TSR Foreign Affairs Hub
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Stalin
I'm not against the Iraq War as you portray me to be; I'm merely critical of it, because it has been a colossal failure.
OBL made it quite clear: he didn't wage his defensive jihad against the US because of its liberties etc; he waged it because it was occupying the Middle East and staunchly supported Israel.
He was more than a mere paper boy during the Soviet-Afghan War: alongside Azzam, he ceated the Maktab al-Khidamat, which not only brought money to Afghanistan, but Arabs, Arabs who would partake in the war.
Contrary to popular belief, he saw combat in the war. And was, according to the testimonies from former al-Qaeda members who now oppose Bin Laden, always the last one off the battlefield. He set up schools for the wounded and gave them cheques for their loyalty towards Islam, and improved Afghanistan's infrastructure with his experience as a sort of construction manager.
Page 84.
I love it when the Israel lobby is mentioned in a discussion with a Zionist.
Again, with your years of experience in Congress you must be well aware that the AIPAC phenomenon is a massive exaggeration: they don't campaign fervently against you if you speak out against Israel, lambasting you as an anti-Semite, a Holocaust denier etc; nor do they fund the politicians running against you, ergo making victory for you all too easy.
You asked me why OBL hated the Saudi monarchy: (1) it was, and remains, repressive; (2) it was not as Islamic as he wanted it to be; (3) it betrayed him - during the Gulf War, Bin Laden offered to build defences along the Iraq-Saudi border, and offered his battle-hardened mujahideen to the King in a war against Saddam. The King rejected Bin Laden's services and went to the US instead, and even went as far as arresting 100~ insurgents on his farm, and disarming them. As a result, he became critical and the regime tried to silence him.
Now you're telling me that he isn't allowed to criticise the government, after I merely gave you his personal reasons for developing such hatred for the regime he once served.
OBL made it quite clear: he didn't wage his defensive jihad against the US because of its liberties etc; he waged it because it was occupying the Middle East and staunchly supported Israel.
He was more than a mere paper boy during the Soviet-Afghan War: alongside Azzam, he ceated the Maktab al-Khidamat, which not only brought money to Afghanistan, but Arabs, Arabs who would partake in the war.
Contrary to popular belief, he saw combat in the war. And was, according to the testimonies from former al-Qaeda members who now oppose Bin Laden, always the last one off the battlefield. He set up schools for the wounded and gave them cheques for their loyalty towards Islam, and improved Afghanistan's infrastructure with his experience as a sort of construction manager.
Page 84.
I love it when the Israel lobby is mentioned in a discussion with a Zionist.
Again, with your years of experience in Congress you must be well aware that the AIPAC phenomenon is a massive exaggeration: they don't campaign fervently against you if you speak out against Israel, lambasting you as an anti-Semite, a Holocaust denier etc; nor do they fund the politicians running against you, ergo making victory for you all too easy.
You asked me why OBL hated the Saudi monarchy: (1) it was, and remains, repressive; (2) it was not as Islamic as he wanted it to be; (3) it betrayed him - during the Gulf War, Bin Laden offered to build defences along the Iraq-Saudi border, and offered his battle-hardened mujahideen to the King in a war against Saddam. The King rejected Bin Laden's services and went to the US instead, and even went as far as arresting 100~ insurgents on his farm, and disarming them. As a result, he became critical and the regime tried to silence him.
Now you're telling me that he isn't allowed to criticise the government, after I merely gave you his personal reasons for developing such hatred for the regime he once served.
I have two things I want to say:
(1) On two occasions (which I have highlighted in red) you have made a classic folly of not really recognising what drives Osama bin Laden and jihadism. There was a fundamental reason why I kept on referring to Wahhabism (to which you repeated brushed off). Whatever pretext is given and advanced by jihadists (whether it is national pride, expulsion of invaders, the end of injustices, destruction of social ills etc .........) merely represents the surface of something much deeper. Whether it is state-sponsored or not, they are united by some revolutionary ideology. So when OBL expresses contempt for Saudi Arabia, Israel and the US, you think he just doesn't like them. Well, obviously but he wants something else. He wants to replace it with something different. Bin Laden has learnt to change his tune. He knows he'll get a lot more support in Europe if he denounces Israel, for instance. Wahhabism seeks to re-establish orthodox Islam ... and destroy its opponent - the Enlightenment values through violent struggle to usher in a new age of happiness for all ... Ideology is what drives these cogs. The reasons they give fit in with their ideology. But you make the enormous mistake avoiding identifying the revolutionary ideology at the heart of it - which is the central problem. According to you, he doesn't like the Saudi Arabian government because they tried to silence him ... or, erm, took-up jihad because they pissed him off. In that case, perhaps Mullah Omar was annoyed by the Russian accent .. and Hitler was bullied by a Jew ... Robespierre & Che Guevara just really didn't like working in a big company ... that explains everything about them!
(2) I am surprised, and disappointed, that you subscribe to the new implicit anti-Semitism with the suggests that Jews are running US foreign policy and harassing everyone they don't like. I am equally surprised at your criticism of my lack of Congress experience! Funny, can I have a look at your CV to assess from what authority you speak? No other country gets the criticism that Israel gets. If there was a Spanish equivalent of AIPAC - nobody would waste their time with such loose-thinking and conspiracy-minded horse**** ... but somehow when it comes to Israel that is perfectly fine (if not quietly enjoyable). Naturally, the filthy wretched Jews are at it again ... aren't they? The new Protocols of Zion kicks in and somehow Jews are trying to influence world affairs and foreign policy through malicious attacks. The myth goes that Congress is Jewish-territory. [Interestingly, this was originally a neo-Nazi conspiracy that, as you can imagine, appealed to general taste. They coined the phrase ZOG (Zionist Occupation Government) by which to call Congress.] I don't know you at all, but most people don't even recognise the inherent anti-Semitism with which they speak. According to your thinking, America supports Israel because Jews are controlling Congress and harassing people they don't like. Not only do you get a wonderful stab at the historic image of Jews, but also fail to recognise any legitimacy behind American support of Israel. The only country that Islamists seek to destroy - besides the US - is Israel. It has constitutional values that resemble the US. It allows heavy criticism of the Israeli government by Israelis, a thriving community with high standards of living, regular elections ... that gets attacked for existing .... and soooooooooo onnnn ....
I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to start-up an American equivalent to the ASI (Adam Smith Institute) and criticise those who call for ever-greater government intervention. I may do so with great pain - since it matters to me that poverty will increase because of gov. intervention. But somehow people are not allowed to criticise criticism of Israel. Because if I do, then I'm part of the AIPAC conspiracy!?? right? It is okay to have an Arab lobby, or a Christian-mother lobby, but there is something distinct about Jews that we just associate with evil conspiratorialism?
A holocaust denier and anti-Semite.... why can't I be allowed to call people what they are? Oh wait, I forgot! Israel lives by a different standard ... Jews ought to just take it ...
As it happens, AIPAC is an amorphous Zionist lobby trying to protect the very existence of Israel. No, it is not run by Likud ...
Original post by Lord Hysteria
Ok. Anyone willing to make bets on what will happen with Syria in:
- one week?
- one month?
- next year?
regime change or al-Assad remains?
- one week?
- one month?
- next year?
regime change or al-Assad remains?
Since Assad has enough people willing to murder their fellow citizens and there is no converted external pressure he will remain. The Syrian regime has enough bigger fish to prop it up for many years to come.
Original post by Aj12
Original post by Aj12
Why would tanks in Syria be firing at a Mosque?
In a lot of dictatorships in the Middle East large mosques were closed down and religious services closed down by government forces because they were likely to be a threat to the government (the same thing happened with churches/mosques in communist countries). Mosques in Benghazi have only been allowed to operate freely recently and Syria is more strictly secular than all others in the region, for example the headscarf is banned in many places. Also Syria has a Sunni majority and Assad is an Alawite which is a very small minority so the greatest threat to his power would come from there.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/13/world/middleeast/13iraq.html?_r=1&smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto
If you ever doubted Iranian influence on Iraq.
If you ever doubted Iranian influence on Iraq.
Original post by Aj12
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/13/world/middleeast/13iraq.html?_r=1&smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto
If you ever doubted Iranian influence on Iraq.
If you ever doubted Iranian influence on Iraq.
It's just the way it goes as hauntingly it is to say, hopefully it doesn't revert to another form of repression akin to Syria and Iran but I'm pretty sure the West is keeping a close eye on situations.
Although note the difference of approach based on the Shia and Sunni majority; Iraq took a pro-protesters avocation, hell even sent a ship full of supplies to them in Bahrain and then in Syria..... well that article proposes it's true intentions nicely.
Original post by Aj12
Original post by Aj12
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/13/world/middleeast/13iraq.html?_r=1&smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto
If you ever doubted Iranian influence on Iraq.
If you ever doubted Iranian influence on Iraq.
I was speaking to an Iraqi recently who lived under Saddam's regime as well as the current regime and he said the current government is basically run by the Mullahs in Iran.
Original post by CombineHarvester
I was speaking to an Iraqi recently who lived under Saddam's regime as well as the current regime and he said the current government is basically run by the Mullahs in Iran.
Had heard the same, do you know if they have made up their mind about US troops yet or not? Are the US troops allowed to be there by the end of the year?
Original post by Aj12
Had heard the same, do you know if they have made up their mind about US troops yet or not? Are the US troops allowed to be there by the end of the year?
There's too much at stake for the US; too much to lose. A bit of bribery, a few promises and the troops will stay.
Original post by Aj12
Original post by Aj12
Had heard the same, do you know if they have made up their mind about US troops yet or not? Are the US troops allowed to be there by the end of the year?
Areas like Iraqi Kurdistan want the troop presence because they fear sectarian violence so basically for security reasons they want them there. However, the government should be able to keep its own regions safe independently, the security forces are good enough. What I've heard is that the US troops will stay permanently to help conduct any possible invasion of Iran. The defence contractors also profit heavily from the troop presence (50,000 isn't it?) so don't expect them to leave any time soon.
(edited 12 years ago)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/14/us-pakistan-china-usa-idUSTRE77D2BT20110814
Pakistani's give China access to the helicopter that crashed in the Bin Laden raid. This is more of a **** you to America than anything else. The cockpit was destroyed by explosives so what China can gain from this will be limited. Not to mention that merely copying American techniques won't be enough to help them challenge the American military
Pakistani's give China access to the helicopter that crashed in the Bin Laden raid. This is more of a **** you to America than anything else. The cockpit was destroyed by explosives so what China can gain from this will be limited. Not to mention that merely copying American techniques won't be enough to help them challenge the American military
Original post by The_Male_Melons
Pleaaaase. You seem to hell-bent on militay power and war. Are you seriously that blood thirsty?
These claims are unsubstantiated and unqualified. There is no evidence that the Pakistanis showed the helicopter to the Chinese.
Even if they did, what use would it be to the Chinese as you state that "any gain will be limited"?
The fact of the matter is the helicopter is in Pakistan, which happens to be a sovereign country, so they can show to whomever they wish.
Perhaps, they did do it in retaliation to the "eff-yous" they get from Washington.
The eff-yous, like drone attacks or Raymond Davies or the fact that some of Pakistani leading scientists have been kidnapped or some of their civilian were killed..
These claims are unsubstantiated and unqualified. There is no evidence that the Pakistanis showed the helicopter to the Chinese.
Even if they did, what use would it be to the Chinese as you state that "any gain will be limited"?
The fact of the matter is the helicopter is in Pakistan, which happens to be a sovereign country, so they can show to whomever they wish.
Perhaps, they did do it in retaliation to the "eff-yous" they get from Washington.
The eff-yous, like drone attacks or Raymond Davies or the fact that some of Pakistani leading scientists have been kidnapped or some of their civilian were killed..
The paper that originals reported it are going to have sources. They aren't just going to report BS. The helicopter belongs to the US. The Pakistanis have no right to show it to the Chines. Pakistan fully supports the drone strikes behind closed doors was actually asking for more not to long ago.
Original post by The_Male_Melons
Pleaaaase. You seem to hell-bent on militay power and war. Are you seriously that blood thirsty?
These claims are unsubstantiated and unqualified. There is no evidence that the Pakistanis showed the helicopter to the Chinese.
Even if they did, what use would it be to the Chinese as you state that "any gain will be limited"?
The fact of the matter is the helicopter is in Pakistan, which happens to be a sovereign country, so they can show to whomever they wish.
Perhaps, they did do it in retaliation to the "eff-yous" they get from Washington.
The eff-yous, like drone attacks or Raymond Davies or the fact that some of Pakistani leading scientists have been kidnapped or some of their civilian were killed..
These claims are unsubstantiated and unqualified. There is no evidence that the Pakistanis showed the helicopter to the Chinese.
Even if they did, what use would it be to the Chinese as you state that "any gain will be limited"?
The fact of the matter is the helicopter is in Pakistan, which happens to be a sovereign country, so they can show to whomever they wish.
Perhaps, they did do it in retaliation to the "eff-yous" they get from Washington.
The eff-yous, like drone attacks or Raymond Davies or the fact that some of Pakistani leading scientists have been kidnapped or some of their civilian were killed..
Considering Sino-Pakistani ties have strengethered rather considerably over the last decade, I don't doubt for a mere second that the helicopter, albeit a useless helicopter, was shown to the Chinese.
As far as your opening statement is concerned, developing a liking to military affairs and being a hawk are two very different things; but seemingly enough, they're compatible in your eyes.
Original post by The_Male_Melons
Right. And? So what if it belongs to the US? It got shot down and was in Pakistan. Pakistan has every right to question an alien object that landed on their soil.
Even if they did show it to the Chinese - so what? As you said, they will have a "limited gain". Again, these claims are unsubstantiated.
Openly calling for more strikes- Is that why the Pakistani government (democratically elected) in their Parliament condemned the drone strike? It is more like, Washington phoned Islamabad and made a few threats. What about the kidnappings or the recent Raymond Davies case? Eff yous work both ways.
Even if they did show it to the Chinese - so what? As you said, they will have a "limited gain". Again, these claims are unsubstantiated.
Openly calling for more strikes- Is that why the Pakistani government (democratically elected) in their Parliament condemned the drone strike? It is more like, Washington phoned Islamabad and made a few threats. What about the kidnappings or the recent Raymond Davies case? Eff yous work both ways.
Oh don't give me bull**** about alien object. The CIA and American government had been asking for it back and Pakistan refused.
They clearly aren't unsubstantiated it is not very difficult to imagine a newspaper having sources in the Pakistan American or Chinese military.
Pakistan can't mind the strikes that much http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/wikileaks-cable-pakistan-asked-fewer-drones/story?id=13647893
At the same time the Pakistani public was decrying the CIA's use of drone strikes in their country, Pakistan's top army general was asking a top U.S. official in behind-the-scenes meetings for more drones to help during military operations, according to a leaked U.S. State Department cable published online today.
Of course they will be bitching in public, what a government says in public is fairly meaningless
Original post by The_Male_Melons
It was an alien object. The object landed in Pakistan. As far as I am aware, Pakistan is a sovereign nation. They have every right to inspect or do whatever they wish to the helicopter.
They have every right to refuse the US.Pakistan is a sovereign country, and probably needed time to inspect the object. Some sort of object violated their airspace, their territory and their sovereignty. They have every right to question what this mysterious object was.
Pakistan has asked for more drones- riiiight. Openly condeming it in Parliament, protests from government and the public, and recently shutting down a drone strike base is nothing.
I am confused certainly. I think it is more of a case Washington rings up Islamabad with the case of deadly threats.
They have every right to refuse the US.Pakistan is a sovereign country, and probably needed time to inspect the object. Some sort of object violated their airspace, their territory and their sovereignty. They have every right to question what this mysterious object was.
Pakistan has asked for more drones- riiiight. Openly condeming it in Parliament, protests from government and the public, and recently shutting down a drone strike base is nothing.
I am confused certainly. I think it is more of a case Washington rings up Islamabad with the case of deadly threats.Not if it is property of the United states and property they have asked for back. Lets say your car ends up in my back garden do I have the right to keep it?
Doubtful. Pakistan has a load of angry pissed off militants in their country that are trying to overthrow it. By allowing the US to take many of them out the lame for collateral damage can be left and the US's door and the Pakistan government can use it to distract the population from domestic affairs. From what I have heard it is not the "democratic" government running things in the country either.
Original post by The_Male_Melons
Pakistan has asked for more drones- riiiight. Openly condeming it in Parliament, protests from government and the public, and recently shutting down a drone strike base is nothing. I am confused certainly. I think it is more of a case Washington rings up Islamabad with the case of deadly threats.
I am confused certainly. I think it is more of a case Washington rings up Islamabad with the case of deadly threats.The Iraq War was openly condemned in the British Parliament, and protests were held by British MP's and members of the public.
Perhaps you're an al-Qaeda and Taliban apologist, and which to see Afghanistan return to its post Soviet days.
Original post by Stalin
The Iraq War was openly condemned in the British Parliament, and protests were held by British MP's and members of the public.
Perhaps you're an al-Qaeda and Taliban apologist, and which to see Afghanistan return to its post Soviet days.
Perhaps you're an al-Qaeda and Taliban apologist, and which to see Afghanistan return to its post Soviet days.
In Britain, a democracy that doesn't listen to it's own people.
I am not an Al-Qaeda and a Taliban apologists. I find these regimes abhorrent. Nice to know that you like to put words in people's mouths and slander them. I am going to make sure the moderators are aware of this slanderous post. I am actually deeply offended. You should know that on countless occassions I have said that the taliban and al-qaeda are wrong, are murderers, should be punished. I find it sickening that you could something so slanderous. How dare you?
Funny how I get negged for being offended and Stalin gets pos-repped for making a slanderous comment? Strange world and Hypocrisy comes to mind.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by The_Male_Melons
In Britain, a democracy that doesn't listen to it's own people.
I'm merely pointing out the fact that governments make certain decisions without the consent of the people: the Iraq War from Britain's perspective, and the drone strikes from that of Pakistan's.
I am not an Al-Qaeda and a Taliban apologists. I find these regimes abhorrent. Nice to know that you like to put words in people's mouths and slander them. I am going to make sure the moderators are aware of this slanderous post. I am actually deeply offended. You should know that on countless occassions I have said that the taliban and al-qaeda are wrong, are murderers, should be punished. I find it sickening that you could something so slanderous. How dare you?
Diddums.
Original post by Stalin
I'm merely pointing out the fact that governments make certain decisions without the consent of the people: the Iraq War from Britain's perspective, and the drone strikes from that of Pakistan's.
Diddums.
Diddums.
I can voice an opinion. I believe in a functioning democracy where the people are listened to. The government should follow the people's voice.
Don't say diddums. I demand an apology. It is absolute slander. I have never said anything slanderous to you. How dare you do to me? At the end of the day, I don't agree with the US on this issue and automatically I am an apologist- I feel sick frankly. How dare you insinuate such things? Is it a case of "you don't agree with the US, let's slander you". I have flagged that post several times. If I do not get a reply, I shall take other measures to ensure that I get an apology.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by The_Male_Melons
I can voice an opinion. I believe in a functioning democracy where the people are listened to. The government should follow the people's voice.
Voice your opinion - no one's stopping you; just don't make silly posts regarding the drone strikes in Pakistan.
Don't say diddums. I demand an apology. It is absolute slander. I have never said anything slanderous to you. How dare you do to me? At the end of the day, I don't agree with the US on this issue and automatically I am an apologist- I feel sick frankly. How dare you insinuate such things? Is it a case of "you don't agree with the US, let's slander you". I have flagged that post several times. If I do not get a reply, I shall take other measures to ensure that I get an apology.
Diddums.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Passing of Tina Turner
- Edexcel A Level History American Dream Essay
- A couple at the university of Essex
- TSR Pride Month Hub 2023! 🌈🌈🌈
- Is it time for change - is the status quo about to end challenged?
- war studies MA vs International relations at king college London?
- How good is the war studies MA at king college London?
- Was that French woman ignoring me or is it her earphones?
- Develop your career before you finish University with our award-winning Careers Team!
- University of York Clearing 2023
- AQA A-Level History 2S Making of Modern Britain Revision Resources
- Kingston University clearing
- personal statement advice
- AQA A Level History - Making of Modern Britain(2S) Exam Chat - 9th June 2023
- How to write a UCAS personal statement?
- A good personal statement
- american international applicant choosing courses
- personal statement
- TSR Goes Green: What's your favourite animal?
- Britain’s universities are in freefall – and saving them will take more than funding
Latest
Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 4 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 4 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
