Snapshots of Afghanistan - August 2009

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...
On 8/29/2009 7:00 AM Chris H spake thus:

In message , Bill Graham
writes

"Chris H" wrote in message
news:a4UAYoMSR5lKFA6o@p haedsys.demon.co.uk...

Then you are WRONG... the terrorists who took out the twin tower were
Saudis. (Saudi has a far more oppressive regime than Afghanistan

They may have been Saudi's, but they were being trained and prepped
by OBL in an Afghani camp......Why do you think we are there?

No idea really. Wasn't oil this time.

The Afghanis don't have any oil........The Taliban has been hosting
those maniacs. And will continue to do so unless and until we destroy
them.

First of all, it's "Afghans", not "Afghanis".

No oil, but some of the bones of contention there were, and are, *gas*
pipelines proposed across Afghanistan, basically between the landlocked
Caspian Sea and the Arabian sea, so that gas could be extracted without
passing through Russian territory. All part of the "Great Game".

Note to Bill Graham: you'd come off as less of an idiot if you bothered to
read something on the subject before shooting off your mouth. I'd highly
recommend Ahmed Rashid's /Taliban: Militant Islam and Fundamentalism in
Central Asia/, written just after 9/11.

I'd come off as less of an idiot to you were I to read and accept your
propaganda, that's for sure........I am sorry to inform you that I get my
information from other sources. They tell me that we (the US) have been very
good to the Afghani people over the years. We have treated them a hell of a
lot better than have the Soviets. This is the only point that I have tried
to make. Otherwise. I could personally care less about them or that part of
the world. I never sent anyone over there to kill 3000 innocent people,
There is no one on my block here in Oregon that is training to go anywhere
to kill civilians, and never has been. All I do is mind my own business. I
wish we had minded our own business in 1940, too.....Then Chris H. would be
shouting "Sig Heil" about now........G. Patton was right. We should have
taken over the whole world in 1945. Millions of people would be alive today
that have either starved to death, or been killed by tyrants since then.

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...
On 8/29/2009 9:57 PM Bill Graham spake thus:

"Chris H" wrote in message
...

I have no communist friends.. BTW the communists don't figure in this at
all.

Russian interaction with Afghanistan began with the Czars in the 19th
century and ended around 1980, and you say, "The Communists don't figure
in this at all"? - give me a break!

Of course the then-Communists (USSR, now Russia) had a lot to do with
Afghanistan. They invaded the country, thinking to subdue it, fought to a
standstill and eventually left, basically in defeat.

Just like the British before them.

Just like us, eventually.

Except we haven't, "Invaded the country with intent to subdue it" We are
only looking for Al Qaeda guys and their supporters. We have no desire to
subdue Afghanistan, and I am sure that we will leave as soon as we realize
that there is nothing more we can do there to eliminate terrorism. I am
hoping that OBL will just drop dead one of these days, and we will just come
home soon afterward. I agree with the guy above who said there is nothing
there but a pile of rocks. I think we are fast approaching the point where
our technology is good enough to police the whole world with electronic
surveillance without actually being there. We should just watch for
terrorist activity, and then destroy it with the press of a button from here
in the US. Then we can live in peace and let the rest of the world go
straight to HELL!!

On 8/29/2009 10:44 PM Bill Graham spake thus:

Except we haven't, "Invaded the country with intent to subdue it" We are
only looking for Al Qaeda guys and their supporters. We have no desire to
subdue Afghanistan, and I am sure that we will leave as soon as we realize
that there is nothing more we can do there to eliminate terrorism. I am
hoping that OBL will just drop dead one of these days, and we will just come
home soon afterward. I agree with the guy above who said there is nothing
there but a pile of rocks. I think we are fast approaching the point where
our technology is good enough to police the whole world with electronic
surveillance without actually being there. We should just watch for
terrorist activity, and then destroy it with the press of a button from here
in the US. Then we can live in peace and let the rest of the world go
straight to HELL!!

You are a ****ing idiot.

And I mean that in the nicest possible way.


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

"Bob Larter" wrote in message
...
I'd come off as less of an idiot to you were I to read and accept your
propaganda, that's for sure........I am sorry to inform you that I get my
information from other sources.

Yeah, like Faux News.

It beats the fawning idolatry of Brian Williams. Check out Glen Beck, If
you're interested in our progress toward socialism.

mikey4 wrote:

"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
...
mikey4 wrote:

"Frank Carsted" wrote in message
news On 29 Aug 2009 18:35:52 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2009-08-29 07:00:41 -0700, Chris H said:

In message , Bill
Graham
writes

"Chris H" wrote in message
news:a4UAYoMSR5lKFA6o@p
haedsys.demon.co.uk...
In message , Bill
Graham
writes

"Elliott Roper" wrote in message
news:26082009194843
...

Why are us Western idiots bombing the B'Jasus out of those
beautiful
people? I don't care if they look static and posed. I'd like to
be
able
to sit down and hear their story, just after looking at their
faces.
Why can't we just get along?

I believe we are attempting to bomb the B'Jesus out of the
terrorists
who took out our twin towers and their supporters.

Then you are WRONG... the terrorists who took out the twin tower
were
Saudis. (Saudi has a far more oppressive regime than Afghanistan

They may have been Saudi's, but they were being trained and prepped
by
OBL in an Afghani camp......Why do you think we are there?

No idea really. Wasn't oil this time.

Initially due to the Taliban support for AQ & OBL after WTC, and with
the full support of NATO.

There was no "support". The Afgan gvernment was demanding evidence
that OBL was involved. The US refused to provide the evidence.

When Bush refused to hold it in a court of law he spat on the flag, the
constitution, both houses, the judicial system, and the financial
institutions that depend on all of the above. I don't think he missed
spitting on anything that the USA used to stand for. He and his whole
cabinet should have been impeached and hung until dead, right then and
there. Instead, blinded by their puerile patriotism, they all applauded.

As should have been Johnson, Nixon, Kennedy, Carter, you name them; as
well
as most of both houses.
Our two party system has been a joke for a very long time. There is only
"them" and "us" and it is up to "us" to vote "them" out.

Corporate propaganda.

Liar

You America-hating morons are quick to spout that crap about the US
gvernment, but you never seem to notice that your only alternative is
to do what brutal corporations want.

You want to whine about somebody? Look in the mirror.

--
Ray Fischer

Savageduck wrote:
(Ray Fischer) said:
Savageduck wrote:

Initially due to the Taliban support for AQ & OBL after WTC, and with
the full support of NATO.

There was no "support". The Afgan gvernment was demanding evidence
that OBL was involved. The US refused to provide the evidence.

They didn't have to, OBL took credit for WTC from day one.

And all the US had to do was provide evidence that he was the same OBL
that was supposedly in Afghanistan.

I wonder why he hasn't been caught yet. After all, it must have been
really important to justfy invaing another country and killing
thousands of innocent people.

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't
care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

--
Ray Fischer

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...
On 8/29/2009 10:44 PM Bill Graham spake thus:

Except we haven't, "Invaded the country with intent to subdue it" We are
only looking for Al Qaeda guys and their supporters. We have no desire to
subdue Afghanistan, and I am sure that we will leave as soon as we
realize that there is nothing more we can do there to eliminate
terrorism. I am hoping that OBL will just drop dead one of these days,
and we will just come home soon afterward. I agree with the guy above who
said there is nothing there but a pile of rocks. I think we are fast
approaching the point where our technology is good enough to police the
whole world with electronic surveillance without actually being there. We
should just watch for terrorist activity, and then destroy it with the
press of a button from here in the US. Then we can live in peace and let
the rest of the world go straight to HELL!!

You are a ****ing idiot.

And I mean that in the nicest possible way.

When the next terrorist attack comes, perhaps you might reconsider your
evaluation of my position. Especially if someone you know and love gets
killed in the attack. In the meantime, keep your blinds closed after
dark........

"Bill Graham" wrote in message


[...]

the guy above who said there is nothing there but a pile of rocks. I
think we are fast approaching the point where our technology is good
enough to police the whole world with electronic surveillance without
actually being there.

That attitude is a major cause of US military failure. To wit, remote
surveillance of a mountain in Afghanistan persuaded US intelligence the
insurgents there had been destroyed. When an Australian SAS patrol went
there on foot they promptly got into a firefight with the non-existent
insurgents. And the US wonders why it can't win asymetrical wars despite
being the world's most powerful country.

I leave the problematic nature of the assumption that the US should "police
the world" to the reader.

"Bill Graham" wrote in message


[...]

would be shouting "Sig Heil" about now........G. Patton was right. We
should have taken over the whole world in 1945. Millions of people
would be alive today that have either starved to death, or been
killed by tyrants since then.

Patton was a self-aggrandising idiot. The Soviets would have creamed the
Allies in 1945. The only areas in which the Allies were superior to the
Soviets were logistics, artillery and communications. The Soviet airforce
was qualitatively and quantitatively as good as ours and their heavy armour
was to ours as a Hummer is to a Mini. They had more seasoned combat troops
too.

Of course, that begs the question of just why a liberal democracy would want
to "take over the world" anyway.

In rec.photo.digital Bill Graham wrote:
"Savageduck" wrote in message

There was some justification for the initial phase of the Afghan War
following WTC and the failure of the Taliban to cease support for Al
Quaida & OBL.
The 8 year duration is a direct result of the Bush administration change
of focus to the irrational and unnecessary Iraq debacle.
If we had stayed the course in Afghanistan and kept out of Iraq things
could have been settled by now with a lot lower cost all round.

Yes, and Saddam and/or his sons would be able to kill off another 2 million
Iraqis in the next 30 years, and they would still be living without freedom
and democracy. Right now, the Iraqi people have a decent future to look
forward to. As far as Afghanistan is concerned, I doubt if it would have
made any difference. We will be there until we finally decide to get out,
and little will change there one way or the other......We might as well
leave right now.

I see! Thanks for explaining that. I was always puzzled why the US
hadn't put the necessary effort into chasing down the terrorists who
had hit the twin towers. But what happened was the US govt noticed
that there was a nasty dictartorship somewhere else in the world that
was murdering its citizens, and with commendably unselfish generosity
decided they could pull back some of the military resources needed for
getting the bin Laden gang and help those poor people overthrow their
dictator.

Wouldn't it be a good idea to deal with our own enemies first, before
helping other peoples to get rid of theirs?

--
Chris Malcolm