Lxxx Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 Would this be the same Taliban who were invited to Washington to be wined and dined in early 2001 to discuss the possibility of huge corporate US oil interests raping their country in return for huge sums of money, but refused the deal. Soon afterwards they were not friends anymore. So the Taliban are the natives of what country exactly? Eh? I'm not sure what you're getting at. The Taliban in 2001 were the people best suited to negotiate with in Afghanistan as they were what could be best described as the people holding most power, the word power used loosely as it has always been a disparate country, divided up by warlords and loose alliances based on tribal and religious lines. But then you knew all that as you're our resident geo-political expert arent you and just wanted to act smart as usual. So according to you in 2001 US corporate interests were lining up to "rape" Afghanistan of it's "oil" reserves with the blessing of the Taliban??? You know here is proof that "Care In The Community" simply isn't working... India, obviously. Okay dokey. Nite nite grandad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 India, obviously. Complete bollocks, obviously. As I posted previously, you should quit while you're still behind.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 India, obviously. Complete bollocks, obviously. As I posted previously, you should quit while you're still behind.... Oh dear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 Maybe the real question is whether we have all lost out to the post cold war struggle between so called liberal Western democracy and/or its industrio/military complex and the Muslim fundamentalists. My view is a resounding yes. Never have our freedoms been at such risk, never have their been so many restrictions and so much tracing and recording of what we communicate and where we go In ordinary peace time governments would not have been able to sneak it in under the radar or use the terrorist threat as a cover or excuse. Yes dispute specific stuff like the UK anti terrorism legislataion was enacted due to the Northern Ireland situation but current restrictions/impositions are way more extensive and intrusive than DORA in WW's 1 amd 2. We have beconme desensitised, these things were put on the statute books, historically, as temporary provisions, they are now permanent and much harder to remove Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 I have to admit I don't feel any more restricted than 20 years ago. I'm aware of hugely increased surveillance but it holds no fears for me. Why should it? I would include items like network sniffers a la NarusInsight as well. If you don't like the idea of your porno-downloads being intercepted then don't download on your own system. It's like the pathetic complaints of "intrusion" by the likes of Google Streetview - as it's no more intrusive than folks walking down your street! The critical piece for me is not so much the data gathering but how the data is used, or rather abused. So who watches the watchers? Actually they have to watch themselves and they're rather good at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tweek Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 I'm convinced the authorities have now placed covert monitoring devices in animals. Our cat has been looking at me in a funny way most of the xmas holidays, watching my every move. Though that could also be that I sat on him by accident on christmas eve after a couple of sherberts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted January 1, 2013 Author Share Posted January 1, 2013 Maybe the real question is whether we have all lost out to the post cold war struggle between so called liberal Western democracy and/or its industrio/military complex and the Muslim fundamentalists. My view is a resounding yes. Islamic fundamentalism is only a reactionary movement - a response to corporate globalization which they perceive to be an affront to the integrity and honour of the Ummah (the Islamic nation). It is not the natural character of Islamic civilization. They see themselves as being in a state of war, and quite rightly too - they are obviously geographically situated in such a way as to make them a threat to any powers which seek hegemony over the earth's natural resources. Given the fact that it is an anti-imperialist reactionary movement, I'd have to put Islamic fundamentalism on the same side as western liberal democracy. Although the Islamists have little regard for individual liberty, they are defending their national freedom against corporate interests; on the other hand, in the west we can see a war going on between corporate interests and individual liberty. I think classical liberals and Islamic fundamentalists, however much they disagree, have a common enemy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 Dhimmi... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted January 1, 2013 Author Share Posted January 1, 2013 Dhimmi... Christian Europe was just as f-cked up in its treatment of non-members of the status quo religion. Just ask the Jews and the Cathari (good luck with the latter, seeing as they were all wiped out). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Smelly Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Well in order to see if it is a success you need to look at history, the taliban were actually supplied by the yanks when they fought the russians. So the answer to your question is that its was only a success for the people who supply the military machine. No one ever wins wars they just run out of money, look at korea they are still at war since the 50's We all know the taliban will take over from the yanks when they pull out, and i thought it was bin lid and crew who they were after, not a bunch on locals. Look at iraq another cock up, saddam had nukes and weapons of mass distraction, well thats what they said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2bees Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 The same people who won the war on drugs....oh wait... OMG...A post by MDO that made me laugh - wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IOMRS97 Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 Has anyone thought about the parallels with World War Two? In that conflict a great many 'enemy aliens' were interned (some on the Isle of Man) for the duration of the war in case they acted against the national interest. In the present day there is no such action against the various individuals who could be thought to be supporters of terrorism - talk about 'the enemy within'! Sadly, the so called War on Terror cannot be won - or at least it can, but only by the terrorists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 The "War on Terror" cannot be won, because it is a war against an idea, and ideas can only be destroyed by completely irradiating those who follow it. The same is true with the "War on Drugs". As long as there are rich Westerns who want to take them, then there will be a trade looking to support them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 The "War on Terror" cannot be won, because it is a war against an idea, and ideas can only be destroyed by completely irradiating those who follow it. The same is true with the "War on Drugs". As long as there are rich Westerns who want to take them, then there will be a trade looking to support them. A post by MDO that actually has me nodding in agreement. Unbelievable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Trumps Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 It's an impossible situation really isn't it.. Ideally you'd offer them a huge financial carrot if they operated as a positive society with education & equality for wimmin etc & then bomb the feck out of them from a distance if they chose not to accept the carrot But that just encourages them to go on the warpath So you're back to square one Wonder what Bish Bob recommends? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.