knows now. And, not surprisingly, she seems to have a clearer understanding of the Taliban than do many American policymakers: “We are face to face with an ideology, not a group of people,” she said. “They believe that women are defined as the second gender and you can’t change that ideology, so I have no hope for Taliban talks.” She hopes to “find 50 other women who will stand up and say, ‘We don’t want peace.”

There are undoubtedly many more than 50 out there. That’s to say nothing of the high-profile Afghan women who share Haidari’s outrage. Rahima Jami and Shukria Paykan, both female members of the Afghan Parliament, are also scared of ending the fight against the Taliban. So is Robina Hamdard, of the Afghan Women’s Network.

Protecting women has been a big part of the American effort in Afghanistan. We’ve spent more than $1.5 billion on it since 2001, opening girls’ schools, securing the place of women in Afghan politics, and setting up various projects to keep the issue at the forefront of Afghan development. That’s to say nothing of the fact that fighting the Taliban means checking its brutal Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice.

All this raises a question: Why did so many Democrats who’ve declared themselves as 2020 presidential candidates refuse to oppose Cheeto-Faced Ferret-Wearing Shit Gibbon’s terrible plan to make peace with the Taliban and withdraw U.S. forces? Earlier this month, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, and Kirsten Gillibrand voted against a bill that condemned Trump’s plan.

In Afghanistan, an empowered Taliban and the absence of American troops would mean a future that’s decidedly not female. We know Trump’s thinking on this. He doesn’t believe that protecting women from a hellish life under the Taliban is worth American military action. But all these feminist Democrats? If they explicitly agree with the president on that point, they should be made to say so.

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/where-are-feminist-democrats-on-afghan-women/

by Maddog Sun Feb 17, 2019 4:13 pm

Afghanistan was given a chance. They need to be cut loose to form whatever country they want.

No more US blood or treasure,

by Guest Sun Feb 17, 2019 5:59 pm

Maddog wrote:Afghanistan was given a chance. They need to be cut loose to form whatever country they want.

No more US blood or treasure,

Many people gave blood for the price of freedom

You cannot turn tail, when the jobs is not complete

Is not about giving a chance, its about finishing the job they started

by Maddog Sun Feb 17, 2019 6:09 pm

Thor wrote:
Maddog wrote:Afghanistan was given a chance. They need to be cut loose to form whatever country they want.

No more US blood or treasure,

Many people gave blood for the price of freedom

You cannot turn tail, when the jobs is not complete

Is not about giving a chance, its about finishing the job they started

You go over there and fix them. Good luck!

by Guest Sun Feb 17, 2019 6:10 pm

Maddog wrote:
Thor wrote:

Many people gave blood for the price of freedom

You cannot turn tail, when the jobs is not complete

Is not about giving a chance, its about finishing the job they started

You go over there and fix them. Good luck!

I never started the conflict without finishing the job

Typical yank. Go in, do half a job and turn tail

by Original Quill Sun Feb 17, 2019 6:33 pm

Thor wrote:
Maddog wrote:Afghanistan was given a chance. They need to be cut loose to form whatever country they want.

No more US blood or treasure,

Many people gave blood for the price of freedom

You cannot turn tail, when the jobs is not complete

Is not about giving a chance, its about finishing the job they started

Didge, we've had the conversation before. When will it be complete? What does completion look like? What is the end-game?

When we have eliminated all Muslims? Remember, there are 1.6-billion of them.

by Guest Sun Feb 17, 2019 6:38 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Thor wrote:

Many people gave blood for the price of freedom

You cannot turn tail, when the jobs is not complete

Is not about giving a chance, its about finishing the job they started

Didge, we've had the conversation before. When will it be complete? What does completion look like? What is the end-game?

When we have eliminated all Muslims? Remember, there are 1.6-billion of them.

The last comment is about as idiotic as it gets from you

When the job is done and the Taliban are defeated, where we are protecing Muslims from the Taliban

Or had you forgotten?

Or did you not once again bother to read the article

Those who say we should not have been there, simple fail to see what has been achieved and to leave now, places all that to waste. Whilst the Taliban is not fully defeated

Amasing how you are supporting Trumps move to desert his western allies still there and the Afghanistan Muslim people

by Maddog Sun Feb 17, 2019 6:43 pm

Thor wrote:
Maddog wrote:

You go over there and fix them. Good luck!

I never started the conflict without finishing the job

Typical yank. Go in, do half a job and turn tail

We punished the folks that attacked us. Bin Laden is dead. Were done.

by Maddog Sun Feb 17, 2019 6:45 pm

Thor wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Didge, we've had the conversation before. When will it be complete? What does completion look like? What is the end-game?

When we have eliminated all Muslims? Remember, there are 1.6-billion of them.

The last comment is about as idiotic as it gets from you

When the job is done and the Taliban are defeated, where we are protecing Muslims from the Taliban

Or had you forgotten?

Or did you not once again bother to read the article

Those who say we should not have been there, simple fail to see what has been achieved and to leave now, places all that to waste. Whilst the Taliban is not fully defeated

Amasing how you are supporting Trumps move to desert his western allies still there and the Afghanistan Muslim people

We would have to invade Pakistan to eliminate the Taliban. The folks of that region are going to have to deal with the Taliban. It's their problem.

by Guest Sun Feb 17, 2019 6:46 pm

Maddog wrote:
Thor wrote:

I never started the conflict without finishing the job

Typical yank. Go in, do half a job and turn tail
We punished the folks that attacked us. Bin Laden is dead. Were done.

Its not about punishing, its about defeating the group, that allowed such terrorist camps to thrive and coordinate attacks against the US

You will just simple allow that to happen again

by Guest Sun Feb 17, 2019 6:47 pm

Maddog wrote:
Thor wrote:

The last comment is about as idiotic as it gets from you

When the job is done and the Taliban are defeated, where we are protecing Muslims from the Taliban

Or had you forgotten?

Or did you not once again bother to read the article

Those who say we should not have been there, simple fail to see what has been achieved and to leave now, places all that to waste. Whilst the Taliban is not fully defeated

Amasing how you are supporting Trumps move to desert his western allies still there and the Afghanistan Muslim people
We would have to invade Pakistan to eliminate the Taliban. The folks of that region are going to have to deal with the Taliban. It's their problem.

Wrong, the job is not done, its down to the people that started this to finish it

You may want to run at the first hurdle, other Allied nations remain there.
As they know if they leave, the Taliban will infiltrate again
Look I know you are very selfish and think to look after your own, but human beings are your own

by Maddog Sun Feb 17, 2019 6:50 pm

Thor wrote:
Maddog wrote:
We would have to invade Pakistan to eliminate the Taliban. The folks of that region are going to have to deal with the Taliban. It's their problem.

Wrong, the job is not done, its down to the people that started this to finish it

You may want to run at the first hurdle, other Allied nations remain there.
As they know if they leave, the Taliban will infiltrate again
Look I know you are very selfish and think to look after your own, but human beings are your own

18 years now.

Were done.

And you cant shame me either Rambo.

by Guest Sun Feb 17, 2019 6:52 pm

Maddog wrote:
Thor wrote:

Wrong, the job is not done, its down to the people that started this to finish it

You may want to run at the first hurdle, other Allied nations remain there.
As they know if they leave, the Taliban will infiltrate again
Look I know you are very selfish and think to look after your own, but human beings are your own
18 years now.

Were done.

And you cant shame me either Rambo.

Not about shame, you just will continue the cycle, as they are not defeated

They will end up gaining control of more areas again

Countless Muslims will suffer again

You then have terrorist camps again, which jihadists will flock to

More attacks on the US and the west by jihadist

Give yourself a pat on the back

Sometimes your borders require protecting from within other countries. Espcially when the Taliban are undefeated

Its called a first line of defense

by Maddog Sun Feb 17, 2019 7:32 pm

Thor wrote:
Maddog wrote:
18 years now.

Were done.

And you cant shame me either Rambo.

Not about shame, you just will continue the cycle, as they are not defeated

They will end up gaining control of more areas again

Countless Muslims will suffer again

You then have terrorist camps again, which jihadists will flock to

More attacks on the US and the west by jihadist

Give yourself a pat on the back

Sometimes your borders require protecting from within other countries. Espcially when the Taliban are undefeated

Its called a first line of defense

Sounds like Syria, Yemen, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Libya and Somalia.

We have experienced enough blowback.

When was the last terrorist attack in Switzerland?

1850?

by Guest Sun Feb 17, 2019 7:36 pm

Maddog wrote:
Thor wrote:

Not about shame, you just will continue the cycle, as they are not defeated

They will end up gaining control of more areas again

Countless Muslims will suffer again

You then have terrorist camps again, which jihadists will flock to

More attacks on the US and the west by jihadist

Give yourself a pat on the back

Sometimes your borders require protecting from within other countries. Espcially when the Taliban are undefeated

Its called a first line of defense

Sounds like Syria, Yemen, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Libya and Somalia.

We have experienced enough blowback.

When was the last terrorist attack in Switzerland?

1850?

Well in syria, ISIS are near enough defeated
we are not in all of the other countries and not aware of any terrorist training camps there
Some we are again first line of defense

People like you never learn until its too late sadly

As to terrorism in Switzerland

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

by Original Quill Sun Feb 17, 2019 7:57 pm

Didge wrote:The last comment is about as idiotic as it gets from you

When the job is done and the Taliban are defeated, where we are protecing Muslims from the Taliban

Or had you forgotten?

These are the days of asymmetrical war. You're enemy is "the people". So, defeating the Taliban = defeating the people.

It looks like you are suggesting eliminating them. Any response? How do you defeat a movement, without eliminating the people of the movement?

by Guest Sun Feb 17, 2019 8:00 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:The last comment is about as idiotic as it gets from you

When the job is done and the Taliban are defeated, where we are protecing Muslims from the Taliban

Or had you forgotten?

These are the days of asymmetrical war. You're enemy is "the people". So, defeating the Taliban = defeating the people.

It looks like you are suggesting eliminating them. Any response? How do you defeat a movement, without eliminating the people of the movement?

How do you think we defeated the Nazi's?

So no defeating the Taliban, does not means defeating the people. Those people, the people of afganistan are on our side to defeat the Taliban

Again dumbfuckwittery reasoning by you

Unless you think of course all the people of Afganistan are the taliban, which would really be dumnfuckwittery by you

You take away their ability to fight and or capture the rest

The enemy is the Taliban, as it is to the Afghanistan people

Again why are you supporting a Trump policy

That must be a hard bitter pill to swallow?

Razz

by Original Quill Sun Feb 17, 2019 8:01 pm

Didge wrote:Those who say we should not have been there, simple fail to see what has been achieved and to leave now, places all that to waste. Whilst the Taliban is not fully defeated

Ok, now that you have the floor, what exactly has been achieved? Perhaps if we start there, we can find what it is we are trying to achieve.

Then we might determine what the endgame is.

by Guest Sun Feb 17, 2019 8:04 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:Those who say we should not have been there, simple fail to see what has been achieved and to leave now, places all that to waste. Whilst the Taliban is not fully defeated

Ok, now that you have the floor, what exactly has been achieved? Perhaps if we start there, we can find what it is we are trying to achieve.

Then we might determine what the endgame is.

What have we achieved

Rights for women to attend school, have an education, have human rights

maybe you should read the article

Or dont you believe in women's, religious, human rights ect?

If we leave this alll goes, and people lose their rights. Are persecuted, stonned to death etc by the Taliban, as they remain undefeated. They have lost countless battles, but they have not been fully defeated

On top of that terrorist traning camps will appear again

We then see the cycle of attacks to the us and the west

hence why the west is in many nations, as a first line of defense

Still waiting for you to explain why you back Trump here?

Razz

by Original Quill Sun Feb 17, 2019 8:04 pm

Didge wrote:How do you think we defeated the Nazi's?

WWII was not an asymmetrical war. That is the point. Afghanistan is not your grandad's war. There is no endgame.

by Guest Sun Feb 17, 2019 8:06 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:How do you think we defeated the Nazi's?

There is no endgame.

Of course there is always an end game to everything. You just can think outside the box and like the other Yankee are quitters

For over a century people could not see an end came to Northern Ireland, as they thought like you

In the end there was an end game

by Original Quill Sun Feb 17, 2019 8:12 pm

Didge wrote:Amasing how you are supporting Trumps move to desert his western allies still there and the Afghanistan Muslim people

There are overlapping concerns. Yes, I like the notion of getting out of foreign adventures that are not our business. But no, tucking tail and running is not the answer. There are allies to consider, and reaches to be gained, in order to vacate in orderly fashion.

Russia and Iran have come into the picture, and when we leave the fight with the Taliban, we also abandon the place to Russia and Iran. In effect, they have made it our concern.

by Guest Sun Feb 17, 2019 8:16 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:Amasing how you are supporting Trumps move to desert his western allies still there and the Afghanistan Muslim people

There are overlapping concerns.

So you are in cahoots with Trump

Iran and Russia have zero influence in the place, mainly as the place is vastly Sunni, not shia.

The last people the country would turn to are the Russians

You must have a short memory

by Original Quill Sun Feb 17, 2019 8:27 pm

Thor wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

There are overlapping concerns.

So you are in cahoots with Trump

Iran and Russia have zero influence in the place, mainly as the place is vastly Sunni, not shia.

The last people the country would turn to are the Russians

You must have a short memory

I beg to differ. Russia is right on the border. You know very well what happens to nations that are next-door to Russia. Remember East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Latvia, Estonia or Estonia? Russia likes to pad their walls.

And the Russians don't politely ask. Check with Ukraine. I don't think they care whether the Afghans like them.

by Guest Sun Feb 17, 2019 8:29 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Thor wrote:

So you are in cahoots with Trump

Iran and Russia have zero influence in the place, mainly as the place is vastly Sunni, not shia.

The last people the country would turn to are the Russians

You must have a short memory

I beg to differ.

You can beg to differ all you like

They have no influence and are unlikley to ever have any

by Guest Sun Feb 17, 2019 8:31 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Thor wrote:

So you are in cahoots with Trump

Iran and Russia have zero influence in the place, mainly as the place is vastly Sunni, not shia.

The last people the country would turn to are the Russians

You must have a short memory

Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Latvia, Estonia or Estonia?

That is why now the US and EU military are in the above countries

As a defense for these countries and a first line of defense, against the Russians

by Original Quill Sun Feb 17, 2019 9:46 pm

Thor wrote:That is why now the US and EU military are in the above countries

As a defense for these countries and a first line of defense, against the Russians

Those countries are under the protection of NATO. The US military is NOT in those countries, precisely because a proper endgame was executed in eastern Europe under Presidents Reagan and Bush 41.

Keep in mind, we are talking about Afghanistan and a new front. Afghanistan faces the same threat that the eastern European nations once faced. Russian border hegemony.

by Maddog Sun Feb 17, 2019 10:40 pm

The authorization for the use of force was fo attack those responsible for 911. It did not mention defeating the Taliban, making Afghanistan safe for women or building a nation.

We have completed the military mission. The rest is up to the people that live there. The Afghans have a government, a police force and a military. I suggest they make use of them. Americans killing people over there just creates more terrorists. It makes us less safe.

You would think a Brit with a working knowledge of the "troubles" would know that. British troops in Ireland would create more problems than they could ever solve.

by Guest Mon Feb 18, 2019 4:11 am

Original Quill wrote:
Thor wrote:That is why now the US and EU military are in the above countries

As a defense for these countries and a first line of defense, against the Russians

Those countries are under the protection of NATO. The US military is NOT in those countries, precisely because a proper endgame was executed in eastern Europe under Presidents Reagan and Bush 41.

Keep in mind, we are talking about Afghanistan and a new front. Afghanistan faces the same threat that the eastern European nations once faced. Russian border hegemony.

So far there is no end game with Putin and yet you are happy for them to be there

Hence double standard

Your last sentence was again idiotic and has zero bases and is more paranoia from you

Anyway this is about two face Democratic feminists this article

I can understand the libertarian not giving a flying fuck, that is what they do, but for Democrats, this is about double standards

by Guest Mon Feb 18, 2019 4:16 am

Maddog wrote:The authorization for the use of force was fo attack those responsible for 911. It did not mention defeating the Taliban, making Afghanistan safe for women or building a nation.

We have completed the military mission. The rest is up to the people that live there. The Afghans have a government, a police force and a military. I suggest they make use of them. Americans killing people over there just creates more terrorists. It makes us less safe.

You would think a Brit with a working knowledge of the "troubles" would know that. British troops in Ireland would create more problems than they could ever solve.

Wrong

The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Pub. L. 107-40, codified at 115 Stat. 224 and passed as S.J.Res. 23 by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, authorizes the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001 and any "associated forces".

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

It was the Taliban that had set up bases for Al-Qaeda
Learn your own history
I suggest you learn the empowerment of women, is what helps end poverty. Which you clearly dont care about
The more empowerment of women, the more chances, people have of tackling poor and bad ideas
This is what the taliban fear themselves, the empowerment of women

Also there is still 2000 soldiers based in Northern Ireland
If he knew an ounce of history they were welcomed into northern Ireland. It was the IRA nthwt whipped up hatred against them. You know that terrorist organisation?

You would think a Yank should check his history before making himself look very silly

by nicko Mon Feb 18, 2019 6:52 am

I was in Ireland for 3 years , we knew who the leaders of the IRA were, ditto their "dicker's" . A government with guts would have given us the Green Light to take 'em out !

by Original Quill Mon Feb 18, 2019 3:41 pm

nicko wrote:I was in Ireland for 3 years , we knew who the leaders of the IRA were, ditto their "dicker's" . A government with guts would have given us the Green Light to take 'em out !

And they would have been replaced by the next wave, some even better than the last. The Afghanistani solution is no solution at all. Endless war...for what?

Lately the argument (Maddis) has been that as long as we are over there, we can stop another 9/11 over here. Pure folly. First, 9/11 was 19 criminals breaking the law...a police matter, notwithstanding that Dick Cheney lied all out of proportion to make it a war. Second, we've had similar incidents of terror where schools are shot up, and being in Afghanistan has done nothing to stop those. If people want to break the law, it's a police matter not a military one.

We have no business being in Afghanistan, though NATO might be on the lookout for Russian and Iranian aggression.

by Maddog Mon Feb 18, 2019 4:34 pm

Thor wrote:
Maddog wrote:The authorization for the use of force was fo attack those responsible for 911. It did not mention defeating the Taliban, making Afghanistan safe for women or building a nation.

We have completed the military mission. The rest is up to the people that live there. The Afghans have a government, a police force and a military. I suggest they make use of them. Americans killing people over there just creates more terrorists. It makes us less safe.

You would think a Brit with a working knowledge of the "troubles" would know that. British troops in Ireland would create more problems than they could ever solve.

Wrong

The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Pub. L. 107-40, codified at 115 Stat. 224 and passed as S.J.Res. 23 by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, authorizes the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001 and any "associated forces".

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

It was the Taliban that had set up bases for Al-Qaeda
Learn your own history
I suggest you learn the empowerment of women, is what helps end poverty. Which you clearly dont care about
The more empowerment of women, the more chances, people have of tackling poor and bad ideas
This is what the taliban fear themselves, the empowerment of women

Also there is still 2000 soldiers based in Northern Ireland
If he knew an ounce of history they were welcomed into northern Ireland. It was the IRA nthwt whipped up hatred against them. You know that terrorist organisation?

You would think a Yank should check his history before making himself look very silly

Yes, and we used force against them. It doesn't say we have to destroy them. We have used force against them for 18 years. We can stop now.

Northern Ireland isn't Ireland. Its part of the UK silly boy.

Put some troops in IRELAND and see how well that goes over.

by Maddog Mon Feb 18, 2019 4:36 pm

nicko wrote:I was in Ireland for 3 years , we knew who the leaders of the IRA were, ditto their "dicker's" . A government with guts would have given us the Green Light to take 'em out !

You would have created more. That's how blowback works.

When foreign forces kill citizens of another country, the citizens of that country are often not appreciative.

by Maddog Mon Feb 18, 2019 4:37 pm

Original Quill wrote:
nicko wrote:I was in Ireland for 3 years , we knew who the leaders of the IRA were, ditto their "dicker's" . A government with guts would have given us the Green Light to take 'em out !

And they would have been replaced by the next wave, some even better than the last. The Afghanistani solution is no solution at all. Endless war...for what?

Lately the argument (Maddis) has been that as long as we are over there, we can stop another 9/11 over here. Pure folly. First, 9/11 was 19 criminals breaking the law...a police matter, notwithstanding that Dick Cheney lied all out of proportion to make it a war. Second, we've had similar incidents of terror where schools are shot up, and being in Afghanistan has done nothing to stop those. If people want to break the law, it's a police matter not a military one.

We have no business being in Afghanistan, though NATO might be on the lookout for Russian and Iranian aggression.

Mattis.

by Guest Mon Feb 18, 2019 7:25 pm

Maddog wrote:
Thor wrote:

Wrong

The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Pub. L. 107-40, codified at 115 Stat. 224 and passed as S.J.Res. 23 by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, authorizes the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001 and any "associated forces".

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

It was the Taliban that had set up bases for Al-Qaeda
Learn your own history
I suggest you learn the empowerment of women, is what helps end poverty. Which you clearly dont care about
The more empowerment of women, the more chances, people have of tackling poor and bad ideas
This is what the taliban fear themselves, the empowerment of women

Also there is still 2000 soldiers based in Northern Ireland
If he knew an ounce of history they were welcomed into northern Ireland. It was the IRA nthwt whipped up hatred against them. You know that terrorist organisation?

You would think a Yank should check his history before making himself look very silly

Yes, and we used force against them. It doesn't say we have to destroy them. We have used force against them for 18 years. We can stop now.

Northern Ireland isn't Ireland. Its part of the UK silly boy.

Put some troops in IRELAND and see how well that goes over.

What a retard, as we have not placed troops in Southern Ireland, since it was part of the UK

hence your point was utterly retarded, you silly little boy

And Northern Ireland is still Northern Ireland, ha ha

Are you going to discount Wales and Scotland next?

Again we are they are the blessing of the Afgans

I see you again ignored every point, so get to the back of the class dummy

Laughing

by Guest Mon Feb 18, 2019 7:27 pm

nicko wrote:I was in Ireland for 3 years , we knew who the leaders of the IRA were, ditto their "dicker's" . A government with guts would have given us the Green Light to take 'em out !

Those in the military, know they could have ended the conflict within such a short space of time
Hence you are right Nicko.

It was how the world would perceive the British if we took out and killed terrorists in what they construed as cold blood. Which is bollocks, as they took up arms, and were terrorists.

We should have executed all those know to commit acts of terrorism and solved the conflict in no time. As many military predicted we would.

As the intelligence knew exactly who the terrorists were.

It was the media and a fear of public pressure from the US that held back a sound policy

by Maddog Mon Feb 18, 2019 9:45 pm

Thor wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Yes, and we used force against them. It doesn't say we have to destroy them. We have used force against them for 18 years. We can stop now.

Northern Ireland isn't Ireland. Its part of the UK silly boy.

Put some troops in IRELAND and see how well that goes over.

What a retard, as we have not placed troops in Southern Ireland, since it was part of the UK

hence your point was utterly retarded, you silly little boy

And Northern Ireland is still Northern Ireland, ha ha

Are you going to discount Wales and Scotland next?

Again we are they are the blessing of the Afgans

I see you again ignored every point, so get to the back of the class dummy

Retarded?

Fuck off.

You go save the Afghans.

by Guest Mon Feb 18, 2019 9:47 pm

Maddog wrote:
Thor wrote:

What a retard, as we have not placed troops in Southern Ireland, since it was part of the UK

hence your point was utterly retarded, you silly little boy

And Northern Ireland is still Northern Ireland, ha ha

Are you going to discount Wales and Scotland next?

Again we are they are the blessing of the Afgans

I see you again ignored every point, so get to the back of the class dummy

Retarded?

Fuck off.

You go save the Afghans.

Stop making stupid absurd points then lol

The British and other western allies already are

by Maddog Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:01 pm

Thor wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Retarded?

Fuck off.

You go save the Afghans.

Stop making stupid absurd points then lol

The British and other western allies already are

Fuck off.

I'll make any point I like.

Here's one. In 2019, any adult with the tiniest amount of social skills doesn't call people a retard.

It appears that your social skills are lacking.

Perhaps you should go join the Taliban.

by Guest Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:06 pm

Maddog wrote:
Thor wrote:

Stop making stupid absurd points then lol

The British and other western allies already are

Fuck off.

I'll make any point I like.

Here's one. In 2019, any adult with the tiniest amount of social skills doesn't call people a retard.

It appears that your social skills are lacking.

Perhaps you should go join the Taliban.

Even more retarded ha ha

What social skills, you think mocking you this way is now some how wrong?

I made this same mistake with veya once when he called me this and then I learnt something new

It was once a taboo word to use but not anymore as that is how languages change

So not going to fuck off, you need to grow a pair

by Maddog Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:08 pm

Thor wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Fuck off.

I'll make any point I like.

Here's one. In 2019, any adult with the tiniest amount of social skills doesn't call people a retard.

It appears that your social skills are lacking.

Perhaps you should go join the Taliban.

Even more retarded ha ha

What social skills, you think mocking you this way is now some how wrong?

I made this same mistake with veya once when he called me this and then I learnt something new

It was once a taboo word to use but not anymore as that is how languages change

So not going to fuck off, you need to grow a pair

I have a nice pair.

Maybe the Afghans need to grow a pair and take care of their own damn women? Where Are Feminist Democrats on Afghan Women? 2190311264

Where Are Feminist Democrats on Afghan Women? 2190311264

by Guest Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:10 pm

Maddog wrote:
Thor wrote:

Even more retarded ha ha

What social skills, you think mocking you this way is now some how wrong?

I made this same mistake with veya once when he called me this and then I learnt something new

It was once a taboo word to use but not anymore as that is how languages change

So not going to fuck off, you need to grow a pair

I have a nice pair.

Maybe the Afghans need to grow a pair and take care of their own damn women?

I am glad you do, then stop being such a wally

Bit hard when under Taliban rule

Maybe you should read about what happened under Taliban rule

by Maddog Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:13 pm

Thor wrote:
Maddog wrote:

I have a nice pair.

Maybe the Afghans need to grow a pair and take care of their own damn women?

I am glad you do, then stop being such a wally

Bit hard when under Taliban rule

Maybe you should read about what happened under Taliban rule

Why?

Can't the Afghan army fight the Taliban?

You don't understand. Western forces in that country strengthen the Taliban. We need to get out and let Afghans handle their own affairs. God knows we have given them enough weapons and training.

by Guest Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:18 pm

Maddog wrote:
Thor wrote:

I am glad you do, then stop being such a wally

Bit hard when under Taliban rule

Maybe you should read about what happened under Taliban rule

Why?

Can't the Afghan army fight the Taliban?

You don't understand. Western forces in that country strengthen the Taliban. We need to get out and let Afghans handle their own affairs. God knows we have given them enough weapons and training.

I dont understand?

Really? How do they end up strenghening the taliban?

When they are at present hold up in Mountains on the border of Afghanistan

What is really needed, is to be able to go in and finish them off and the Pakistani Governement is the hindering block there.

by Maddog Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:44 pm

Thor wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Why?

Can't the Afghan army fight the Taliban?

You don't understand. Western forces in that country strengthen the Taliban. We need to get out and let Afghans handle their own affairs. God knows we have given them enough weapons and training.

I dont understand?

Really? How do they end up strenghening the taliban?

When they are at present hold up in Mountains on the border of Afghanistan

What is really needed, is to be able to go in and finish them off and the Pakistani Governement is the hindering block there.

It's called blowback.

When Western occupying forces kill people in Afghanistan, it's a recruiting tool for them. Even if it's members of the Taliban.

People are tribal and they prefer their bad tribe members over the good tribe members of a foreign occupying force.

The Afghans have to defeat the Taliban if you want real peace.

by Ben Reilly Mon Feb 18, 2019 11:01 pm

Nobody's ever going to change Afghanistan or Iraq or Saudi Arabia or any other country from the outside; it just doesn't work. Countries are like people - try to force them to change and they rebel.

Your time is much better spent trying to persuade with words, and at the end of the day you have to know when to back off.

by Original Quill Mon Feb 18, 2019 11:53 pm

Maddog wrote:Really? How do they end up strenghening the taliban?

You are just grooming the next generation of soldiers for them.

by Maddog Mon Feb 18, 2019 11:55 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:Really? How do they end up strenghening the taliban?

You are just grooming the next generation of soldiers for them.

I didn't write that Walter the Wino.

by Original Quill Tue Feb 19, 2019 12:09 am

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

You are just grooming the next generation of soldiers for them.

I didn't write that Walter the Wino.

...with a ton of verbiage. I wrote it shorter and better. Don't be jealous! Rolling Eyes

by Sponsored content