We Are Winning

Resurrection of all-time best threads

Moderator: Moderator

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 3403
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:57 am
Location: Il cielo in una stanza

Postby Collateral Knowledge » Sat May 24, 2008 9:26 am

ToyTone wrote:
your alternative to the US invasion of Afghanistan


no invasion.


That's not what I asked. I asked for:

a substantiation of your alternative to the US invasion of Afghanistan


Merely repeating 'No invasion' is the same as admitting 'No idea'.

Your tree-condom 'argument' is just as gnomic and flimsy. It really looks like your repertoire of debate is as follows:

1. Make sweeping negative generalisations about 'Ameriguns.
2. Complain about sweeping negative generalisations about Germans.
3. Make labored efforts to turn posters names into funny insults.
4. Point blank refuse to substantiate your own actual opinions.

Edited for clarity.
21 minutes of adventure!

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 3235
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: Cologne / Chinese massage parlor

Postby ToyTone » Sat May 24, 2008 9:46 am

Collateral Knowledge wrote:
ToyTone wrote:
your alternative to the US invasion of Afghanistan


no invasion.


That's not what I asked. I asked for:

a substantiation of your alternative to the US invasion of Afghanistan


Merely repeating 'No invasion' is the same as admitting 'No idea'.

Your tree-condom 'argument' is just as gnomic and flimsy. It really looks like your repertoire of debate is as follows:

1. Make sweeping negative generalisations about 'Ameriguns.
2. Complain about sweeping negative generalisations about Germans.
3. Make labored efforts to turn posters names into funny insults.
4. Point blank refuse to substantiate your own actual opinions.

Edited for clarity.


"no invasion" is my opinion about the question whether to attack Afghanistan or not. If that is not an alternative for an invasion, I do not know what could be. No, it is not "no idea", collatatuccio, I understand that it is hard to swallow for you, since you seem to belong to this group of idiots who think that something had to be done, cause someone attacked the twin tower,..... and, yeah, why not attack Afghanistan.....

sorry to hear, you having problems with me confronting racist pigs like wailpisser, streicherdisco and fuckfacefelix.... the thing is, I do not like racists, and if you have a problem with this attitude of mine, hey, what can I say, fuck yourself and all is fine.

about may way of dealing with names of posters.... yeah it is the horrible me, I enjoy it and I hope you enjoy something here too.
better a bizarre humor than always angry

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 3403
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:57 am
Location: Il cielo in una stanza

Postby Collateral Knowledge » Sat May 24, 2008 10:20 am

ToyTone wrote:"no invasion" is my opinion about the question whether to attack Afghanistan or not.


I didn't ask a question about "whether to invade Afghanistan or not", I asked what your alternative to it was.

If that is not an alternative for an invasion, I do not know what could be.


You seem to be having basic comprehension problems. Let me explain by use of another hypothetical conversation:

: Would you like to watch a movie?

: No.

: Okay, what alternative do you suggest?

: Not watch a movie.

: That's not an actual alternative suggestion.

: If not watching a movie is not an alternative for watching a movie, I don't know what is.

: Okay, I'll just leave the TV screen turned on blank and we can sit there and 'not watch a movie'.

: Great.


it is not "no idea", collatatuccio, I understand that it is hard to swallow for you, since you seem to belong to this group of idiots who think that something had to be done, cause someone attacked the twin tower,..... and, yeah, why not attack Afghanistan.....


Well, yes, why not apprehend the people who had ordered the attack and funded and trained those who carried it out, or at least try and destroy their bases? Since the bases and Al Qaeda leadership were in Afghanistan, and they were armed, what else should have been done? Seriously? Do you think Afghanistan was chosen at random? If a crime is committed, do you argue for not doing anything to apprehend and punish the perpetrators? Or is it only when the crime is against America that you have this laissez faire attitude?

hey, what can I say, fuck yourself and all is fine.


Normally I don't mind too much if people intersperse an argument with insults - I do it myself at times - but apart form the insults you haven't offered anything but point blank refusal to make a constructive counter-argument as opposed to the equivalent of poking your tongue out. It shows the hollowness of your ideological position. Do you really think you are doing anything like offering an actual argument on this thread?

about may way of dealing with names of posters.... yeah it is the horrible me, I enjoy it and I hope you enjoy something here too.


No it's not horrible, it's ridiculous. It just confirms stereotypes of Germans having clunky and lame notions of wit. The fact that in a perverse way it's actually the most original thing about you as a poster is not the highest recommendation.
21 minutes of adventure!

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 1711
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 7:49 pm

Postby Suheil » Sat May 24, 2008 10:49 am

mutha is fixing
a man from the east

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 3403
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:57 am
Location: Il cielo in una stanza

Postby Collateral Knowledge » Sat May 24, 2008 11:02 am

Suheil,

It depends on the substance of the negotiations. Sometimes ceasefires or amnesties, for instance, and including people in government, are necessary. On the other hand it can amount to capitulation, as in the case of Deng's thread. So I would always hope negotiation could be tried, and I would rather that than force. Sometimes I don't think negotiation will give a satisfactory outcome, though. Sometimes it goes round in circles and/or just gives a breathing space for people who have just used force or the threat of it and will on past form soon use it again.

And I don't think the US reaction regarding Afghanistan, whatever you think of it, can simply be described as 'interference'. The Taliban by its giving Al Qaeda its main base and training facilities, and Al Qaeda by its actions, had just 'interfered' pretty spectacularly in the US on 911. The US certainly had rights to 'interfere back', i.e. to defend itself, at some level and in some form, in response to an act of war. Those rights included the right to use force.
21 minutes of adventure!

Your hero. Ram it
User avatar
Posts: 2844
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 3:51 pm
Location: The hills

Postby milton » Sat May 24, 2008 11:09 am

CK - what sort of alternative are you looking for?
If someone says "review our foreign policy, while at the same time use our best intelligence to try and track down the perpetrators of this crime, and maybe think about not arming people on and enemy-of-my-enemy basis quite so much in the future".
Would that be an alternative?

Or did somewhere need invading?
I don't like the movie analogy, because I don't see why I'm responsible for finding you something to do of an evening. But that said, if yu go and watch Steel Magnolias, I'll still be free to express an opinion that it wasn't a great choice.
another scotch wetbrain

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 1711
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 7:49 pm

Postby Suheil » Sat May 24, 2008 11:19 am

Collateral Knowledge wrote:Suheil,

It depends on the substance of the negotiations. Sometimes ceasefires or amnesties, for instance, and including people in government, are necessary. On the other hand it can amount to capitulation, as in the case of Deng's thread. So I would always hope negotiation could be tried, and I would rather that than force. Sometimes I don't think negotiation will give a satisfactory outcome, though. Sometimes it goes round in circles and/or just gives a breathing space for people who have just used force or the threat of it and will on past form soon use it again.

And I don't think the US reaction regarding Afghanistan, whatever you think of it, can simply be described as 'interference'. The Taliban by its giving Al Qaeda its main base and training facilities, and Al Qaeda by its actions, had just 'interfered' pretty spectacularly in the US on 911. The US certainly had rights to 'interfere back', i.e. to defend itself, at some level and in some form, in response to an act of war. Those rights included the right to use force.


I have no notion of what the US and NATO doing in Afghanistan other than meddling and interference. I said it many time that the war on OBL and AQ is legitimate and just therefore what it needs is an assortment of intelligence, cooperation and alliances within a specific purpose that is AQ. What satisfies Pakistan of how it handles its extremists is its own business, it satisfies me and should logically satisfies the US. What Obama has proposed in terms of invasion to the tribal region without the approval of Pakistan is madness, the British has tried for more than 100 years without any success. It is history, precedents and what is possible without infringement on sovereignty that which defines legality and as such any aggression on Pakistan, part of Pakistan and Afghanistan will draw more forces to the cause. To alienate Osama and AQ is to stay focused.
a man from the east

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 3403
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:57 am
Location: Il cielo in una stanza

Postby Collateral Knowledge » Sat May 24, 2008 11:45 am

Suheil,

my mistake, I thought you were talking about the principle of negotiation with militants in general, not this specific instance. Of course it's Pakistan's business - so long as those militants aren't interfering elsewhere. Though as I said on another thread, I don't believe the Pakistani government should trade the freedoms of some of its civilians for the security of the rest, which is what allowing militants an enclave (as in Basra, for instance) tends to lead to.
21 minutes of adventure!

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 1711
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 7:49 pm

Postby Suheil » Sat May 24, 2008 11:58 am

Collateral Knowledge wrote:Suheil,

my mistake, I thought you were talking about the principle of negotiation with militants in general, not this specific instance. Of course it's Pakistan's business - so long as those militants aren't interfering elsewhere. Though as I said on another thread, I don't believe the Pakistani government should trade the freedoms of some of its civilians for the security of the rest, which is what allowing militants an enclave (as in Basra, for instance) tends to lead to.


It is in another way saying that the US knows what is good for Pakistan than Pakistan. It does not work this way, we have an act in 911, prior acts and later acts that concerns the US and some Western countries, those acts define the Western mandate within bringing the perpetuators to court, preferably international. Any other call is asking for trouble.
a man from the east

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 3235
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: Cologne / Chinese massage parlor

Postby ToyTone » Sat May 24, 2008 12:49 pm

You seem to be having basic comprehension problems. Let me explain by use of another hypothetical conversation:

: Would you like to watch a movie?
: No.
: Okay, what alternative do you suggest?
: Not watch a movie.
: That's not an actual alternative suggestion.
: If not watching a movie is not an alternative for watching a movie, I don't know what is.
: Okay, I'll just leave the TV screen turned on blank and we can sit there and 'not watch a movie'.
: Great.


no, no basic comprehension problems on my side.
you hypothetical conversation does not help to illustrate the point in question. you want to see the notion established that something must be done with Afghanistan, (in the context we are talking about, ... after 9/11) and this is simply wrong.

to explain to you troglodyte, we can use another hypothetical conversation:

: Would you like to kill that man standing in front of the SEVEN ELEVEN over there?
: No, are you crazy?
: Okay, what alternative do you suggest?
: Fuck you idiot.
: That's not an actual alternative suggestion.
: Yes it is!
: Okay, I'll just let the man standing there and we do not kill the man.
: Great.
better a bizarre humor than always angry

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 3403
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:57 am
Location: Il cielo in una stanza

Postby Collateral Knowledge » Sat May 24, 2008 12:57 pm

Milton, thanks for your reply, will try and get back to this later.
21 minutes of adventure!

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 3235
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: Cologne / Chinese massage parlor

Postby ToyTone » Mon May 26, 2008 12:40 am

just another day on the political stew.... a bigmouth ..... a runaway and an idiot..... collateral knowlets face the truth....
better a bizarre humor than always angry

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 8:09 pm
Location: Death Valley

Postby methuselah » Mon May 26, 2008 12:44 am

ToyTone wrote:just another day on the political stew.... a bigmouth ..... a runaway and an idiot..... collateral knowlets face the truth....


Why do you post here? Everything you try to discuss is miles over your head. You really do have a comprehension problem.
If you look out your window as the sun's going down, I'll be there by the side of the road, And I'll ride you away from the dirty down town, An ne'er again leave you alone
T-Bone Burnett

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 3403
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:57 am
Location: Il cielo in una stanza

Postby Collateral Knowledge » Mon May 26, 2008 1:45 am

milton wrote:CK - what sort of alternative are you looking for?
If someone says "review our foreign policy, while at the same time use our best intelligence to try and track down the perpetrators of this crime"


I don't see how sending troops to Afghanistan was NOT tracking down the perpetrators. They were heavily armed and in mountainous regions. That meant sending troops, realistiacally, not police officers. That's what was attempted. As for reviewing foreign policy, bin Laden's original beef was with US troops being stationed in Saudi - to contain Saddam's Iraq. What was to review about that, unless simply to capitulate?

and maybe think about not arming people on and enemy-of-my-enemy basis quite so much in the future".


Neither Al Qaeda nor the Taliban were armed by the US. They were armed by the Pakistani SIS and bin Laden and others. It was the Afghan mujahideen, many of whom became the Northern Alliance who were armed by the US - again via Pakistan mostly. It's a myth that the US armed bin Laden.

Could you flesh out a bit what you meant by tracking the perpetrators down, if you don't mean using troops?

Would that be an alternative? Or did somewhere need invading?


Absolutely Afghanistan needed invading in order to apprehend or destroy Al Qaeda's members and facilities. How else could it be done, realistically? Indeed the biggest mistake was using proxy troops rather than NATO ones for the assault on Tora Bora as that is how bin Laden escaped. what use would have police or relying on the goodwill of the taliban been?

Toytone, you have blank refused to say what should have been done in response to 911. Apparently the US should have just cleared up the rubble and simply ignored the fact that Afghanistan was hosting Al Qaeda's leaders and training camps. You have a fucking nerve in accusing me of running away, since like so many critics of the Afghanistan war you've offered no constructive argument of your own at all, nor even acknowledgement of why Afghanistan was picked as a target. You are falsely treating it as if the US picked a country randomly, rather than the one which Al Qaeda was operating from. Hence your idiotic analogy of randomly killing an innocent person in the street out of the blue.
21 minutes of adventure!

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 3235
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: Cologne / Chinese massage parlor

Postby ToyTone » Mon May 26, 2008 2:41 am

You are falsely treating it as if the US picked a country randomly, rather than the one which Al Qaeda was operating from.


I just picked this sentence.... the rest isn't better.

I see, you fucking bitch, you hold the opinion that the US can simply pick countries to attack... .and you are soo low so fucking filthy that you take it as an insult that someone does not play your game.
You are not better than any AQ driving planes into buildings,

my analogy holds.... which countries do you want to attack next you filthy piece of Amerigun shit.
better a bizarre humor than always angry

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 3403
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:57 am
Location: Il cielo in una stanza

Postby Collateral Knowledge » Mon May 26, 2008 3:16 am

What is wrong with the sentence you picked? The US didn't 'simply pick' a country to 'attack', it invaded the state which was the base of Al Qaeda, i.e. where the terrorists were trained and were continuing to train for their attacks on the US and other countries. The action was completely within the rules of the UN charter on self-defense. Or don't you think the US should be allowed to defend itself?

And you STILL haven't offered a constructive suggestion as to what the US should actually have done - as opposed to not done - which appears to confirm my opinion that you simply have nothing in the way of constructive argument to offer. Instead you are just spiralling into a series of ever more abusive posts.

You are not better than any AQ driving planes into buildings,


That's absolutely and grotesquely absurd, especially as you have spurned numerous opportunities to say what you actually think should have been about such attacks. Apparently Americans sticking hands over their eyes and ears is your recommended course of action. If not, what actually would it be?
21 minutes of adventure!

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 1711
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 7:49 pm

Postby Suheil » Mon May 26, 2008 6:03 am

Collateral Knowledge wrote:Suheil,

It depends on the substance of the negotiations. Sometimes ceasefires or amnesties, for instance, and including people in government, are necessary. On the other hand it can amount to capitulation, as in the case of Deng's thread. So I would always hope negotiation could be tried, and I would rather that than force. Sometimes I don't think negotiation will give a satisfactory outcome, though. Sometimes it goes round in circles and/or just gives a breathing space for people who have just used force or the threat of it and will on past form soon use it again.

And I don't think the US reaction regarding Afghanistan, whatever you think of it, can simply be described as 'interference'. The Taliban by its giving Al Qaeda its main base and training facilities, and Al Qaeda by its actions, had just 'interfered' pretty spectacularly in the US on 911. The US certainly had rights to 'interfere back', i.e. to defend itself, at some level and in some form, in response to an act of war. Those rights included the right to use force.


911 according to intelligence reports was conceived and planned in Germany, why Afghanistan is accountable and Germany is not? The perpetuators were Saudis, why Afghanistan is accountable and Saudi Arabia is not. There is an act and perpetuators, AQ and Osama (location unknown); by your logic the whole world is accountable for the act.
a man from the east

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 1711
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 7:49 pm

Postby Suheil » Mon May 26, 2008 7:26 am

mutha is fixing
a man from the east

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 3235
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: Cologne / Chinese massage parlor

Postby ToyTone » Mon May 26, 2008 8:56 am

mutha is fixing
better a bizarre humor than always angry

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 5040
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:06 pm
Location: Oblivia

Postby Piel! » Mon May 26, 2008 8:58 am

mutha is fixing
The Blowkiest Bloek in the whole of Bleakdom

bark brak! bark barack karp! bark!

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 1711
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 7:49 pm

Postby Suheil » Mon May 26, 2008 9:15 am

Tony T

I get attacked for my nationality... and these attacks have nothing to do with "having an argument"
I am called a kid abuser (scott baio - a man, a car, a merica)
my grandmother gets abused, raped and humilated (wailing pisser)
the capitol of my country gets flattened (disco streicher)


You got a point; I stand accused for bashing the German past in you, my sincere apology for falling to such generalizations. You have a strong point to debate Tony and you and Dave are wasting it on the side lines.
a man from the east

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 3235
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: Cologne / Chinese massage parlor

Postby ToyTone » Mon May 26, 2008 9:52 am

suheil - quite frankly, I think you are simply an idiot. But it might as well be that this "assessment" has to do with the problems I have understanding what you write. English is my third language, your problems expressing yourself seem to be bigger than my ability to understand you, but as I said,
actually I simply think that you are a little thick.

who is dave and tony?
better a bizarre humor than always angry

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 1711
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 7:49 pm

Postby Suheil » Mon May 26, 2008 10:07 am

ToyTone wrote:suheil - quite frankly, I think you are simply an idiot. But it might as well be that this "assessment" has to do with the problems I have understanding what you write. English is my third language, your problems expressing yourself seem to be bigger than my ability to understand you, but as I said,
actually I simply think that you are a little thick.

who is dave and tony?


We have one Dave on the board and Tony is filthy mouthed Toy, I wonder who is thick? You have to put the breaks between what splutters in your mind to your filthy mouth.

I withdraw my apology, you are not worth it.
a man from the east

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 3235
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: Cologne / Chinese massage parlor

Postby ToyTone » Mon May 26, 2008 10:36 am

I am just being honest, suheil.

that is what this board offers, the chance to be honest.
better a bizarre humor than always angry

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 1711
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 7:49 pm

Postby Suheil » Mon May 26, 2008 10:45 am

ToyTone wrote:I am just being honest, suheil.

that is what this board offers, the chance to be honest.


No wonder, sorry to disturb your play in the sand box.
a man from the east

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 3235
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: Cologne / Chinese massage parlor

Postby ToyTone » Mon May 26, 2008 11:08 am

idiot.... haha
better a bizarre humor than always angry

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 3403
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:57 am
Location: Il cielo in una stanza

Postby Collateral Knowledge » Mon May 26, 2008 12:57 pm

Toytone,

Now you call Suheil an 'idiot'. You've gone off the deep end in this thread with the insults, under no provocation whatsoever. And you still haven't come up with one single specific idea as to what the US should have done about the fact that Al Qaeda's training bases and leadership which had funded, enabled and ordered the attacks were still in Afghanistan. I had never till now fully realized quite how poor your debating abilities are. On this thread they are non-existent.

Normally I would have started returning such unprovoked personal insults by now, but I think you've done a great job of showing yourself up on your own. All you have managed over the course of this thread is to extend your impression of a foul-mouthed goblin having a tantrum, into that of a goblin having such a tantrum that he throws up all over himself and then dances around with glee as if this is some sort of triumph. You are the Rumpelstiltskin of political stew.
21 minutes of adventure!

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 3235
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: Cologne / Chinese massage parlor

Postby ToyTone » Mon May 26, 2008 1:06 pm

methuselah wrote:
ToyTone wrote:just another day on the political stew.... a bigmouth ..... a runaway and an idiot..... collateral knowlets face the truth....


Why do you post here? Everything you try to discuss is miles over your head. You really do have a comprehension problem.


seems that you want to have a serious discussion about the US and Afghanistan, metoosalade.... who would have thought so! I always read you as the average aggressive countryside pumpkin who is keen to insult other people on the internet.... well then, salade....

why do you think collaterella's line of thought
[the US]
invaded the state which was the base of Al Qaeda, i.e. where the terrorists were trained and were continuing to train for their attacks on the US and other countries

was met with horror and disgust from my side, salade?

could it be that my feelings were due to the fact that the US in 1979 began supporting Afghan Islamic fundamentalists, trained them and supplied them with weapons to fight against a government which tried to implement land reform without taking away private property, tried to strengthen the public sector, tried to separate church and state, tried to eradicate illiteracy, started to legalize trade unions, and was working to help the emancipation of women?

or could it be that I found collaterella's outrage about Afghanistan training AQ was been seen by me as a typical Amerigun climax of scummy hypocrisy, given the fact that the US decades before 9/11 used Afghanistan as the playground for their proxy armies to fight against the Soviet Union an did not care a rat's ass about the people living there.

or could it be that collaterella's indignation about the pesky Afghans stirred my anger in the light of POTUS Carter spouting shit like the Persian Gulf is threatened by Soviet troops in Afghanistan and that this area is part of US interests, and that the US will defend it against any threat by all means necessary.
despite the fact that Afghanistan with it's 1000 miles border with the Soviet Union never had trouble with the SU respecting it's status as a sovereign nation and had been neutral during WW2.

or was I simply annoyed by collaterella's arrogant yada about the bad AQ, who forgot to mention that the US support of those Moujahedeens was the main reason for the creation of the fundamentalist Islamic state being in Afghanistan which btw is as bad a repulsive as Iran, which in the 80s was Public Enemy Number One in America.
better a bizarre humor than always angry

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 3403
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:57 am
Location: Il cielo in una stanza

Postby Collateral Knowledge » Mon May 26, 2008 1:18 pm

or was I simply annoyed by collaterella's arrogant yada about the bad AQ, who forgot to mention that the US support of those Moujahedeens was the main reason for the creation of the fundamentalist Islamic state being in Afghanistan


It was not the main reason at all. Those Mujahideen did not become the Taliban, they were the enemies of those who became the Taliban. You may as well blame Weimar politicians for the Holocaust. And the Taliban was funded by the Pakistani secret service. Nor did the US fund or create or host Al Qaeda.

And still none of your rant addresses what specifically the US should reasonably have expected to have done after September 2001. It's just shown how deep-seated and irrational your hatred of Americans is. If German cities were today bombed, would you act as if the country should bite its tongue and do nothing because of its past? I doubt it, since you have wailed even on this thread about Disco Stu metaphorically (I suppose) bombing your own capital city.

There seems to be an unspoken idea that the US should have just taken its lumps. People generally refuse to state that outright but they are amazingly vague about what the US response regarding Al Qaeda itself should have been, and show a weird refusal to connect conceptually the invasion of Afghanistan with the presence of bin Laden, Al Qaeda and its training camps there. It seems like you can't even entertain the idea that there might be a rationale (let alone legal case under the UN charter) in there other than a wish to kill Afghan civilians.
21 minutes of adventure!

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 13034
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 9:37 pm

Postby SeamusMcCool » Mon May 26, 2008 1:26 pm

Argonheart_Po wrote:Seamus - c'mon sonny - spit it out!


The terrorists/insurgents have not been pacified, which means they are achieving their objectives, which means they are winning.

That's too bad for you and your favourite OP subject titles; 'We are winning', 'Good news from Iraq'
"I'd stumbled into the middle of an evil, insidious cult of chainsaw worshipping maniacs. I had to wonder if we'd let our religious freedom go too far in this country, or maybe our immigration laws were just too lax."

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 3235
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: Cologne / Chinese massage parlor

Postby ToyTone » Mon May 26, 2008 1:29 pm

It was not the main reason at all. Those Mujahideen did not become the Taliban, they were the enemies of those who became the Taliban. You may as well blame Weimar politicians for the Holocaust. And the Taliban was funded by the Pakistani secret service. Nor did the US fund or create or host Al Qaeda.


fuck you bloody lying Amerigun gunt!

I did not say that the mujas "became" the Taliban, you fucking bitch!

I did not insinuate that the Taliban was created by the US, you asshole.

so, you state here that the US has nothing to do with the plight of Afghanistan in the time frame we are talking here, you scum
And still none of your rant addresses what specifically the US should reasonably have expected to have done after September 2001


nothing

you tortured this country enough already, you murderer.
better a bizarre humor than always angry

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 3403
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:57 am
Location: Il cielo in una stanza

Postby Collateral Knowledge » Mon May 26, 2008 2:00 pm

You've gone completely over the line now. You've descended to level of totally unprovoked and unreciprocated - and in any case inaccurate - abuse and have made even more of a spectacle of yourself. It's extraordinary. Is it a full moon where you are?
21 minutes of adventure!

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 3235
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: Cologne / Chinese massage parlor

Postby ToyTone » Mon May 26, 2008 2:17 pm

I knew it. the bitch has nothing to say about Afghanistan.

the filthy amerigun whores likes to lecture about what specifically the US should reasonably have expected to have done after September 2001

without knowing zilch about Afghanistan,

about how the US support the Moujahedeen and dragged the country into a war that killed about a million people.

collaterella, yes yes run away, feel hurt by my insults and keep your flag high, do nut shiver do not doubt, you are right, you are America, shout your anthem not too loud so your fucking neighbours do not call 9 11, and by all means do not read or try to get any information about your country besides what your local cable supplier offers you, it might damage your tiny brain.
better a bizarre humor than always angry

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 3403
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:57 am
Location: Il cielo in una stanza

Postby Collateral Knowledge » Mon May 26, 2008 2:22 pm

Toytone wrote:fuck yourself
troglodyte
a bigmouth ..... a runaway and an idiot.
you fucking bitch
you are soo low so fucking filthy
you filthy piece of Amerigun shit.
an Amerigun bitch
a filthy bastard Amerigun whore
filthy scum head
fuck you bloody lying Amerigun gunt!
you fucking bitch!
you asshole.
you scum
you murderer.


It's not exactly in the tradition of logical German reasoning as pioneered by Immanuel Kant, is it? The worst I've done on this thread is to liken you to a goblin, specifically Rumpelstiltskin. In view of what you have said about me, that seems a kindness.
21 minutes of adventure!

Blue Eyed Devil
User avatar
Posts: 3244
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 5:13 am

Postby blueeyes_austin » Mon May 26, 2008 2:27 pm

ToyTone wrote:
You are falsely treating it as if the US picked a country randomly, rather than the one which Al Qaeda was operating from.


I just picked this sentence.... the rest isn't better.

I see, you fucking bitch, you hold the opinion that the US can simply pick countries to attack... .and you are soo low so fucking filthy that you take it as an insult that someone does not play your game.
You are not better than any AQ driving planes into buildings,

my analogy holds.... which countries do you want to attack next you filthy piece of Amerigun shit.


AQ was harbored by the government of Afghanistan. 9/11 was an act of war by proxy. Under any reasonable version of the laws of war the US attack and invasion of Afghanistan was utterly justified.
"We shall cause a distortionary response in US fiscal policy! God is great! God is great!"--Electrolyte channeling the 9/11 hijackers

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 3235
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: Cologne / Chinese massage parlor

Postby ToyTone » Mon May 26, 2008 2:27 pm

you have done very bad things here collatterelluccella,

with your ugly gaping mouth you have lectured us about the right of poor america to defend itself against all those bad people in afghanistan. you have reduced yourself to the supporter of murder, rape, death and endless pain.
better a bizarre humor than always angry

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 3235
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: Cologne / Chinese massage parlor

Postby ToyTone » Mon May 26, 2008 2:30 pm

9/11 was an act of war by proxy.


war by proxy, huh?

At the beginning there had been some thought given to the morality of the policy. "The question here," a senior official in the Carter administration said, "was whether it was morally acceptable that, in order to keep the Soviets off balance, which was the reason for the operation, it was permissible to use other lives for our geopolitical interests."{42}

But such sentiments could not survive. Afghanistan was a cold-warrior's dream: The CIA and the Pentagon, finally, had one of their proxy armies in direct confrontation with the forces of the Evil Empire. There was no price too high to pay for this Super Nintendo game, neither the hundreds of thousands of Afghan lives, nor the destruction of Afghan society, nor three billion (sic) dollars of American taxpayer money poured into a bottomless hole, much of it going only to make a few Afghans and Pakistanis rich. Congress was equally enthused -- without even the moral uncertainty that made them cautious about arming the Nicaraguan contras -- and became a veritable bipartisan horn of plenty as it allocated more and more money for the effort each year. Rep. Charles Wilson of Texas expressed a not-atypical sentiment of official Washington when he declared:
There were 58,000 dead in Vietnam and we owe the Russians one ...
I have a slight obsession with it, because of Vietnam. I thought
the Soviets ought to get a dose of it ... I've been of the opinion
that this money was better spent to hurt our adversaries than other
money in the Defense Department budget.{43}

The CIA became the grand coordinator: purchasing or arranging the manufacture of Soviet-style weapons from Egypt, China, Poland, Israel and elsewhere, or supplying their own; arranging for military training by Americans, Egyptians, Chinese and Iranians; hitting up Middle-Eastern countries for donations, notably Saudi Arabia which gave many hundreds of millions of dollars in aid each year, totaling probably more than a billion; pressuring and bribing Pakistan -- with whom recent American relations had been very poor -- to rent out its country as a military staging area and sanctuary; putting the Pakistani Director of Military Operations, Brigadier Mian Mohammad Afzal, onto the CIA payroll to ensure Pakistani cooperation.{44} Military and economic aid which had been cut off would be restored, Pakistan was told by the United States, if they would join the great crusade. Only a month before the Soviet intervention, anti-American mobs had burned and ransacked the US embassy in Islamabad and American cultural centers in two other Pakistani cities.{45}

http://members.aol.com/bblum6/afghan.htm#end
better a bizarre humor than always angry

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 3403
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:57 am
Location: Il cielo in una stanza

Postby Collateral Knowledge » Mon May 26, 2008 2:32 pm

ToyTone wrote:I knew it. the bitch has nothing to say about Afghanistan.


That's not it. What it is is that I have nothing really to deabte with someone who has finally revealed the bankruptcy of their position. You have abandoned even the vague position that the US should have done anything but invade and revealed finally what you really meant, namely that it should have done precisely 'nothing', as I had suspected.

Second to that, the litany of totally unprovoked personal abuse you have come up with on this thread has me wondering for the moment whether to laugh or to respond in a similar fashion. There is no way I am going to make further attempts to debate with you on this thread as you have turned from being tiresomely obstructive to being astoundingly abusive, with nothing in between. You certainly don't deserve to be taken seriously on this thread, and I am amazed that I have treated you so politely by comparison with the kind and quantity of abuse you have spouted.
Last edited by Collateral Knowledge on Mon May 26, 2008 10:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
21 minutes of adventure!

Blue Eyed Devil
User avatar
Posts: 3244
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 5:13 am

Postby blueeyes_austin » Mon May 26, 2008 2:33 pm

The US and USSR were both intervening in the affairs of a third party. But it should be pointed out that is was the USSR who began that sequence of events.
"We shall cause a distortionary response in US fiscal policy! God is great! God is great!"--Electrolyte channeling the 9/11 hijackers

Blue Eyed Devil
User avatar
Posts: 3244
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 5:13 am

Postby blueeyes_austin » Mon May 26, 2008 2:34 pm

CK, it is pretty clear that some deep guilt over the Nazis has basically unhinged Teo completely. His response is to try and find moral equivilents in the world today, particularly in American actions.
"We shall cause a distortionary response in US fiscal policy! God is great! God is great!"--Electrolyte channeling the 9/11 hijackers

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 3235
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: Cologne / Chinese massage parlor

Postby ToyTone » Mon May 26, 2008 2:35 pm

Collateral Knowledge wrote:
ToyTone wrote:I knew it. the bitch has nothing to say about Afghanistan.


That's not it. What it is is that I have nothing really to deabte with someone who has finally revealed the bankruptcy of their position. You have abandoned even the vague position that the US should have done anything but invade and revealed finally what you really meant, namely that it should have done precisely 'nothing', as I had suspected.

Second to that, the litany of totally unproked personal abuse you have come up with on this thread has me wondering for the moment whether to laugh or to respond in a similar fashion. There is no way I am going to make further attempts to debate with you on this thread as you have turned from being tiresomely obstructive to being astoundingly abusive, with nothing in between. You certainly don't deserve to be taken seriously on this thread, and I am amazed that I have treated you so politely by comparison with the kind and quantity of abuse you have spouted.


why don't you cut the yogurt and educate yourself about Afghanistan, coltella?
better a bizarre humor than always angry

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 3235
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: Cologne / Chinese massage parlor

Postby ToyTone » Mon May 26, 2008 2:36 pm

blueeyes_austin wrote:The US and USSR were both intervening in the affairs of a third party. But it should be pointed out that is was the USSR who began that sequence of events.


ha! any link for that, or did you pull that out of your ass again blueeye?


and just to push you a bit in the right direction, blueeye,
are you aware that A had a 1000 mile long border with the USSR and that America is not even in the same continent as A?

imagine the US reaction, if some foreign super power would meddle with Canada or Mexico.... you guys are soo completely brain washed it is really breathtaking..
better a bizarre humor than always angry

Your hero. Ram it
User avatar
Posts: 2844
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 3:51 pm
Location: The hills

Postby milton » Mon May 26, 2008 2:53 pm

Carson - sorry for the delay in replying to you, I'd forgotten to look at this thread. (edit - and I now see it wwas today you posted anyway. Oh dear. Ignore me. Been a hard Monday).

In theory I agree with much of what you've said in principle, but there are two points of disagreement I should have made clearee. The enemy of my enemy thing isn't a point about OBL directly, but about a foreign policy of arms sales to unstable or otherwise dodgy regimes. Yes, the Northern Alliance inherited the weapons once intended to be used against USSR troops, but this interference from the West is used as propogandy by al Q anyway, so the end result remains. That's a wider discussion about the principle of weapons sales/donations anyway, but with Iraq being what it is since the 80s (and yes, I agree it was mainly the Soviets selling them weapons), not to mention countries like Indonesia, it would be nice to think we'll learn a lesson. There are something in the region of 150 nations that buy weapons from the US, and about 2/3 of them are in the State Department's public record of human rights abusers. I'd like to know the stats for the UK, but can't find those. Even when this doesn't hurt us personally, a bit further down the road, we know that it is hurting many.

My second point is that intelligence regarding OBL was always sketchy. We knew that there was a good chance that the mountains in Afghanistan were being used as his hideout - but Pakistan was also regarded by many at the time to be as likely. As it turned out, we didn't get Bin Laden, although we do seem to have captured or killed a vast number of "number 2's" or "second in command's". Al Q must be the most top-heavy organisation ever.
Apart from anything else, given the solid evidence we had on the perpetrators, it's hard for me to be convinced that if somewhere had to be invaded, that said somewhere shouldn't have been Saudi Arabia.
Strangely that doesn't seem to have happened though.
another scotch wetbrain

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 3403
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:57 am
Location: Il cielo in una stanza

Postby Collateral Knowledge » Mon May 26, 2008 3:07 pm

Milton, thanks for your reply.

I agree totally about arms sales. Marx, ropes, hanging and all that.

As for Saudi, I agree in way, though it's not really that surprising it hasn't been invaded, and not just because of oil interests etc, and I'm not sure exactly what measures could have been taken against it as the relationship between it and the west stands. in any case, invading the spiritual home of Islam is just not on the map of possibilities. I would agree that Saudi itself is probably the biggest problem for the Muslim and western world alike in its relationship to funding and exporting extremism. In the long term (sytarting now and I wish this had started years ago) I would want two main course of action:

1. The west to wean itself off oil dependency - investing in new technologies is as much a security as an environmental matter - so that

2. The west can refuse to do further business with Saudi, and act properly to prevent the spread of Wahabism in western countries.

That doesn't alter my view about the invasion of Afghanistan, but it does mean I understand that the heart of the Islamist problem lies in Saudi itself - and to some extent Pakistan, and in the oil dependency on that country.
21 minutes of adventure!

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 1711
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 7:49 pm

Postby Suheil » Mon May 26, 2008 3:19 pm

blueeyes_austin wrote:CK, it is pretty clear that some deep guilt over the Nazis has basically unhinged Teo completely. His response is to try and find moral equivilents in the world today, particularly in American actions.


There are many parallels, the same "Burden" or let us be more specific in that in the case of Germans two supreiors could not exist within the same time and space with a dash of cruelty found only in the lovers of "things".
a man from the east

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 3403
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:57 am
Location: Il cielo in una stanza

Postby Collateral Knowledge » Mon May 26, 2008 3:28 pm

Yes but the main point is that Toytone has become as unhinged as a rotating door. His abuse of you was completely undeserved, his abuse of me extraordinary in its intensity. A career writing dialogue for violent movies surely beckons for Herr Tantrome. On this thread he has gone not just over the line but out of the stadium. An attic somewhere is demanding another lunatic in compensation. Etcetera.
21 minutes of adventure!

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 1711
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 7:49 pm

Postby Suheil » Mon May 26, 2008 3:30 pm

mutha is fixing
a man from the east

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 1711
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 7:49 pm

Postby Suheil » Mon May 26, 2008 3:34 pm

mutha is fixing
a man from the east

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 3235
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: Cologne / Chinese massage parlor

Postby ToyTone » Mon May 26, 2008 3:41 pm

Collateral Knowledge wrote:Yes but the main point is that Toytone has become as unhinged as a rotating door. His abuse of you was completely undeserved, his abuse of me extraordinary in its intensity. A career writing dialogue for violent movies surely beckons for Herr Tantrome. On this thread he has gone not just over the line but out of the stadium. An attic somewhere is demanding another lunatic in compensation. Etcetera.


howledge - I offered you a nice way out of your tremendously difficult situation, you know shit about Afghanistan, you support the decision of the current POTUS, and you seem to have no problems with all the cruelties America exerted in A throughout the last 30 years. but now you can concentrate on being insulted. Even better you can feel for suheil, the racist prick.
you took the way out, you idiot!
better a bizarre humor than always angry

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 3403
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:57 am
Location: Il cielo in una stanza

Postby Collateral Knowledge » Mon May 26, 2008 3:48 pm

Suheil wrote:Excellent as long as it is not in bio-fuel, solar energy is ready for harvest but again deserts only exist on Arab land.


Actually it's plentiful in some western countries, particularly the US, and in Asian and African ones. It's certainly the most obvious supply. Many places could use more hydro power also, as Brazil already does. Not that there is a one-size-fits-all solution, but the thing I don't get is that since it's known oil is running out, alternatives are not just a matter of environment or security but of the economic future. I think if the world does come out the other side of oil dependency, several of our biggest problems will have been pushed aside or significantly abated. I just wonder if it's possible, though. It's the biggest single thing that could be done to make the world a safer place. I agree biofuel looks murky - it depends what kind of crop is being used, I think, as to whether it is an environmental negative or not.

Another possibility is mining the moon. I read somewhere that a space shuttle load of Helium 3 ore (I'm not sure if it was ore or the actual refined stuff) could keep a country like Russia powered for a year. I am definitely in favor of exploring the rest of the solar system and using its resources. In the long term, I think space exploration will be what brings humanity together.
21 minutes of adventure!

PreviousNext

Return to Famous Dishes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest