dude, lay off the rhetoric, you've shown that you're more or less indifferent to Syrian regime atrocities and seem to defend Assad a little too often for my taste. Would you intervene in Syria and depose the regime? If not, does that make you "comfortable with barrel bombs bring dropped on children, systematic torture and murder, and a leader who released senior members of IS?"
http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=9200721&postcount=38 AroundTheWorld http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=9200326&postcount=34 AroundTheWorld http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=9157094&postcount=45 AroundTheWorld http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=9158589&postcount=14 adeelsiddiqui http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=9085947&postcount=98 AroundTheWorld http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=7973248&postcount=46 AroundtheWorld http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?p=7945105&highlight=terrorist#post7945105 AroundTheWorld http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=7463337&postcount=17 AroundTheWorld AroundTheWorld http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=7366212&postcount=655 AroundTheWorld http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=7366178&postcount=643 oh yeah AroundTheWorld http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=6743488&postcount=9 AroundTheWorld there's a search function that works quite well in these forums lol. now answer my "stupid little post".
sadly, we're enacting a surveillance bill called Bill C-51 in response to all this that will bring into effect the authorization of violation of our constitution by state surveillance agencies. we have one of the weakest oversight regimes in the world for surveillance and it's about to become a whole lot weaker. so no, it'd be the Canadian Death Star Act of 2016 you should be worried about.
i haven't given this a great deal of thought, but, i suppose it could be argued that arming the mujahideen forced the Soviets into a war of attrition in Afghanistan, greatly debilitated the Sov's conventional military capability, cost the dearly in lives and treasure, and helped bring about the end of the USSR. also, if memory (and charlie wilson's war) serves, i think it may have been a the discontinuation of support for the rebels, rather than arming them, that turned them into anti-US militants. and i may be completely mistaken about the above- as i said, i haven't spned much time thinking about it. but no one is arguing that the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan was a good thing.
If you cannot intellectually process the distinction between supporting the same goals as a terrorist organization and being a terrorist, then that is on you, 100 %.
Nigeria is one of the most corrupt countries on the planet so Boko Haram may cause a lot more damage before they are stopped. But these radical groups do not spring up without some kind of help. --While the atrocities committed by Boko Haram are being used to justify an R2P “humanitarian” intervention in Nigeria, it is worth noting that covert financial support as well as military training has been channeled to Boko Haram by two of America’s staunchest allies: Saudi Arabia and the UK http://www.globalresearch.ca/covert...e-ground-for-us-sponsored-balkanization/30259
You bring up an important point, but there is something wrong in it: Boko Haram has not been getting support "by the UK", but "out of the UK" by Islamist financiers who trace back to the Middle East.
From my understanding it may be Al-Muntada Trust and they are headquartered in the UK but I'm not gullible enough to believe that the UK government (and friends) doesn't know what's going on and they could probably stop it if they wanted to it. But it's probably in their best interest not to.
If you cannot intellectually process this then that's on you, 100%. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=6743488&postcount=9 Originally Posted by fchowd0311 View Post I would be doing more than just throwing rocks if someone bulldozed my house with my family in it. I guess you can call me a terrorist. AroundTheWorld Terrorist. AroundTheWorld I have not called a single person on here a terrorist. I stopped looking halfway through the keywords I was going through, it seems like you + the word terrorist pop up quite a bit. now that this s**tshow is over, can you get to the points?
Kid...I think fchowd0311 is one of the best posters here in this sub-forum. It's just that when someone says "I guess you can call me ..." there is pretty much inevitably someone who will then do just that. That doesn't mean that I think fchowd0311 is a terrorist...can't believe you are so dumb that I need to spell that out for you .
I wasn't saying that you thought that the rise of the Taliban was a good thing, I just would like you to see that arming and funding Bin Laden and the Mujahideen was a mistake, and that the U.S. has a terrible track record in their interventions -- often making things much worse and not better. I think most people are tired of the U.S. getting involved in international affairs not because they do not think these groups need to be fought, but because we have seen the U.S. actions on such matters so often lead to making things worse instead of better. That is why I think the air support the U.S. is providing in the area is the right tactic to take. Giving advanced weaponry may be a mistake, just as it was a mistake to give it to the Taliban, Saddam, Bin Laden, and the current Iraqi government (who let it fall into the hands of Daesh without much of a fight). If the U.S. had a better track record I would want them involved more, but, as it is, asking the U.S. to get more involved than providing aid and air support (which is really helping rollback Daesh by the way), is like hiring Isiah Thomas to come in and fix your NBA franchise.
Afghanistan did not hit the USSR's military capability. The end of the USSR had to do with many many other factors. Once the rebels beat back the Soviets, the rest of the world was the obvious target. They were never our allies, they were always militants ready to turn on us. If you think somehow that Militant Islamists would ever be an ally to the USA you are smoking way too much weed.
This. What has our records been over there? How can we trust anything our government does over there when almost everything we have done back-fired. Our past strategy of intervening in that region has failed miserably. Just relax, take a deep breath, provide auxiliary support to the "good" guys, monitor the progress and let them settle their own problems to a more genuine and long lasting resolution that doesn't directly require continuing US resources. Of course if the tide changes where we need and should get involved, we can always do so. But it should be for an emergency situation, and not as part of the same long-term proven failed strategy of the past.
Either way, you're still a dick. Your incessant posting on an internet message board has done wonders in the fight against radical islam.
Also, basso, I forgot to mention in my last response to you, but it is a grave misunderstanding of militant islamist groups like Al Qaeda and Daesh if you think they are only anti-U.S. because the U.S. stopped providing aid. Would you have had us give more aid to Bin Laden and the Taliban than we already did? No, anti-westernism is a core tenant of these groups. Yes, this is exactly what I would advocate for the U.S. policy in the region right now. EDIT: I really am not sure what to do about Boko Haram though, as I am much less informed about Nigeria than I am about the middle east. The only thing I know is how corrupt and ineffective the Nigerian government is.
