Where Are Feminist Democrats on Afghan Women?

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I didn't write that Walter the Wino.

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

Thor wrote it, not me.

You start drinking early today?

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

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

Thor wrote it, not me.

You start drinking early today?

I know that. The auto-name function on the quote button put in your name w/out my permission. I guess it's a default option with the first name on the list.

What you wrote was a long, protracted answer saying the same thing I said. I wrote it shorter and better...that's all I'm saying.

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:

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.    

No Wahhabism is the ability that is able for the recruitment drive of people to commit violence

As how do you think they get people to form into their groups without the ideology and kill?

You see this is where people make the same idiotic mistake

People are not driven to terrorism, because some people die or are involved in wars, its hateful ideologies that they are driven to

Emotions are played off people dying using that ideology. Fo example we lose people to terrorism. Does that drive us retaliate against Muslims by murdering them? No, as it takes a hateful ideology to draw people to its hate and to then use violence

What you have to do is actually defeat the ideology, which is far more difficult in this case, as its so close to Islamic ideology

The moment you surrender support to people. Then that shows weakness, for the enemy to capitalise on and would be a far greater propaganda coup for them.

That is what you fail to grasp

Like I said its also the first line of defense also for the west against terrorism

You see the best way to tackle bad and poor ideologies is that people are educated. This is why the Taliban fear people being educated

Its the best weapon in fighting poor beliefs, but that will all go, if the Taliban gain control again. The more people educated, the less people will be driven to their cause. Without at least two generations of people educated. Then there is little hope of taking on the ideology. The way to defeat it is with more people being educated. Without protection, being re denied even a basic education.

So I understand this better than most on here, who as far as I am conerned continually stick their heads in the sand when it comes to understanding how to long term solve a problem

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:

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.    

No Wahhabism is the ability that is able for the recruitment drive of people to commit violence

As how do you think they get people to form into their groups without the ideology and kill?

You see this is where people make the same idiotic mistake

People are not driven to terrorism, because some people die or are involved in wars, its hateful ideologies that they are driven to

Emotions are played off people dying using that ideology. Fo example we lose people to terrorism. Does that drive us retaliate against Muslims by murdering them? No, as it takes a hateful ideology to draw people to its hate and to then use violence

What you have to do is actually defeat the ideology, which is far more difficult in this case, as its so close to Islamic ideology

The moment you surrender support to people. Then that shows weakness, for the enemy to capitalise on and would be a far greater propaganda coup for them.

That is what you fail to grasp

Like I said its also the first line of defense also for the west against terrorism

You see the best way to tackle bad and poor ideologies is that people are educated. This is why the Taliban fear people being educated

Its the best weapon in fighting poor beliefs, but that will all go, if the Taliban gain control again. The more people educated, the less people will be driven to their cause. Without at least two generations of people educated. Then there is little hope of taking on the ideology. The way to defeat it is with more people being educated. Without protection, being re denied even a basic education.

So I understand this better than most on here, who as far as I am conerned continually stick their heads in the sand when it comes to understanding how to long term solve a problem

I'm not saying that the Taliban shouldn't be fought. 

However you refuse to accept the concept of blowback. 

We cant fight them anymore.  We are occupiers and unwanted.

The Afghans need to fight for their country now. They need to take on the Taliban.  

And if we want to fight Wahhabism. We need to start bombing Saudi

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:

No Wahhabism is the ability that is able for the recruitment drive of people to commit violence

As how do you think they get people to form into their groups without the ideology and kill?

You see this is where people make the same idiotic mistake

People are not driven to terrorism, because some people die or are involved in wars, its hateful ideologies that they are driven to

Emotions are played off people dying using that ideology. Fo example we lose people to terrorism. Does that drive us retaliate against Muslims by murdering them? No, as it takes a hateful ideology to draw people to its hate and to then use violence

What you have to do is actually defeat the ideology, which is far more difficult in this case, as its so close to Islamic ideology

The moment you surrender support to people. Then that shows weakness, for the enemy to capitalise on and would be a far greater propaganda coup for them.

That is what you fail to grasp

Like I said its also the first line of defense also for the west against terrorism

You see the best way to tackle bad and poor ideologies is that people are educated. This is why the Taliban fear people being educated

Its the best weapon in fighting poor beliefs, but that will all go, if the Taliban gain control again. The more people educated, the less people will be driven to their cause. Without at least two generations of people educated. Then there is little hope of taking on the ideology. The way to defeat it is with more people being educated. Without protection, being re denied even a basic education.

So I understand this better than most on here, who as far as I am conerned continually stick their heads in the sand when it comes to understanding how to long term solve a problem

I'm not saying that the Taliban shouldn't be fought. 

However you refuse to accept the concept of blowback. 

We cant fight them anymore.  We are occupiers and unwanted.

The Afghans need to fight for their country now. They need to take on the Taliban.  

And if we want to fight Wahhabism. We need to start bombing Saudi

The vast majority of Afghans reject the taliban, around 90% mate

So you are placing fear of around 10% of the population who support the Taliban and not the majority that does need our help

You fight wahhabism through education

Hence its vital that people have the opportunity of an education

Like I said you need to look long term

All the main terrorist groups are wahhabists

Didge wrote:You fight wahhabism through education

You fight all of it through education.

There 1.6-billion Muslims in the world, every one a potential soldier of Islam. Your options under military means, are: (1) genocide; or (2) protracted conventional war, and lose. There is no good military endgame.

Send the troops home.

Didge wrote:The vast majority of Afghans reject the taliban, around 90% mate

So you are placing fear of around 10% of the population who support the Taliban and not the majority that does need our help

If the 90% are willing to stand up for themselves, let them go at it.  Send our troops home and we'll read about it in the papers.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:So you are placing fear of around 10% of the population who support the Taliban and not the majority that does need our help

If the 90% are willing to stand up for themselves, let them go at it.  Send our troops home and we'll read about it in the papers.

I see the point has gone over your head again

You will read the Taliban being able to take over yet again

It takes time to build up a well trained army that can handle itself against an enemy that has decades of experince in fighting wars

That is what you fail to grasp

You have no comprehension of long term goals

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:You fight wahhabism through education

You fight all of it through education.

There 1.6-billion Muslims in the world, every one a potential soldier of Islam.  Your options under military means, are: (1) genocide; or (2) protracted conventional war, and lose.  There is no good military endgame.

Send the troops home.

And they have been potential soldiers for Islam for the last 3 decades

Yet the vast majority have not turned to extremist Islam

The Military options are very simple of which Israel has shown the way every single time

A willing resolve not to bow down to terror.

Intelligence on terror organisations, which their intelligence has led to western nations being able to thwart terrorism in their countries.

So there is no need for genecide, as this is not a war on Muslims, as you as per usual stupidly think. Just as the terrorists believe also

Hence you buy into their ideology, where as the vast majority of Muslim do not

So there is no conventional war against Islam and never has been since the crusades

So stop with idiocy, its boring and you look a complete fuckwit

As you negate many Muslims are our allies in this fight against terrorism and extremism

Thor wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

If the 90% are willing to stand up for themselves, let them go at it.  Send our troops home and we'll read about it in the papers.

I see the point has gone over your head again

You will read the Taliban being able to take over yet again

It takes time to build up a well trained army that can handle itself against an enemy that has decades of experince in fighting wars

And how's that going? We've been over there since 2003, presumably getting them in shape. Or, did it just dawn on us to train their soldiers for their fight?

Do the Taliban train harder? Learn sooner? Apparently, they have soldiers who weren't even born yet when we started this war. How is it that they appear to be battle-ready, while you are pleading for more time "to build up a well trained army".

Original Quill wrote:

Thor wrote:

I see the point has gone over your head again

You will read the Taliban being able to take over yet again

It takes time to build up a well trained army that can handle itself against an enemy that has decades of experince in fighting wars

And how's that going?  We've been over there since 2003, presumably getting them in shape.  Or, did it just dawn on us to train their soldiers for their fight?

Do the Taliban train harder?  Learn sooner?  Apparently, they have soldiers who weren't even born yet when we started this war.  How is it that they appear to be battle-ready, while you are pleading for more time "to build up a well trained army".

Well it takes a very long time to rebuild a nation that was placed back into 7th century ideology and infrutsructure

It took a long time to rebuild Germany and the US are still there as a first line of defense. 

In fact the US occupied Germany until 1955 and then they remain in great numbers as a defense against the Soviets

We never even invaded Afghanistan. we assisted the Northern Alliance in their war with the Taliban, so it was not even an occuparion.

So rome was not built in a day, and we are already talking a bout a country that was sent back to the dark ages

So search your own history to see how long these events take

The conflict had been going on for years until a majority control was gained. Only the could implimentaion of plans for education, infrutsructure, military can start to form.

You are basically looking at a nation with high illiteracy, due to the taliban

Thor wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

And how's that going?  We've been over there since 2003, presumably getting them in shape.  Or, did it just dawn on us to train their soldiers for their fight?

Do the Taliban train harder?  Learn sooner?  Apparently, they have soldiers who weren't even born yet when we started this war.  How is it that they appear to be battle-ready, while you are pleading for more time "to build up a well trained army".

Well it takes a very long time to rebuild a nation that was placed back into 7th century ideology and infrutsructure

It took a long time to rebuild Germany and the US are still there as a first line of defense. 

In fact the US occupied Germany until 1955 and then they remain in great numbers as a defense against the Soviets

We never even invaded Afghanistan. we assisted the Northern Alliance in their war with the Taliban, so it was not even an occuparion.

So rome was not built in a day, and we are already talking a bout a country that was sent back to the dark ages

So search your own history to see how long these events take

The conflict had been going on for years until a majority control was gained. Only the could implimentaion of plans for education, infrutsructure, military can start to form.

You are basically looking at a nation with high illiteracy, due to the taliban

Well, 18 years, a trillion dollars and thousands of American not to mention many more Afghan deaths, isn't enough.

But keep doing what we have been doing. No doubt we are on the cusp of changing their minds.

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:


Well it takes a very long time to rebuild a nation that was placed back into 7th century ideology and infrutsructure

It took a long time to rebuild Germany and the US are still there as a first line of defense. 

In fact the US occupied Germany until 1955 and then they remain in great numbers as a defense against the Soviets

We never even invaded Afghanistan. we assisted the Northern Alliance in their war with the Taliban, so it was not even an occuparion.

So rome was not built in a day, and we are already talking a bout a country that was sent back to the dark ages

So search your own history to see how long these events take

The conflict had been going on for years until a majority control was gained. Only the could implimentaion of plans for education, infrutsructure, military can start to form.

You are basically looking at a nation with high illiteracy, due to the taliban

Well, 18 years, a trillion dollars and thousands of American not to mention many more Afghan deaths, isn't enough.

But keep doing what we have been doing. No doubt we are on the cusp of changing their minds.    

That is because it is still an open conflict which I believe in the end the Afgans will triump over the Talian

I mean we are talking about less 10,000 troops, which is small compared to 38,000 in Japan, 34,000 in Germany and 24,000 in South Korea

These 3 countries have seen some of the longest deployments of US forces in history

I dont see anyone asking for them to come home. I guess maybe you think they should, but again they are a first line of defense

Anyway, I doubt we will agree on this mate

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Well, 18 years, a trillion dollars and thousands of American not to mention many more Afghan deaths, isn't enough.

But keep doing what we have been doing. No doubt we are on the cusp of changing their minds.    

That is because it is still an open conflict which I believe in the end the Afgans will triump over the Talian

I mean we are talking about less 10,000 troops, which is small compared to 38,000 in Japan, 34,000 in Germany and 24,000 in South Korea

These 3 countries have seen some of the longest deployments of US forces in history

I dont see anyone asking for them to come home. I guess maybe you think they should, but again they are a first line of defense

Anyway, I doubt we will agree on this mate

Those deployments are to countries that are safer than the US, and the people there (for the most part) want US troops there.

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:

That is because it is still an open conflict which I believe in the end the Afgans will triump over the Talian

I mean we are talking about less 10,000 troops, which is small compared to 38,000 in Japan, 34,000 in Germany and 24,000 in South Korea

These 3 countries have seen some of the longest deployments of US forces in history

I dont see anyone asking for them to come home. I guess maybe you think they should, but again they are a first line of defense

Anyway, I doubt we will agree on this mate

Those deployments are to countries that are safer than the US, and the people there (for the most part) want US troops there.

South Korea safer than the US, with a loon on its border in charge in North Korea?

Where is the view many Afghans do not want US troops defending them?

That is just your perception

Anyway, this is going in circles like i say

We will never agree on this

And, we are not bombing the people of Germany, Japan or S. Korea.

Every time we take out some Taliban, we take out some non Taliban and create more recruits.

That's the problem when foreigners try to settle internal affairs of other countries. They always kill people of that country no matter which side they support.

Maddog wrote:And, we are not bombing the people of Germany, Japan or S. Korea.

Every time we take out some Taliban, we take out some non Taliban and create more recruits.

That's the problem when foreigners try to settle internal affairs of other countries. They always kill people of that country no matter which side they support.  

We have done in the past and here is a good example to show your claim has no bases about fueling people to the taliban

As where is all the Japanese and German terrorists against the US and the forces in their countries?

Both Germany and Japan, saw more civillians die that were actually targetted by the US and allied forces.

Where in  Afghanistan, this has been in error, where civillians have been killed

Hence again and why ists the ideology that drives extremism  and terrorism

You see in Both Germany and Japan, their countries received devastation on an industrial scale. Yet we do not see any revenge acts sof terrorism. Two reasons.

One: That they were completely and utterly destroyed as a force and their nations

Two: This ended up also defeating their ideologies of Far right racist nationalist hate, which both countries thrived on before and during the war.

It broke the will of them, for any further or later ressistance

Go figure

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:And, we are not bombing the people of Germany, Japan or S. Korea.

Every time we take out some Taliban, we take out some non Taliban and create more recruits.

That's the problem when foreigners try to settle internal affairs of other countries. They always kill people of that country no matter which side they support.  

We have done in the past and here is a good example to show your claim has no bases about fueling people to the taliban

As where is all the Japanese and German terrorists against the US and the forces in their countries?

Both Germany and Japan, saw more civillians die that were actually targetted by the US and allied forces.

Where in  Afghanistan, this has been in error, where civillians have been killed

Hence again and why ists the ideology that drives extremism  and terrorism

You see in Both Germany and Japan, their countries received devastation on an industrial scale. Yet we do not see any revenge acts sof terrorism. Two reasons.

One: That they were completely and utterly destroyed as a force and their nations

Two: This ended up also defeating their ideologies of Far right racist nationalist hate, which both countries thrived on before and during the war.

It broke the will of them, for any further or later ressistance

Go figure

They surrendered and accepted defeat.

They sent troops into other countries and were defeated. They were not having a civil war.

You can't compare the US occupation of Afghanistan with the WWII.

It's more like British Palestine after WWII. The British, rightfully so, got the fuck out of there and let the folks of that region settle the score. And 60 years later, it's not exactly settled either.

Probably won't be anytime soon either, and British troops in the region wouldn't have helped, and would have simply made it worse.

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:

We have done in the past and here is a good example to show your claim has no bases about fueling people to the taliban

As where is all the Japanese and German terrorists against the US and the forces in their countries?

Both Germany and Japan, saw more civillians die that were actually targetted by the US and allied forces.

Where in  Afghanistan, this has been in error, where civillians have been killed

Hence again and why ists the ideology that drives extremism  and terrorism

You see in Both Germany and Japan, their countries received devastation on an industrial scale. Yet we do not see any revenge acts sof terrorism. Two reasons.

One: That they were completely and utterly destroyed as a force and their nations

Two: This ended up also defeating their ideologies of Far right racist nationalist hate, which both countries thrived on before and during the war.

It broke the will of them, for any further or later ressistance

Go figure

They surrendered and accepted defeat.

They sent troops into other countries and were defeated. They were not having a civil war.

You can't compare the US occupation of Afghanistan with the WWII.

It's more like British Palestine after WWII. The British, rightfully so, got the fuck out of there and let the folks of that region settle the score. And 60 years later, it's not exactly settled either.

Probably won't be anytime soon either, and British troops in the region wouldn't have helped, and would have simply made it worse.  

They surrendered and why did they surrender?

because they engaged in totoal war and it was total war that brought about their downfall. So much so, both ideologies collapsed in both countries.

So in this situation, it would be more realistic to make your view on terrorism. Being as Germany and Japan was occupied for years by the US and allies. They had suffered millions of casulties in civillians and yet no terrorism against US forces or terrorism in the US

Its nothing like the British Mandate of palestine

That was offered to the Jews.

78% was then given to the Arabs to form the country later called Jordan

The Arabs refused to live next door to Jews with self determination

The Arabs rejected a partition plan in 1937, which gave them the majority of the resst of the 22% 

The Arabs throughout this time and even before the British created the mandate had been persecuting Jews and Christians in the area

in 1947 the UN voted on another partition plan. The Arabs rejected this also and immediatelly started a civil war within the Mandate

In 1948 Israel declared indepence and was immediately invaded by surrounding Arabs states, that rejected their right to self determination

Exactly how Hitler and Stalin invaded Poland, as they rejected Polish self determination and carved up the country for themselves and then went on to butcher countless Polish people

Luckily the Israeli's defeated the Arabs, otherwise there would be no Jews today in Israel

So the Arab israeli conflict is nothing like Afghanistan and more like WW2. As the Arab Leaders vowed to wipe out the Jews. Just as Hitler vowed t do and nearly did wipe them out in Europe

And there was no civil war when the Mandate was created by the league of nations

Get your history right mate

So again where was all the terrorism from the Germans and japanese?

Didge wrote:Well it takes a very long time to rebuild a nation that was placed back into 7th century ideology and infrutsructure

Don't say 'rebuild a nation'. That's neo-con talk...very unpopular in America. Why do we rebuild? Are we presuming to better than them?

Isn't that what the USSR was doing with, say, Poland and E. Germany? Bad Russia, bad, bad, bad.

Didge wrote:In fact the US occupied Germany until 1955 and then they remain in great numbers as a defense against the Soviets

In fact we're still there. We maintain a facility at Rhein-Main Air Base, and military casualties still fly through Frankfort.

Didge wrote:So search your own history to see how long these events take

How long did it take you guys to remake Ireland?

Didge wrote:The conflict had been going on for years until a majority control was gained. Only the could implimentaion of plans for education, infrutsructure, military can start to form.

You are basically looking at a nation with high illiteracy, due to the taliban

Sounds expensive. Till 'em, United States passes.

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:

They surrendered and accepted defeat.

They sent troops into other countries and were defeated. They were not having a civil war.

You can't compare the US occupation of Afghanistan with the WWII.

It's more like British Palestine after WWII. The British, rightfully so, got the fuck out of there and let the folks of that region settle the score. And 60 years later, it's not exactly settled either.

Probably won't be anytime soon either, and British troops in the region wouldn't have helped, and would have simply made it worse.  

They surrendered and why did they surrender?

because they engaged in totoal war and it was total war that brought about their downfall. So much so, both ideologies collapsed in both countries.

So in this situation, it would be more realistic to make your view on terrorism. Being as Germany and Japan was occupied for years by the US and allies. They had suffered millions of casulties in civillians and yet no terrorism against US forces or terrorism in the US

Its nothing like the British Mandate of palestine

That was offered to the Jews.

78% was then given to the Arabs to form the country later called Jordan

The Arabs refused to live next door to Jews with self determination

The Arabs rejected a partition plan in 1937, which gave them the majority of the resst of the 22% 

The Arabs throughout this time and even before the British created the mandate had been persecuting Jews and Christians in the area

in 1947 the UN voted on another partition plan. The Arabs rejected this also and immediatelly started a civil war within the Mandate

In 1948 Israel declared indepence and was immediately invaded by surrounding Arabs states, that rejected their right to self determination

Exactly how Hitler and Stalin invaded Poland, as they rejected Polish self determination and carved up the country for themselves and then went on to butcher countless Polish people

Luckily the Israeli's defeated the Arabs, otherwise there would be no Jews today in Israel

So the Arab israeli conflict is nothing like Afghanistan and more like WW2. As the Arab Leaders vowed to wipe out the Jews. Just as Hitler vowed t do and nearly did wipe them out in Europe

And there was no civil war when the Mandate was created by the league of nations

Get your history right mate

So again where was all the terrorism from the Germans and japanese?

The Germans and the Japanese has legitimate governments that signed formal unconditional surrender documents.

The Taliban are a concept, that spans more than one country. They will not surrender, and they will not make deals with western forces. They don't believe we have a right to be there.

The Germans and Japanese admitted fault for the war and accepted the fact that we had a legal right to be there. It's hugely different.

Why were British soldiers coming home in body bags from Israel/Palestine?

Who was killing them?

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:


They surrendered and why did they surrender?

because they engaged in totoal war and it was total war that brought about their downfall. So much so, both ideologies collapsed in both countries.

So in this situation, it would be more realistic to make your view on terrorism. Being as Germany and Japan was occupied for years by the US and allies. They had suffered millions of casulties in civillians and yet no terrorism against US forces or terrorism in the US

Its nothing like the British Mandate of palestine

That was offered to the Jews.

78% was then given to the Arabs to form the country later called Jordan

The Arabs refused to live next door to Jews with self determination

The Arabs rejected a partition plan in 1937, which gave them the majority of the resst of the 22% 

The Arabs throughout this time and even before the British created the mandate had been persecuting Jews and Christians in the area

in 1947 the UN voted on another partition plan. The Arabs rejected this also and immediatelly started a civil war within the Mandate

In 1948 Israel declared indepence and was immediately invaded by surrounding Arabs states, that rejected their right to self determination

Exactly how Hitler and Stalin invaded Poland, as they rejected Polish self determination and carved up the country for themselves and then went on to butcher countless Polish people

Luckily the Israeli's defeated the Arabs, otherwise there would be no Jews today in Israel

So the Arab israeli conflict is nothing like Afghanistan and more like WW2. As the Arab Leaders vowed to wipe out the Jews. Just as Hitler vowed t do and nearly did wipe them out in Europe

And there was no civil war when the Mandate was created by the league of nations

Get your history right mate

So again where was all the terrorism from the Germans and japanese?

The Germans and the Japanese has legitimate governments that signed formal unconditional surrender documents.

The Taliban are a concept, that spans more than one country. They will not surrender, and they will not make deals with western forces. They don't believe we have a right to be there.

The Germans and Japanese admitted fault for the war and accepted the fact that we had a legal right to be there. It's hugely different.  

Why were British soldiers coming home in body bags from Israel/Palestine?

Who was killing them?  

What has legitimate governements got to do with anything when they had fanatical supporters, willing to give their lives to the cause?

Seriously?

Poor point to say the least and again trying to dopdge the point and question

The Taliban are simple yet another ideological group who thinks they cannot lose and like others will in end be defeated

You just were not listening to how the Japanese and Germans were defeated

Does not matter if Nazi Germany and Japan admitted defeat. They had little choice, as for example Germany was completely over run. They even had set up a terrorist organisation to fight on called the Werewolves, which amounted to very little. Apart from murdering a German Mayor in Aachan. Who the Americans set up whilst the war was till being fought.

They Nazi's and Imperial Japanese had fanatical support, by their followers. This is evident with the Jpanese who had suicide attacks with soldiers, planes and submarines. You dont get much more fanatical than that. So you are avoiding the ideological aspect here which saw nazi's and Japanese give their lives willinging to the cause.

So where was all the terrorism from them after the war and today, for all the killings of German and Japanese people?

You are just poorly dodging the question'

As to British soldiers, some were being murdered by Arabs and Jews through terrorism, riots, violence etc that is not why they left though. They were always going to leave as the Mandates were set up to form countries. Out of the fall of the Ottoman Empire. There was a mandate for Syria, Mesopotania ect. So they were always going to leave the area. It was the Arab violence that put paid to the creation of a Jewish stateby the British. Which later led to the formation of a Jewish terrorist group, which was not supported by the Jewish Zionist leaders. Only later did the Israeli's announce independence themselves.

Do I have to teach you everything on history?.

The facts are this. The Arab nations were like the Nazi's. Poland was a newly created nation, which Hitler and Stalin wish to eradicate from existance. The Arabs wanted to eradicate the newly formed Jewish state from existance. Later many of these Arab states have come to peace with israel, which proves there is a way forward with this and many of these same Aran states are getting fed up with the Palestinian authority. If they end up losing their lifeline of funding by them. Then they will in the end seek peace with Israel. Which they could have done multiple times and then had a state. They have constantly chosen conflict with Israel everytime, over that of a state and peace for the Palestinians Arabs.

I see you change tact again and ignored the actul history, that like the Nazi's the Arabs sought to wipe out the Jews.

So again where is all the terrorism from Germans and Japanese?

A few more dead soldiers should do the trick. 18 years is almost enough.

Maddog wrote:A few more dead soldiers should do the trick.  18 years is almost enough.  

I guess when more terrorism happens again in the Us and it leads back to a taliban controlled Afghanistan. You will wonder why the US never continued its first line of defense strategy in Afgahnistan

So I guess you are bowing out of the debate now

Thanks for the discussion

Didge wrote:What has legitimate governements got to do with anything when they had fanatical supporters, willing to give their lives to the cause?

More so the Japanese were the fanatics, but to answer your first point, the existence of legitimate governments made WWII a symmetrical conflict. It's easier to have an endgame in a symmetrical conflict. There is someone to surrender.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:What has legitimate governements got to do with anything when they had fanatical supporters, willing to give their lives to the cause?

More so the Japanese were the fanatics, but to answer your first point, the existence of legitimate governments made WWII a symmetrical conflict.  It's easier to have an endgame in a symmetrical conflict.  There is someone to surrender.

Gibberish on all levels

For example East germany was never recognised in the west as legitimate

In other words your argument is a red herring

The taliban wqas recognised by some nations

So i ask again, if the bases what draws people to extremist groups is people bombed and occupation. Where was the terrorism from the Japanese and Germans, who also had fanatical supporters for their ideological goverments?

The end game was total war against that ideology.

It worked so well, that neither has risen again as a threat

If we used such tactics against the taliban, the same would happen

Thor wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

More so the Japanese were the fanatics, but to answer your first point, the existence of legitimate governments made WWII a symmetrical conflict.  It's easier to have an endgame in a symmetrical conflict.  There is someone to surrender.

Gibberish on all levels

For example East germany was never recognised in the west as legitimate

In other words your argument is a red herring

The taliban wqas recognised by some nations

So i ask again, if the bases what draws people to extremist groups is people bombed and occupation. Where was the terrorism from the Japanese and Germans, who also had fanatical supporters for their ideological goverments?

The end game was total war against that ideology.

It worked so well, that neither has risen again as a threat

If we used such tactics against the taliban, the same would happen

No doubt, it's beyond you.  But you did ask the question: "What has legitimate governements got to do with anything..." You are notable for whining at people to answer your questions.  So, look up asymmetrical war.

You'll learn that wars conducted by legitimate governments present a much more defined package than wars that arise from grass-roots--religious or cultural--origins.

Wiki wrote:Asymmetric warfare (or asymmetric engagement) is war between belligerents whose relative military power differs significantly, or whose strategy or tactics differ significantly. This is typically a war between a standing, professional army and an insurgency or resistance movement militias who often have status of unlawful combatants.

In particular, you'll learn that such grass-roots sources have much broader and more sustaining support from the, well, grass-roots.  They are not organized and paid-for armies, but much more ingrained in the culture.  Most importantly, they can last for generations, and on, and on, and on...etc.

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:A few more dead soldiers should do the trick.  18 years is almost enough.  

I guess when more terrorism happens again in the Us and it leads back to a taliban controlled Afghanistan. You will wonder why the US never continued its first line of defense strategy in Afgahnistan

So I guess you are bowing out of the debate now

Thanks for the discussion

The first line of defense is to not create terrorists by killing people in foreign countries, unless there government is attacking your country.

Original Quill wrote:

Thor wrote:

Gibberish on all levels

For example East germany was never recognised in the west as legitimate

In other words your argument is a red herring

The taliban wqas recognised by some nations

So i ask again, if the bases what draws people to extremist groups is people bombed and occupation. Where was the terrorism from the Japanese and Germans, who also had fanatical supporters for their ideological goverments?

The end game was total war against that ideology.

It worked so well, that neither has risen again as a threat

If we used such tactics against the taliban, the same would happen

No doubt, it's beyond you.  But you did ask the question: "What has legitimate governements got to do with anything..."  So, look up asymmetrical war.

You'll learn that wars conducted by legitimate governments present a much more defined package than wars that arise from grass-roots--religious or cultural--origins.

Wiki wrote:Asymmetric warfare (or asymmetric engagement) is war between belligerents whose relative military power differs significantly, or whose strategy or tactics differ significantly. This is typically a war between a standing, professional army and an insurgency or resistance movement militias who often have status of unlawful combatants.

In particular, you'll learn that such grass-roots sources have much broader and more sustaining support from the, well, grass-roots.  They are not organized and paid-for armies, but much more ingrained in the culture.  Most importantly, they can last for generations, and on, and on, and on...etc.

I have studied history beyond your conprehension Quill and no full well, that your view on legitimate governements is simple a red herring

I mean for example the Soviet Union was never a legitimate Governement, or did you not know that?

The west was aghast when the Soviet Union joined forces with the Nazi's to invade Poland and deny them self determination

So what the fuck are you talking about?

As, it was only with the invasion of the Soviet Union, that the British came to see them as the enemy of my enemy is my friend. They never saw them as a legitimate government

What you are doing is poorly trying to sly awy from the point at hand

The claim is that bombings of civillians is what drives terrorism

I say that is a crock of shit for many reasons

We have seen nations suffered a thousand times worse with civillian casulaties in conflicts. With far more fanatical support and when defeated with total war. Are so defeated and crushed. They have recognised the futility of their situation

So please spare me the bull crap on Asymmetric warfare. That is about as dumb as it gets

This is about what drives people to acts of war, which Asymmetric warfare has no bearing, even though in every single case it was Asymmetric warfare against the Taliban and Iraw under Saddam.

So where does that leave your argument?

The only reason islamic terrorism has been able to draw people to them is one simple factor

Islamic ideology, through wahhabism

You see on history and conflicts, you are never the person to understand any of this. You simple make up bullshit as you go along

Maybe you can explain why these same extremists have been butchering far more Muslims?

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:

I guess when more terrorism happens again in the Us and it leads back to a taliban controlled Afghanistan. You will wonder why the US never continued its first line of defense strategy in Afgahnistan

So I guess you are bowing out of the debate now

Thanks for the discussion

The first line of defense is to not create terrorists by killing people in foreign countries, unless there government is attacking your country.

So where is the terrorist german and japanese terrorists against the US?

We bombed the shit out of their people

Okay , now i am going to explain why Quill and maddog are talking a load of shit

In this country, the UK, we have received many terrorist acts, that have killed civillian lives. If the view that it is what happened to civillians was the driving factor why people turned to terrorism. Then  we would see unprecdented terrorism against Muslims in retaliation,

We rarely see that and there is a reason. Its because an ideology is behind why people commit acts of terror. 

For example extremist Muslims have no qualms about murdering other Muslims. They never see them as Muslims, based on their ideology. That is why shia and sunni Muslims have been at war since the conception of islam. Its all about an ideology. That sees and advises followers that they will get a free pass into heavon. If they willingly give their lives up in killing others. This is one of the most vilest aspects of islam that is constantly abused.

Its how islamic extremists use Islam itself to draw people to their cause. They really do not care about bombings of civillians, that is simple propaganda. Which they then cast people who die as martyrs. Even if they are murdering people. In oter words its not about revenege but the extremes of the ideology taught. That they view Islam as at war with the west. When the west is not at war with islam. Yet this is how they are able to draw people to them. They claim  anyone that dies even iff accidental. is a war on islam

Its how hamas uses human shields by force to gain support in the media. They know deaths are seen through a lens that is horrifific. Where even though they create this. They are able to win support through what they actually create.

So deaths is not the factor that causes terrorism. Its the ideology and always has been. Its what was able to make catholic Germans shoot out of hand civillians. Its what was used and allowed for Russians to rape german women.

Hate is driven by ideologies, that at times use wrongs as pretext to commit wrongs in thier name. When in reality, those ideologies already allow for the worst forms of violence. No jews did any wrong to Germans did they?

Thor wrote:Okay , now i am going to explain why Quill and maddog are talking a load of shit

In this country, the UK, we have received many terrorist acts, that have killed civillian lives. If the view that it is what happened to civillians was the driving factor why people turned to terrorism. Then  we would see unprecdented terrorism against Muslims in retaliation,

We rarely see that and there is a reason. Its because an ideology is behind why people commit acts of terror. 

For example extremist Muslims have no qualms about murdering other Muslims. They never see them as Muslims, based on their ideology. That is why shia and sunni Muslims have been at war since the conception of islam. Its all about an ideology. That sees and advises followers that they will get a free pass into heavon. If they willingly give their lives up in killing others. This is one of the most vilest aspects of islam that is constantly abused.

Its how islamic extremists use Islam itself to draw people to their cause. They really do not care about bombings of civillians, that is simple propaganda. Which they then cast people who die as martyrs. Even if they are murdering people. In oter words its not about revenege but the extremes of the ideology taught. That they view Islam as at war with the west. When the west is not at war with islam. Yet this is how they are able to draw people to them. They claim  anyone that dies even iff accidental. is a war on islam

Its how hamas uses human shields by force to gain support in the media. They know deaths are seen through a lens that is horrifific. Where even though they create this. They are able to win support through what they actually create.

So deaths is not the factor that causes terrorism. Its the ideology and always has been. Its what was able to make catholic Germans shoot out of hand civillians. Its what was used and allowed for Russians to rape german women.

Hate is driven by ideologies, that at times use wrongs as pretext to commit wrongs in thier name. When in reality, those ideologies already allow for the worst forms of violence. No jews did any wrong to Germans did they?

Oh great! I cant wait.

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:Okay , now i am going to explain why Quill and maddog are talking a load of shit

In this country, the UK, we have received many terrorist acts, that have killed civillian lives. If the view that it is what happened to civillians was the driving factor why people turned to terrorism. Then  we would see unprecdented terrorism against Muslims in retaliation,

We rarely see that and there is a reason. Its because an ideology is behind why people commit acts of terror. 

For example extremist Muslims have no qualms about murdering other Muslims. They never see them as Muslims, based on their ideology. That is why shia and sunni Muslims have been at war since the conception of islam. Its all about an ideology. That sees and advises followers that they will get a free pass into heavon. If they willingly give their lives up in killing others. This is one of the most vilest aspects of islam that is constantly abused.

Its how islamic extremists use Islam itself to draw people to their cause. They really do not care about bombings of civillians, that is simple propaganda. Which they then cast people who die as martyrs. Even if they are murdering people. In oter words its not about revenege but the extremes of the ideology taught. That they view Islam as at war with the west. When the west is not at war with islam. Yet this is how they are able to draw people to them. They claim  anyone that dies even iff accidental. is a war on islam

Its how hamas uses human shields by force to gain support in the media. They know deaths are seen through a lens that is horrifific. Where even though they create this. They are able to win support through what they actually create.

So deaths is not the factor that causes terrorism. Its the ideology and always has been. Its what was able to make catholic Germans shoot out of hand civillians. Its what was used and allowed for Russians to rape german women.

Hate is driven by ideologies, that at times use wrongs as pretext to commit wrongs in thier name. When in reality, those ideologies already allow for the worst forms of violence. No jews did any wrong to Germans did they?

Oh great! I cant wait.

Well, what wrong did many Muslims do to ISIS or the taliban?

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:
Oh great! I cant wait.

Well, what wrong did many Muslims do to ISIS or the taliban?

Nothing.

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:


Well, what wrong did many Muslims do to ISIS or the taliban?

Nothing.

So will you now accept that the bombing of civillians had nothing to do with this?

It has everything to do with a hateful ideology?

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:
Nothing.

So will you now accept that the bombing of civillians had nothing to do with this?

It has everything to do with a hateful ideology?

No.

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:


So will you now accept that the bombing of civillians had nothing to do with this?

It has everything to do with a hateful ideology?

No.

Why not?

Okay what did Belgium do, to suffer Islamic terrorism?

The export of waffles or Tin Tin?

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/15/us/letter-killing-terrorists-creating-more.html

Maddog wrote:https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/15/us/letter-killing-terrorists-creating-more.html

That is as usual an idiotic opinion piece that fails to understand the problem

If it was true, we would see mass terrrorism from germans and Japanese

Why dont we?

Its the ideology, which you fail to grasp

It was the ideology that drew people to the Hitler youth

It was the ideology of the bushido code. that had many japanese become fanatically suicidal

Has the penny dropped yet?

What is martyrdom in Islam?

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2017/06/08/commentary/world-commentary/age-blowback-terror/#.XG2CcBJMG9c

https://mises.org/wire/are-we-fighting-terrorism-or-creating-more-terrorism

Maddog wrote:https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2017/06/08/commentary/world-commentary/age-blowback-terror/#.XG2CcBJMG9c

Another opinion piece

If it was true, we would see mass terrrorism from germans and Japanese

Why dont we?

Its the ideology, which you fail to grasp

It was the ideology that drew people to the Hitler youth

It was the ideology of the bushido code. that had many japanese become fanatically suicidal

Has the penny dropped yet?

What is martyrdom in Islam?

Maddog wrote:https://mises.org/wire/are-we-fighting-terrorism-or-creating-more-terrorism

The Mises Institute has been criticized by some libertarians for the incorporation of paleolibertarian and right-wing cultural views, including the positions taken by some of its leading figures on topics such as race, immigration, and the presidential campaign of Donald Trump.^[29][30][31] Often these criticisms affirm that there are aspects of the paleolibertarian ideology that supposedly are at odds with the views of the historical Ludwig von Mises^[32] despite the historical Mises seems have sympathized to some conservative or right-wing cultural views.^[33] In an article written on Institute Chairman Lew Rockwell's website, Jacob Huebert observes that socially liberal libertarians have often accused the Mises Institute of racism. He calls the charges erroneous and argues that they might stem from the support of some Institute scholars for immigration restrictions, its support of Confederate secession, or its uncompromising stand on libertarian issues and property rights.^[34]
In 2003, Chip Berlet of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) described the Mises Institute as "a major center promoting libertarian political theory and the Austrian School of free market economics", also noting Rothbard's opposition to child labor laws and the anti-immigrant views of other Institute scholars.^[35] Heidi Beirich, also with the SPLC, describes the Institute as "a hard-right libertarian foundation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mises_Institute#Criticisms


Again a opinion by a bias 


answer my points mate


If it was true, we would see mass terrrorism from germans and Japanese

Why dont we?

Its the ideology, which you fail to grasp

It was the ideology that drew people to the Hitler youth

It was the ideology of the bushido code. that had many japanese become fanatically suicidal

Has the penny dropped yet?

What is martyrdom in Islam?

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2017/06/08/commentary/world-commentary/age-blowback-terror/#.XG2CcBJMG9c

Another opinion piece

If it was true, we would see mass terrrorism from germans and Japanese

Why dont we?

Its the ideology, which you fail to grasp

It was the ideology that drew people to the Hitler youth

It was the ideology of the bushido code. that had many japanese become fanatically suicidal

Has the penny dropped yet?

What is martyrdom in Islam?

You're a gigantic opinion piece. 

Who's opinion should I weigh more heavily, considering the situation in Afghanistan has gotten worse in recent years?

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:
Another opinion piece

If it was true, we would see mass terrrorism from germans and Japanese

Why dont we?

Its the ideology, which you fail to grasp

It was the ideology that drew people to the Hitler youth

It was the ideology of the bushido code. that had many japanese become fanatically suicidal

Has the penny dropped yet?

What is martyrdom in Islam?

You're a gigantic opinion piece. 

Who's opinion should I weigh more heavily, considering the situation in Afghanistan has gotten worse in recent years?

That is fine that you think that

But i am reasoning my points

You though are left clutching straws and now left to posting links as a counter

Why is that?

Can you not reason your own views?

Why not actually enage my points?

If it was true, we would see mass terrrorism from germans and Japanese

Why dont we?

Its the ideology, which you fail to grasp

It was the ideology that drew people to the Hitler youth

It was the ideology of the bushido code. that had many japanese become fanatically suicidal

Has the penny dropped yet?

What is martyrdom in Islam?

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:
You're a gigantic opinion piece. 

Who's opinion should I weigh more heavily, considering the situation in Afghanistan has gotten worse in recent years?

That is fine that you think that

But i am reasoning my points

You though are left clutching straws and now left to posting links as a counter

Why is that?

Can you not reason your own views?

Why not actually enage my points?

If it was true, we would see mass terrrorism from germans and Japanese

Why dont we?

Its the ideology, which you fail to grasp

It was the ideology that drew people to the Hitler youth

It was the ideology of the bushido code. that had many japanese become fanatically suicidal

Has the penny dropped yet?

What is martyrdom in Islam?

You dont accept my views. Im just giving you more views to not accept.

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:


That is fine that you think that

But i am reasoning my points

You though are left clutching straws and now left to posting links as a counter

Why is that?

Can you not reason your own views?

Why not actually enage my points?

If it was true, we would see mass terrrorism from germans and Japanese

Why dont we?

Its the ideology, which you fail to grasp

It was the ideology that drew people to the Hitler youth

It was the ideology of the bushido code. that had many japanese become fanatically suicidal

Has the penny dropped yet?

What is martyrdom in Islam?

You dont accept my views. Im just giving you more views to not accept.

You are not taking  on my views and i wish you would

I would prefer your reasons, as I respect them

You are simple discounting mine, when they are based on history, facts and reason.

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:


You dont accept my views. Im just giving you more views to not accept.

You are not taking  on my views and i wish you would

I would prefer your reasons, as I respect them

You are simple discounting mine, when they are based on history, facts and reason.

I dont accept your views, you dont accept mine. 

Afghanistan is a disaster and 3 presidents and dozens of generals have tried to fix it.  

I'm going to wager a bet that your views won't fix it either, or it would be fixed by now.