Donald Trump : Decision to go into Afghanistan the "worst decision in the history of our country"

[Robert]

I know you dislike Trump but you do the exact same thing you berate him for.

I hate women do I? Ok.

 

[Robert]

Its not whataboutism Robert, its context on your views of invasion of another country, Afghanistan this time. Iraq, Libya, Syria,Yemen,Sudan, Afghanistan are still suffering badly due to western state terrorism, dropping bombs & invasions.

Time?l.....Bush is a clown but still commander of the armed forces, thus is responsible. The so called 'Operation Enduring Freedom' began on October 7, 2001. US and western media WITHIN HALF HOUR blamed OBL. The US and its cronies had weeks to provide evidence to the ruling Afghan government. But they didnt because they WANTED to bomb & invade. Anyone who thinks they only wanted to get OBL and take out Al-Q bases is very wrong to put it politley.

Come on Robert, you're TRYING to debate me not some poor Afghan. An Act of War is between two NATIONS. Afghanistan or Taliban werent behind 911, as accepted by the invaders. If a group attacks civilians in another country, its a criminal or terrorist attack by a group which should be dealt without bombing , invading a nation of innocent people , poor people who manage to eat food daily, not much else.

Even if you cheer invasions, a sensible person would now look back and realise this was the biggest war disaster in US history. Not only were they defeated, humiliated(along with the UK), the people 40+ nations wanted rid of are not only back in power but stronger than ever before. lol

The good news Robert, the world is now a safer place without Nato in Afghanistan. Pakistan firstly wont have states next door with bases planning terrorist attacks in their land. You care for 70 Brits but what about the 70,000 Pakistanis who died as a result of this invasion? Taliban have also evovled into a better bunch, leave the Afghans alone for maybe 50 years they will be a strong , modern nation.

The bad news Robert, this humiliation, defeat has started a domino effect. Its very slow atm, will remain slow for the next few years but the US empire is not only in decline, its on the way down. US has gave the world a lot of good things inc some good movies but this is overshadowed by their desctrucdtion of the planet, the people and nations by installing puppets.

Bump this on 2030, you will see the petrodollar no longer exists, which in turn will US power and influence will severely weakned, making it no longer the worlds only supwerpower, in fact 2nd to China.

Going to war with nations or even groups is wrong in the way the US did but it also went to war with Islam, this is height of stupidity.

Bush was intellectually dominated by the neoconservatives Cheney and Rumsfeld - trouble is when your only tool is a hammer, every job looks like a nail. They had the power to effect regime change but that didn’t mean it was a good idea.

What did Pakistan do to make this alleged 70,000 of their people targets? Why did they shelter OBL? You can’t tell me that they didn’t know he was there, living next to a compound of retired senior military staff.

“Went to war with Islam” - you know sometimes you give me pause for thought, then you ruin the effect with this sort of absurd hyperbole. By your own definition an act of war is between nations, not a nation and a religion.

 

[Robert]

One cannot ignore Iraq when discussing Afghanistan post 9/11.

Iraq war was based on fabricated evidence. Even if we were to grant the notion the attacker was in Afghanistan, why attack Iraq? More so, once Bin Laden was ‘dead’, why stay in Afghanistan?

Nothing to do with Nato. Until the West hold Bush and Blair responsible for war crimes, there is no justice.

The invasion of Afghanistan was legitimate self-defence after 9/11. By the death of OBL, the UN had taken over in Afghanistan.

The invasion of Iraq had questionable basis in law under the ambiguous wording of UNSCR1441. I read that British staff officers sought assurance from government that they would not be exposed to prosecution by the ICC at The Hague.

Even if the ICC decides to indict Blair there is enough legal wiggle room in UNSCR1441 for him to be acquitted.

As for indicting Bush, who is going to arrest him? You think the US DoJ will hand him over to the ICC jurisdiction?

Looking forward, I think Afghanistan will become a China client state now.

 

[Gilly]

I hate women do I? Ok.

Regardless of the rhetoric of Trump your rhetoric is no different.

 

[James]

The invasion of Afghanistan was legitimate self-defence after 9/11. By the death of OBL, the UN had taken over in Afghanistan.

The invasion of Iraq had questionable basis in law under the ambiguous wording of UNSCR1441. I read that British staff officers sought assurance from government that they would not be exposed to prosecution by the ICC at The Hague.

Even if the ICC decides to indict Blair there is enough legal wiggle room in UNSCR1441 for him to be acquitted.

As for indicting Bush, who is going to arrest him? You think the US DoJ will hand him over to the ICC jurisdiction?

Looking forward, I think Afghanistan will become a China client state now.

Chilcot’s report is pretty conclusive imo.

The Iraq War was recklessly launched by the US and the UK before peaceful options to resolve the issues had been exhausted, such as negotiation and diplomacy. It was a legally dubious, morally questionable, and strategically entirely unnecessary invasion of a legitimate sovereign country, which comprehensively failed in its objectives.

I know a lot of people were against it at the time, but given the even stronger case against in hindsight and after the official inquiry, I am surprised that anyone would still attempt a defence of it now.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

The invasion of Afghanistan was legitimate self-defence after 9/11. By the death of OBL, the UN had taken over in Afghanistan.

The invasion of Iraq had questionable basis in law under the ambiguous wording of UNSCR1441. I read that British staff officers sought assurance from government that they would not be exposed to prosecution by the ICC at The Hague.

Even if the ICC decides to indict Blair there is enough legal wiggle room in UNSCR1441 for him to be acquitted.

As for indicting Bush, who is going to arrest him? You think the US DoJ will hand him over to the ICC jurisdiction?

Looking forward, I think Afghanistan will become a China client state now.

If that happens it would be quite telling. Not surprisingly, you would expect co-operation is more attractive to force and coercion. Afghanistan is sitting on a lot of valuable resources just waiting to be mined. NATO seemed to think regime change was the quickest way to get access to it, but it was a poor decision. Neither do I believe in the 9/11 defence theory, there was no way the Taliban wanted war with the US so that just didn't make sense to me. The Ameircans tend to make up a lot of lies and subterfuge to cover their real intentions when invading foreign shores.

 

[Robert]

Chilcot’s report is pretty conclusive imo.

The Iraq War was recklessly launched by the US and the UK before peaceful options to resolve the issues had been exhausted, such as negotiation and diplomacy. It was a legally dubious, morally questionable, and strategically entirely unnecessary invasion of a legitimate sovereign country, which comprehensively failed in its objectives.

I know a lot of people were against it at the time, but given the even stronger case against in hindsight and after the official inquiry, I am surprised that anyone would still attempt a defence of it now.

I didn’t defend it. I commented on the legal basis of it.

 

[Robert]

If that happens it would be quite telling. Not surprisingly, you would expect co-operation is more attractive to force and coercion. Afghanistan is sitting on a lot of valuable resources just waiting to be mined. NATO seemed to think regime change was the quickest way to get access to it, but it was a poor decision. Neither do I believe in the 9/11 defence theory, there was no way the Taliban wanted war with the US so that just didn't make sense to me. The Ameircans tend to make up a lot of lies and subterfuge to cover their real intentions when invading foreign shores.

Let’s be clear - NATO declared Article Five (for the only time in its history) in response to an attack on a member state. Nothing to do with access to minerals. NATO is not the USA.

 

[James]

I didn’t defend it. I commented on the legal basis of it.

Ok. Apologies for the direct nature of the question: but do you condemn the invasion?

 

[Technics 1210]

Let’s be clear - NATO declared Article Five (for the only time in its history) in response to an attack on a member state. Nothing to do with access to minerals. NATO is not the USA.

Afghanistan didn’t attack the USA as a sovereign state, at best a national of Afghanistan was responsible (OBL).

Saudis were proven to be involved in 9/11, why isn’t Article 5 invoked and war declared on Saudia Arabia?

 

[Technics 1210]

The invasion of Afghanistan was legitimate self-defence after 9/11. By the death of OBL, the UN had taken over in Afghanistan.

The invasion of Iraq had questionable basis in law under the ambiguous wording of UNSCR1441. I read that British staff officers sought assurance from government that they would not be exposed to prosecution by the ICC at The Hague.

Even if the ICC decides to indict Blair there is enough legal wiggle room in UNSCR1441 for him to be acquitted.

As for indicting Bush, who is going to arrest him? You think the US DoJ will hand him over to the ICC jurisdiction?

Looking forward, I think Afghanistan will become a China client state now.

East is on the rise, Russia and China will control. West has only itself to blame.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Let’s be clear - NATO declared Article Five (for the only time in its history) in response to an attack on a member state. Nothing to do with access to minerals. NATO is not the USA.

Tomayto tomato. NATO is effectively there to implement USA policy above all else. If some other countries interests align with the US then it might be deployed there as well.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Bush was intellectually dominated by the neoconservatives Cheney and Rumsfeld - trouble is when your only tool is a hammer, every job looks like a nail. They had the power to effect regime change but that didn’t mean it was a good idea.

What did Pakistan do to make this alleged 70,000 of their people targets? Why did they shelter OBL? You can’t tell me that they didn’t know he was there, living next to a compound of retired senior military staff.

“Went to war with Islam” - you know sometimes you give me pause for thought, then you ruin the effect with this sort of absurd hyperbole. By your own definition an act of war is between nations, not a nation and a religion.

Neocons or more like criminals. It was always invasions, war and killings in order to further their plans or imperialism of lands. Afghans are not nails, they are human beings who for 20 years feared being bombed along with their children by some murderer flying a jet or get shot by some murderer dresses as a soldier. Lets see them as humans, this is the first step which will help you understand the situation.

Because of this immoral invasion & occupation, the CIA along with Indian intelligence used the occupied land to finance & plan for their terrorists to attack Pakistan. Remember Pak is a nuclear power, it cannot be invaded like Afg, Iraq, Libya etc, so proxy terrorism was used. Its ironic these nations claim to be great people stopping terrorism when the truth is they are the biggest terrorists and supporters of terrorists. USA and it's poodles are to blame for the deaths of 70,000 Pakistanis, which is why Pakistan made sure Taliban would defeat them, it had no choice to support the resistance & thats what they are.

Its absurd because you are unware. There were multiple reasons for the invasion, one being an attack on Islam. Remember you have demonise a people in order for you to bomb & kill them so your public clap for every death, whether its a child or even an pet. A section of the right wing Christians and others were calling to bomb Mecca, scrap the Quran etc. After 911 the faith was attacked, funded by the western governments, its still on-going. The invaders even had bible verses on their guns in Afghanistan, not to mention Bush & Blair are Christian extremists.

There is no defence of this. You are saying Nato laws lol. Afghans dont give a damn about Nato, it's nothing to do with them.

Just be grateful the Afghans are not terrorists like the invaders, otherwise if 911 caused 20 years of invasions in numerous nations. Then 20 years of killing would also merit some sort of revenge.

Even an American general has admitted this.

 

[WhenSultansBowled]

Neocons or more like criminals. It was always invasions, war and killings in order to further their plans or imperialism of lands. Afghans are not nails, they are human beings who for 20 years feared being bombed along with their children by some murderer flying a jet or get shot by some murderer dresses as a soldier. Lets see them as humans, this is the first step which will help you understand the situation.

Because of this immoral invasion & occupation, the CIA along with Indian intelligence used the occupied land to finance & plan for their terrorists to attack Pakistan. Remember Pak is a nuclear power, it cannot be invaded like Afg, Iraq, Libya etc, so proxy terrorism was used. Its ironic these nations claim to be great people stopping terrorism when the truth is they are the biggest terrorists and supporters of terrorists. USA and it's poodles are to blame for the deaths of 70,000 Pakistanis, which is why Pakistan made sure Taliban would defeat them, it had no choice to support the resistance & thats what they are.

Its absurd because you are unware. There were multiple reasons for the invasion, one being an attack on Islam. Remember you have demonise a people in order for you to bomb & kill them so your public clap for every death, whether its a child or even an pet. A section of the right wing Christians and others were calling to bomb Mecca, scrap the Quran etc. After 911 the faith was attacked, funded by the western governments, its still on-going. The invaders even had bible verses on their guns in Afghanistan, not to mention Bush & Blair are Christian extremists.

There is no defence of this. You are saying Nato laws lol. Afghans dont give a damn about Nato, it's nothing to do with them.

Just be grateful the Afghans are not terrorists like the invaders, otherwise if 911 caused 20 years of invasions in numerous nations. Then 20 years of killing would also merit some sort of revenge.

Even an American general has admitted this.

Watch the 'illegitimate descendents of criminals' going town to town, cold bloodedly killing people, making audio/video mashups and sharing the videos.

You will never see anyone speak for baby girls, boys, "women rights™" and innocent men massacred by the invaders in cold blood.

It is all a bloody circus.

Everyone shall answer to The Creator for their deeds!

 

[Robert]

Neocons or more like criminals. It was always invasions, war and killings in order to further their plans or imperialism of lands. Afghans are not nails, they are human beings who for 20 years feared being bombed along with their children by some murderer flying a jet or get shot by some murderer dresses as a soldier. Lets see them as humans, this is the first step which will help you understand the situation.

Because of this immoral invasion & occupation, the CIA along with Indian intelligence used the occupied land to finance & plan for their terrorists to attack Pakistan. Remember Pak is a nuclear power, it cannot be invaded like Afg, Iraq, Libya etc, so proxy terrorism was used. Its ironic these nations claim to be great people stopping terrorism when the truth is they are the biggest terrorists and supporters of terrorists. USA and it's poodles are to blame for the deaths of 70,000 Pakistanis, which is why Pakistan made sure Taliban would defeat them, it had no choice to support the resistance & thats what they are.

Its absurd because you are unware. There were multiple reasons for the invasion, one being an attack on Islam. Remember you have demonise a people in order for you to bomb & kill them so your public clap for every death, whether its a child or even an pet. A section of the right wing Christians and others were calling to bomb Mecca, scrap the Quran etc. After 911 the faith was attacked, funded by the western governments, its still on-going. The invaders even had bible verses on their guns in Afghanistan, not to mention Bush & Blair are Christian extremists.

There is no defence of this. You are saying Nato laws lol. Afghans dont give a damn about Nato, it's nothing to do with them.

Just be grateful the Afghans are not terrorists like the invaders, otherwise if 911 caused 20 years of invasions in numerous nations. Then 20 years of killing would also merit some sort of revenge.

Even an American general has admitted this.

I know what General Clark said, and often quote him. I may even have down so further up this thread. After the end of the Cold War, the neoconservatives wanted to democratise / regime change Iraq, then Iran and Saudi Arabia. When your only tool is a hammer, every issue - every government - looks like a nail.

The demonisation of Islam was a reaction to 9/11. Nobody in the West cared before that. None of this would have happened, but for OBL. 9/11 made it all politically possible.

As for Afghans not being terrorists, I never claimed they were but let us see what transpires. ISIL and Al-Qaeda will sense an opportunity to move in.

 

[KingKhanWC]

I know what General Clark said, and often quote him. I may even have down so further up this thread. After the end of the Cold War, the neoconservatives wanted to democratise / regime change Iraq, then Iran and Saudi Arabia. When your only tool is a hammer, every issue - every government - looks like a nail.

The demonisation of Islam was a reaction to 9/11. Nobody in the West cared before that. None of this would have happened, but for OBL. 9/11 made it all politically possible.

As for Afghans not being terrorists, I never claimed they were but let us see what transpires. ISIL and Al-Qaeda will sense an opportunity to move in.

Then you should accept the invasion and occupation was part of a larger strategy. Its not about hammer & nail, the cold hard truth is USA and it's puppets are imperialists or states which practice terrorism. US has many tools, if it spent the same money on helping the Afghans, it would have been a major player in the region and enjoying the fruits of trillions worth of minerals which now the Chinese will take. It wasnt only an immoral startegy but a foolish one, as we see now.

Not true, Islam has always been attacked since the Crusades but the level of attacks rose and the tactics of the attacks were like never seen before. E.g The UK created Prevent stategy which paid anti-Islamic groups such as Quilliam. 911 or OBL is no excuse to attack a faith which changed the world for centuries and a faith of over 50 nations with nearly 2 billion people. Most of these Muslims hate the Yanks now, they will never forget the crimes against humanity we have seen in the last 20 years.

According to your mate Biden there is no Al-Q or ISIS in Afghanistan now, they wiped them out , reason for leaving. Which is it?

My point was if US has the right to invade and murder because of one attack killing 3000, do Afghans have a right for revenge now?

 

[PakLFC]

He is totally correct. Arrogantly invaded Afghanistan in an attempt to make them American cultural slaves. Wasted $2 trillion, killed thousand of innocents in Pakistan and Afghanistan as well as their own soldiers. Those they came to oust are back in power looking stronger then ever. Now wagging their tail at the Taliban for a safe exit they have won nothing at all. An epic humiliation if ever their was one.

 

[Robert]

Then you should accept the invasion and occupation was part of a larger strategy. Its not about hammer & nail, the cold hard truth is USA and it's puppets are imperialists or states which practice terrorism. US has many tools, if it spent the same money on helping the Afghans, it would have been a major player in the region and enjoying the fruits of trillions worth of minerals which now the Chinese will take. It wasnt only an immoral startegy but a foolish one, as we see now.

Not true, Islam has always been attacked since the Crusades but the level of attacks rose and the tactics of the attacks were like never seen before. E.g The UK created Prevent stategy which paid anti-Islamic groups such as Quilliam. 911 or OBL is no excuse to attack a faith which changed the world for centuries and a faith of over 50 nations with nearly 2 billion people. Most of these Muslims hate the Yanks now, they will never forget the crimes against humanity we have seen in the last 20 years.

According to your mate Biden there is no Al-Q or ISIS in Afghanistan now, they wiped them out , reason for leaving. Which is it?

My point was if US has the right to invade and murder because of one attack killing 3000, do Afghans have a right for revenge now?

Well, you quoted General Clark so I used his analogy. Yes they had other tools but 9/11 meant that they would only use the hammer. OBL wanted to drag USA into unwinnable war and succeeded, with the Afghans paying the price.

Prevent was a response to 9/11 and 7/7. It was the wrong strategy, but was not designed to hurt Muslims, it was to protect Britons from the jihadist terrorism which was already killing them.

Didn’t say anything about “rights”. Blood cries out for blood. What you seem to suggest is that more international terrorism will foment in Afghanistan. Biden is wrong on this - Al-Q and ISIL were not wiped out, you can’t kill ideas. They will come back now.

 

[Robert]

Not true, Islam has always been attacked since the Crusades but the level of attacks rose and the tactics of the attacks were like never seen before.

It would be a mistake to posit the Caliphates as victims historically. Remember that the Crusades were a reaction to aggression - to take Jerusalem back for Christendom after it fell to the Caliphs.

The Umayyad Caliphate impinged on Europe by taking the Iberian Peninsula in 711 CE. Had Charles du Tours not stopped then in the Pyrenees they would have conquered France too.

The Ottomans took Constantinople in 1453 CE, ending the Byzantine Empire.

Suleiman the Magnificent laid siege to Vienna in 1529 CE. But his army arrived in poor health after a long march and depleted of camels and the siege failed.

Arab slavers took ten million European slaves, including thousands of Britons from Cornwall taken by the Barbary Pirates.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Well, you quoted General Clark so I used his analogy. Yes they had other tools but 9/11 meant that they would only use the hammer. OBL wanted to drag USA into unwinnable war and succeeded, with the Afghans paying the price.

Prevent was a response to 9/11 and 7/7. It was the wrong strategy, but was not designed to hurt Muslims, it was to protect Britons from the jihadist terrorism which was already killing them.

Didn’t say anything about “rights”. Blood cries out for blood. What you seem to suggest is that more international terrorism will foment in Afghanistan. Biden is wrong on this - Al-Q and ISIL were not wiped out, you can’t kill ideas. They will come back now.

Im suggesting Afghans are not like Americans or Brits, they have no desire to hurt the public of UK or America in revenge for 20 years of their aggression. Only one party is the aggressor and terrorist here.

There is no such thing as Jihadi terrorism, it makes no sense in Arabic.

These terms are from Zionist Islamaphobes who have spread this propaganda, its a shame your have fallen for it like an amateur, making it nearly impossible to have a discussion with you.

It would be a mistake to posit the Caliphates as victims historically. Remember that the Crusades were a reaction to aggression - to take Jerusalem back for Christendom after it fell to the Caliphs.

The Umayyad Caliphate impinged on Europe by taking the Iberian Peninsula in 711 CE. Had Charles du Tours not stopped then in the Pyrenees they would have conquered France too.

The Ottomans took Constantinople in 1453 CE, ending the Byzantine Empire.

Suleiman the Magnificent laid siege to Vienna in 1529 CE. But his army arrived in poor health after a long march and depleted of camels and the siege failed.

Arab slavers took ten million European slaves, including thousands of Britons from Cornwall taken by the Barbary Pirates.

What history have you learnt?

History didnt start then, it when the Christians took over Jerusalem, killing , raping and even even eating fellow Christians. This is for another topic.

 

[Markhor]

Should've pulled them out when you had the chance then.

 

[Robert]

Im suggesting Afghans are not like Americans or Brits, they have no desire to hurt the public of UK or America in revenge for 20 years of their aggression. Only one party is the aggressor and terrorist here.

There is no such thing as Jihadi terrorism, it makes no sense in Arabic.

These terms are from Zionist Islamaphobes who have spread this propaganda, its a shame your have fallen for it like an amateur, making it nearly impossible to have a discussion with you.

What history have you learnt?

History didnt start then, it when the Christians took over Jerusalem, killing , raping and even even eating fellow Christians. This is for another topic.

It might make no sense in Arabic but it does in English. What was the motive for 7/7? To kill infidels in God’s name.

IS-K have killed dozens in bomb blasts already, Western soldiers and Afghan civilians alike.

By “the Christians” I assume you mean the Roman Empire? The pagan Romans scattered the Jewish diaspora, then persecuted the Christians in Jerusalem, but later on Christianity became the Roman state religion. All before Islam or course.

 

[Technics 1210]

George Bush: ‘God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq’

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

What was the motive to attack Iraq? Seems to the West are happy to attack another nation in the name of god but have a problem when the reverse happens in the name of God.

 

[KingKhanWC]

It might make no sense in Arabic but it does in English. What was the motive for 7/7? To kill infidels in God’s name.

IS-K have killed dozens in bomb blasts already, Western soldiers and Afghan civilians alike.

By “the Christians” I assume you mean the Roman Empire? The pagan Romans scattered the Jewish diaspora, then persecuted the Christians in Jerusalem, but later on Christianity became the Roman state religion. All before Islam or course.

The translation doesnt make sense. Jihad siimply means struggle, firstly with oneself but also self defence or defence of others. If the Russians & Chinese invaded the UK, every British soldier or person resisting would be doing Jihad. This is a universal right, to deem this term as something else, means the person using it has no basic understanding of human, universal rights going back to the start of mankind.

July 7th bombings were a result of foriegn policy, as warned by the head of MI5. Manningham-Buller said the invasion of Iraq would cause this and it did. This was also the official reason given by those who carried out the attacks. Of course its wrong to target innocent civilians but its also wrong to assume if you destroy people & nations, nobody will target you in return. The war of terror has also caused a danger for you & I, along with state terrorism on nations , never seen before in history.

IS-K? Never heard of them, please give me some detailed background. Who is their leader etc?

Caliph Umar walked into Jerusalem, there was no resistance as people wanted him in charge due to his justice and respect of all the 3 faiths present. The Crusaders came, killed Jews, Muslims, fellow Christians, again even ate them. This is how it started.

Hate breeds hate, violence brings violence. Sure if you agree with invading, bombing and occupying other nations its your view but also accept there is always a blowback. You cant have it both ways, its not reality but fantasy land.

 

[Robert]

George Bush: ‘God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq’

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

What was the motive to attack Iraq? Seems to the West are happy to attack another nation in the name of god but have a problem when the reverse happens in the name of God.

Interesting that 43 also believed that God wanted him to get the Palestinians their state.

 

[Robert]

The translation doesnt make sense. Jihad siimply means struggle, firstly with oneself but also self defence or defence of others. If the Russians & Chinese invaded the UK, every British soldier or person resisting would be doing Jihad. This is a universal right, to deem this term as something else, means the person using it has no basic understanding of human, universal rights going back to the start of mankind.

July 7th bombings were a result of foriegn policy, as warned by the head of MI5. Manningham-Buller said the invasion of Iraq would cause this and it did. This was also the official reason given by those who carried out the attacks. Of course its wrong to target innocent civilians but its also wrong to assume if you destroy people & nations, nobody will target you in return. The war of terror has also caused a danger for you & I, along with state terrorism on nations , never seen before in history.

IS-K? Never heard of them, please give me some detailed background. Who is their leader etc?

Caliph Umar walked into Jerusalem, there was no resistance as people wanted him in charge due to his justice and respect of all the 3 faiths present. The Crusaders came, killed Jews, Muslims, fellow Christians, again even ate them. This is how it started.

Hate breeds hate, violence brings violence. Sure if you agree with invading, bombing and occupying other nations its your view but also accept there is always a blowback. You cant have it both ways, its not reality but fantasy land.

From Webster:

noun: ISLAM
a struggle or fight against the enemies of Islam.
"he declared a jihad against the infidels"
the spiritual struggle within oneself against sin.
noun: greater jihad;

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jihad

That the 7/7 bombers were a reaction to UK foreign policy does not mean they didn’t consider themselves holy warriors. From Mohammad Sudiq Khan’s tape broadcast on Al-Jazeera:

...I myself, I myself, I make dua (pray) to Allah ... to raise me amongst those whom I love like the prophets, the messengers, the martyrs and today's heroes like our beloved Sheikh Osama Bin Laden, Dr Ayman al-Zawahri and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and all the other brothers and sisters that are fighting in the ... of this cause.

That’s holy warrior stuff.

I would defend my own land from invasion by soldiers. I would not blow up civilians.

Beeb on IS-K: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-58333533.amp

 

[KingKhanWC]

From Webster:

noun: ISLAM
a struggle or fight against the enemies of Islam.
"he declared a jihad against the infidels"
the spiritual struggle within oneself against sin.
noun: greater jihad;

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jihad

That the 7/7 bombers were a reaction to UK foreign policy does not mean they didn’t consider themselves holy warriors. From Mohammad Sudiq Khan’s tape broadcast on Al-Jazeera:

...I myself, I myself, I make dua (pray) to Allah ... to raise me amongst those whom I love like the prophets, the messengers, the martyrs and today's heroes like our beloved Sheikh Osama Bin Laden, Dr Ayman al-Zawahri and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and all the other brothers and sisters that are fighting in the ... of this cause.

That’s holy warrior stuff.

I would defend my own land from invasion by soldiers. I would not blow up civilians.

Beeb on IS-K: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-58333533.amp

Ive already given you the correct definition which has been the same for over 1400 years. It doesnt matter what some Islamaphobes or what some online dictionary says, they would be ruined in any debate regarding this.

Their main reason was foriegn policy, people can add other reasons too. MI5 made all Brits aware, invading Iraq would cause this.

If you give yourself the right to self defence, dont take it off the Afghans, Iraqis or others. 99% of those who have fought for self defence dont blow up civilians either. Its a lame attempt to claim a large % do.

I can google myself. You mentioned them, so please explain them in your own words.

Its simple invading nations results in a backlash, puts many others in danger. Your heroic armies of the UK or USA will not be able to stop this. No army can stop people fighting back in todays world. A sensible person would not support any wars by any nations for this reason alone.

Bliar and Bush should be on the stand for war crimes but are still heros to many in the west. ITs a shame people support terrorist leaders here. Can you explain why?

 

[rhony]

Trump isn't right. I remember 9/11. Everybody was so darn angry and wanted revenge. The mistake US made was going to Iraq. Afg was always the right move and they killed tens of thousands of terrorists in Afg. They should have left after Bin Laden's death though. Afghanistan was always a sink hole. The majority of the population is deeply conservative Muslim and they aren't going to embrace liberal democracy for another 50 years. Trillions were spent and wasted.

 

[Robert]

Ive already given you the correct definition which has been the same for over 1400 years. It doesnt matter what some Islamaphobes or what some online dictionary says, they would be ruined in any debate regarding this.

Their main reason was foriegn policy, people can add other reasons too. MI5 made all Brits aware, invading Iraq would cause this.

If you give yourself the right to self defence, dont take it off the Afghans, Iraqis or others. 99% of those who have fought for self defence dont blow up civilians either. Its a lame attempt to claim a large % do.

I can google myself. You mentioned them, so please explain them in your own words.

Its simple invading nations results in a backlash, puts many others in danger. Your heroic armies of the UK or USA will not be able to stop this. No army can stop people fighting back in todays world. A sensible person would not support any wars by any nations for this reason alone.

Bliar and Bush should be on the stand for war crimes but are still heros to many in the west. ITs a shame people support terrorist leaders here. Can you explain why?

You are obfuscating on 7/7. It happened because three British Muslims and one Jamaican convert decided to kill British civilians in the name of their god as an act of revenge for Afghanistan and Iraq. That was not self-defence of their homelands.

I don’t have my own words for IS-K. I had not heard of this faction until they killed dozens of USMC and Afghan civilians. NATO was pulling out of Afghanistan according to the US-Taliban agreement, but for this group it was too slow.

I would imagine some in the US and UK supported Bush and Blair in Afghanistan for upholding those nations’ legitimate right of defence against attack on 9/11. I would imagine that some supported them in Iraq for reasons including a false narrative that Saddam was connected to 9/11 and that the West has a moral duty to topple dictators and set the Iraqi people free. Bush will never stand trial for Iraq because the USA has not signed up to the ICC. Blair may have breached the Geneva Conventions and Hague Convention on Iraq, but ask yourself why you think the ICC has not issued a warrant for his arrest.

 

[shaz619]

You are obfuscating on 7/7. It happened because three British Muslims and one Jamaican convert decided to kill British civilians in the name of their god as an act of revenge for Afghanistan and Iraq. That was not self-defence of their homelands.

I don’t have my own words for IS-K. I had not heard of this faction until they killed dozens of USMC and Afghan civilians. NATO was pulling out of Afghanistan according to the US-Taliban agreement, but for this group it was too slow.

I would imagine some in the US and UK supported Bush and Blair in Afghanistan for upholding those nations’ legitimate right of defence against attack on 9/11. I would imagine that some supported them in Iraq for reasons including a false narrative that Saddam was connected to 9/11 and that the West has a moral duty to topple dictators and set the Iraqi people free. Bush will never stand trial for Iraq because the USA has not signed up to the ICC. Blair may have breached the Geneva Conventions and Hague Convention on Iraq, but ask yourself why you think the ICC has not issued a warrant for his arrest.

Yes it was an eye for an eye type deal from their side, a direct response for the unethical foreign intervention which resulted in the death of millions of innocent people, so it could have been seen as a legitimate right of defence for the foreign invasions of Afghan and Iraq.

The West never intended to stabilise any of those regions and have done more to harvest the terror and hardline Islamists; if they were so moral, they wouldn’t get in bed with the Saudis who have been more then happy to spread radical Islam around the globe and even on these very shores.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

You are obfuscating on 7/7. It happened because three British Muslims and one Jamaican convert decided to kill British civilians in the name of their god as an act of revenge for Afghanistan and Iraq. That was not self-defence of their homelands.

I don’t have my own words for IS-K. I had not heard of this faction until they killed dozens of USMC and Afghan civilians. NATO was pulling out of Afghanistan according to the US-Taliban agreement, but for this group it was too slow.

I would imagine some in the US and UK supported Bush and Blair in Afghanistan for upholding those nations’ legitimate right of defence against attack on 9/11. I would imagine that some supported them in Iraq for reasons including a false narrative that Saddam was connected to 9/11 and that the West has a moral duty to topple dictators and set the Iraqi people free. Bush will never stand trial for Iraq because the USA has not signed up to the ICC. Blair may have breached the Geneva Conventions and Hague Convention on Iraq, but ask yourself why you think the ICC has not issued a warrant for his arrest.

A 20 year war was launched because of the act of 3 British Muslims and a Jamaican convert? I think if anyone is obfuscating here it is you. If the West has a moral duty to topple dictators and set people in a foreign country free, then surely it has a moral duty to police and govern those areas where they have destroyed the existing infrastructure?

 

[Robert]

Yes it was an eye for an eye type deal from their side, a direct response for the unethical foreign intervention which resulted in the death of millions of innocent people, so it could have been seen as a legitimate right of defence for the foreign invasions of Afghan and Iraq.

The West never intended to stabilise any of those regions and have done more to harvest the terror and hardline Islamists; if they were so moral, they wouldn’t get in bed with the Saudis who have been more then happy to spread radical Islam around the globe and even on these very shores.

The neocons wanted to invade and democratise Saudi Arabia, but they never got there as Iraq became such a quagmire for them.

 

[Robert]

A 20 year war was launched because of the act of 3 British Muslims and a Jamaican convert?

No. The clue is in “act of revenge for Afghanistan.” Please reread what I have posted on this thread in order, bearing in mind the points I have replied to understand the context.

 

[Technics 1210]

If 7/7 was an act of revenge for Afghanistan, then it can easily be argued 9/11 was revenge for decades of Western intervention in the ME prior to 2001. It's not like history can be wiped out at the turn of the millennium.

 

[Technics 1210]

The neocons wanted to invade and democratise Saudi Arabia, but they never got there as Iraq became such a quagmire for them.

Not true. Saudi Arabia ensures the petrodollar is alive and well, and it was Saddam who was prepared to sell oil in Euros. The death of the petrodollar means loss of trust in USD. Gaddafi was preparing the Gold dinar. Rest is history.

Western intervention has and never will be about instilling western values, it has always been about protecting Western interests, the Petrodollar. This is why USA didn’t punish the Saudis after 9/11 - in-fact the one plane that was permitted to leave US airspace was carrying Saudi nationals.

 

[Robert]

Not true. Saudi Arabia ensures the petrodollar is alive and well, and it was Saddam who was prepared to sell oil in Euros. The death of the petrodollar means loss of trust in USD. Gaddafi was preparing the Gold dinar. Rest is history.

Western intervention has and never will be about instilling western values, it has always been about protecting Western interests, the Petrodollar. This is why USA didn’t punish the Saudis after 9/11 - in-fact the one plane that was permitted to leave US airspace was carrying Saudi nationals.

It’s what Ken Clarke wrote in his book regarding the neocons when they came into power in 2000.

It’s about both. A wise man once told me that wars never happen for just one reason. Oil grab yes, extending hegemony yes, but also promoting democracy, which makes for more stable societies as more people have more freedom.

 

[Technics 1210]

It’s what Ken Clarke wrote in his book regarding the neocons when they came into power in 2000.

It’s about both. A wise man once told me that wars never happen for just one reason. Oil grab yes, extending hegemony yes, but also promoting democracy, which makes for more stable societies as more people have more freedom.

Democracy is the excuse Western governments dupe their civilians with just to garner votes/support.

 

[Robert]

The UN says half a million Afghans will flee the country by the end of the year.

Pakistan is putting up a border wall and who can blame them, as they have taken three million Afghans in down the decades of war.

 

[Robert]

Democracy is the excuse Western governments dupe their civilians with just to garner votes/support.

I don’t think so, the people would rather not have foreign wars. The drive to bring democracy has been genuine. I think it has run its course though.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

The UN says half a million Afghans will flee the country by the end of the year.

Pakistan is putting up a border wall and who can blame them, as they have taken three million Afghans in down the decades of war.

Half a million Afghans were already probably fleeing the country. They have been fleeing it since the Soviet invasion and it's never stopped since. You only need to look at the numbers of Afghans turning up on our shores, it didn't just start last week did it?

 

[KingKhanWC]

You are obfuscating on 7/7. It happened because three British Muslims and one Jamaican convert decided to kill British civilians in the name of their god as an act of revenge for Afghanistan and Iraq. That was not self-defence of their homelands.

I don’t have my own words for IS-K. I had not heard of this faction until they killed dozens of USMC and Afghan civilians. NATO was pulling out of Afghanistan according to the US-Taliban agreement, but for this group it was too slow.

I would imagine some in the US and UK supported Bush and Blair in Afghanistan for upholding those nations’ legitimate right of defence against attack on 9/11. I would imagine that some supported them in Iraq for reasons including a false narrative that Saddam was connected to 9/11 and that the West has a moral duty to topple dictators and set the Iraqi people free. Bush will never stand trial for Iraq because the USA has not signed up to the ICC. Blair may have breached the Geneva Conventions and Hague Convention on Iraq, but ask yourself why you think the ICC has not issued a warrant for his arrest.

It helps those who support invasions to suggest their prime motive was to please God, it wasnt. Their only reason was revenge for foriegn policy, religion is only used to underline this. By the even linking the two as equal motivations is just another method to attack the faith instead of accepting reality of killings cause revenge killings, whether its athiests or amish.

The group doesnt exist, its just a bunch of mercenaries/murders using vunerable people to attack on behalf of certain nations. The Yanks have as much credibility as pinochio.

Again attacking, bombing and destorying nations for decades isnt self defence. Self defence would be act in a civilised manner and only attack those you have proof of attacking now.

US have a day ago murdered multiple children, the youngest aged 2 along with other family members. They claim they had intel to target this ISIS-K. This isnt the first time, wedding parties, family gatherings, vilages have all been wiped out in the last 20 years. This is nothing short of evil, yet you call this self defence.

 

[Robert]

It helps those who support invasions to suggest their prime motive was to please God, it wasnt. Their only reason was revenge for foriegn policy, religion is only used to underline this. By the even linking the two as equal motivations is just another method to attack the faith instead of accepting reality of killings cause revenge killings, whether its athiests or amish.

The group doesnt exist, its just a bunch of mercenaries/murders using vunerable people to attack on behalf of certain nations. The Yanks have as much credibility as pinochio.

Again attacking, bombing and destorying nations for decades isnt self defence. Self defence would be act in a civilised manner and only attack those you have proof of attacking now.

US have a day ago murdered multiple children, the youngest aged 2 along with other family members. They claim they had intel to target this ISIS-K. This isnt the first time, wedding parties, family gatherings, vilages have all been wiped out in the last 20 years. This is nothing short of evil, yet you call this self defence.

I think Bush and Blair believed they were pleasing God. I think their beliefs were mistaken. I can’t think that a decent God would want 700K people to die.

If there’s a bunch then they exist, else they couldn’t be a bunch. The bunch killed sixty people, including US Marines that were leaving as per agreement with the Taliban. So the USA returned fire.