What would you have done with Afghanistan?

[AzogtheDefiler]

The Taliban has a clear record for honesty far more than the US ever had.
We lie about almost everything.
In fact, the Taliban likely are the most honest government that ever existed.

People likely are getting al Qaeda and Taliban mixed up.
The Taliban are honorable Pashtun clerics and idealistic students.
The Arab Saudis of al Qaeda are terrorist the CIA forced on the Mujahedeen even though they have long standing mutual hatred.

If they are so honorable why do they treat women like slaves and kill gays?

 

[Rigby5]

Day 11 buddy. You righties shit the bed easily. Like asking you wear a mask to not kill granny. (Cue the fascist comments).

When granny is vulnerable, you isolate granny and ask her to wear a mask.
You don't try to isolate 330 million people and try to make them all wear masks.
Doing that prevents herd immunity and ensures granny will get it eventually, as the years will keep rolling by forever.

 

[Rigby5]

If they are so honorable why do they treat women like slaves and kill gays?

I don't have much first hand information, but what I have read is that the Taliban were only strict when the country was war torn over 20 years, and there was incredibly high incidence of murder, rape, kidnapping, etc.

The whole premise of Islam was to improve the rights of women, such as considered to have a soul, being able to own property, inherit, divorce, etc.

The problem is there was not one central Taliban dogma, so lots of areas were falling back on older Old Testament traditions, that are definitely NOT Islamic.
For example, if you read about stoning, being thrown from a roof top, etc., those are not Islamic.
The Quran is clear, only fast and painless beheading is allowed for executions.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I don't have much first hand information, but what I have read is that the Taliban were only strict when the country was war torn over 20 years, and there was incredibly high incidence of murder, rape, kidnapping, etc.

The whole premise of Islam was to improve the rights of women, such as considered to have a soul, being able to own property, inherit, divorce, etc.

The problem is there was not one central Taliban dogma, so lots of areas were falling back on older Old Testament traditions, that are definitely NOT Islamic.
For example, if you read about stoning, being thrown from a roof top, etc., those are not Islamic.
The Quran is clear, only fast and painless beheading is allowed for executions.

Stop with the bullshit and long ass posts and answer my questions. That’s how the site works. You say they aren’t “Islamic” yes Islam countries do this consistently. Be honest

 

[Rigby5]

IT'S THE FUCKING TALIBAN CONTROLLING THE CHECKPOINTS, YOU FUCKING SUB-IMBECILE!

Fuck my life.

There obviously are 2 layers of check points.
Outer ones by Taliban and inner ones by US soldiers.
Which is good, because the outer Taliban check points likely prevent many al Qaeda planned attacks from getting through.

 

[Rigby5]

Stop with the bullshit and long ass posts and answer my questions. That’s how the site works. You say they aren’t “Islamic” yes Islam countries do this consistently. Be honest

No, Islamic countries do not do this consistently.
There are only a few Old Testament style executions in Saudi Arabia and Iran, while the US executes about 10 times as many people, and does it in more barbaric ways, like electrocution, the most painful way possible.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

No, Islamic countries do not do this consistently.
There are only a few Old Testament style executions in Saudi Arabia and Iran, while the US executes about 10 times as many people, and does it in more barbaric ways, like electrocution, the most painful way possible.

Are you serious!? Every Islamic country punishes women and gays. Every single one. When you plant Islam you grow Sharia law. And your history is fucked up. The Arabs asked the British for help to get rid of the Ottoman Empire as the Ottoman Empire kept the Arabs is check. Not the other way around.

 

[Rigby5]

Are you serious!? Every Islamic country punishes women and gays. Every single one. When you plant Islam you grow Sharia law. And your history is fucked up. The Arabs asked the British for help to get rid of the Ottoman Empire as the Ottoman Empire kept the Arabs is check. Not the other way around.

No, Sharia law predated Mohammad.
You can tell because the Quan prohibits stoning and any execution other than beheading.
And there is not a single country that does not have its own criminal justice system separate from Sharia or Islamic law.
Sharia is usually only used for family matters when both side agree to it.

With the Arabs and Ottoman Empire in WWI, I don't really know, but not sure it matters.
Here is a blurb about T.E. Lawrence.
{...
Soon after the outbreak of war in 1914 he volunteered for the British Army and was stationed at the Arab Bureau (established in 1916) intelligence unit in Egypt. In 1916 he travelled to Mesopotamia and to Arabia on intelligence missions and quickly became involved with the Arab Revolt as a liaison to the Arab forces, along with other British officers, supporting the Arab Kingdom of Hejaz's independence war against its former overlord, the Ottoman Empire. He worked closely with Emir Faisal, a leader of the revolt, and he participated, sometimes as leader, in military actions against the Ottoman armed forces, culminating in the capture of Damascus in October 1918.
...}
If the Arab revolted on their own, and the British just helped a little, then the Arabs earned and deserve independence all the more.
Either way, anyone familiar or involved back then would be aghast at how badly it has been bungled, to essentially give Palestine to illegal European immigrants.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

No, Sharia law predated Mohammad.
You can tell because the Quan prohibits stoning and any execution other than beheading.
And there is not a single country that does not have its own criminal justice system separate from Sharia or Islamic law.
Sharia is usually only used for family matters when both side agree to it.

With the Arabs and Ottoman Empire in WWI, I don't really know, but not sure it matters.
Here is a blurb about T.E. Lawrence.
{...
Soon after the outbreak of war in 1914 he volunteered for the British Army and was stationed at the Arab Bureau (established in 1916) intelligence unit in Egypt. In 1916 he travelled to Mesopotamia and to Arabia on intelligence missions and quickly became involved with the Arab Revolt as a liaison to the Arab forces, along with other British officers, supporting the Arab Kingdom of Hejaz's independence war against its former overlord, the Ottoman Empire. He worked closely with Emir Faisal, a leader of the revolt, and he participated, sometimes as leader, in military actions against the Ottoman armed forces, culminating in the capture of Damascus in October 1918.
...}
If the Arab revolted on their own, and the British just helped a little, then the Arabs earned and deserve independence all the more.
Either way, anyone familiar or involved back then would be aghast at how badly it has been bungled, to essentially give Palestine to illegal European immigrants.

More fucking lies. How do you live with yourself. Read up on TE Lawrence. Dude, we cannot discuss this. It would be like me punching someone in the face and giving them a black eye and you saying, Azog never punched people so it is written. The truth is right in front of you on video

 

[Rigby5]

More fucking lies. How do you live with yourself. Read up on TE Lawrence. Dude, we cannot discuss this. It would be like me punching someone in the face and giving them a black eye and you saying, Azog never punched people so it is written. The truth is right in front of you on video

Now you are getting crazy.
Basically I was agreeing with you.
But if the Arabs asked for British help or the British asked for Arab help does not at all make any difference.
Either way the later Jewish immigrants taking over is totally inappropriate.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Now you are getting crazy.
Basically I was agreeing with you.
But if the Arabs asked for British help or the British asked for Arab help does not at all make any difference.
Either way the later Jewish immigrants taking over is totally inappropriate.

How is it inappropriate and it does make a difference. As payment for their help the British took control of Palestine and decided to allow Jews to live there since the Arabs started kicking the Jews out of other middle eastern lands. I should say more Jews as 100k or so were there already.

 

[Rigby5]

How is it inappropriate and it does make a difference. As payment for their help the British took control of Palestine and decided to allow Jews to live there since the Arabs started kicking the Jews out of other middle eastern lands.

The British never legally were given control of Palestine.
The British Mandate for Palestine was ONLY so that the British could prepare the Palestinians for self rule.

The British did NOT decide to allow Jews to suddenly emigrate in large numbers.
The limit was set at 20k per year.
So most of the Jews were illegals.
You can tell because eventually the Zionist blew up the King David Hotel, killing the British peacekeeper command.
They would not have done that if the British had been allowing easy Jewish immigration.
The Zionists were constantly fighting with and murdering British, like the "Sargeant's Affair".

The Sergeants affair - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And NO, the Arabs did NOT start kicking Jews out of any Mideastern lands.
Almost all the Jewish immigrants to Palestine were European, and it was only after Zionists started massacring Arab villages in Palestine, that Arab sentiments went hot against Jews.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

The British never legally were given control of Palestine.
The British Mandate for Palestine was ONLY so that the British could prepare the Palestinians for self rule.

The British did NOT decide to allow Jews to suddenly emigrate in large numbers.
The limit was set at 20k per year.
So most of the Jews were illegals.
You can tell because eventually the Zionist blew up the King David Hotel, killing the British peacekeeper command.
They would not have done that if the British had been allowing easy Jewish immigration.
The Zionists were constantly fighting with and murdering British, like the "Sargeant's Affair".

The Sergeants affair - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And NO, the Arabs did NOT start kicking Jews out of any Mideastern lands.
Almost all the Jewish immigrants to Palestine were European, and it was only after Zionists started massacring Arab villages in Palestine, that Arab sentiments went hot against Jews.

They did. The Jews were no longer welcome in what became KSA, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Jordan. So they went back to their ancient homeland and made a country. The Brits lied to the Arabs. Their plan was colonialism all along. Come on man. Read up on TE Lawrence. You are right about many coming from Europe. Kind of like we have at our border now…

 

[Indeependent]

The British never legally were given control of Palestine.
The British Mandate for Palestine was ONLY so that the British could prepare the Palestinians for self rule.

The British did NOT decide to allow Jews to suddenly emigrate in large numbers.
The limit was set at 20k per year.
So most of the Jews were illegals.
You can tell because eventually the Zionist blew up the King David Hotel, killing the British peacekeeper command.
They would not have done that if the British had been allowing easy Jewish immigration.
The Zionists were constantly fighting with and murdering British, like the "Sargeant's Affair".

The Sergeants affair - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And NO, the Arabs did NOT start kicking Jews out of any Mideastern lands.
Almost all the Jewish immigrants to Palestine were European, and it was only after Zionists started massacring Arab villages in Palestine, that Arab sentiments went hot against Jews.

You can tell because eventually the Zionist blew up the King David Hotel, killing the British peacekeeper command.
They would not have done that if the British had been allowing easy Jewish immigration.
The Zionists were constantly fighting with and murdering British, like the "Sargeant's Affair".

So you consider a call ahead to evacuate a building murder?
That makes you an idiot.

 

[Indeependent]

Now you are getting crazy.
Basically I was agreeing with you.
But if the Arabs asked for British help or the British asked for Arab help does not at all make any difference.
Either way the later Jewish immigrants taking over is totally inappropriate.

Why would the British help the Arabs when they lived somewhere for 1,000 years and it was still filled with malaria ridden swamps.

 

[eagle7-31]

Why he is the shithead that got us involved there in the first place

If you bothered to read George Crile's book you would know better. You seem to forget the Red Army invaded in late 1979. After Russia left Wilson sponsored legislation to give a billion or so in aid to the country. Roads, bridges, schools, restock herds etc. it went nowhere, had it passed it was no guarantee that what did follow would change, but the odds would have been lessened a great deal.

 

[Dadoalex]

Totally wrong.
With the use of tanks, the Soviets had previously beaten the Japanese in the Soviet Japanese border war of 1939, and they surrendered peacefully.
In fact, the Japanese clearly WERE trying desperately to surrender to the US for over a years, since we mined the China sea and were starving the civilians to death.

{...
Japanese records report 8,440 killed, 8,766 wounded, 162 aircraft lost in combat, and 42 tanks lost (of which 29 were later repaired and redeployed). Roughly 3,000 Manchu and Japanese troops were taken prisoner during the battles. Due to a military doctrine that prohibited surrender, the Japanese listed most of these men as killed in action, for the benefit of their families.[58] Some sources put the Japanese casualties at 45,000 or more killed, with Soviet casualties of at least 17,000.[31] However, these estimates for Japanese casualties are considered inaccurate as they exceed the total strength of the Japanese forces involved in the battle (estimated at 28,000–40,000 troops, despite Soviet claims that they were facing 75,000).[59][10] According to the records of the Bureau 6A hospital, the Japanese casualties amounted to 7,696 killed, 8,647 wounded, 1,021 missing, and 2,350 sick, for a total of 19,714 personnel losses, including 2,895 Manchu casualties. The Kwantung Army headquarters and their records give a slightly different figure of 8,629 killed and 9,087 injured. The former Japanese Minister of agriculture and forestry estimated a total of 35,000 to 36,000 casualties[10] The Soviets initially claimed to have inflicted 29,085 casualties on the Japanese, but later increased this to 61,000 for the official histories.[2]
...}

Battles of Khalkhin Gol - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Did they invade Japan?
GEEZ.

 

[Dadoalex]

Just all lies.
The Taliban most certainly did NOT at all participate in the attack on 9/11, or defend it.
The Taliban had absolutely no responsibility for the 9/11 attack at all, and the US did, since it was the US that forced the Taliban to accept al Qaeda Arabs.

The fantasy in which you live never happened.

 

[Desperado]

If you bothered to read George Crile's book you would know better. You seem to forget the Red Army invaded in late 1979. After Russia left Wilson sponsored legislation to give a billion or so in aid to the country. Roads, bridges, schools, restock herds etc. it went nowhere, had it passed it was no guarantee that what did follow would change, but the odds would have been lessened a great deal.

Well we did that while nation building there for 20 years. It did not work so there was no chance it would have been any better back then. Afganistan is and always has been a lost cause.

 

[Dadoalex]

You are ignorant.
Al Qaeda was created by the CIA in 1979, to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Man you are clearly living a fanbtasy.
Turn off the X-files!

Al Qaeda | Mapping Militants Project

cisac.fsi.stanford.edu