Liverpool FC Forum

by **Number 9** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 10:55 am

tonyeh wrote:I think it would be a mistake to think that the Taliban are just a bunch of looneys who simply go around blowing up donkeys and kids. Besides, there's plenty of that to go around on all sides.

Remember, there is a core body within that were trained in the 80's by the CIA and they are well versed in using the terrain to the best advantage. These are the fighters who saw off the might of the Red Army, arguably the strongest army in the world at the time and they were there in much larger numbers too.

The Taliban's fighting organisation have proven to be very skillfull fighters and have shown that they are capible of taking on modern mobilised war machines to great effect.

I dont think they are loonies..their ideals and overall agenda is worthy of loonism though...but they would feel the same about us..just because its our culture to act a certain way and do certain things does not make it right!

Just because something is not how you do it does not make it wrong..it makes you look like you lack understanding!(Im not talking about you,im talking in general)

We need to sit down..show them respect and listen..and they do us!!
Then again its their country..so why should they respect us?
Told ya...sticky situation

by **Big Niall** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:17 pm

The war cannot be won, Britain (when more powerful than today's Britain) got stuck there in the 19th century, USSR got stuck there in the 1980s. You cannot defeat a rural guerilla force.

The best feasible result is to keep it in a situation that they cannot have training grounds for terrorists to blow up parts of Britain or other countries but this would require a constant presence and a constant stream of deaths.

by **Judge** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:26 pm

Big Niall wrote:The best feasible result is to keep it in a situation that they cannot have training grounds for terrorists to blow up parts of Britain or other countries but this would require a constant presence and a constant stream of deaths.

in other words close our borders

by **Number 9** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:46 pm

Judge wrote:
Big Niall wrote:The best feasible result is to keep it in a situation that they cannot have training grounds for terrorists to blow up parts of Britain or other countries but this would require a constant presence and a constant stream of deaths.

in other words close our borders

if you have black hair..yes..No probs for you!

by **Number 9** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:50 pm

Mods this is racist..look what Barry and Judge said..racist!!

by **Judge** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:55 pm

happens baz, what do you want from us?

by **maypaxvobiscum** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:54 pm

why are the Taliban and Al Qeada labelled as terrorists anyway? is it because they are against the supposed babyface USA? for example, take a look at Nelson Mandela. he became leader of the ANC's armed wing which held sabotage campaigns against military and government targets. and then there's the Hamas who are known for their numerous attacks on Israel. and William Wallace, Gandhi, etc etc etc. my point is, all these people or groups had a plan for how they wanted society to develop and they have their own ideology of how the state should be governed. at some point, all the mentioned names above were considered rebels or terrorists. now that they have got for they fought for after so long, they are considered freedom fighters. could the same be said of Al Qeada should they achieve their objective?

by **Judge** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:56 pm

maypaxvobiscum wrote:why are the Taliban and Al Qeada labelled as terrorists anyway? is it because they are against the supposed babyface USA? for example, take a look at Nelson Mandela. he became leader of the ANC's armed wing which held sabotage campaigns against military and government targets. and then there's the Hamas who are known for their numerous attacks on Israel. and William Wallace, Gandhi, etc etc etc. my point is, all these people or groups had a plan for how they wanted society to develop and they have their own ideology of how the state should be governed. at some point, all the mentioned names above were considered rebels or terrorists. now that they have got for they fought for after so long, they are considered freedom fighters. could the same be said of Al Qeada should they achieve their objective?

those others you name, did all there work in their own land. whereas al qaeda et al, do theres in other countries on top of their own

they are terrorists

by **Bad Bob** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:04 pm

maypaxvobiscum wrote:why are the Taliban and Al Qeada labelled as terrorists anyway? is it because they are against the supposed babyface USA? for example, take a look at Nelson Mandela. he became leader of the ANC's armed wing which held sabotage campaigns against military and government targets. and then there's the Hamas who are known for their numerous attacks on Israel. and William Wallace, Gandhi, etc etc etc. my point is, all these people or groups had a plan for how they wanted society to develop and they have their own ideology of how the state should be governed. at some point, all the mentioned names above were considered rebels or terrorists. now that they have got for they fought for after so long, they are considered freedom fighters. could the same be said of Al Qeada should they achieve their objective?

It might have something to do with Al Qeida deciding to use fully-loaded passenger airliners as missiles to bring down major financial and military targets in highly populated areas?

I recognize that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter in many cases but I think you'd struggle to find a clearer cut case of terrorism than 9/11 (unless you're one of those "inside job" conspiracy nutjobs

).

by **Ciggy** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:10 pm

maypaxvobiscum wrote:why are the Taliban and Al Qeada labelled as terrorists anyway? is it because they are against the supposed babyface USA?

No because they are fuckin nutters with their pre-historic views on life.

by **Number 9** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:16 pm

maypaxvobiscum wrote:why are the Taliban and Al Qeada labelled as terrorists anyway? is it because they are against the supposed babyface USA? for example, take a look at Nelson Mandela. he became leader of the ANC's armed wing which held sabotage campaigns against military and government targets. and then there's the Hamas who are known for their numerous attacks on Israel. and William Wallace, Gandhi, etc etc etc. my point is, all these people or groups had a plan for how they wanted society to develop and they have their own ideology of how the state should be governed. at some point, all the mentioned names above were considered rebels or terrorists. now that they have got for they fought for after so long, they are considered freedom fighters. could the same be said of Al Qeada should they achieve their objective?

Yeah William Wallace wanted freedom..but he also had decency and a right!Do you need me to highlight the difference?
The ANC were an elected party after years of racism.......
So different because they deserved it.....You as said are an absolute little tool!!

by **Emerald Red** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:29 pm

Big Niall wrote:The war cannot be won, Britain (when more powerful than today's Britain) got stuck there in the 19th century, USSR got stuck there in the 1980s. You cannot defeat a rural guerilla force.

The best feasible result is to keep it in a situation that they cannot have training grounds for terrorists to blow up parts of Britain or other countries but this would require a constant presence and a constant stream of deaths.

You think the Brits and the Yanks are there to "blow up" these so called "training grounds" that they are supposed to have to train people to fly all the way to places like Britain and America so that they can blow up stuff there?

Afghanistan is a war zone. If any training is going on there, it's for the influx of guerilla insurgents from neighbouring areas to fight their war THERE and not over here. You're talking about a country full of people so poor, that their main export for farmers is to grow weed and opium out of necessity rather than choice simply to survive.

Any threat to Britain and America already exists on their shores TODAY and yesteryear. All it takes is a little knowledge and a dangerous mindset to blow something up, and there's plenty of that already in western countries. The IRA used to make bombs from fertilizer and gas cylinders FFS. If America and Britain wants a war on terror, then it's already on their doorstep and was a long, long time ago.

The media are now portraying Afghanistan as some kind of fabled land where the bad men live; where the monsters are, like Mordor in Middle-Earth or something. Fact is, if so called terrorists want to train themselves to attack foreign targets, ther's plenty of less conspicuous places which they can do so. These people are not stupid, you know, and as is often the case, they train, plan and carry out their attacks from within the country they are attacking.

So, like I said, if Afghanistan has no real natural rescource, then why are America and Britain in there? War on Terror? Bollox. They were in there well before that crock of sh*t was ever invented, and it's sure as f*ck not for the weed.

by **account deleted by request** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:32 pm

Bad Bob wrote:
maypaxvobiscum wrote:why are the Taliban and Al Qeada labelled as terrorists anyway? is it because they are against the supposed babyface USA? for example, take a look at Nelson Mandela. he became leader of the ANC's armed wing which held sabotage campaigns against military and government targets. and then there's the Hamas who are known for their numerous attacks on Israel. and William Wallace, Gandhi, etc etc etc. my point is, all these people or groups had a plan for how they wanted society to develop and they have their own ideology of how the state should be governed. at some point, all the mentioned names above were considered rebels or terrorists. now that they have got for they fought for after so long, they are considered freedom fighters. could the same be said of Al Qeada should they achieve their objective?

It might have something to do with Al Qeida deciding to use fully-loaded passenger airliners as missiles to bring down major financial and military targets in highly populated areas? I recognize that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter in many cases but I think you'd struggle to find a clearer cut case of terrorism than 9/11 (unless you're one of those "inside job" conspiracy nutjobs ).

I don't think the answer is quite as simple as that Bob. Many recognised states and governments have done much worse, so while its an easy label to apply because of their horrific crimes on 9/11 are they in truth any worse than many nations have done in the past? Or is their terrorist status based on how successful they were?

Sadly todays Terrorist is often tomorrows "war hero" or part of a new government. You only have to look at the IRA to see that.

No mate , I think Judge and Ciggy are a little closer to the mark on this one. Rent a terrorists like Al Queida have no possible justification because they are not just fighting for their own freedom in their own land, but are fighting for a "cause" around the world............and maybe they are " :censored:

nutters with their pre-historic views on life " as Ciggy says.

by **Ciggy** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:41 pm

Not just based on the war, but Ive seen some films The Kite runner, Khandahar, and some documentrys about Afghanistan.

The women and children are torchered, one woman was shot dead in the old football stadium for wait for it.............................

Nail varnish on her toes :no

Horrible b@stards.

by **Bad Bob** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:45 pm

s@int wrote:
Bad Bob wrote:
maypaxvobiscum wrote:why are the Taliban and Al Qeada labelled as terrorists anyway? is it because they are against the supposed babyface USA? for example, take a look at Nelson Mandela. he became leader of the ANC's armed wing which held sabotage campaigns against military and government targets. and then there's the Hamas who are known for their numerous attacks on Israel. and William Wallace, Gandhi, etc etc etc. my point is, all these people or groups had a plan for how they wanted society to develop and they have their own ideology of how the state should be governed. at some point, all the mentioned names above were considered rebels or terrorists. now that they have got for they fought for after so long, they are considered freedom fighters. could the same be said of Al Qeada should they achieve their objective?

It might have something to do with Al Qeida deciding to use fully-loaded passenger airliners as missiles to bring down major financial and military targets in highly populated areas? I recognize that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter in many cases but I think you'd struggle to find a clearer cut case of terrorism than 9/11 (unless you're one of those "inside job" conspiracy nutjobs ).

I don't think the answer is quite as simple as that Bob. Many recognised states and governments have done much worse, so while its an easy label to apply because of their horrific crimes on 9/11 are they in truth any worse than many nations have done in the past? Or is their terrorist status based on how successful they were?

Sadly todays Terrorist is often tomorrows "war hero" or part of a new government. You only have to look at the IRA to see that.

No mate , I think Judge and Ciggy are a little closer to the mark on this one. Rent a terrorists like Al Queida have no possible justification because they are not just fighting for their own freedom in their own land, but are fighting for a "cause" around the world............and maybe they are " nutters with their pre-historic views on life " as Ciggy says.

It really is that simple to me, mate. If you target civilians in order to incite terror and drawn attention to your "message" you're a terrorist. Whether it's state sponsored or not, it's the tactic that makes it terrorism. I'm not talking about "collateral damage" here...I'm talking the targeting of civilians. Subsequent politicking may attempt to conceal terrorist acts behind a veil of rhetoric in order to expedite the peace process but it doesn't change the fact that certain "war heroes" or "members of government" used to engage in acts of terrorism.

Liverpool FC Forum

War in afganistan - What you think!

Who is online