Shocking

[Happy Face 29]

HF's policys:

 

Preserve the existing conditions of Taliban rule in Afghanistan, limit any potential changes to this institution.

 

The Taliban don't currently rule Afghanistan.

 

Do you still think it's pointless discussing such matters with someone that lacks even the most basic comprehension of facts like that?

 

Thanks to the West. They did in 2001 and you couldn't bring yourself to say intervention was warranted. I doubt you even realised the Taliban had control over the country as in discussion it became clear you had absolutely no comprehension of the recent history of the country. If you had your way, we'd still be living in caves, because you'd be frightened to go out hunting in case a boar was killed in collateral murder.

 

Not at all, I said elsewhere, I fully support testing on animals.

 

actually, I don't particularly like testing on animals, but see it as a necessary evil. Like shooting terrorist scumbags or kicking people out of the country who's leanings are elsewhere and harp on about the west "occupying their homeland"

 

I'm all for shooting terrorist scumbags too.

 

We're such kindred spirits.

 

 

except you have to be 100% sure though, even at the expense of allowing them to take the first shot at you ?

 

Nope.

 

I don't think there's any law that says someone has to be "100%" guilty.

[LeazesMag 0]

HF's policys:

 

Preserve the existing conditions of Taliban rule in Afghanistan, limit any potential changes to this institution.

 

The Taliban don't currently rule Afghanistan.

 

Do you still think it's pointless discussing such matters with someone that lacks even the most basic comprehension of facts like that?

 

Thanks to the West. They did in 2001 and you couldn't bring yourself to say intervention was warranted. I doubt you even realised the Taliban had control over the country as in discussion it became clear you had absolutely no comprehension of the recent history of the country. If you had your way, we'd still be living in caves, because you'd be frightened to go out hunting in case a boar was killed in collateral murder.

 

Not at all, I said elsewhere, I fully support testing on animals.

 

actually, I don't particularly like testing on animals, but see it as a necessary evil. Like shooting terrorist scumbags or kicking people out of the country who's leanings are elsewhere and harp on about the west "occupying their homeland"

 

I'm all for shooting terrorist scumbags too.

 

We're such kindred spirits.

 

 

except you have to be 100% sure though, even at the expense of allowing them to take the first shot at you ?

 

Nope.

 

I don't think there's any law that says someone has to be "100%" guilty.

 

you can only act on information received, and the belief from that information that the person is a danger to you or to someone else.

 

Mistakes can be made, and are made. Sad. But that's the way it is.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

just so i'm clear on what your opinion is....had 9-11 not happened would you have supported the invasion of Afghanistan to rid the Afghans of the Taliban?

 

It wasn't an invasion just to be clear, it was an intervention. I certainly wouldn't consider a failed state run by the Taliban/Al Quaeda a sovereign nation.

 

And yes I tend to lean on the side of intervention where necessary and possible, ie Kosovo, Bosnia, Sierra Leone.

[Happy Face 29]

HF's policys:

 

Preserve the existing conditions of Taliban rule in Afghanistan, limit any potential changes to this institution.

 

The Taliban don't currently rule Afghanistan.

 

Do you still think it's pointless discussing such matters with someone that lacks even the most basic comprehension of facts like that?

 

Thanks to the West. They did in 2001 and you couldn't bring yourself to say intervention was warranted. I doubt you even realised the Taliban had control over the country as in discussion it became clear you had absolutely no comprehension of the recent history of the country. If you had your way, we'd still be living in caves, because you'd be frightened to go out hunting in case a boar was killed in collateral murder.

 

Not at all, I said elsewhere, I fully support testing on animals.

 

actually, I don't particularly like testing on animals, but see it as a necessary evil. Like shooting terrorist scumbags or kicking people out of the country who's leanings are elsewhere and harp on about the west "occupying their homeland"

 

I'm all for shooting terrorist scumbags too.

 

We're such kindred spirits.

 

 

except you have to be 100% sure though, even at the expense of allowing them to take the first shot at you ?

 

Nope.

 

I don't think there's any law that says someone has to be "100%" guilty.

 

you can only act on information received, and the belief from that information that the person is a danger to you or to someone else.

 

Mistakes can be made, and are made. Sad. But that's the way it is.

 

Agreed.

 

We're so in harmony you and I.

 

Of course you'd want mistakes liker that investigated to be certain they were mistakes wouldn't you?

[LeazesMag 0]

HF's policys:

 

Preserve the existing conditions of Taliban rule in Afghanistan, limit any potential changes to this institution.

 

The Taliban don't currently rule Afghanistan.

 

Do you still think it's pointless discussing such matters with someone that lacks even the most basic comprehension of facts like that?

 

Thanks to the West. They did in 2001 and you couldn't bring yourself to say intervention was warranted. I doubt you even realised the Taliban had control over the country as in discussion it became clear you had absolutely no comprehension of the recent history of the country. If you had your way, we'd still be living in caves, because you'd be frightened to go out hunting in case a boar was killed in collateral murder.

 

Not at all, I said elsewhere, I fully support testing on animals.

 

actually, I don't particularly like testing on animals, but see it as a necessary evil. Like shooting terrorist scumbags or kicking people out of the country who's leanings are elsewhere and harp on about the west "occupying their homeland"

 

I'm all for shooting terrorist scumbags too.

 

We're such kindred spirits.

 

 

except you have to be 100% sure though, even at the expense of allowing them to take the first shot at you ?

 

Nope.

 

I don't think there's any law that says someone has to be "100%" guilty.

 

you can only act on information received, and the belief from that information that the person is a danger to you or to someone else.

 

Mistakes can be made, and are made. Sad. But that's the way it is.

 

Agreed.

 

We're so in harmony you and I.

 

Of course you'd want mistakes liker that investigated to be certain they were mistakes wouldn't you?

 

here is the catch ........

[tooner 243]

just so i'm clear on what your opinion is....had 9-11 not happened would you have supported the invasion of Afghanistan to rid the Afghans of the Taliban?

 

It wasn't an invasion just to be clear, it was an intervention. I certainly wouldn't consider a failed state run by the Taliban/Al Quaeda a sovereign nation.

 

And yes I tend to lean on the side of intervention where necessary and possible, ie Kosovo, Bosnia, Sierra Leone.

 

you're talking semmantics ....just to be clear.

a foreign military entered a country/sovereign state by force and imposed it's will on the then ruling party. Just because you agree with the tactic(s) doesn't mean the reality of the situation is otherwise.

What you are talking about is in the realm of propaganda, same as not calling military actions/reprisals 'terrorism' doesn't mean that it's not terrifying for those caught in collateral damage.

Edited October 26, 2010 by tooner

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

just so i'm clear on what your opinion is....had 9-11 not happened would you have supported the invasion of Afghanistan to rid the Afghans of the Taliban?

 

It wasn't an invasion just to be clear, it was an intervention. I certainly wouldn't consider a failed state run by the Taliban/Al Quaeda a sovereign nation.

 

And yes I tend to lean on the side of intervention where necessary and possible, ie Kosovo, Bosnia, Sierra Leone.

 

you're talking semmantics ....just to be clear.

a foreign military entered a country/sovereign state by force and imposed it's will on the then ruling party. Just because you agree with the tactic(s) doesn't mean the reality of the situation is otherwise.

What you are talking about is in the realm of propaganda, same as not calling military actions/reprisals 'terrorism' doesn't mean that it's not terrifying for those caught in collateral damage.

 

If you think that a decrepit country which has been taken over by Taliban and Al Quaeda forces (and is exporting international terrorist attacks) should retain its sovereignty then you are in the realm of propaganda my friend, and I find your defensive tone to be quite disgusting considering the nature of the regime we are talking about. To say I'm talking semantics is fine, but you then descend into incoherent drivel. You refer to the taliban as a 'party' as though they were elected in this 'sovereign country' you talk of Yes, the people danced round with butterflys and drank from chocolate fountains under Taliban rule, it was wonderful until the evil west ruined it all with their terrorist acts. Just to be clear, the Taliban/Al Quaeda presided over a fascist rule, and there is a wealth of material on the barbarous and unprecedented horror they inflicted on the people unfortunate enough to live under them, if you have the stomach for it.

 

In September 2001 the UN security council met and reaffirmed many of the laws that Afghanistan had breached:

 

"Reaffirming the principle established by the General Assembly in its declaration of October 1970 (resolution 2625 (XXV)) and reiterated by the Security Council in its resolution 1189 (1998) of 13 August 1998, namely that every State has the duty to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in terrorist acts in another State or acquiescing in organized activities within its territory directed towards the commission of such acts,"

 

Afghanistan was in clear breach of many facets of international law. The NATO mission is a legal one, it is not an act of terrorism.

 

You insinuate that any act that terrifies people equates to an act of terrorism, even when the purpose of that act is to combat terrorists Does this extend to when you wife farts in bed? I would imagine that is quite a terrifying experience for those in the vicinity.

[LeazesMag 0]

just so i'm clear on what your opinion is....had 9-11 not happened would you have supported the invasion of Afghanistan to rid the Afghans of the Taliban?

 

It wasn't an invasion just to be clear, it was an intervention. I certainly wouldn't consider a failed state run by the Taliban/Al Quaeda a sovereign nation.

 

And yes I tend to lean on the side of intervention where necessary and possible, ie Kosovo, Bosnia, Sierra Leone.

 

you're talking semmantics ....just to be clear.

a foreign military entered a country/sovereign state by force and imposed it's will on the then ruling party. Just because you agree with the tactic(s) doesn't mean the reality of the situation is otherwise.

What you are talking about is in the realm of propaganda, same as not calling military actions/reprisals 'terrorism' doesn't mean that it's not terrifying for those caught in collateral damage.

 

quite amazing how you continue to give the impression that you think the west are "terrorists". There is no comparison between the antics of the Taliban or any other scumbag group of murderous bastards to the attempts of the west to bring some sort of peace to these backward countries which are ruled by fear and murder.