Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Benny B on March 27, 2009, 05:26:42 AM
-
Suicide attack kills 48 at Pakistani mosque
By RIAZ KHAN, Associated Press Writer Riaz Khan
PESHAWAR, Pakistan – A suicide bomber demolished a mosque packed with hundreds of worshippers attending Friday prayers close to the Afghan border, killing at least 48 people and injuring scores more, officials said.
The attack in the Khyber region was the bloodiest in Pakistan this year and came hours before President Barack Obama was due to unveil a revised strategy expected to emphasize the need to eradicate militant havens along the Pakistan-Afghan frontier.
A government official accused Islamist militants of carrying out the bombing in revenge for a recent offensive aimed in part at protecting the major supply route for NATO and U.S. troops in Afghanistan that passes in front of the mosque.
"Residents of this area had cooperated and helped us a lot. These infidels had warned that they will take revenge," said Tariq Hayat, the top administrator of the Khyber tribal region. "They are the enemy of Pakistan. They are the enemy of Islam."
Rising violence in Pakistan is fueling doubts about the pro-Western government's ability to counter Taliban and al-Qaida militants also blamed for attacks on Western troops in Afghanistan.
The bomber hit the mosque, a popular stop for travelers motoring between Pakistan and Afghanistan, when about 250 people were attending Friday prayers, said Hayat.
Television footage showed scores of residents and police officers digging frantically with their hands through the ruins of the white-walled mosque, whose roof collapsed in the explosion.
Rescuers hauled bodies covered in dust and blood on blankets and scarves toward ambulances and private cars waiting to take them to hospital. Crowds of anguished women waited in the background, hoping for news of loved-ones.
Hayat said rescuers had pulled 48 bodies from the rubble and predicted the toll would likely rise further. Another 80 people were injured, he said.
The mosque in a rocky valley near the town of Jamrud lies on the main road along which trucks carry vital supplies to the expanding U.S.-led force in Afghanistan.
Suspected Taliban militants have carried out a string of attacks on both trucks and transport depots along the route in recent months, destroying scores of military vehicles, including Humvees, raising doubts about the reliability of the supply line.
The area has also been beset by feuds between rival tribal and militant groups, some of them loosely allied with the government, which have included suicide bombings and attacks on mosques.
-
These people do a fine job of killing each other without us pouring every bit of money we have into the region.
-
These people do a fine job of killing each other without us pouring every bit of money we have into the region.
That's an exaggeration. ::)
Not to mention you won't be saying this should the next 9/11 be hatched from there.
-
It will take a long time for that region to change. They have deeply rooted, backwards, strict religiously based ways, laws and customs.
Thats why diplomacy is probably the best way to approach it using military only if an attack is imminent. We can send soldiers there and spend billions but only a cultural change will reduce the violence.
-
This is what happens when you give the Taliban free reign over that area like Pakistan just did. So much for that truce they agreed to three weeks ago. Pakistani pussies just sitting around while those guys run all over them. ::)
-
That's an exaggeration. ::)
Not to mention you won't be saying this should the next 9/11 be hatched from there.
the first 9/11 was hatched here, I'm sure the next one will be too :D
-
This is what happens when you give the Taliban free reign over that area like Pakistan just did. So much for that truce they agreed to three weeks ago. Pakistani pussies just sitting around while those guys run all over them. ::)
Pakistan is urging for a islamic revival, research the complex ties between the PK secret services and politicians. One of the most disgusting countries in existence.
-
the first 9/11 was hatched here, I'm sure the next one will be too :D
yep :-X
-
Great now I'm agreeing with Benny. Anyway Barry O is going to roll out his Afghan plan, which Biden does not like. We can't have a nuclear power fall into the hands of the scum of the universe. It wouldn't really matter as India would nuke them shortly before that happened.
-
Pakistan is urging for a islamic revival, research the complex ties between the PK secret services and politicians. One of the most disgusting countries in existence.
It's pathetic. They're just asking for that country to collapse. Since they agreed to that truce, violence has increased. Surprise, surprise. Never would have called that! ::)
-
Perfect example of how talking to these type of people does not work. They're the same religion, same friggen country and they can't find common ground. There are guys in India that sit around waiting for the nutbags to threaten the Pakistani nuke forces, so they can launch themselves.
-
Perfect example of how talking to these type of people does not work. They're the same religion, same friggen country and they can't find common ground. There are guys in India that sit around waiting for the nutbags to threaten the Pakistani nuke forces, so they can launch themselves.
What's your opinion on the people of India? ??? I really don't know too much about them.
-
Well...they really fucked up Mumbai. I don't understand a country that fully realizes the threat that Pakistan represents, allows that to happen. We do some training with them and I guess our SOF guys are doing alot now since the massacre. They have a big, faily modern military...
-
Does anyone else find it hysterical that Muslims kill other innocent Muslims because they hate America? 48 people minding their own business get blown to bits for what reason? Not a single American was killed, not a single soldier was killed. In a way, attacks like 911 make more sense because the terrorists objective is to kill Americans. For all you liberal apologists who claim WE create terrorism, explain to me what America has to do with these 48 murders? Pakistani citizens, probably dirt poor, all Muslim, going to prayer services- all massacred.
Seems to me like our foreign policy is perfect. While I feel bad for these people,there now less Muslims in a radical Islamic country. Less of a chance they will grow up or collborate with terrorist groups and murder more innocent people. Blaming terrorism on our foreign policy is like blaming black on black crime on our racist criminal justice system. At the end of the day, its an empty and illogical argument.
-
Does anyone else find it hysterical that Muslims kill other innocent Muslims because they hate America? 48 people minding their own business get blown to bits for what reason? Not a single American was killed, not a single soldier was killed. In a way, attacks like 911 make more sense because the terrorists objective is to kill Americans. For all you liberal apologists who claim WE create terrorism, explain to me what America has to do with these 48 murders? Pakistani citizens, probably dirt poor, all Muslim, going to prayer services- all massacred.
Seems to me like our foreign policy is perfect. While I feel bad for these people,there now less Muslims in a radical Islamic country. Less of a chance they will grow up or collborate with terrorist groups and murder more innocent people. Blaming terrorism on our foreign policy is like blaming black on black crime on our racist criminal justice system. At the end of the day, its an empty and illogical argument.
Read "The Looming Tower", my friend.
Just because Muslims are killing each other does not mean they are not a continued threat to you or I. Three hundred million Muslims makes plenty of them to go around. As many as their are citizens in the U.S., though certainly the entire Arab Muslim world does not consist of radical nut jobs.
What this continues to show is that these Al Qaeda militants are complete sociopaths that place no value on human life other than using bodies as sacrifices to serve their purposes. al-Zawahiri has created a justification for who is and who isn't a legitimate Muslim in his mind and the mind of his followers. They also have totally bypassed the Koran's teaching of not killing other Muslims or the absolute sin it is to commit suicide. They pretty much feel like the ends justify the means for everything. The radical fundamentalist Muslims are still a force and those motherfuckers don't care one iota about killing you, your family, or anyone else the represents the West. If they can pull off another attack in the U.S., Europe, or Western interests anywhere in the world, they will do it.
-
Since the time of Alexander no military force has ever successfully conquered what is now known as 'Pakistan/Afghanistan' (an imaginary border created by the British in the 19th century called the Durand Line has never been recognised by indigineous peoples); the British failed, the Soviets failed and we will fail; this makes all military efforts in the region a sunk cost. It's time to come home.
-
Since the time of Alexander no military force has ever successfully conquered what is now know as 'Pakistan/Afghanistan' (an imaginary border created by the British in the 18 century called the Duran Line has never been recognised by indigineous peoples); the British failed, the Soviets failed and we will fail; this makes all military efforts in the region a sunk cost. It's time to come home.
I did not know that.
Nice post.
-
I did not know that.
Nice post.
Don't know why I wrote 18, I meant 19th, some time during the 1890's I believe. Durand Line.
-
Benny for once I agree with you. My point is that logic and reason cannot be used to defeat these animals. They kill their own people for no reason and no matter what concessions are made to appease them, they will continue to do so. Diplomacy is not the answer. Brute force is.
-
Benny for once I agree with you. My point is that logic and reason cannot be used to defeat these animals. They kill their own people for no reason and no matter what concessions are made to appease them, they will continue to do so. Diplomacy is not the answer. Brute force is.
I have yet to hear a single convincing argument for why we are even there in the first place.
-
I have yet to hear a single convincing argument for why we are even there in the first place.
idiot
-
I have yet to hear a single convincing argument for why we are even there in the first place.
Ur kidding right...oh yeah u were in Korea during 911 right?
-
I hate it when Decide is right, LOL!
-
Ur kidding right...oh yeah u were in Korea during 911 right?
No, during 9/11 I was im France. Since we never got the bad guy we have been hanging around there accomplishing very little. I thought we were there to get Osama? (and work on an oil pipeline)...
-
No, during 9/11 I was im France. Since we never got the bad guy we have been hanging around there accomplishing very little. I thought we were there to get Osama? (and work on an oil pipeline)...
People forget we were in negotiations with the Taliban up until the last minute for oil.
-
People forget we were in negotiations with the Taliban up until the last minute for oil.
Well, according to HH6, Sadam was developing WMDs as well... ::)
The Taliban...what a joke for a reason, as if we ever cared what they did in the first place, friends one day, enemies the next...that's US foreign policy.
-
Well, according HH6, Sadam was developing WMDs as well... ::)
The Taliban...what a joke for a reason, as if we ever cared what they did in the first place, friends one day, enemies the next...that's US foreign policy.
That's the problem. All of this shit stems from failed/wrong US/British foreign policy from the 'Domino theory' to displacing the Palestinians to create a Jewish state. We (CIA) literally trained Abu Ismael and put Saddam in power. Mistake, after mistake, after mistake made by people who based based their decisions upon fear, greed and superstition.
We're fucked forever in the middle east.
-
That's the problem. All of this shit stems from failed/wrong US/British foreign policy from the 'Domino theory' to displacing the Palestinians to create a Jewish state. We (CIA) literally trained Abu Ismael and put Saddam in power. Mistake, after mistake, after mistake made by people who based based their decisions upon fear, greed and superstition.
We're fucked forever in the middle east.
BLOWBACK.
-
Again Decide demonstrates his willfull blindness or unintentional stupidity. Saddam did develop chemical weapons. Saddam did use them on the Kurds. Saddam was developing more chemical and biological weapons. That is a fact. As far as WMD's such as nukes etc., if he wasn't developing them, why did he give the UN inspectors the run around for years and refuse to comply with the treaties he himself signed? You don't think that his behavior was a tad bit suspicious? I suppose maybe he was just trying to pretend he had WMD's so America would invade his country and overthrow his regime. That's a logical conclusion to make.
Take your head out of your ass. There's a lot more going on than what Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore and Keith Olberman tell you.
-
Again Decide demonstrates his willfull blindness or unintentional stupidity. Saddam did develop chemical weapons. Saddam did use them on the Kurds. Saddam was developing more chemical and biological weapons. That is a fact. As far as WMD's such as nukes etc., if he wasn't developing them, why did he give the UN inspectors the run around for years and refuse to comply with the treaties he himself signed? You don't think that his behavior was a tad bit suspicious? I suppose maybe he was just trying to pretend he had WMD's so America would invade his country and overthrow his regime. That's a logical conclusion to make.
Take your head out of your ass. There's a lot more going on than what Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore and Keith Olberman tell you.
The only one I read and listen to is Chomsky and I don't agree with everything he says.
So according to you, we invaded Iraq because of WMDs?
-
Again Decide demonstrates his willfull blindness or unintentional stupidity. Saddam did develop chemical weapons. Saddam did use them on the Kurds. Saddam was developing more chemical and biological weapons. That is a fact. As far as WMD's such as nukes etc., if he wasn't developing them, why did he give the UN inspectors the run around for years and refuse to comply with the treaties he himself signed? You don't think that his behavior was a tad bit suspicious? I suppose maybe he was just trying to pretend he had WMD's so America would invade his country and overthrow his regime. That's a logical conclusion to make.
Take your head out of your ass. There's a lot more going on than what Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore and Keith Olberman tell you.
Saddam used them on the Kurds. Funny... we gave him WMD, incited Kurds to revolt, he kills them and then we leverage the threat of WMDs for years of isolation, inspection, two wars and an occupation. It's almost as if we had a long term plan to occupy Iraq since the 1950s. :)
Anyone with a basic understanding of their politics/culture would agree that repeated inspections threatened Saddam's authority/ability to govern. Sadly, he was the only one that understood the level of brutality necessary to keep all the religious sects in line. We (culturally) don't have the stomach to do what imposing order on fundamentalist muslims would take.
-
Saddam used them on the Kurds. Funny... we gave him WMD, incited Kurds to revolt, he kills them and then we leverage the threat of WMDs for years of isolation, inspection, two wars and an occupation. It's almost as if we had a long term plan to occupy Iraq since the 1950s. :)
Anyone with a basic understanding of their politics/culture would agree that repeated inspections threatened Saddam's authority/ability to govern. Sadly, he was the only one that understood the level of brutality necessary to keep all the religious sects in line. We (culturally) don't have the stomach to do what imposing order on fundamentalist muslims would take.
Very true
-
Saddam used them on the Kurds. Funny... we gave him WMD, incited Kurds to revolt, he kills them and then we leverage the threat of WMDs for years of isolation, inspection, two wars and an occupation. It's almost as if we had a long term plan to occupy Iraq since the 1950s. :)
Anyone with a basic understanding of their politics/culture would agree that repeated inspections threatened Saddam's authority/ability to govern. Sadly, he was the only one that understood the level of brutality necessary to keep all the religious sects in line. We (culturally) don't have the stomach to do what imposing order on fundamentalist muslims would take.
H.R.4655
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Enrolled Bill (Sent to President))
Bill Summary & Status for the 105th Congress
H.R.4655
Public Law: 105-338 (10/31/98)
SPONSOR: Rep Gilman (introduced 09/29/98)
RELATED BILLS: S.2525
TITLE(S):
SHORT TITLE(S) AS INTRODUCED:
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
SHORT TITLE(S) AS PASSED HOUSE:
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
SHORT TITLE(S) AS ENACTED:
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
OFFICIAL TITLE AS INTRODUCED:
A bill to establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq.
STATUS: Floor Actions
10/31/98 Public Law 105-338 (11/12/98 CR D1205)
10/20/98 Measure presented to President (10/21/98 CR H11704)
10/20/98 Enrolled Measure signed in Senate (CR S12718)
10/19/98 Enrolled Measure signed in House (CR H11546)
10/07/98 Measure passed Senate (CR S11812)
10/07/98 Measure considered in Senate (CR S11811-11812)
10/07/98 Measure called up by unanimous consent in Senate (CR S11811)
10/05/98 Measure passed House, amended, roll call #482 (360-38) (CR H9494)
10/05/98 Measure considered in House (CR H9486-9494)
10/05/98 Measure called up under motion to suspend rules and pass in House (CR H9486)
STATUS: Detailed Legislative Status
House Actions
Sep 29, 98:
Referred to the House Committee on International Relations.
Oct 2, 98:
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Oct 2, 98:
Committee Agreed to Seek Consideration Under Suspension of the Rules, (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Oct 5, 98:
Called up by House under suspension of the rules.
Considered by House as unfinished business.
Passed House (Amended) by Yea-Nay Vote: 360 - 38 (Roll No. 482).
Senate Actions
Oct 6, 98:
Received in the Senate, read twice.
Oct 7, 98:
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Oct 8, 98:
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Executive Actions
Oct 7, 98:
Cleared for White House.
Oct 20, 98:
Presented to President.
Oct 31, 98:
Became Public Law No: 105-338.
Signed by President.
STATUS: Congressional Record Page References
10/01/98 Introductory remarks on Measure (CR E1857)
10/05/98 Full text of Measure as passed House printed (CR H9486-9487)
COMMITTEE(S):
COMMITTEE(S) OF REFERRAL:
House International Relations
AMENDMENT(S):
***NONE***
COSPONSORS(1):
Rep Cox - 09/29/98
SUMMARY:
(REVISED AS OF 10/05/98 -- Passed House, amended)
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.
Authorizes the President, after notifying specified congressional committees, to provide to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations: (1) grant assistance for radio and television broadcasting to Iraq; (2) Department of Defense (DOD) defense articles and services and military education and training (IMET); and (3) humanitarian assistance, with emphasis on addressing the needs of individuals who have fled from areas under the control of the Hussein regime. Prohibits assistance to any group or organization that is engaged in military cooperation with the Hussein regime. Authorizes appropriations.
Directs the President to designate: (1) one or more Iraqi democratic opposition organizations that meet specified criteria as eligible to receive assistance under this Act; and (2) additional such organizations which satisfy the President's criteria.
Urges the President to call upon the United Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law.
Expresses the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq's transition to democracy by providing humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people and democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, including convening Iraq's foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to the foreign debt incurred by the Hussein regime.
:)
-
Saddam used them on the Kurds. Funny... we gave him WMD, incited Kurds to revolt, he kills them and then we leverage the threat of WMDs for years of isolation, inspection, two wars and an occupation. It's almost as if we had a long term plan to occupy Iraq since the 1950s. :)
Anyone with a basic understanding of their politics/culture would agree that repeated inspections threatened Saddam's authority/ability to govern. Sadly, he was the only one that understood the level of brutality necessary to keep all the religious sects in line. We (culturally) don't have the stomach to do what imposing order on fundamentalist muslims would take.
I'd have no problem doing whats neccesary..its the libs like decide that would cry.
-
I'd have no problem doing whats neccesary..its the libs like decide that would cry.
We don't have the balls to do what keeping them in line would take. Even if we did, our understanding of their culture is too flawed for the proper execution.
It's not simply a matter of killing people, especially since they have no fear of death.
For example: dispossessing, shaming and killing a suicide bomber's entire family wouldn't even be enough to discourage them. Even if it were, could you (personally with a 45ACP) execute someone's children to set an example? Could you bulldoze their house and throw every villager in the wood chipper for hiding suspect?
-
I'd have no problem doing whats neccesary..its the libs like decide that would cry.
I am not a 'Lib'. ::)
-
We don't have the balls to do what keeping them in line would take. Even if we did, our understanding of their culture is too flawed for the proper execution.
It's not simply a matter of killing people, especially since they have no fear of death.
For example: dispossessing, shaming and killing a suicide bomber's entire family wouldn't even be enough to discourage them. Even if it were, could you (personally with a 45ACP) execute someone's children to set an example? Could you bulldoze their house and throw every villager in the wood chipper for hiding suspect?
As usual, HH6 ignores all the evidence presented towards him regarding blowback and history and just screams and calls people names such as 'lib', which I am not, but nevermind that.
-
What difference does it make WHY we invaded. The bottom line is that we INVADED. To now act like Saddam Hussein was Mr. Rogers is absurd. I don't think we should have gone there, but since we did, I am not going to act like we toppled a peaceful, friendly government that treated its people well and was an ally to the US. The man was a vicious tyrant who massacred hundreds of thousands of his own people, invaded his neighbors and potentially possessed WMDs. Second guessing now is an exercise in futility. He's dead, his sons are dead, we won the "war" against Iraq and the insurgency and by 2011 it won't be our problem anymore. Hopefully the US gets something out of it.
As far as Saddam understanding the brutality that was necessary to keep everyone in line, are you joking? The man televised beheadings and maimings of dissidents, murdered his best friends for absolutely no reason, allowed his sons to rape and torture people with no consequences, had mass graves sprawled out across the country and watched his own people starve to death while he furnished his palace and allowed his army to steal food sent by the UN. The only thing he understood was what all fundamentalist Muslim nut-job tyrants understand- violence and propaganda. Whatever your opinion on the invasion, you cannot seriously consider the world is not a better place without this animal.
Also- if it was our plan to occupy Iraq since the fifties, why did we cut and run in 1992 instead of staying and toppling his government then? In 92' we had the populations support, his neighbors support including probably Iran and his Army was very weak.
-
Saddam used them on the Kurds. Funny... we gave him WMD, incited Kurds to revolt, he kills them and then we leverage the threat of WMDs for years of isolation, inspection, two wars and an occupation. It's almost as if we had a long term plan to occupy Iraq since the 1950s. :)
Anyone with a basic understanding of their politics/culture would agree that repeated inspections threatened Saddam's authority/ability to govern. Sadly, he was the only one that understood the level of brutality necessary to keep all the religious sects in line. We (culturally) don't have the stomach to do what imposing order on fundamentalist muslims would take.
You and your boyfriend "Deicide" need to pipe down already. Iraq was a dumb war and a massive mistake. No matter how many of his own citizens he killed, Saddam was no threat to the U.S. and therefore invasion was not worth one single American soldier's life. Only the neocon buttboys and getbig's village idiots refuse to concede that point.
As far as Afghanistan, if you cannot see the purpose of our presence in that country "drkaje", I would like to see you and your getbig boyfriend personally flown to Waziristan, made personal guests of Mullah Omar, beheaded on video tape, and have that shit put up on youtube so all of us here can put up comments laughing at your heads rolling across the desert.
(http://goatmilk.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/pakistan-south-waziristan-taliban-fighters.jpg)
And this jackass "Deicide" claims to be from NYC. Fucking clown. >:(
-
As usual, HH6 ignores all the evidence presented towards him regarding blowback and history and just screams and calls people names such as 'lib', which I am not, but nevermind that.
Hey Decide if everybody worried about blowback we'd get nothing done. Go hid under a rock. Dude I know first hand all about this crap because I was there, u taught english and whined that the Koreans didn't like u. U hate the US and won't live here. What am I supposed to think.
Why all of a sudden does Benny not like the Taliban. Maybe its because he's from New York and has a better and perhaps first hand experience with our shitbag muslim friends. Its all about perspective there Decide. And god knows Benny and I agree on almost nothing.
-
once again
It will take a long time for that region to change. They have deeply rooted, backwards, strict religiously based ways, laws and customs.
Thats why diplomacy is probably the best way to approach it using military only if an attack is imminent. We can send soldiers there and spend billions but only a cultural change will reduce the violence.
correct....below..on CNN
-
Invading Iraq was dumb but we still hve to live with the implications. It's painfully obvious the US was paving the way for creating a buffer zone between Iran, pakistan and Israel so the palestinians could be displaced. The plan had to have started in the 50s.
Saddam wasn't Mr Rogers but he kept them in line. We'll never keep them in line is my point. What the US needs are 20 more Saddams running countries over there. Crazy as he was the guy was not a zealot and definitely understood what level of brutality is needed to keep fundamentalists in line. He also knew how to deal with the tribal mentality people over there have. We, on the other hand, drop bombs one day and then food/money on the next.
-
Sa long as that Saddam is our guy. If he never had gotten outa line we wouldn't be talking about him. Afganistan is a mess, its not a mess of our doing, its been like that for years. We've done alot to help those people but the bigger picture is that if we can keep a lid on the nutbags, things will change.Iit will take much more time and money then Obama is willing to spend.
-
Sa long as that Saddam is our guy. If he never had gotten outa line we wouldn't be talking about him.
lmao....N Korea "has gotton outta line" plenty of times...
but you dont quite go attacking folks that actually HAVE WMDs
we attack by air....only folks that dont quite have an airforce! bravery n honour at its finest! 8)
-
Nkorea can cause alot of problems and will use those weapons..plus China and Russia are neighbors. Using NKorea as an example doesn't apply. The current estimate is 64 days start to finish...no more NK.
-
That's the problem. All of this shit stems from failed/wrong US/British foreign policy from the 'Domino theory' to displacing the Palestinians to create a Jewish state. We (CIA) literally trained Abu Ismael and put Saddam in power. Mistake, after mistake, after mistake made by people who based based their decisions upon fear, greed and superstition.
We're fucked forever in the middle east.
No, you're history is lacking if you think this is exclusively the fault of the Brits & US.
Dig just a little deeper outside of the confines of your bias to blaming Western foreign policy and you will find it is advantageous for the other Arab states to keep Palestine in a perpetual state of war with Israel. The issue could be resolved much quicker if fellow Arab states wanted it to, not forgetting the paltry donations they give to Palestine compared to Western nations.
You guys have been deceived somewhat thanks to an Arab mentality you don't believe and don't want to accept exists.
-
No, you're history is lacking if you think this is exclusively the fault of the Brits & US.
Dig just a little deeper outside of the confines of your bias to blaming Western foreign policy and you will find it is advantageous for the other Arab states to keep Palestine in a perpetual state of war with Israel. The issue could be resolved much quicker if fellow Arab states wanted it to, not forgetting the paltry donations they give to Palestine compared to Western nations.
You guys have been deceived somewhat thanks to an Arab mentality you don't believe and don't want to accept exists.
Explain your rationale for why it is advantageous for Arab states to have Palestine in a perpetual state of oppression and conflict. ??? I am not buying into this theory...but my mind is on so many other subjects these days that perhaps you are expressing a fact I have forgotten or overlooked.
From my vantage point, the Arab states can't dictate a solution to the problem if they wanted to (and I believe they do), because the power, and therefore the solution, lie in the hands of the U.S. and Israel.
-
Explain your rationale for why it is advantageous for Arab states to have Palestine in a perpetual state of oppression and conflict. ??? I am not buying into this theory...but my mind is on so many other subjects these days that perhaps you are expressing a fact I have forgotten or overlooked.
From my vantage point, the Arab states can't dictate a solution to the problem if they wanted to (and I believe they do), because the power, and therefore the solution, lie in the hands of the U.S. and Israel.
The solution only lies in the hands of the U.S. and Israel when you apply your fictitious belief that its a creation of foreign policy exclusively.
Keeping Palestine "down" works in favour of Arab culture and a prevalence of religion in everyday life which you cannot begin to understand (unless of course you are an ex-pat of an Arab country?). Arab/Jew relations have been stressed over the last 1500 years, yet your answer is simply foreign policy which neglects the long standing historical issues, most based on culture and religious reasoning.
Wealthy Arab nations have been using the state of Palestine as a litigation tool almost since the conception of Israel as a state as mandated by British authorities. They want Palestinians to constantly struggle as a strategic measure to use against Israel.
Arab nations undertook measures to make it impossible for Palestinian refuges to integrate into their states from the 1948 Arab war against Israel. Even Palestinian descendants born from Palestinian refugees are not able to gain a passport. Marriage also doesn't entitle you to a passport; you could never have set foot in Palestine and you are deemed Palestinian.
Read this: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25212480-17062,00.html
The UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, whose main political support comes from Arab countries, encourages high birthrates by rewarding families with many children.
This isn't a theory, it's a fact - tangible EVIDENCE shows this to be the case. Sure... foreign policy at times hasn't helped but don't be myopic.
-
No, you're history is lacking if you think this is exclusively the fault of the Brits & US.
Dig just a little deeper outside of the confines of your bias to blaming Western foreign policy and you will find it is advantageous for the other Arab states to keep Palestine in a perpetual state of war with Israel. The issue could be resolved much quicker if fellow Arab states wanted it to, not forgetting the paltry donations they give to Palestine compared to Western nations.
You guys have been deceived somewhat thanks to an Arab mentality you don't believe and don't want to accept exists.
NS,
Hate to tell you this but most Arabs hate Palestinians. When they were displaced all of the surrounding areas went to shit due to refugees and Hamas. Beruit was considered Paris in the Middle East before Palestinians ruined it. Also, the fighting to get back their land lowered the standard of living along all borders. People in the surrounding areas basically get to choose between sending money and having refugees show up.
Most of this is due to a failed policies based upon religious nonsense.
-
once again
correct....below..on CNN
Protein Farts, thanks for posting that vid. I think I learned more in those few minutes than I have in the last three months.
-
The solution only lies in the hands of the U.S. and Israel when you apply your fictitious belief that its a creation of foreign policy exclusively.
??? All policy is foreign when you are dealing with strategy or tactics which are outside of your national boundaries. Therefore, involvement of any nation states outside of Israel and Palestine are administering "foreign policy" in an attempt to resolve the conflict.
Keeping Palestine "down" works in favour of Arab culture and a prevalence of religion in everyday life which you cannot begin to understand (unless of course you are an ex-pat of an Arab country?). Arab/Jew relations have been stressed over the last 1500 years, yet your answer is simply foreign policy which neglects the long standing historical issues, most based on culture and religious reasoning.
Quite frankly, this is a paragraph that utilizes a great any words but says absolutely nothing. :-\
Wealthy Arab nations have been using the state of Palestine as a litigation tool almost since the conception of Israel as a state as mandated by British authorities. They want Palestinians to constantly struggle as a strategic measure to use against Israel.
What is the leverage, and what benefit have these nations truly gained against Israel? The constant of war and agitation amongst their citizens? It seems to me an agitated citizenry is not good for stable governance. Egypt signs a peace agreement with Israel and spends the next thirty years seeing one president assassinated and another the target of assassination attempts by the Egyptian Brotherhood that eventually becomes part of Al Qaeda.
Arab nations undertook measures to make it impossible for Palestinian refuges to integrate into their states from the 1948 Arab war against Israel. Even Palestinian descendants born from Palestinian refugees are not able to gain a passport. Marriage also doesn't entitle you to a passport; you could never have set foot in Palestine and you are deemed Palestinian.
Why should other Arab nations accept Palestinian refugees? They shouldn't be refugees...they are entitled to live on the land of their forefathers. Asking countries to accept refugees is easy when you don't have to do it yourself. Heck, the U.S. didn't exactly open its borders to the millions of Iraqi refugees it created by illegally invading Iraq.
Read this: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25212480-17062,00.html
This isn't a theory, it's a fact - tangible EVIDENCE shows this to be the case.
Ok, this article brings up points I am aware of and understand. Thank you. Arab nations have certainly used the issue of Palestinian refugees in ways that are unfair and in some ways counterproductive to their interests. However, to suggest that if the Arabs states simply accepted the refugees, then the matter would be settled is bogus and disingenuous. It entirely removes the culpability of Israel and their big brother enforcer, the U.S., from the peace process. Gaza would not be a permanent "refugee prison camp" if Israel stopped enforcing brutal apartheid policies, as well as expecting treatment unique in all the world by demanding a Jewish majority state no matter what.
Sure... foreign policy at times hasn't helped but don't be myopic.
This comment still makes no sense to me, sorry. The term foreign policy can be interchanged with the term diplomacy, and there is no acceptable solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict other than a diplomatic one. Certainly, there is exploitation taking place on both sides. But the stronger side is the side that must concede the most for there to be progress, and the stronger side is obviously th Israel/U.S one.
-
NS,
Hate to tell you this but most Arabs hate Palestinians. When they were displaced all of the surrounding areas went to shit due to refugees and Hamas. Beruit was considered Paris in the Middle East before Palestinians ruined it. Also, the fighting to get back their land lowered the standard of living along all borders. People in the surrounding areas basically get to choose between sending money and having refugees show up.
Most of this is due to a failed policies based upon religious nonsense.
Why hate to tell me something I agree with? ???
??? All policy is foreign when you are dealing with strategy or tactics which are outside of your national boundaries. Therefore, involvement of any nation states outside of Israel and Palestine are administering "foreign policy" in an attempt to resolve the conflict.
Quite frankly, this is a paragraph that utilizes a great any words but says absolutely nothing. :-\
What is the leverage, and what benefit have these nations truly gained against Israel? The constant of war and agitation amongst their citizens? It seems to me an agitated citizenry is not good for stable governance. Egypt signs a peace agreement with Israel and spends the next thirty years seeing one president assassinated and another the target of assassination attempts by the Egyptian Brotherhood that eventually becomes part of Al Qaeda.
Why should other Arab nations accept Palestinian refugees? They shouldn't be refugees...they are entitled to live on the land of their forefathers. Asking countries to accept refugees is easy when you don't have to do it yourself. Heck, the U.S. didn't exactly open its borders to the millions of Iraqi refugees it created by illegally invading Iraq.
Ok, this article brings up points I am aware of and understand. Thank you. Arab nations have certainly used the issue of Palestinian refugees in ways that are unfair and in some ways counterproductive to their interests. However, to suggest that if the Arabs states simply accepted the refugees, then the matter would be settled is bogus and disingenuous. It entirely removes the culpability of Israel and their big brother enforcer, the U.S., from the peace process. Gaza would not be a permanent "refugee prison camp" if Israel stopped enforcing brutal apartheid policies, as well as expecting treatment unique in all the world by demanding a Jewish majority state no matter what.
This comment still makes no sense to me, sorry. The term foreign policy can be interchanged with the term diplomacy, and there is no acceptable solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict other than a diplomatic one. Certainly, there is exploitation taking place on both sides. But the stronger side is the side that must concede the most for there to be progress, and the stronger side is obviously th Israel/U.S one.
By foreign policy, I meant Western foreign policy.
Huh? What's your logic? That something must succeed to have been used as leverage? They used it as leverage and have failed in your eyes maybe, but religious extremism and a muslim brothered hood has risen thanks to the actions of Arab nations in Palestine.
The US is taking in substantial numbers of Iraqi refugees, as have much of the civilized world. Most countries have a birthright policy to citizenship, the Arab states being one of a few that don't (in regards to people of Palestinian decent). The point you're missing is the Arabs are most vocal about Palestinian welfare etc. yet the ones doing the very least in regards to humanitarian causes.
Who said Arab nations taking in Palestinian refugees would solve the problem?
You're failing to mention you're the one asserting US foriegn policy is responsible for ALL of the issues in this area of the world, whilst the fact remains that is very much false.
-
lmao....N Korea "has gotton outta line" plenty of times...
but you dont quite go attacking folks that actually HAVE WMDs
we attack by air....only folks that dont quite have an airforce! bravery n honour at its finest! 8)
Ahh yes, but you Muslims running around blowing up women and children and chopping off the heads of every unarmed, innocent man over the age of 14 is really brave and honorable. Get the fuck out of here with that shit. It's WAR. It's kill or be killed.
How honorable were those gunmen who opened fire on a bunch of 20 year old police recruits who were taking a break from their morning drills? Really brave and honorable firing on unarmed men. ::)
Can't believe you even have the gall to talk about bravery, honor and Muslims in a thread about religious extremists firing on unarmed recruits.
-
Well, Toxic's logic is some of the most flawed I've ever read.
If it is war, it makes sense to attack your opponent with the most deadly means necessary, if they have no air force, attacking by air is the best route.
-
Well, Toxic's logical is some of the most flawed I've ever read.
If it is war, it makes sense to attack your opponent with the most deadly means necessary, if they have no air force, attacking by air is the best route.
We could always take the Muslim approach and start detonating explosives vests in the middle of groups of children walking to school or crowded market places in the morning where women and children are doing the day's shopping. That would be really brave and honorable in his book.
-
I figured I would just throw this in for good measure. There has never been a Palestine. There are no Palestinians. The people we call Palestinians never had a soverign country. The British owned the territory, and gave it to Israel. Its like America displacing a few people to create an Indian Reservation and the displaced people responding by killing women and children. Israel fought the entire Arab world outnumbered 6000 to 1 and embarassed them. They have withstood terrorist attacks on practically a weekly basis for the past 40 years and are still the only productive and fully functional democracy in the entire reigon. They are entitled to their land, they won it fair and square. Not to mention the fact they have given more than half of it back.
The peace process is a fucking joke. The piss process as it should be called amounts to Israel making conecessions and the arab muslim nazi terrorists responding by launching attacks while Israel's guard is down. The PLO, Hamas, Hezzbollah and all the rest take kindness for weakness. They intentionally provoke an Israeli response and then use their own peoples misery as a press stunt to recruit more braindead terrorists and cause international outrage. They could care less about the so called Palestinians. To them, they are a mere poitical barganing chip to further advance their own twisted agenda. They should and must be destroyed in order for there to be any peace in the reigon.
Nuff said
-
You and your boyfriend "Deicide" need to pipe down already. Iraq was a dumb war and a massive mistake. No matter how many of his own citizens he killed, Saddam was no threat to the U.S. and therefore invasion was not worth one single American soldier's life. Only the neocon buttboys and getbig's village idiots refuse to concede that point.
As far as Afghanistan, if you cannot see the purpose of our presence in that country "drkaje", I would like to see you and your getbig boyfriend personally flown to Waziristan, made personal guests of Mullah Omar, beheaded on video tape, and have that shit put up on youtube so all of us here can put up comments laughing at your heads rolling across the desert.
(http://goatmilk.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/pakistan-south-waziristan-taliban-fighters.jpg)
And this jackass "Deicide" claims to be from NYC. Fucking clown. >:(
I see your true colours shining through; violent through and through. If you knew anything about history you would realise that NO ONE has ever conquered Afghanistan. It is a practical argument for a big waste of time.
-
Hey Decide if everybody worried about blowback we'd get nothing done. Go hid under a rock. Dude I know first hand all about this crap because I was there, u taught english and whined that the Koreans didn't like u. U hate the US and won't live here. What am I supposed to think.
Why all of a sudden does Benny not like the Taliban. Maybe its because he's from New York and has a better and perhaps first hand experience with our shitbag muslim friends. Its all about perspective there Decide. And god knows Benny and I agree on almost nothing.
Nothing done? You mean like relatively peaceful countries such as Sweden and New Zealand. I guess 'they are getting nothing done'...
-
Hey Decide if everybody worried about blowback we'd get nothing done. Go hid under a rock. Dude I know first hand all about this crap because I was there, u taught english and whined that the Koreans didn't like u. U hate the US and won't live here. What am I supposed to think.
Why all of a sudden does Benny not like the Taliban. Maybe its because he's from New York and has a better and perhaps first hand experience with our shitbag muslim friends. Its all about perspective there Decide. And god knows Benny and I agree on almost nothing.
I do not hate the US and have never said that. I prefer living abroad because it suits my nature better; I enjoy foreign languages and seeing the world, things which I cannot do there. It is a very practical thing.
-
Nothing done? You mean like relatively peaceful countries such as Sweden and New Zealand. I guess 'they are getting nothing done'...
Sweden and New Zealand are tiny and can afford to piggy back on other nations. New Zealand is a commonwealth country and tied to the UK. Neither has to worry about the things we do.
-
::)
Luxembourg and Iceland are also peaceful. Unfortunately, they are irrelevant to world affairs and have a military the size of a high school marching band. I suppose the richest, most relevant and most powerful country on earth should take cue from these other "peaceful" countries. Obviously they are in a similar situation to the US. I mean for god sakes. Flight of the Conchords is on HBO and they're from New Zealand! They could show Barak Obama and Joe Biden a thing or two.
-
::)
Luxembourg and Iceland are also peaceful. Unfortunately, they are irrelevant to world affairs and have a military the size of a high school marching band. I suppose the richest, most relevant and most powerful country on earth should take cue from these other "peaceful" countries. Obviously they are in a similar situation to the US. I mean for god sakes. Flight of the Conchords is on HBO and they're from New Zealand! They could show Barak Obama and Joe Biden a thing or two.
Love that show. When the Aussie's are picking on them is comedic gold.
-
Murray is by far the best character on the show. Band Meeting- Murray; Present! ;D
-
I see your true colours shining through; violent through and through. If you knew anything about history you would realise that NO ONE has ever conquered Afghanistan. It is a practical argument for a big waste of time.
LOL The fact that I'd like to see your head rolling down the hills of Waziristan makes me violent? I'm so ashamed. ::)
I know just as much about the history of that region as you do. Likely more so, as I read more than you do. If you actually PAID ATTENTION to the policy objectives put forth by the Obama administration instead of typing out of your asshole, you would realize that the objective is not to "conquer" Afghanistan. ::) Furthermore, you might want to study the invasions of previous countries into Afghanistan before confidently writing about what has happened in that country previously. For example, the Soviet and British analogies fail, because in both cases the invading superpowers were fighting forces backed by another great power. If you saw Charlie Wilson's War you know that the Soviets were crushing the Mujahedeen until the US started a massive effort to fund, arm and train the Afghan insurgency.
No wonder you still don't know why we went into Afghanistan over SEVEN YEARS after September 11, 2001. Unfortunately your head is in your culo. :-\
-
LOL The fact that I'd like to see your head rolling down the hills of Waziristan makes me violent? I'm so ashamed. ::)
I know just as much about the history of that region as you do. Likely more so, as I read more than you do. If you actually PAID ATTENTION to the policy objectives put forth by the Obama administration instead of typing out of your asshole, you would realize that the objective is not to "conquer" Afghanistan. ::) Furthermore, you might want to study the invasions of previous countries into Afghanistan before confidently writing about what has happened in that country previously. For example, the Soviet and British analogies fail, because in both cases the invading superpowers were fighting forces backed by another great power. If you saw Charlie Wilson's War you know that the Soviets were crushing the Mujahedeen until the US started a massive effort to fund, arm and train the Afghan insurgency.
No wonder you still don't know why we went into Afghanistan over SEVEN YEARS after September 11, 2001. Unfortunately your head is in your culo. :-\
Are you going to tell me with a straight face that our invasion of Afghanistan has NOTHING to do with Central Asian gas and oil resources? :o
-
LOL The fact that I'd like to see your head rolling down the hills of Waziristan makes me violent? I'm so ashamed. ::)
No, you're an uneducated moron with some kind of mental disorder.
-
Are you going to tell me with a straight face that our invasion of Afghanistan has NOTHING to do with Central Asian gas and oil resources? :o
I don't believe the commies ever built schools, wells, roads....treated the people medically, the treated farm animals, let children..little girls go to school...ever. On top of that, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was supposed to be a quick stop on the way to setting up bases close to Middle Eastern oil.....that never happened and we already have those bases.
-
No, you're an uneducated moron with some kind of mental disorder.
The degrees and certifications on my wall tell me otherwise, but I guess your stating it makes it so. ::) You can join your boyfriend in getting beheaded in Waziristan too for all I care. Fuck off.
I don't believe the commies ever built schools, wells, roads....treated the people medically, the treated farm animals, let children..little girls go to school...ever. On top of that, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was supposed to be a quick stop on the way to setting up bases close to Middle Eastern oil.....that never happened and we already have those bases.
You and I don't see eye to eye on much of anything, but I let you continue to debate this imbecile.
-
Nkorea can cause alot of problems and will use those weapons..plus China and Russia are neighbors. Using NKorea as an example doesn't apply.
why would Bush include them in the axis of evil?
He added a nation he knew we'd never attack (and worse, he appeased them with oil buyouts).
Hell, at least barry is gonna shoot down their birds if they aim them at us. Bush let them fire missles at hawaii, NK set of a friggin nuke, and he bribed them to stop it.
-
The degrees and certifications on my wall tell me otherwise, but I guess your stating it makes it so. ::) You can join your boyfriend in getting beheaded in Waziristan too for all I care. Fuck off.
You and I don't see eye to eye on much of anything, but I let you continue to debate this imbecile.
Funny isn't it that I have never come across an educated person who would say something like that. Nothing is tangible on Getbig, I could say I'm a brain surgeon.
What's also amusing is the first educated (well, you at least claim to be educated) person to say something so absurd is black... :-\