RE: Taliban supporter in U.S.: 'Moral Equivalent of Founding Fathers'

RE: Taliban supporter in U.S.: 'Moral Equivalent of Founding Fathers' (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

mnottertail -> RE: Taliban supporter in U.S.: 'Moral Equivalent of Founding Fathers' (4/16/2012 3:22:25 PM)
Yeah, dont apologize for them dipshits. And our having anything to do with Afghanistan (whilst having British history and colonialism to have a peek at) is a pretty big crystal ball. If St. Wrinklemeat and his female counter Maggie Wrinklemeat hadn't been such incredibly shallow alzheimers cases, they might have succeeded pouring piss out of a boot at most. I couldnt warm up to that conversation couched in any way, even if I was laying on a blazing funeral pyre.

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Taliban supporter in U.S.: 'Moral Equivalent of Founding Fathers' (4/16/2012 3:29:08 PM)
FR The Taliban are simply one faction of the mujahideen or "holy warriors" who emerged during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The word "taliban" means religious students, and the Taliban is known as the "Students of Islamic Knowledge Movement". It is religious students who participated in the various factions of mujahideen, and who ultimately formed the Taliban. The Taliban are religious extremists and believe in a theocratic form of government based on Sharia. So one thing about the original post that is quite ironic is that the founding fathers of the United States could not be anything further from religious extremists or supporters of a theocracy. They believed in concepts like separation of Church and state and freedom of religion. To me, the irony of the picture is that in an attempt to support "freedom" from the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, the U.S. actually ends up supporting a bunch of religious extremists who support none of the liberties that we hold of value. None. Let's leave aside the debate over who the Taliban is for just a moment and focus closely on Reagan's quote. Is there anyone here who really feels the Taliban or even other factions of mujahideen in any way resemble the moral compass of our founding fathers????

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Taliban supporter in U.S.: 'Moral Equivalent of Founding Fathers' (4/16/2012 3:34:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail It may have, but here we are, wasn't a good thing before, after or since. Wilson, Reagan et al didn't have a crystal ball. If we look at the situation at the time with the Soviets fighting an especially dirty war by systematically putting down the civilian population then the decision of the US to help was a good thing if just taken in isolation. Did the defeat of the Soviet Union encourage Islamist terrorism? Possibly but the Soviet Union was beginning to crumble anyway, and a few more years in there would have brutalised the population more, and still led to an eventual civil war leading to the death of a few hundred thousand. Either way things wouldn't be pretty and perhaps would lead to a fair bit of radicalisation... I don't believe you can ever view history in isolation. Our success as a species is going to rest on learning from history. And if there is one big lesson there, it is that you absolutely have to take the bigger picture into account ALWAYS. It is exactly trying to treat and manage situations in isolation that cause all of the problems to begin with. Especially when people who do not understand a particular region, culture and religion properly start making decisions based on limited facts and limited implications.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Taliban supporter in U.S.: 'Moral Equivalent of Founding Fathers' (4/16/2012 4:47:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam http://www.nctc.gov/site/profiles/mullah_omar.html Tell that to the CIA and National Counterterrorism Center. Don't know bout the NCTC but the CIA were the ones to first point out the fact that the Taliban kept trotting out different people as Omar. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/1366159/Who-is-the-real-Mullah-Omar.html "12:01AM GMT 23 Dec 2001" As usual, you have the up to date info.[:D] The Taliban don't believe in allowing themselves to be photographed. It is also reasonable that he would, like Saddam, use doubles. I read your article twice and didn't see the CIA mentioned at all. I did, however, see that Omar was a real person.

DomKen -> RE: Taliban supporter in U.S.: 'Moral Equivalent of Founding Fathers' (4/16/2012 4:59:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess FR The Taliban are simply one faction of the mujahideen or "holy warriors" who emerged during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The word "taliban" means religious students, and the Taliban is known as the "Students of Islamic Knowledge Movement". It is religious students who participated in the various factions of mujahideen, and who ultimately formed the Taliban. Let's not be ridiculous. The Taliban formed in 1991 well over a decade after the mujahideen insurgency started. Maybe some of the anti Soviet fighters joined but the movement was almost entirely made up of taliban from Pakistan and it simply isn't possible men in their teens and early 20's who'd sent mcuh of the last decade memorizing the Qu'ran in Pakistan were also freedom fighters waging a guerilla war in Afghanistan.

DomKen -> RE: Taliban supporter in U.S.: 'Moral Equivalent of Founding Fathers' (4/16/2012 5:00:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam http://www.nctc.gov/site/profiles/mullah_omar.html Tell that to the CIA and National Counterterrorism Center. Don't know bout the NCTC but the CIA were the ones to first point out the fact that the Taliban kept trotting out different people as Omar. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/1366159/Who-is-the-real-Mullah-Omar.html "12:01AM GMT 23 Dec 2001" As usual, you have the up to date info.[:D] The Taliban don't believe in allowing themselves to be photographed. It is also reasonable that he would, like Saddam, use doubles. I read your article twice and didn't see the CIA mentioned at all. I did, however, see that Omar was a real person. Do the research yourself then. Start with the ISI's ties to the formation of the Taliban in the early 90's.

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Taliban supporter in U.S.: 'Moral Equivalent of Founding Fathers' (4/16/2012 5:16:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess FR The Taliban are simply one faction of the mujahideen or "holy warriors" who emerged during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The word "taliban" means religious students, and the Taliban is known as the "Students of Islamic Knowledge Movement". It is religious students who participated in the various factions of mujahideen, and who ultimately formed the Taliban. Let's not be ridiculous. The Taliban formed in 1991 well over a decade after the mujahideen insurgency started. Maybe some of the anti Soviet fighters joined but the movement was almost entirely made up of taliban from Pakistan and it simply isn't possible men in their teens and early 20's who'd sent mcuh of the last decade memorizing the Qu'ran in Pakistan were also freedom fighters waging a guerilla war in Afghanistan. Only 20-40% of the Taliban are of Pakistani origin. The remainder (and majority) are of Afghan heritage and many were involved in various factions of the mujahideen. The mujahideen is a term that covers many groups, most of which are still active today. Sorry, but you are just wrong.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Taliban supporter in U.S.: 'Moral Equivalent of Founding Fathers' (4/16/2012 5:43:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam http://www.nctc.gov/site/profiles/mullah_omar.html Tell that to the CIA and National Counterterrorism Center. Don't know bout the NCTC but the CIA were the ones to first point out the fact that the Taliban kept trotting out different people as Omar. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/1366159/Who-is-the-real-Mullah-Omar.html "12:01AM GMT 23 Dec 2001" As usual, you have the up to date info.[:D] The Taliban don't believe in allowing themselves to be photographed. It is also reasonable that he would, like Saddam, use doubles. I read your article twice and didn't see the CIA mentioned at all. I did, however, see that Omar was a real person. Do the research yourself then. Start with the ISI's ties to the formation of the Taliban in the early 90's. In other words, you realized your link didn't support your assertions. Sorry, but you make the claim, you back it up. That's the way it works.

Owner59 -> RE: Taliban supporter in U.S.: 'Moral Equivalent of Founding Fathers' (4/16/2012 5:46:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery [image]http://www.legitgov.org/graphics/reagan_taliban_1985.jpg[/image] NEVER NEGOTIATE, right? [:D] OK... straight question because I'd like to know for my own edification. I am not going to assume you just put this up because its kinda of a funny "gotcha" internet picture, which in all honesty, it could be (and if so, it would be funny.) But did you research it in any way? Can you actually identify any of the Afghan men and can you source where they are now members of the Taliban? You don`t even know what the Taliban is, FDD..... Clue for you F,......it`s not what fox and friends say it is.

FatDomDaddy -> RE: Taliban supporter in U.S.: 'Moral Equivalent of Founding Fathers' (4/16/2012 6:20:42 PM)
Yeah, that still doesn't answer the question. Can anyone identify any of the Afghan men and source where they are now members of the Taliban or for that matter, any terrorist group??

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Taliban supporter in U.S.: 'Moral Equivalent of Founding Fathers' (4/16/2012 6:41:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy Yeah, that still doesn't answer the question. Can anyone identify any of the Afghan men and source where they are now members of the Taliban or for that matter, any terrorist group?? You are seriously missing the entire point which is actually the quote.....

dcnovice -> RE: Taliban supporter in U.S.: 'Moral Equivalent of Founding Fathers' (4/16/2012 6:58:08 PM)
FR I thought it was the contras who were "the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/reagan-iran/

Hillwilliam -> RE: Taliban supporter in U.S.: 'Moral Equivalent of Founding Fathers' (4/16/2012 7:13:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice FR I thought it was the contras who were "the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/reagan-iran/ Saint Ronnie was kinda fond of them as well.

FatDomDaddy -> RE: Taliban supporter in U.S.: 'Moral Equivalent of Founding Fathers' (4/16/2012 8:17:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy Yeah, that still doesn't answer the question. Can anyone identify any of the Afghan men and source where they are now members of the Taliban or for that matter, any terrorist group?? You are seriously missing the entire point which is actually the quote..... OH... THE QUOTE! Isn't it pointless without the photograph?

Anaxagoras -> RE: Taliban supporter in U.S.: 'Moral Equivalent of Founding Fathers' (4/16/2012 8:18:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail It may have, but here we are, wasn't a good thing before, after or since. Wilson, Reagan et al didn't have a crystal ball. If we look at the situation at the time with the Soviets fighting an especially dirty war by systematically putting down the civilian population then the decision of the US to help was a good thing if just taken in isolation. Did the defeat of the Soviet Union encourage Islamist terrorism? Possibly but the Soviet Union was beginning to crumble anyway, and a few more years in there would have brutalised the population more, and still led to an eventual civil war leading to the death of a few hundred thousand. Either way things wouldn't be pretty and perhaps would lead to a fair bit of radicalisation... I don't believe you can ever view history in isolation. Our success as a species is going to rest on learning from history. And if there is one big lesson there, it is that you absolutely have to take the bigger picture into account ALWAYS. It is exactly trying to treat and manage situations in isolation that cause all of the problems to begin with. Especially when people who do not understand a particular region, culture and religion properly start making decisions based on limited facts and limited implications. I take your point but when I said taken in isolation, I really meant away from hindsight which is what some seem to be using to laugh at Reagan, rather than isolated from history. My own view is that actions should be judged in the context of the times. Iran had switched to theocracy a few years earlier so it could be argued that there were some portents toward extremism that the US should have been aware of. Having said that, the USSR was still a big player in the region and most regimes in the Islamic world were still somewhat secular so I'm not sure how easily they could have predicted what would happen with the defeat of the USSR. I have huge concerns about Islamism but at the end of the day those poor bastards were being slaughtered by the Russians so I think there was at least some moral rectitude in the US doing what it did, even if it could be argued that it was also somewhat self-serving due to the Cold War.

DomKen -> RE: Taliban supporter in U.S.: 'Moral Equivalent of Founding Fathers' (4/16/2012 8:26:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam http://www.nctc.gov/site/profiles/mullah_omar.html Tell that to the CIA and National Counterterrorism Center. Don't know bout the NCTC but the CIA were the ones to first point out the fact that the Taliban kept trotting out different people as Omar. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/1366159/Who-is-the-real-Mullah-Omar.html "12:01AM GMT 23 Dec 2001" As usual, you have the up to date info.[:D] The Taliban don't believe in allowing themselves to be photographed. It is also reasonable that he would, like Saddam, use doubles. I read your article twice and didn't see the CIA mentioned at all. I did, however, see that Omar was a real person. Do the research yourself then. Start with the ISI's ties to the formation of the Taliban in the early 90's. In other words, you realized your link didn't support your assertions. Sorry, but you make the claim, you back it up. That's the way it works. I already pointed you to a source that says pictures of Omar are not the same guy a british diplomat dealt with. You handwaved that away. Why should i waste more time if you refuse to acknowledge the facts?

Hillwilliam -> RE: Taliban supporter in U.S.: 'Moral Equivalent of Founding Fathers' (4/16/2012 9:24:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I already pointed you to a source that says pictures of Omar are not the same guy a british diplomat dealt with. You handwaved that away. Why should i waste more time if you refuse to acknowledge the facts? I didn't handwave it. I explained that the Taliban are ultra orthodox muslims who don't believe in being photographed (Much like the Amish) as that is creating a "Graven Image". As Man was created in the Image of God (Allah), any photograph would by inference be a graven image of the deity. You tried to claim that Omar never existed. "Mullah Omar is a fiction of the ISI" in post 10. Then, you put up an article detailing his career and quoting people who have met him. Fer fuxsake, be consistent, willya? You say I refuse to acknowledge the facts. Which set of 'facts' are you referring to? You have at least 2 of them.

DomKen -> RE: Taliban supporter in U.S.: 'Moral Equivalent of Founding Fathers' (4/17/2012 7:06:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I already pointed you to a source that says pictures of Omar are not the same guy a british diplomat dealt with. You handwaved that away. Why should i waste more time if you refuse to acknowledge the facts? I didn't handwave it. I explained that the Taliban are ultra orthodox muslims who don't believe in being photographed (Much like the Amish) as that is creating a "Graven Image". As Man was created in the Image of God (Allah), any photograph would by inference be a graven image of the deity. You tried to claim that Omar never existed. "Mullah Omar is a fiction of the ISI" in post 10. Then, you put up an article detailing his career and quoting people who have met him. Fer fuxsake, be consistent, willya? You say I refuse to acknowledge the facts. Which set of 'facts' are you referring to? You have at least 2 of them. Go do the fucking research yourself then. Like I told you before start with the ISI creating the Taliban in 1991.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Taliban supporter in U.S.: 'Moral Equivalent of Founding Fathers' (4/17/2012 7:52:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I already pointed you to a source that says pictures of Omar are not the same guy a british diplomat dealt with. You handwaved that away. Why should i waste more time if you refuse to acknowledge the facts? I didn't handwave it. I explained that the Taliban are ultra orthodox muslims who don't believe in being photographed (Much like the Amish) as that is creating a "Graven Image". As Man was created in the Image of God (Allah), any photograph would by inference be a graven image of the deity. You tried to claim that Omar never existed. "Mullah Omar is a fiction of the ISI" in post 10. Then, you put up an article detailing his career and quoting people who have met him. Fer fuxsake, be consistent, willya? You say I refuse to acknowledge the facts. Which set of 'facts' are you referring to? You have at least 2 of them. Go do the fucking research yourself then. Like I told you before start with the ISI creating the Taliban in 1991. Go back and reread. My problem has never been the connection of the Taliban and Pakistani Intelligence. My problem was with your claim that Mullah Omar never existed.

DomKen -> RE: Taliban supporter in U.S.: 'Moral Equivalent of Founding Fathers' (4/17/2012 8:20:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I already pointed you to a source that says pictures of Omar are not the same guy a british diplomat dealt with. You handwaved that away. Why should i waste more time if you refuse to acknowledge the facts? I didn't handwave it. I explained that the Taliban are ultra orthodox muslims who don't believe in being photographed (Much like the Amish) as that is creating a "Graven Image". As Man was created in the Image of God (Allah), any photograph would by inference be a graven image of the deity. You tried to claim that Omar never existed. "Mullah Omar is a fiction of the ISI" in post 10. Then, you put up an article detailing his career and quoting people who have met him. Fer fuxsake, be consistent, willya? You say I refuse to acknowledge the facts. Which set of 'facts' are you referring to? You have at least 2 of them. Go do the fucking research yourself then. Like I told you before start with the ISI creating the Taliban in 1991. Go back and reread. My problem has never been the connection of the Taliban and Pakistani Intelligence. My problem was with your claim that Mullah Omar never existed. And if you spend the time to do the research you'll find numerous cases where people met with Omar and offered conflicting physical descriptions. You'll also find the fact that Omar was supposedly the leader of the Taliban but never appeared in public and no documents are signed by him. You'll also find that the Taliban operated mostly to support the ISI's agenda and did little else. Which naturally brings the questions, if Omar is really a fierce freedom fighter from Afghanistan why is he so subservient to the ISI? How did a complete unknown with no family or political power become the leader of the Taliban (notie how no stories of how that happened exist)? How do you control a fractious and violent movement like the Taliban without ever speaking in public or signing anything?

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875