Karzai Twists the Knife - Would Support Pakistan over US

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Such as the US's harsh treatment of that part of the world, as compared to the rest of the world. Countries like Saudi Arabia and the Emirates do in fact produce religious fanatics who hate us for fairly crappy reasons, but people in places like North or East Africa--or, for that matter, Pakistan--have somewhat more dialectically standard fish to fry.

I thought the Allies freed North Africa during WWII, no? 

---

How is it 'championing individual freedom' to judge and at times wage war on people on the basis of their religion.

Judge?  As in their souls? No, I’ll leave that up to Christ.  But their actions I judge as Satanic.  But, the US hasn’t waged war on anyone due to their religion, unless they’ve declared war on us first (e.g. Osama, Taliban, etc)

See, if I were on a jury, it wouldn’t matter to me if a Christian was accusing a Muslim or a Muslim was accusing a Christian, I’m going to decide based on the actions of the individuals…but the vast majority of Muslims are going to side with the Muslim regardless if the Muslim broke into the Christian’s house raped and pillaged his whole family. 

The vast majority of Muslims stick with Muslims no matter what the facts are, because that is the mindset of Islam.  Christianity, on the other hand, forbids favoritism.

---

Related question: Have you ever actually met a practising Muslim?

I am in IT you know

[opebo]

I would like to see those 1.6B polled on the following question:  "Who would you support in a war between the US and Pakistan?"

I'd guess at least 80% would choose Pakistan

As they obviously should, jmfcst.  The victims of imperialism do generally resent the imperialist.  Pakistan by comparison never hurt anyone.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Such as the US's harsh treatment of that part of the world, as compared to the rest of the world. Countries like Saudi Arabia and the Emirates do in fact produce religious fanatics who hate us for fairly crappy reasons, but people in places like North or East Africa--or, for that matter, Pakistan--have somewhat more dialectically standard fish to fry.

I thought the Allies freed North Africa during WWII, no?  

And subsequently propped up brutal dictators for decades until continuing became excessively painful for our image, yes. We overthrew the first, last, and only sort-of democratic government in the history of Iran, among other things. In the case of North Africa, we sold arms to Qaddafi towards the end and were buddy-buddy with Mubarak and Ben Ali for decades. Now those countries are turning into religiously-flavored flawed democracies, which is in most cases closer to what the people who live there want, as opposed to what we want them to want. I know, life sucks. Deal with it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Whose actions, precisely, are we talking about again. Is this still the generalized agglomeration of 1.6 billion people or is this a smaller subset now? For the sake of your soul I sincerely hope it's the latter.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good for you.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, the vast majority of people in the Third World stick with other people of their real or perceived in-group no matter what the facts are, because that's the mindset of shared poverty and more often than not shared oppression. Christians in the First World stick with other people on the basis of class or ethnicity or sex or other perceived community more often than not, as much as somebody with an ideological stake in individualism might yearn to deny this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Both you and your colleagues have my condolences.

One last thing: I'm NOT trying to defend Karzai here. Karzai doesn't have any of the excuses that people in this part of the world so often end up with. We've been propping the man up for a decade to little or no perceivable benefit to the United States. Karzai is a tool. He's basically a drug-addled Muslim version of you. All I'm asking is that you stop demonizing one fifth of the world's population.

Stop demonizing one fifth of the world's population, jmfcst.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Stop demonizing one fifth of the world's population, jmfcst.

people are people and demons are demons - therefore, it's not the people who are demonic, it's their religion that is demonic

[© tweed]

Stop demonizing one fifth of the world's population, jmfcst.

people are people and demons are demons - therefore, it's not the people who are demonic, it's their religion that is demonic

getting tired of this crap.  the Judeo-Christian USA has military presence in 130 countries.  has orchestrated the only large scale invasions of sovereign states in the past decade, both, of course, of predominantly Muslim countries.  your eschatological prejudice can't hold up to objective fact, doesn't try to, and, worst of all, is widespread and destructive.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

getting tired of this crap.  the Judeo-Christian USA has military presence in 130 countries.  has orchestrated the only large scale invasions of sovereign states in the past decade, both, of course, of predominantly Muslim countries.  your eschatological prejudice can't hold up to objective fact, doesn't try to, and, worst of all, is widespread and destructive.

Saddam had violated the cease-fire agreement on what, 14 counts?  (fyi...in the future if your don't agree with the terms of cease-fire agreements, then stick with the war plan)  And the Taliban was protecting someone who openly attacked us.  Now, I think what Bush was attempting to accomplish in both countries was exceedingly naive, considering that 1) they were both intolerant Muslim countries, and 2) had no experience with democracy and tolerance...but we still had every right to wipe them off the map.

[Insula Dei]

getting tired of this crap.  the Judeo-Christian USA has military presence in 130 countries.  has orchestrated the only large scale invasions of sovereign states in the past decade, both, of course, of predominantly Muslim countries.  your eschatological prejudice can't hold up to objective fact, doesn't try to, and, worst of all, is widespread and destructive.

Saddam had violated the cease-fire agreement on what, 14 counts?  (fyi...in the future if your don't agree with the terms of cease-fire agreements, then stick with the war plan)  And the Taliban was protecting someone who openly attacked us.  Now, I think what Bush was attempting to accomplish in both countries was exceedingly naive, considering that 1) they were both intolerant Muslim countries, and 2) had no experience with democracy and tolerance...but we still had every right to wipe them off the map.

If one were to highlight every instance of Jmfcst illustrating that he has no idea what decency entails, one would no doubt grow depressed really, really fast.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

If one were to highlight every instance of Jmfcst illustrating that he has no idea what decency entails, one would no doubt grow depressed really, really fast.

CountryA starts war with CountryB, yet CountryA is the one that has the right to be treated with decency?!  Hate to shake you up, but wars involve killing people, not treating them decently.

[© tweed]

getting tired of this crap.  the Judeo-Christian USA has military presence in 130 countries.  has orchestrated the only large scale invasions of sovereign states in the past decade, both, of course, of predominantly Muslim countries.  your eschatological prejudice can't hold up to objective fact, doesn't try to, and, worst of all, is widespread and destructive.

Saddam had violated the cease-fire agreement on what, 14 counts?  (fyi...in the future if your don't agree with the terms of cease-fire agreements, then stick with the war plan)  And the Taliban was protecting someone who openly attacked us.  Now, I think what Bush was attempting to accomplish in both countries was exceedingly naive, considering that 1) they were both intolerant Muslim countries, and 2) had no experience with democracy and tolerance...but we still had every right to wipe them off the map.

If one were to highlight every instance of Jmfcst illustrating that he has no idea what decency entails, one would no doubt grow depressed really, really fast.

dates back to Winthop, not his fault.

[Sbane]

If one were to highlight every instance of Jmfcst illustrating that he has no idea what decency entails, one would no doubt grow depressed really, really fast.

CountryA starts war with CountryB, yet CountryA is the one that has the right to be treated with decency?!  Hate to shake you up, but wars involve killing people, not treating them decently.

Iraq started war with America? Have you completely lost it now?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Iraq started war with America? Have you completely lost it now?

 

no, they started a war with Kuwait, and then when given 5 months to withdraw didn't, and so the US joined the battle...then Iraq made a ceasefire agreement to end hostilities, then violated that ceasefire in 14(?) areas...and violations of ceasefire agreements amount to an act of war.  Just because the US and its allies were too soft to do anything about it, doesn't mean the US and its allies weren't justified in resuming hostilities...if you don't like the terms of the ceasefire agreement, then don't make it in the first place.

as for Bush43, he should have just played hit and run throughout the middle east, wiping out the armed forces of Iraq/Iran/Syria/Afghanistan and then brought the troops home in time for the start of 1993 World Series...it was naive to occupy and attempt to bring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Sbane]

Iraq started war with America? Have you completely lost it now?

 

as for Bush43, he should have just played hit and run throughout the middle east, wiping out the armed forces of Iraq/Iran/Syria/Afghanistan and then brought the troops home in time for the start of 1993 World Series...it was naive to occupy and attempt to bring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Wasn't talking about the first war of course. Anyways, your plan is so f'ed up that I had to laugh. Why would we attack Iraq, Iran or Syria for 9/11? Why would we even bomb Afghanistan for that matter? Just send in the seals or the marines and get sh**t done. No need for shock and awe dick waving. Unless people like you really are trying to compensate for something.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Wasn't talking about the first war of course. Anyways, your plan is so f'ed up that I had to laugh. Why would we attack Iraq, Iran or Syria for 9/11?

Afghanistan - because they hosted and protected Osama

Iran/Syria - because they are terrorist nations

Iraq - because Saddam violated cease fire, and mostly because it provides an excuse to bring 100's thousands of US troops into the region to go after the real target - Iran.

and then come home

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

jmfcst, has it ever occurred to you that it's intrinsically wrong to kill people, not just incidentally wrong to kill people from cultures and under governments of which you approve?

[Sbane]

Afghanistan didn't need to be bombed to get Osama though. The Taliban didn't even know what was going to happen with 9/11. Leave the stone age tribes alone. I would love to go in there and rescue the Afghani women (they should all be given automatic green cards), but we can't have everything.

As for the other countries, the US shouldn't be the world police.

[patrick1]

Afghanistan didn't need to be bombed to get Osama though. The Taliban didn't even know what was going to happen with 9/11. Leave the stone age tribes alone. I would love to go in there and rescue the Afghani women (they should all be given automatic green cards), but we can't have everything.

As for the other countries, the US shouldn't be the world police.

AQ had thousands of heavily armed supporters and training camps throughout the country.  The Taliban had close financial and military ties with Al Qaeda-  Why else kill does AQ kill Massoud days before 9/11. Further, the Taliban outright refused to hand he and his co-conspirators over directly after the attacks. 

Presently, I think our mission should now be wound down as we have achieved many of our objectives.   The structure is now much more amorphous and I think it is now time for the scalpel approach. Thus, we should reduce our footprint.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Asshole.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Asshole.

This, I hope everybody can agree on.

[opebo]

Asshole.

You mean Karzai or jmfcst?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

jmfcst, has it ever occurred to you that it's intrinsically wrong to kill people, not just incidentally wrong to kill people from cultures and under governments of which you approve?

there is nothing intrinsically wrong with killing those who are trying to kill you...it's called self-defense.  Iran has been at war with the US since 1979, and every move they make is an attempt to destroy us, mainly because we are Israel's protector. 

And your attitude demonstrates why Iran believes the US is already defeated:

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

It's better than your attitude, which, at least on foreign policy, is more aggressively ignorant, myopic, and compassionless than I would have liked to think possible.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

It's better than your attitude, which, at least on foreign policy, is more aggressively ignorant, myopic, and compassionless than I would have liked to think possible.

my attitude is much better than the all the last six (6) US administrations, and would have led to less US and foreign lives lost. 

For example, I never would have occupied Iraq or Afghanistan if I were Bush43, and if I were Obama, I would have pulled troops out of those two countries by May 2009. 

And if I were president during 9/11, I would have used Iraq as a stepping stone to position US forces and would have taken out the airforce and navy of Iran, and the airforce of Syria...then all of our troops would come home...and I wouldn't have hampered the request of US special forces in Afghanistan and therefore Torra Bora would have had a completely different outcome…and our troops would have been home from the ME by Oct 2003.

And my attitude is far better then the current US administration’s handling of the Arab Spring, which is only guaranteeing the creation of several more Iran’s, this time of the Sunni flavor.  I mean, how ignorant do you have to be not to have known Egypt would turn into a radical Sunni state?

US foreign policy has failed, and is continuing to fail, simply because it deals with Muslim nations in the same way it deals with the Soviets or the Chinese.   But the motivations and desires of the religious, especially Muslims, are different than the motivations and desires of the secular.  And if I attempted to engineer a religious armageddon, it would be hard pressed to come up with a more efficient plan than the policy the US has pursued and currently pursues, because these people will simply continue to come after us, and as their capabilities grow, their ability to generate a world war grows.

Your attitude is going to need new excuses just about every month for the next 5 to 10 years.  And as the naiveté of your attitude is demonstrated over and over again, you and people like you will continue to shift the blame on the US and Israel, until the West no longer exists.

[Mechaman]

So pretty much violence is only wrong when it's done by muslims?

Because obviously liberty loving Jesus freaks don't kill.  They LIBERATE.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

So pretty much violence is only wrong when it's done by muslims?

Because obviously liberty loving Jesus freaks don't kill.  They LIBERATE.

whose talking about liberating?  I'm talking about in 2003, after invading Iraq and destroying its Airforce and heaving infantry, using Iraq as a base to go after Iran and Syria.  Once enough US forces are in Iraq, we take our US carriers out of the Persian Gulf and launch a strike that takes out Iran silkworm missiles, its Navy, its Airforce, and its ground to ground missiles...once the seas and air are secure, then you go in with tanks for a month or two to mop up and then we leave, with the expressed notice that we will be back whenever we choose if Iran doesn't stop its antiWest activities.  Civilian casualties would be very low.

We're already at war with Iran and have been since 1979.  We've simply been fighting the war on their terms, not ours.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

And my attitude is far better then the current US administration’s handling of the Arab Spring, which is only guaranteeing the creation of several more Iran’s, this time of the Sunni flavor.  I mean, how ignorant do you have to be not to have known Egypt would turn into a radical Sunni state?

jmfcst, you think any Sunni state is radical. Besides, the Middle East exists for people who live there, not for the benefit of the West. The Middle East doesn't dislike the West just because we're here; they dislike us in part because we're there. If we had pursued your policy towards Iran and Syria the entire Third World would have turned much more radically against us than it has anyway.

And whether or not killing people is effective or leads to desired results has no bearing on whether or not it's wrong. It's wrong to kill enemy combatants. It may be excusable given circumstances, but it's still wrong; and it's not excusable to kill civilians--any civilians--because of the actions of their governments.

You, on the other hand, do think that it's okay to kill civilians because you don't like their government, which is also al-Qaeda's justification for 9/11. Literally that was their exact excuse, that American civilians are culpable for US government action because the US government is elected.