ramadan?

[Steve_S]

no, they left in early 89. they said in 88 they were leaving. regean was advised to begin to suppor the mujahadeen and send aids and money help them build a stable goverment. troops were really advised.

we arent doing what the russians died. i have seen personally what the soviets did to afghanistan. they turned that nation into a desert. they poisoned wells and destroyed trees and crops. when they left it wasnt because of defeat. it was simply nothing left to fight for as they destroyed that nation. they did a reverse of their idea of burning things when they retreat. the burned in spite then retreated. it was at most for the muslims a bittersweet victory. famine and starvation was their victory.

The russians fought a counterinsurgency of ruthless attrition, which honestly tends to work if your goal is utter conquest and subjection, but with the topography of Afghanistan and american stingers removing one of their greatest advantages they never got complete control of the entire country, largely because of Ahmad Shah Massoud's resistance cell (he also led an anti-taliban insurgency and was assassinated, on September 9, 2001 via suicide bombers). There's no question that the soviets were brutal. The main question is whether or not the united states should unilaterally attack nations that have never done them harm just because at some point in the distant future it may happen. I personally don't think we should. That's certainly not one of the founding principle of this nation. The simple fact of the matter is that we will never accomplish what we hope to accomplish in islamic countries because they are islamic countries. Their religion tells them to resist any sort of interference from non-muslims, and certainly to resist any sort of rule, much less from a country that's traditionally Christian. It's never going to work. You simply cannot change a culture based on a religion without removing the religion. It's detestable to me that the united states, right now, supports the government of countries like this.

We sacrifice thousands of american soldiers and spend hundreds of billions of dollars to allow them to democratically elect a government that legally endorses the EXECUTION of Christian converts. This is heinous and disgusting. The fact that we've allowed them to do that in the name of cultural respect is shameful and sickening and I'll not endorse it, their government, or our continued aid to their government.

[jasoncran]

trust me i dont like it either. im all for leaving. that is why i did this thread. we kill them in error and we pay, they kill us in error and excuse is made for that rage. im for the punishment of all that do violate the laws of war but at the same time really with the ramadan is the reason?i agree that we cant change them either. really theres no easy solution to this. do we just nuke them? do we really go in and try to make them better? we cant do either. so its either we try our best. they must on their own become a democracy. islamic cultures are very satanic and dysfunctional.

the american left and most athiests and sinners cant see islam for that fact. i remember when the were happy over lybia. i told some they vote in sharia law. and they did and so did egypt. sharia law is part of islam and no army will and can change that.

[Steve_S]

trust me i dont like it either. im all for leaving. that is why i did this thread. we kill them in error and we pay, they kill us in error and excuse is made for that rage. im for the punishment of all that do violate the laws of war but at the same time really with the ramadan is the reason?

Ramadan is the excuse, it's certainly not the reason. It's westerners trying to make sense of a situation from an unreasonable secular position, which is that they can still be muslims and act, live, and govern like westerners. It's just never going to happen. When we realize it we'll all be a lot better off. If you're going to fight punitive wars you should fight punitive wars. We can't fix them, so to speak, and we can't make them like us. We'd have done a lot better to send 15,000 Christian missionaries there and just use the military to protect them while they evangelized. That'd have certainly shaken things up a bit and caused some changes. But no, that might offend some of the people who worship that idolatrous garbage religion. So we proceed there the same way we proceed here (in the west), closing our eyes, pretending everything is just fine, never talking about what the actual problems are, and suffering greatly for it.

[jasoncran]

yeah i hear that. its the elephant in the room. just like immorality is the root cause of the problems in americas economics and yet neither party will tell the nation repent! that is what the founders would say. of course they ask the church to lead that statement but would amen it.

[amor]

What exacctly do you want me to address? The main point I was making was that people will resist foreign occupation regardless of their religion. One other point I will make is that I see nothing Chistian in the Afghan and Iraqi ventures and no justification for Christians to be involved in them. The belief that the powerful have the right to use force to impose their will on the weak has its roots in the pagan past something reflected in our respect for and neopagan veneration of the military hero. I see no justification in the gospels for involving ourselves in such evil. Islam like paganism and the synchrenistic neopaganism that holds sway in our supposedly Christian nations venerates military might conquest and domination.

They will resist it IF the occupying force came with the intent of conquering them. Did the US go to Afghanistan with that specific aim in mind? No. What do we need Afghanistan for? Not a thing. We were looking for a criminal individual and his Islamic cohorts. We had every right to find this enemy. But now that he's dead, I think we ought to be coming home.

Not being a conspiracy theorist, my belief is that Bush went in without any clear agenda. It was an act of political expediency, the US government trying to prove to its population that they were doing something in the wake of 9/1g. Bin Ladwen was a creature of the Saudis and the Pakistani Intelligence service, a fact reflected in that fact that he died in Abbottobad a rather pleasant Pakistani hill station. Obviously, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were too important to upset.

[Bold Believer]

What exacctly do you want me to address? The main point I was making was that people will resist foreign occupation regardless of their religion. One other point I will make is that I see nothing Chistian in the Afghan and Iraqi ventures and no justification for Christians to be involved in them. The belief that the powerful have the right to use force to impose their will on the weak has its roots in the pagan past something reflected in our respect for and neopagan veneration of the military hero. I see no justification in the gospels for involving ourselves in such evil. Islam like paganism and the synchrenistic neopaganism that holds sway in our supposedly Christian nations venerates military might conquest and domination.

They will resist it IF the occupying force came with the intent of conquering them. Did the US go to Afghanistan with that specific aim in mind? No. What do we need Afghanistan for? Not a thing. We were looking for a criminal individual and his Islamic cohorts. We had every right to find this enemy. But now that he's dead, I think we ought to be coming home.

Not being a conspiracy theorist, my belief is that Bush went in without any clear agenda. It was an act of political expediency, the US government trying to prove to its population that they were doing something in the wake of 9/1g. Bin Ladwen was a creature of the Saudis and the Pakistani Intelligence service, a fact reflected in that fact that he died in Abbottobad a rather pleasant Pakistani hill station. Obviously, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were too important to upset.

That's your belief. What would England have done if one of those planes had been flown into Buckingham palace, the Tower of London or the Houses of Parliament? THE SAME THING WE DID. Gone and looked for the perpetrator(s). Can you PROVE that Bin Laden was 'a creature of the Saudis and the Pakistani Intelligence service'? We know he was a Saudi citizen. We also are aware the the ISI is not our friend. And that may come back to bite Pakistan in the rear end. If we can tie UBL to the ISI, we'd be justified in leveling Islamabad.

[amor]

newflash, hamid karzai and most of the members were voted in.

Well they were declared winners some pretty fraudulent elections.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/18/afghanistan-election-fraud-evidence

[Steve_S]

What exacctly do you want me to address? The main point I was making was that people will resist foreign occupation regardless of their religion. One other point I will make is that I see nothing Chistian in the Afghan and Iraqi ventures and no justification for Christians to be involved in them. The belief that the powerful have the right to use force to impose their will on the weak has its roots in the pagan past something reflected in our respect for and neopagan veneration of the military hero. I see no justification in the gospels for involving ourselves in such evil. Islam like paganism and the synchrenistic neopaganism that holds sway in our supposedly Christian nations venerates military might conquest and domination.

They will resist it IF the occupying force came with the intent of conquering them. Did the US go to Afghanistan with that specific aim in mind? No. What do we need Afghanistan for? Not a thing. We were looking for a criminal individual and his Islamic cohorts. We had every right to find this enemy. But now that he's dead, I think we ought to be coming home.

Not being a conspiracy theorist, my belief is that Bush went in without any clear agenda. It was an act of political expediency, the US government trying to prove to its population that they were doing something in the wake of 9/1g. Bin Ladwen was a creature of the Saudis and the Pakistani Intelligence service, a fact reflected in that fact that he died in Abbottobad a rather pleasant Pakistani hill station. Obviously, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were too important to upset.

That's your belief. What would England have done if one of those planes had been flown into Buckingham palace, the Tower of London or the Houses of Parliament? THE SAME THING WE DID. Gone and looked for the perpetrator(s). Can you PROVE that Bin Laden was 'a creature of the Saudis and the Pakistani Intelligence service'? We know he was a Saudi citizen. We also are aware the the ISI is not our friend. And that may come back to bite Pakistan in the rear end. If we can tie UBL to the ISI, we'd be justified in leveling Islamabad.

I'd interject here that England did that very thing after September 11th, but then again England does pretty much whatever the United States tells it to.

[amor]

Can you PROVE that Bin Laden was 'a creature of the Saudis and the Pakistani Intelligence service'? We know he was a Saudi citizen. We also are aware the the ISI is not our friend. And that may come back to bite Pakistan in the rear end. If we can tie UBL to the ISI, we'd be justified in leveling Islamabad.

The fact that bin Ladin spent his retirement not in some obscure cave, as US propoganda at the time would have us believe, but in very large and rather ugly house less than a mile from the Pakistani military academy, in a neighbourhood favoured by retired military officers is a pretty clear indication of his links with the ISI.

As to your little rant about "levelling" Islamabad, what exactly is Christian about contemplating the mass murder of 1,000,000 civillians - that's the number of people who live in Islamabad? What makes your attitude so different from the Jihadist ranters?There is something deeply pagan in this view that it is acceptable to punish the innocent by slaugtering them, in their homes or in their workplace, merely because of the crimes or perceived crimes of the regimes that happen to have to live under

[amor]

actually, if you got to know them they do want us to leave. its the arabs and chechyians that fights us. the taliban arent native to afghanistan but pakistani trained invaders that are pashto.

Really? So all those so called "green on blue" killings, where Western troops are killed by Afghan soldiers they're either suppposed to be training or collaborating with are commited by non-Afghans, are they? it seems rather odifficult to believe that the Western foreigners should be training and helping Pakistani, Chechen and Arab foreigners.