IF ISIS manages to attack inside America will

[Oldstyle]

And for your information, Muslims have been fighting wars against "infidels" so far back that there WASN'T a United States of America!

Sure they have. So what? You're not making much on an argument here.

The point is not about Muslims fighting. Muslims have been fighting ever since Islam existed. Same with Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, etc etc. This is not a point.

The point is about extremist Islam that is directly connected with today's problems.
A lot of this took roots in Afghanistan when the British invaded the first three times or so.
The Muslims could not beat the British, it was impossible on the open battle field. So they used guerrilla tactics that would merely make the British not want to be there. But they also used Jihad to strengthen their ability to fight, unlike say, British India where the British controlled and stayed a long time.

This development of Jihad has gone hand in hand with British, French and US interference in the middle east.

Saudi Arabia was probably the ONLY country not to have been controlled by a western power in the region, why? Because there was nothing there. Then oil came along and the Saudis realised they could get rich if they sided with the Americans.
But not everyone enjoys being someone else's lacky.

Jihad means holy war...it does not refer to guerrilla tactics. Why do you try and pass yourself off as someone with knowledge about this topic when it's obvious that you know very little?

 

[Oldstyle]

And for your information, Muslims have been fighting wars against "infidels" so far back that there WASN'T a United States of America!

Sure they have. So what? You're not making much on an argument here.

The point is not about Muslims fighting. Muslims have been fighting ever since Islam existed. Same with Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, etc etc. This is not a point.

The point is about extremist Islam that is directly connected with today's problems.
A lot of this took roots in Afghanistan when the British invaded the first three times or so.
The Muslims could not beat the British, it was impossible on the open battle field. So they used guerrilla tactics that would merely make the British not want to be there. But they also used Jihad to strengthen their ability to fight, unlike say, British India where the British controlled and stayed a long time.

This development of Jihad has gone hand in hand with British, French and US interference in the middle east.

Saudi Arabia was probably the ONLY country not to have been controlled by a western power in the region, why? Because there was nothing there. Then oil came along and the Saudis realised they could get rich if they sided with the Americans.
But not everyone enjoys being someone else's lacky.

It begs the question...did the British decide to stay in India and not stay in Afghanistan because of the resistance of the natives or because India was the source of great wealth for Great Britain and Afghanistan was not?

 

[Oldstyle]

To be quite blunt...what is there in Afghanistan that would make an empire desire it?

 

[frigidweirdo]

This frigid n00b is impressive.

Noob, whatever, i was here a while back.

Completely bypass the compliment and pick apart an insult... you're a typical USMBer, alright.

And replied with an insult, you're such a typical USMBer.

 

[Oldstyle]

This frigid n00b is impressive.

Noob, whatever, i was here a while back.

Completely bypass the compliment and pick apart an insult... you're a typical USMBer, alright.

And replied with an insult, you're such a typical USMBer.

He was giving you a compliment, you dumb ass!

 

[frigidweirdo]

It begs the question...did the British decide to stay in India and not stay in Afghanistan because of the resistance of the natives or because India was the source of great wealth for Great Britain and Afghanistan was not?

How could Afghanistan be a great wealth when they were constantly on the back foot being shot at?

The British wanted Afghanistan (to answer your next question without quoting it) as a buffer with Russia. Seeing as the Russians invaded 100 years later, it's hardly surprising.

The British left because they simply couldn't control the area. They literally got forced out, sometimes with their ass on a plate.

 

[frigidweirdo]

He was giving you a compliment, you dumb ass!

sarcasm definition of sarcasm in Oxford dictionary American English US

sarcasm
Syllabification: sar·casm
Pronunciation: /ˈsärˌkazəm

Origin
mid 16th century: from French sarcasme, or via late Latin from late Greek sarkasmos, from Greeksarkazein 'tear flesh', in late Greek 'gnash the teeth, speak bitterly' (from sarx, sark- 'flesh').

 

[frigidweirdo]

He was giving you a compliment, you dumb ass!

insult definition of insult in Oxford dictionary American English US

insult
Syllabification: in·sult
VERB
Pronunciation: /inˈsəlt /
[WITH OBJECT]
Pronunciation: /ˈinˌsəlt /
Back to top
1A disrespectful or scornfully abusive remark or action:he hurled insults at ushe saw the book as a deliberate insult to the Church
MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCESSYNONYMS
1.1A thing so worthless or contemptible as to be offensive:the present offer is an absolute insult
MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES
2Medicine An event or occurrence that causes damage to a tissue or organ:the movement of the bone causes a severe tissue insult
MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES
Origin
mid 16th century (as a verb in the sense 'exult, act arrogantly'): from Latin insultare 'jump or trample on', from in- 'on' + saltare, from salire 'to leap'. The noun (in the early 17th century denoting an attack) is from French insulte or ecclesiastical Latin insultus. The main current senses date from the 17th century, the medical use dating from the early 20th century.

 

[Oldstyle]

It begs the question...did the British decide to stay in India and not stay in Afghanistan because of the resistance of the natives or because India was the source of great wealth for Great Britain and Afghanistan was not?

How could Afghanistan be a great wealth when they were constantly on the back foot being shot at?

The British wanted Afghanistan (to answer your next question without quoting it) as a buffer with Russia. Seeing as the Russians invaded 100 years later, it's hardly surprising.

The British left because they simply couldn't control the area. They literally got forced out, sometimes with their ass on a plate.

My point...which went right over your head...was that the British would obviously be more inclined to fight for an area that produced great wealth (like India) than for one that produced very little wealth (like Afghanistan). The British left because it didn't make economic sense to stay. They stayed in India for nearly 150 years because it DID make economic sense.

As to your claim that the British wanted Afghanistan as a "buffer" to Russia? Indeed they did! They wanted a buffer to keep the Russians from attempting to take India. That was the prize...not Afghanistan.

 

[Oldstyle]

He was giving you a compliment, you dumb ass!

sarcasm definition of sarcasm in Oxford dictionary American English US

sarcasm
Syllabification: sar·casm
Pronunciation: /ˈsärˌkazəm

Origin
mid 16th century: from French sarcasme, or via late Latin from late Greek sarkasmos, from Greeksarkazein 'tear flesh', in late Greek 'gnash the teeth, speak bitterly' (from sarx, sark- 'flesh').

Don't feel bad, Frigid...people with limited intelligence frequently struggle trying to figure out if someone is being sarcastic or not. (Hint...I'm being a bit sarcastic here...how about I do the dancing man so you know?)

 

[Chris]

To be quite blunt...what is there in Afghanistan that would make an empire desire it?

Poppies!

 

[frigidweirdo]

My point...which went right over your head...was that the British would obviously be more inclined to fight for an area that produced great wealth (like India) than for one that produced very little wealth (like Afghanistan). The British left because it didn't make economic sense to stay. They stayed in India for nearly 150 years because it DID make economic sense.

As to your claim that the British wanted Afghanistan as a "buffer" to Russia? Indeed they did! They wanted a buffer to keep the Russians from attempting to take India. That was the prize...not Afghanistan.

No, I got your point. I was explain why I don't agree with it and supporting my view.

Afghanistan was wanted as a buffer state.
Also, Afghanistan wasn't producing a great wealth for England because quite frankly, the British were getting their asses kicked. You don't make money if you keep wasting money fighting and can't actually do anything.

Whether they'd have been able to make lots of money, or the protection it would have afforded for British India is neither here nor there. The British didn't fight less hard because of lack of wealth.

They left because they got their asses handed to them. They stayed in India because they didn't get their asses handed to them every time they entered.

 

[Oldstyle]

My point...which went right over your head...was that the British would obviously be more inclined to fight for an area that produced great wealth (like India) than for one that produced very little wealth (like Afghanistan). The British left because it didn't make economic sense to stay. They stayed in India for nearly 150 years because it DID make economic sense.

As to your claim that the British wanted Afghanistan as a "buffer" to Russia? Indeed they did! They wanted a buffer to keep the Russians from attempting to take India. That was the prize...not Afghanistan.

No, I got your point. I was explain why I don't agree with it and supporting my view.

Afghanistan was wanted as a buffer state.
Also, Afghanistan wasn't producing a great wealth for England because quite frankly, the British were getting their asses kicked. You don't make money if you keep wasting money fighting and can't actually do anything.

Whether they'd have been able to make lots of money, or the protection it would have afforded for British India is neither here nor there. The British didn't fight less hard because of lack of wealth.

They left because they got their asses handed to them. They stayed in India because they didn't get their asses handed to them every time they entered.

That right there, Frigid...is the very definition of an ignorant post! Of course the British fought harder for territories that brought them wealth (like India and the American colonies) and chose not to fight for territories that brought them little wealth. That's such a common sense concept that it's amazing you can't grasp it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

That right there, Frigid...is the very definition of an ignorant post! Of course the British fought harder for territories that brought them wealth (like India and the American colonies) and chose not to fight for territories that brought them little wealth. That's such a common sense concept that it's amazing you can't grasp it.

"Of course", if it's so much "of course" then you won't have much problem proving this. Quite frankly I'm not sure anyone on here has much of a clue about British involvement in Afghanistan, so to make such a comment is a little silly. Unless of course you know lots and can back it up, in which case I might have to revisit my views, but at this point in time, I won't.

It's not common sense. You're not British, you're not a politician in Britain, and you're not a British politician from the 18th or 19th century who is looking at the issue of British India and Afghanistan, so how the hell can you say "it's common sense"?????

Why is the US fighting in Afghanistan when they can earn a hell of a lot more money just taking over Saudi Arabia? I mean, it makes more sense to fight in Saudi Arabia, right?

 

[Oldstyle]

That right there, Frigid...is the very definition of an ignorant post! Of course the British fought harder for territories that brought them wealth (like India and the American colonies) and chose not to fight for territories that brought them little wealth. That's such a common sense concept that it's amazing you can't grasp it.

"Of course", if it's so much "of course" then you won't have much problem proving this. Quite frankly I'm not sure anyone on here has much of a clue about British involvement in Afghanistan, so to make such a comment is a little silly. Unless of course you know lots and can back it up, in which case I might have to revisit my views, but at this point in time, I won't.

It's not common sense. You're not British, you're not a politician in Britain, and you're not a British politician from the 18th or 19th century who is looking at the issue of British India and Afghanistan, so how the hell can you say "it's common sense"?????

Why is the US fighting in Afghanistan when they can earn a hell of a lot more money just taking over Saudi Arabia? I mean, it makes more sense to fight in Saudi Arabia, right?

I'm a European History major...so yes, I "know lots".

One hardly needs to be British to grasp that empires tend to fight the hardest for colonies that produce the most wealth for them and don't care about those that don't. As I said...that's simple common sense.

As for why we're fighting in Afghanistan? That would be 9/11.

As for why we're not fighting in Saudi Arabia? They are an ally.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I'm a European History major...so yes, I "know lots".

One hardly needs to be British to grasp that empires tend to fight the hardest for colonies that produce the most wealth for them and don't care about those that don't. As I said...that's simple common sense.

As for why we're fighting in Afghanistan? That would be 9/11.

As for why we're not fighting in Saudi Arabia? They are an ally.

No, you don't need to be British, the point I was making was one of empathy, you often need to look from their perspective as to why somewhere is important, and not from your own view of why it might be important. Sometimes taking land that isn't going to make tons of money for you isn't any less important.

Why would the British go into Afghanistan in the first place? They didn't even know what was there.

You say people fight harder. I don't get it. They might put more troops in if they think it's worth it. But the soldiers on the ground are going to give a damn whether what they're dying for is lots of wealth for rich people or not? I doubt that.

No, 9/11 isn't the only reason the US is in Afghanistan. It's a major reason but there is plenty of other stuff. And why stay now? Bin Laden's dead. Game over, pull out, who gives a damn any more. The 9/11 reason has disappeared, it's about something else, and

 

[frigidweirdo]

Massacre of British Army in Afghanistan in 1842

"The British resolved to invade Afghanistan, and the Army of the Indus, a formidable force of more than 20,000 British and Indian troops, set off from India for Afghanistan in late 1838. After difficult travel through the mountain passes, the British reached Kabul in April 1839. They marched unopposed into the Afghan capital city."

"The Afghan population deeply resented the British troops. Tensions slowly escalated, and despite warnings from friendly Afghans that an uprising was inevitable, the British were unprepared in November 1841 when an insurrection broke out in Kabul."

"On January 6, 1842, the British began their withdrawal from Kabul. Leaving the city were 4,500 British troops and 12,000 civilians who had followed the British Army to Kabul. The plan was to march to Jalalabad, about 90 miles away."

 

[TemplarKormac]

Obama learn obout it on the news?
Blame it on the news?
Finish his golf game anyways?
Fly to his next fundraiser?
Blame it on Bush?
Pull his head out of his ass & CREATE A PLAN?

Declare the United States a Gun Free Zone.

 

[Oldstyle]

I'm a European History major...so yes, I "know lots".

One hardly needs to be British to grasp that empires tend to fight the hardest for colonies that produce the most wealth for them and don't care about those that don't. As I said...that's simple common sense.

As for why we're fighting in Afghanistan? That would be 9/11.

As for why we're not fighting in Saudi Arabia? They are an ally.

No, you don't need to be British, the point I was making was one of empathy, you often need to look from their perspective as to why somewhere is important, and not from your own view of why it might be important. Sometimes taking land that isn't going to make tons of money for you isn't any less important.

Why would the British go into Afghanistan in the first place? They didn't even know what was there.

You say people fight harder. I don't get it. They might put more troops in if they think it's worth it. But the soldiers on the ground are going to give a damn whether what they're dying for is lots of wealth for rich people or not? I doubt that.

No, 9/11 isn't the only reason the US is in Afghanistan. It's a major reason but there is plenty of other stuff. And why stay now? Bin Laden's dead. Game over, pull out, who gives a damn any more. The 9/11 reason has disappeared, it's about something else, and

Plenty of other stuff? Like what for instance? We're still in Afghanistan because we're trying to keep the Taliban from taking it over once again. We went into Afghanistan because the Taliban was providing a safe haven for Al Queda. Osama bin Laden's death doesn't mean "game over" as ISIS obviously proves.

 

[BIGBOYZTOYS-eCrater]

To be quite blunt...what is there in Afghanistan that would make an empire desire it?

POPPIES...Afghanistan has been the greatest illicit opium producer in the entire world.