The world would have been much better off if the Obama administration would have done something useful years ago before the foreign fighters started showing up in numbers, but the American voters that showed up wanted "change."
*Including arms, supplies, and combat troops & trainers
That is nonsense. The Taliban were never going to hand over Bin Laden, that was just a distraction, a ruse. The US had previously indicted Bin Laden over the African embassy bombings and the Taliban wouldn't extradite him despite the evidence and indictment in the legal system. The Taliban heavily relied on al Qaida. Al Qaida was integrated into the military and government of Afghanistan. Somehow you picked up a load of misinformation.
Are you joking? Are you joking? People on Slashdot suggest that regularly! REGULARLY. I have to assume at this point you are simply being disingenuous, which would fit with the rest of your post. We both know, or should know in your case (no doubt), that the US government doesn't consider the entire US population to be "terrorist suspects." What was that you accused me of in your other post? Making use of strawmen? Well, since you use it against the US it will tend to be popular with many of the unusual mix of people that participate on Slashdot. I imagine that must give you a warm and fuzzy feeling.
Is it backwards day again? If so, I must have missed the announcement. Assuming that it isn't actually backwards day, lets correct your post.
The US didn't provide resources to start up al Qaida. Al Qaida declared war on the US and was attacking the US for years before it took effective action. Nowhere to I advocate murdering children. You seem to have an integrity problem. Oh yes, I am not an "establishment lapdog" just because I think defending the West from terrorists seeking to kill people by the thousands, or millions* if they can, is a good thing. (Does the fact that you seem to oppose such defense make you a terrorist lapdog?)
* They are actively seeking WMD, and already have the religious permission they believe they need to use them.
Who is al Qaida to you? If you are not a Sunni Muslim that abides by their interpretation of Sharia, they consider you an enemy to capture, kill, enslave, or convert. Who do you think they are? Friend? Enemy? No idea? Don't want to take sides?
If I gave you a long list of U.S.-supported torturers who were just as bad, would that change your opinion? Start with Pinochet.
So, how does that apply to dones, Romans, and Lizardoids? Mmm?
If you're going for lists of torturers, Pinochet is small potatoes. You need to go to the Soviets, or North Koreans, or the PRC if you want to be really competitive.
I don't think the Workers World Weekly has enough space to cover all the news. I can understand how you must miss some of it.
In the long run, no, they wouldn't stay at home. The radical Islamists are also imperialists that want to take over the governments of all nations, and bring about religious conversion of all people to Islam. It may not make sense to you, and you may not believe it, but they do. It is what they believe that counts, since that is what determines their goals and actions.
You started out promising, " let's take a look at your facts," but then you state this, "the Taliban, if that's what this man is referring to, were supported by the U.S. to fight the Soviets." Wrong, incredibly wrong. First, the US didn't support the Taliban fighting the Soviets since the Taliban formed during the Afghan civil war that occurred after the Soviets left Afghanistan. Second, it doesn't state what you claim in that story. The Taliban was never a US ally, but it did become an enemy.
That also makes you wrong about "they switched alliances."
Historians tend to be pretty clear about who is regarded as the enemy in a war, and use that word in the narrative as appropriate. Example: The Failures of Historiography
If a conflict is occurring between two other countries or factions, apart from your own, and you and your country are in no way involved, there really isn't a point where one of them is an enemy, unless they attack. If you can't call the side attacking your country, killing your countrymen, and trying to overthrow your way of life, "the enemy," that leads to some interesting questions.
Damn! This US intelligence is SO GOOD it kills "Al Qaeda" guys THREE TIMES!
So you're saying intelligence can be wrong? Fascinating. Based on my prior reading on Slashdot I understood that it couldn't be actually wrong, but simply used to lie the US into wars. You seem to be giving credence to the report that Saddam had his government lie and behave as if it was still in possession of chemical weapons to fool Iran but got more than he bargained for with a war involving the US.
You might be the most insightful when you don't intend to be.
If there are intelligence problems as you acknowledge, I wonder how much better the US would be if it were to stop intelligence surveillance of terrorists completely as some people have been suggesting. I think I've seen that picture before.
Maybe you haven't heard, but the US has forces in Afghanistan fighting them. The US forces went there because the Taliban had hosted Al Qaida, allowed them to set up training camps, integrated al Qaida into the Afghan government. Al Qaida then proceeded to attack the US repeatedly, including the 9/11 attacks that killed as many as the Pearl Harbor attack. Now that it looks like the US is going to be taking action involving Syria, the Taliban is fighting there with al Qaida as well.
My examples were to clarify their nature since many people are either uninformed, or in denial.
The Taliban has already attempted a bombing in New York City. Thankfully the bombing failed. The terrorist was captured, put on trial, and convicted. I believe other Afghans have been checked up on for possible misdeeds as well.
Besides trying to overthrow the Pakistani government, and retake Afghanistan, there are now hundreds of Taliban fighters in Syria. They are becoming a menace across the world. They might even make it to your land - Canada.
Al Qaida declared war on the US and took the Taliban with them for the ride. Have you ever blamed them for any misdeeds or murder?
How do you think they should be referred to? As the, "Asian gentlemen with a minor beheading problem?" "The life of the party with a suicide vest?" "The local representatives of Crucifier's Anonymous - the 12 step program to kill all your enemies?"
Once again you obscure the facts. The Maddox was attacked in international waters, not North Vietnamese waters. Just as North Vietnam was conducting a war of aggression against South Vietnam, it also engaged in aggression at sea.
On the afternoon of 2 August 1964, while steaming well offshore in international waters, Maddox was attacked by three North Vietnamese motor torpedo boats. The destroyer maneuvered to avoid torpedoes and used her guns against her fast-moving opponents, hitting them all. In turn, she was struck in the after gun director by a single 14.5-millimeter machine gun bullet. Maddox called for air support from the carrier Ticonderoga, whose planes strafed the three boats, leaving one dead in the water and burning. Both sides then separated.
2013: 9/11 - 3,000 lost lives have caused us to spend trillions on wars. A fraction of that invested in additional medical research would have saved far more. 1951: 12/7 - 3,000 lost lives have caused us to spend billion on wars. A fraction of that invested in additional medical research would have saved far more.
Make the wrong decision on defense matters and you lose many, many more lives.
Slashdot Mirror
A little math may be clarifying.
100% Iranian backed Assad regime* versus 200 Taliban / 50,000+ Syrian rebels.
Maybe you should worry more about the Australians since they may outnumber the Taliban.
G’Day Damascus: Australians Are Joining Syria’s Rebels in Surprising Numbers
The world would have been much better off if the Obama administration would have done something useful years ago before the foreign fighters started showing up in numbers, but the American voters that showed up wanted "change."
*Including arms, supplies, and combat troops & trainers
Well put.
That is nonsense. The Taliban were never going to hand over Bin Laden, that was just a distraction, a ruse. The US had previously indicted Bin Laden over the African embassy bombings and the Taliban wouldn't extradite him despite the evidence and indictment in the legal system. The Taliban heavily relied on al Qaida. Al Qaida was integrated into the military and government of Afghanistan. Somehow you picked up a load of misinformation.
Who has been suggesting it?
Are you joking? Are you joking? People on Slashdot suggest that regularly! REGULARLY. I have to assume at this point you are simply being disingenuous, which would fit with the rest of your post. We both know, or should know in your case (no doubt), that the US government doesn't consider the entire US population to be "terrorist suspects." What was that you accused me of in your other post? Making use of strawmen? Well, since you use it against the US it will tend to be popular with many of the unusual mix of people that participate on Slashdot. I imagine that must give you a warm and fuzzy feeling.
Is it backwards day again? If so, I must have missed the announcement. Assuming that it isn't actually backwards day, lets correct your post.
The US didn't provide resources to start up al Qaida. Al Qaida declared war on the US and was attacking the US for years before it took effective action. Nowhere to I advocate murdering children. You seem to have an integrity problem. Oh yes, I am not an "establishment lapdog" just because I think defending the West from terrorists seeking to kill people by the thousands, or millions* if they can, is a good thing. (Does the fact that you seem to oppose such defense make you a terrorist lapdog?)
* They are actively seeking WMD, and already have the religious permission they believe they need to use them.
Who is al Qaida to you? If you are not a Sunni Muslim that abides by their interpretation of Sharia, they consider you an enemy to capture, kill, enslave, or convert. Who do you think they are? Friend? Enemy? No idea? Don't want to take sides?
If I gave you a long list of U.S.-supported torturers who were just as bad, would that change your opinion? Start with Pinochet.
So, how does that apply to dones, Romans, and Lizardoids? Mmm?
If you're going for lists of torturers, Pinochet is small potatoes. You need to go to the Soviets, or North Koreans, or the PRC if you want to be really competitive.
This might help you out.
Holder: Pakistani Taliban helped direct Times Square plot
Pakistan Taliban arrive in Syria, and more are to come, CNN told
I don't think the Workers World Weekly has enough space to cover all the news. I can understand how you must miss some of it.
In the long run, no, they wouldn't stay at home. The radical Islamists are also imperialists that want to take over the governments of all nations, and bring about religious conversion of all people to Islam. It may not make sense to you, and you may not believe it, but they do. It is what they believe that counts, since that is what determines their goals and actions.
You started out promising, " let's take a look at your facts," but then you state this, "the Taliban, if that's what this man is referring to, were supported by the U.S. to fight the Soviets." Wrong, incredibly wrong. First, the US didn't support the Taliban fighting the Soviets since the Taliban formed during the Afghan civil war that occurred after the Soviets left Afghanistan. Second, it doesn't state what you claim in that story. The Taliban was never a US ally, but it did become an enemy.
That also makes you wrong about "they switched alliances."
Historians tend to be pretty clear about who is regarded as the enemy in a war, and use that word in the narrative as appropriate. Example: The Failures of Historiography
If a conflict is occurring between two other countries or factions, apart from your own, and you and your country are in no way involved, there really isn't a point where one of them is an enemy, unless they attack. If you can't call the side attacking your country, killing your countrymen, and trying to overthrow your way of life, "the enemy," that leads to some interesting questions.
Damn! This US intelligence is SO GOOD it kills "Al Qaeda" guys THREE TIMES!
So you're saying intelligence can be wrong? Fascinating. Based on my prior reading on Slashdot I understood that it couldn't be actually wrong, but simply used to lie the US into wars. You seem to be giving credence to the report that Saddam had his government lie and behave as if it was still in possession of chemical weapons to fool Iran but got more than he bargained for with a war involving the US.
You might be the most insightful when you don't intend to be.
If there are intelligence problems as you acknowledge, I wonder how much better the US would be if it were to stop intelligence surveillance of terrorists completely as some people have been suggesting. I think I've seen that picture before.
Maybe you haven't heard, but the US has forces in Afghanistan fighting them. The US forces went there because the Taliban had hosted Al Qaida, allowed them to set up training camps, integrated al Qaida into the Afghan government. Al Qaida then proceeded to attack the US repeatedly, including the 9/11 attacks that killed as many as the Pearl Harbor attack. Now that it looks like the US is going to be taking action involving Syria, the Taliban is fighting there with al Qaida as well.
My examples were to clarify their nature since many people are either uninformed, or in denial.
The Taliban has already attempted a bombing in New York City. Thankfully the bombing failed. The terrorist was captured, put on trial, and convicted. I believe other Afghans have been checked up on for possible misdeeds as well.
Besides trying to overthrow the Pakistani government, and retake Afghanistan, there are now hundreds of Taliban fighters in Syria. They are becoming a menace across the world. They might even make it to your land - Canada.
Al Qaida declared war on the US and took the Taliban with them for the ride. Have you ever blamed them for any misdeeds or murder?
Compare the cost of drones to the cost of jet fighter aircraft, bombers, and attack helicopters. Drones are much cheaper to buy and operate.
Well... cough.... sorta, mostly.....
Sodomy "For the Sake of Islam"
Al Qaeda Bombers Learn from Drug Smugglers
Designed to create the belief:
1 - Intelligence intercepts and interrogations are effective at getting information that "protects" "us".
And you dispute that? People seem to be pretty eager to read them for what you think are ineffective methods.
2 - Drones are an effective weapon against "our" "enemies" and not principally dangerous to villagers and local civic functions.
Pakistani General: Actually, The Drones Are Awesome
You take issue with referring to the ever fun-loving Taliban and al Qaida as enemies?
17 Beheaded in Taliban-Controlled Afghanistan for Attending Wedding Party with Dancing
Taliban Hangs Afghan Boy, 7, for Spying
I was one of the Taliban's torturers: I crucified people
How do you think they should be referred to? As the, "Asian gentlemen with a minor beheading problem?" "The life of the party with a suicide vest?" "The local representatives of Crucifier's Anonymous - the 12 step program to kill all your enemies?"
So your thinking is that al Qaida and company never get tired of the game of "catch the Hellfire"? I don't know about that.
I'm guessing this play would no longer find as large an audience.
Once again you obscure the facts. The Maddox was attacked in international waters, not North Vietnamese waters. Just as North Vietnam was conducting a war of aggression against South Vietnam, it also engaged in aggression at sea.
Actions in the Gulf of Tonkin, August 1964
On the afternoon of 2 August 1964, while steaming well offshore in international waters, Maddox was attacked by three North Vietnamese motor torpedo boats. The destroyer maneuvered to avoid torpedoes and used her guns against her fast-moving opponents, hitting them all. In turn, she was struck in the after gun director by a single 14.5-millimeter machine gun bullet. Maddox called for air support from the carrier Ticonderoga, whose planes strafed the three boats, leaving one dead in the water and burning. Both sides then separated.
So, the Maddox really was attacked then. Thank you.
Any reason you didn't link to the first attack? You're not trying to mislead people, are you?
Same complaint, different year.
2013: 9/11 - 3,000 lost lives have caused us to spend trillions on wars. A fraction of that invested in additional medical research would have saved far more.
1951: 12/7 - 3,000 lost lives have caused us to spend billion on wars. A fraction of that invested in additional medical research would have saved far more.
Make the wrong decision on defense matters and you lose many, many more lives.
Al Qaeda bungles arms experiment
Even if our society managed to put enough measures in place to mitigate all but the risks associated with an asteroid impact,
Try that post again, but change "asteroid impact" to "climate change" nee "global warming" and see what kind of moderation you get.
Two choices. Get it while it is in the submission queue and vote it down, or don't post in it if it becomes a story on the front page.
I can see that you're an idiot. I don't know why you bothered to post.
Feel free to try that strategy. I wouldn't recommend it.