The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Afghanistan why stay?

Afghanistan why stay?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 15
  7. 16
  8. 17
  9. All
Why stay we did our best lost brave lives but we are feeding corruption and for what?
Yes the Taliban will come back but a few bombing runs will keep them under control.
We can not win the hearts and minds of these people some will always find reason to hate us.
In Iran right now, without our interference, that we know of the people are working towards getting more freedom.
Posted by Belly, Saturday, 11 September 2010 7:00:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We owe it to the civilians we put in the firing line for helping us. No idea how they thought they could ACTUALLY insert democracy into such a place, but we did, and invaded them for it.

Really, I don't have issue with sending the fundi sections of the mid-east back to the 1300's as it will keep them down for awhile longer, but I do have sympathy for the civilians who will have their heads hacked off when we leave.

Really, one bullet would've instigated civil war there and had the same effect as we're seeing now and we'd have deniability.
Posted by StG, Sunday, 12 September 2010 9:01:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Belly

We went into Afghanistan because our political leadership calculated it was a good way of winning influence in Washington. That policy is now long past its use by date.

Withdrawal of the coalition forces will eventually result in a return to power of the murderous Taliban This will turn Afghanistan into a hell on Earth for Afghan woman who don't have it too good now anyway. This is regrettable but it is none of our business.

Let me repeat that.

What Afghans do to Afghans in Afghanistan is NONE OF OUR BUSINESS. Even if they torture and enslave women - which is what the Taliban did the last time they were in power - it is none of our business. We are in any case powerless to do anything about it.

I am spelling this out because I want to anticipate in advance the "humanitarian" arguments those who think we should stay will undoubtedly make.

AFGHNISTAN IS NONE OF OUR BUSINESS.

Afghanistan is not worth the life of of one more Australian soldier or the expenditure of one more Australian dollar.

We should leave today.
Posted by lentaubman, Sunday, 12 September 2010 10:01:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agree entirely Belly and lentaubman, and I believe that we would better nurture peace and stability by setting an example of non-interference. Personally, the wellbeing of those in ONE (always rather fundamentalist) country is not worth the security of the rest of the Middle East, the Western world, and generally the entire world that sees many nations with deep Islamic-Non relations and could use the reprieve of the absence of something that could radicalize, or instigate further conflict.

For what?
-The Taliban are ALREADY committing abhorent crimes under our WATCH, so the "brutal taliban returning" is really rather redundant. Furthermore, they're spreading outwards and annexing places in Pakistan.
-The government we're dying for is almost as bad, and willing to ally with them anyway
-Washington rewarded us for our bloodshed with trying to dump some Gitmo inmates on us (some allies they turned out to be).
-And those spooky countries to the north, I hate to break it to everyone, are actually fairly well-off, mostly democratic nations to which we are important trading partners to, so the idea that any of them would invade is flat-out stupid.
Posted by King Hazza, Sunday, 12 September 2010 10:32:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Afghanistan why stay?

Belly, I suspect that we'll stay for as
long as the US tells us to. Our government
has made that commitment and the current
government intends to keep it.

All over the world, hundreds of thousands of
scientists and engineers devote their skills
to planning new and more efficient ways for
humans to kill one another; millions of
workers labour to manufacture instruments of
death; and tens of millions of soldiers train
for combat - and some as we've seen actually
go to war.

From a moral and even an economic point of view,
this vast investment of human ingenuity and energy
seems a tragic waste. Unlike other economic goods
like cars, or computers, the weapons of war are
used to destroy economies, not build them. And looming
over all these military preparations and counter-
preparations is humanity's ultimate threat, the
unleashing of full-scale nuclear war.

All we can do is apply pressure on the government
to get out of Afghanistan and hope that with enough
popular pressure things will change over time
under the influence of new government policies.
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 12 September 2010 11:13:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
King Hazza,

You are right. The Taliban are committing atrocities as we speak. However I think we have to face up to the fact that it will get worse when (not if) the coalition forces leave. We'll have more of this:

"The Taliban pounded on the door just before midnight, demanding that Aisha, 18, be punished for running away from her husband's house. They dragged her to a mountain clearing near her village in the southern Afghan province of Uruzgan, ignoring her protests that her in-laws had been abusive, that she had no choice but to escape. Shivering in the cold air and blinded by the flashlights trained on her by her husband's family, she faced her spouse and accuser. Her in-laws treated her like a slave, Aisha pleaded. They beat her. If she hadn't run away, she would have died. Her judge, a local Taliban commander, was unmoved. Later, he would tell Aisha's uncle that she had to be made an example of lest other girls in the village try to do the same thing. The commander gave his verdict, and men moved in to deliver the punishment. Aisha's brother-in-law held her down while her husband pulled out a knife. First he sliced off her ears. Then he started on her nose. Aisha passed out from the pain but awoke soon after, choking on her own blood. The men had left her on the mountainside to die."

See: Afghan Women and the Return of the Taliban

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2007238-1,00.html

Critics of any withdrawal will point to this. That's why I want to emphasise the point.

What Afghans do to Afghans in Afghanistan may be regrettable but it is NONE OF OUR BUSINESS.

I feel the greatest sympathy for women in Aisha's position but I think the fight is not worth the life of one more Australian soldier. The Afghans will have to work this out on their own
Posted by lentaubman, Sunday, 12 September 2010 2:21:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I supported this invasion, and the one in Iraq, I was wrong in that country.
And this one? not sure.
We did good getting our hands on the throat of the Taliban but maybe recruit for them now.
I think those wanting to blame only America may overlook the corruption and deceit within these country's.
Some middle eastern country use America England and us, while supporting our enemy's too.
I don't think we can win.
Not this way.
Maybe we should come home, block trade and money flow to such country's, do what America did against the Russians.
Give arms and help at minimal loss of western lives.
For every dollar Pakistan gets I feel we get zero value.
What happens is our business but can we Win this way.
Posted by Belly, Sunday, 12 September 2010 2:24:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am unsure what our new poster is up to.
The horrible and true storys about women in this country seem aimed at keeping us there.
See I with a Passion think the way women are treated in that region/religion is inhuman just a way to keep them in slavery.
And I think it is our concern.
But I also know we in helping create enemy's, maybe more than Friends.
We, I am sure, would die almost to a man rather than see our country and its women treated that way.
I am unconvinced enough people would do so in Afghanistan,Iraq, Iran, North Korea, maybe soon Turkey and Egypt.
I am not saying do not fight, but fight smarter not in the terms that give an advantage to such as these primitive grubs.
Posted by Belly, Sunday, 12 September 2010 2:39:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Belly,

If I am the "new poster' to whom you refer let me assure you my aim is NOT to keep us in Afghanistan.

But at the same time I don’t want to give any comfort to those who say everything that is wrong with Afghanistan is the fault of "the West" and all will be fine and wonderful when we leave. Nor do I want those who say we should leave to be able to salve their consciences by pretending to themselves it won't be so bad.

It will be bad.

It will be CATASTROPHIC for Afghan women.

We should not try to deceive ourselves about it.

Knowing this I STILL say "get out now" because it is none of our business, because it is not worth the life of one more digger, because the Afghans need to sort this out themselves as best they can.
Posted by lentaubman, Sunday, 12 September 2010 4:34:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I do agree with the idea that it is none of our business and we should not be there, never should have from the start. The response to 911 was plain wrong and many more questions should have been asked of people in power as to what they knew and what they did about it.

The big problem with the whole cultural, sexual, class discriminating system that they have is that it exists in many counties around the world and to even think you can defeat it by force is fantasy stuff. We need to socially ignore these countries as well as politically and industrially isolating them, this of course is never going to happen while they have what we want and we are too weak to develop new methods to neutralise their power through their oil resource.
In the end who is responsible for these countries and their influence?
Posted by nairbe, Sunday, 12 September 2010 5:25:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hmmm …Belly is sounding us out about withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Knowing how well plugged-in to Labor, Belly is, and knowing how much Labor needs to balance the budget –I wonder if this might presage a Gillard change of heart on Afghanistan?

Naaah! Horus you’re being too suspicious.
Posted by Horus, Sunday, 12 September 2010 5:57:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Horus well plugged in?
Not even close I am a foot soldier nothing more.
No idea what the debate will say ,but aware both major party's say stay.
Let us forget the funny stuff what do you think? truly.
Can we win.
Will life just go back to what it was after we go.
No lefty stuff but I think we need to talk about this.
Do we continue to fund corruption?
Bury our brave men.
What out comes do you see?/want.
Posted by Belly, Sunday, 12 September 2010 6:18:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nairbe,

Should we have gone into Afghanistan?

No. But we did.

I don’t think you should deceive yourself about the fate of Afghan women. While the coalition is there things are better for Afghan women than they were under the Taliban. Not great; but better.

Girls can go to school. Women can work. All this will vanish once the Taliban resumes power.

Read this Washington Post piece:

For pioneering Afghan Olympian, a different kind of race

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/11/AR2010091104838.html

Now imagine yourself explaining to Robina Jalali why you think the coalition should leave her and other Afghan women to the Taliban.

What would you say to her Nairbe?

Perhaps practise by imagining how you would explain to a Jewish family why you are leaving them to the Nazis.

Or imagine yourself an Afghan woman awaiting the return of the Taliban. For practise imagine yourself a Jew waiting for the Nazis.

And, yes, the Taliban CAN be compared to the Nazis. Godwin's law be damned. It is an appropriate comparison.

Yes, we should leave. But, for the sake of decency, we should not deceive ourselves about the fate of Afghan women. We owe it to the women of Afghanistan to be honest with ourselves.
Posted by lentaubman, Sunday, 12 September 2010 6:29:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Quite true guys;

And I should repeat my stance that I don't believe for a second that the consequences of this conflict will remain inside Afghanistan and if we were to crush the Taliban then militant fundamentalism will simply cease with them, or will just try to remain in that area.
Posted by King Hazza, Sunday, 12 September 2010 6:33:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm with Obama on this one. Al Queda did in fact use Afgahnistan
as a staging post for their attacks on the West. With the Taliban's
blessing, for of course in their eyes of fundamental Islamism,
we are all evil infidels and should all be forced to convert to
Islam. For those interested, read "Milestones" by Sayd Qutb,
to understand the philosophy that drives them.

That is the reason why we went there. But Afgahnistan was kind of
put on the backburner, whilst the focus was on Iraq. The Americans
got it all wrong in Iraq, but eventualy learnt from their mistakes
and eventually Petreus turned it around for them and they have been
able to scale down forces. Petreus has now been moved to focus on
Afgahnistan, to see if the same can be done there. I think its
worth giving him 18 months or so, to see if he can make a difference.

So its a bit simplistic to say that Afgahnistan is none of our
business. It was the same militant mob who killed Aussies on
holiday in Bali. Are you lot suggesting that we simply shrug
out shoulders and accept the regular killing of Western infidels?

If its your family who is blown up in Bali, should I just shrug
my shoulders and say it is none of my business?
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 12 September 2010 7:42:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Um Yabby, I'm not sure somebody told you about this but the group that attacked Bali was a group called Jamaah Islamiah- a completely different group who are based in South East Asia, not Afghanistan. Their only connection to Al Queda is they are allies. To imply that Afghanistan would in any way make a difference to their capabilities is an absurd stretch.

Also, I personally rather there be a country for all the fundamentalists to go to, than to look at other societies to settle in (ideally one with a cushier lifestyle- eg us).
It would also reduce motivation to conduct retaliatory terrorist attacks, as 911 was, as blatantly expressed, an attack in revenge of US middle East policy (the Bali attacks also- however being a p#@@weak group, could only target any random westerners within walking distance.
Posted by King Hazza, Sunday, 12 September 2010 10:18:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Despite all those repressive factors, Washington typically had no problem at all with the Taliban during Reagan's term - in fact they were treated like honoured guests during at least one visit. He even referred to the as "freedom fighters" after they Russians left.
Funny how attitudes can change so quickly.

It wasn't until the construction of the Unacol Oil Pieline through that country was stalled that they suddenly became persona non-grata and plans were already in place for the US to take military action there two months BEFORE September 2001.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAD201A.html

While it's true that there have been training camps there the 911 terrorists were actually trained in the USA. Furthermore, the Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden before the invasion but this was strangely rejected by Bush. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/17/afghanistan.terrorism11

However, now we're stuck there and been paid off with a US Free Trade Agreement there is no easy way of withdrawing politically. Both Our Government and Opposition just don't have what it takes.

I for one am looking forward to the proposed parliamentary debate (if it ever happens).
Posted by rache, Monday, 13 September 2010 1:57:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
yabby king Hazza has got it right do we then invade Indonesia?
rache has it spot on too like mother England and all colonial powers America has left its foot prints in blood.
But in our interests too.
lentaubman seems to have a few bob each way and not sure just what he wants.
My thoughts?
We are being had Saudi Arabia Pakistan, The whole middle east are not being honest.
I do not ask that we stop fighting the lunacy that is radical Islam.
But that we get out maybe and fight just as sneaky dirty and wisely as those multi faced country's do.
It will not be possible to set up radio Europe type things no radios no freedom to think and education only to oppose freedom.
But can we win this way.
We humanity should confront ALWAYS the dreadful treatment of women in this area and religion.
We can do so with economic weapons and in fact any way we can no Nation is not shamed by such hatred in the name of culture or God.
Posted by Belly, Monday, 13 September 2010 5:02:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rache,

"...the 911 terrorists were actually trained in the USA."

This is the sort of cherry picking annoys me. Assuming you're talking about them paying a private flight school to teach them how to fly. Makes think you're just another Arjay.
Posted by StG, Monday, 13 September 2010 6:08:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Belly,
<<<Let us forget the funny stuff what do you think? Truly>>>

You are getting to sound like Barnaby Joyce on election night:
“ Okay Tony Windsor who will you join …just give us your answer?”

<<< both major party's say stay >>>

Yes we know, but since formulating that policy Julia has acquired a lot of little green friends/house-mates who favour a cut an run policy in Afghanistan –in fact, a cut an run policy practically everywhere!

<<<Can we win >>>
YES WE CAN !

The Taliban hasn’t got a hope in hell of defeating us on the battlefield. Our main danger comes from the “lefties” at home who don’t want us to win.


By our standards there isn’t a regime in the region that is not
somewhat corrupt (in fact some of our own state govts --and dare I say it, unions--may suffer a similar malady) But if you are going to throw up you hands and give up because the Karzai regime is less than perfect, you’re never going to get anywhere or do anything – it is a foundation, a starting point.

Can we defeat the Taliban –YES WE CAN!
Can we transform Afghanistan into a stable, democratic, modern state --- YES WE CAN!

Were we able to transform post-war Japan, German,South Korea?
Posted by Horus, Monday, 13 September 2010 6:14:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*Also, I personally rather there be a country for all the fundamentalists to go to, than to look at other societies to settle in (ideally one with a cushier lifestyle- eg us).
It would also reduce motivation to conduct retaliatory terrorist attacks,*

If only it were so simple, Hazza. But you misunderstand the core
militant ideology, as preached by Qutb at the time and the aims
of the extremists. That is a complete overthrow of the West,
so that your grankids too, will bow to Allah 5 times a day etc.

See Al Qaeda more as a franchise with Bin Laden as the pin up boy.
But it is not one group, literally hundreds of groups, located
globally.

Wahabi Islam, a strict and severe form, was spread by Saudi
petrodollars, as a deal done between the Sauds and Wahabs.
The Salafists, militants, are an offshoot of all of this.
Money, which is required for all of this, flows globally too.

The day we walk out of Afgahnistan, will be the day that the
miltants celebrate that the win is Allahs will, it will
enbolden even those in SA Asia, to more militant attacks.

Whilst Zawahiri, no2 pinup boy, is forced to hide in the
hills, and drones are taking out another few of the top
militants every few days, they are forced to focus on
their own lives to defend, not on their plan for global
jihad.

So I think Obama is correct. The stakes are so high,
that it is worth trying what seems to have worked
in Iraq
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 13 September 2010 9:55:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So WHAT if they 'celebrate it as a win'?
What afterwards? Nothing. They decide they CAN retain their domestic security and see less need in trying to attack us elsewhere in order to achieve it. They will see less reason in using sleeper cells in our country, out of Europe, and most of the more moderate Middle East; and pull them out.
Better they think they can win defending their home countries than win messing with ours domestically, don't you think?

We are more under threat specifically from the extremists we LET IN WILLINGLY into our country and ALLOWING the Saudi petrodollars to contribute to their schemes- which, interestingly enough, never go specifically to Al Queda because Al Queda's primary goal is to overthrow the Saudis.

Personally I'd rather sacrifice one rather fundamentalist country if it means the rest of the world (including most of the middle east which IS trying to actually go moderate) can get a reprieve from these psychos and their violence.

This is the ONLY way these people will be out of our hair.
Really you people need to think a LOT more about this.
Posted by King Hazza, Monday, 13 September 2010 10:25:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*which, interestingly enough, never go specifically to Al Queda because Al Queda's primary goal is to overthrow the Saudis.*

Nope Hazza, you still don't understand the ideology. Take your time
to understand what Qutb preached in his "Milestones" to understand
what they want. Its available for free on the net.

Taking over Saudi Arabia is indeed a goal, but not the final one.
The militants know that if Saudi Arabia shuts down its oil
supply tomorrow, the West will basically collapse.

That is what they want, that is their long term goal.
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 13 September 2010 10:34:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I suspect that Yabby has basically got it right.
When the Taliban had full control of Afghanistan they used it as a
base to train their operatives.
It gave them total freedom for all types of training and planning.
I just don't see that they have learnt the lesson of the East African
embassies and 9/11 repercussions.

The wahabees are influential in Indonesia which of course is our more
direct interest.
Just because we defeat them does not mean they will not simply start
up again. They are working to a different time scale to us.
To kill 50 of them means 50 go to paradise. Isn't that good ?

I am beginning to think that if the fanatics cannot be killed off
then the only solution would seem to be to destroy the religion.
But how do you do that ?

About the only solution that I can see is to consider Islam to be an
overhead on civilisation that we have to continually beat down and
spend lives doing that work.
It is intolerable of course but they do have the intention to make us
all moslems or kill us as the alternative.

What the hell else do you do ?
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 13 September 2010 11:19:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby, you do realize that all of the terrorist attacks we have recieved ourselves were to try to force our interests out of the middle east?
As in, every single terrorist attack was because we were following a discourse- the very same one, that we believe we need to jump into these countries and sort them out?

To imply that they're going to convince people to blow themselves up over us just because we're infidels and they want to convert us is bordering on the outright silly.
Posted by King Hazza, Monday, 13 September 2010 1:22:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*To imply that they're going to convince people to blow themselves up over us just because we're infidels and they want to convert us is bordering on the outright silly.*

Silly for you Hazza, because you are looking at this from your
perspective, not their perspective. You refuse to understand what
drives them and their ideology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid_Qutb

The big change that Qutb brought about, was viewing jihad as offensive, rather then defensive. He was disgusted by America,
when he went on a visit.

Zawahiri is a disciple of Qutb. Bin Laden was taught by his
brother, after he was killed by the Egyptians. But that is the
ideology that drives Islamism, that is also the kind of State that
the Taliban were intent on building in Afghanistan.

Dying for your religion is considered a very noble cause amongst
these people.

Your big mistake is judging the world from your perspective rather
then theirs.

But you are free to inform yourself if you wish.
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 13 September 2010 2:25:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry KH but yabby is much closer to the truth here.
No way, not a chance these folk are only defending their country's.
Primitive and radical Islamists get the wish to kill out of their holly book.
It is true we face danger from within much as you say.
I never said stop fighting them, the reverse is true fight them forever.
Do not buy or sell to them.
No trade no way.
And come down hard every time they try to harm us.
But we dream if we think they even want our Democracy our lifestyle our freedoms.
We must confront the truth we make new terrorists every day.
Posted by Belly, Monday, 13 September 2010 5:53:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi to you 'Belly' and all...

From inception, I agree with most of you. I'm a veteran myself, and as I've often stated herein (ad nauseam), we should never have gone into South Vietnam. The same MUST be said for Afghanistan. Without deployment of multiple and substantial Nuclear Weaponry, neither war was or is winnable.

I'm as loyal to the USA as the next bloke (read 'Redneck' for my many detractors ?). But I can see no rationale, on this occasion why we should blindly follow them into every conflict they choose to prosecute.

They (USA) enjoy massive military might. Together with a level of patriotism probably incomparable anywhere in the Western world ?

Where we (Aussies) regrettably, do not possess such 'military brawn', nor do we exhibit the levels of overt patriotism, as evidenced by the good folk of the United States of America.

In any event, the US generally does the 'heavy lifting' in any collaboration of Military interdiction in which we unwittingly, become involved.

The unnecessary loss of over twenty of Australia's finest young people, is an absolute parody and charade, in this war that can NEVER be won !

We should (must) leave now, before any other young life is lost in this unwinnable war.

Sung Wu.
Posted by o sung wu, Monday, 13 September 2010 6:06:05 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My point is it still doesn't matter;

The past 60 years have proven that hatred for infidels has not been substantial enough to motivate attacks from international terrorist groups, but hostilities towards a specific country's interactions with Islamic countries, or attempts to implant infidel enterprises on Muslim soil.
Or else why would they single out America in 911?
If xenophobia was motivation enough, Europe would be receiving as many terrorist attacks as Israel- but they're not.

Not to say there isn't spontaneous, domestic terrorism like frequent sexual assaults on infidels or murdering Theo van Gogh for his Koran film, but to try to connect these to Al Queda in Afghanistan is pretty stupid.

My point is that you only attract international terrorism by giving an international reason. Otherwise Terrorism is a domestic issue, resulting on inviting people we shouldn't be allowing into our societies.
Posted by King Hazza, Monday, 13 September 2010 6:21:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
lentaubman,
Yes very hard to explain to these women why we forced ourselves on their country gave them false hope and left them in a much worse position than they were in.
I have issue with the comparison of the taliban and Nazi's. The Nazi's at least had a standing army that could be engaged, the taliban use gorilla tactics and are more or less unidentifiable. There is also the historical perspective that we were going to loose this argument as so many have before us, or be the first to defeat Afganistan. Sorry but we are not that good.
Emotive arguments are all well and good but maybe you should apply that to why we went there in the first place. It seemed at the time everyone wanted someone to blame and any excuse was good enough. Unless we are prepared for the long haul (not 10years try a generation) and billions invested into constructing a countries infrastructure then we will never be able to give these women the security and social change they deserve
Posted by nairbe, Monday, 13 September 2010 7:20:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*My point is it still doesn't matter;*

You are free to believe that Hazza, but the evidence shows that
you are wrong. Religion is a powerful force in some peoples
lives, especially religious fanatics.

*Or else why would they single out America in 911?*

Because America is seen as the Capital of the evil West.
Islamists were bombing US embassies in Africa back in the
90s. At the time, America was hardly aggressive. In fact
Clinton was on the verge of reaching a peace agreement
with Arafat. It was close as a whisker.

But violent Islamism emerged out of the Muslim Brotherhood,
of whom Qutb was a member. Violent Islamism is a relatively
recent phenomena. See it like Christians forming a new
Christian cult, out of the old church. It goes on all the
time. One of the reasons why violent Islamism has spread
as it has, is of course the internet. Anyone can now read up
on the ideology and go and martyr themselves if they wish.

Take 1.2 billion Muslims and a small % will be total fanatics,
drawn to that kind of thing. That is enough to create a major
problem in our open and free societies.

So even if you pull out of Afghanistan tomorrow, your problem
of violent and radical Islamism, is not going to go away,
as you imagine
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 13 September 2010 8:38:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I seem to recall that those bombings in Africa in the nineties coincided exactly with a particularly sensitive juncture during the wash-up of the Clinton/Lewinsky Affair....it struck me as quite coincidental at the time.
Posted by Poirot, Monday, 13 September 2010 8:49:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wrong Yabby:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_United_States#Cold_War_.281945.E2.80.931991.29
Start from there and scroll down:
Also, the USA is closely allied to, and sole supporter of Israel (a hated occupier in the Middle East), and also closely aligned to the Saudi Royal Family (Bin Laden's personal top enemy).
Bin Laden himself explicitly stated that the US involvement in Lebannon, its alliance with Israel, and presence in the Middle East motivated his attacks. He did tack on a lot about Islam, but never actually added it as a motive (in his second statement, pointing out that if that were his motive, he would have just as easily attacked Sweden). The transcripts are openly available for you to read yourself.

Also
I never said fundamentalism will go away if we leave. In fact, I'm saying it's not going to go away at all if we stay either. However, it most definitely will become more unstable, and more specifically, more inclined to organize attacks against us, if we remain in the Middle East. Also, there will be less reason for it to spread if it can prove itself able to survive in Afghanistan. And personally, I'd rather it congregated in Afghanistan than be inclined to a diaspora if they lose their grip on the place.

Really Yabby, you had almost ten years of internet access to check these things.
Posted by King Hazza, Monday, 13 September 2010 10:10:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wrong Hazza, I have been debating this stuff on the internet for
15 years now. I first hooked up in 1995. That included debates with
militant Islamists, who hang out on the Gaurdian UK network.
Their intentions are quite clear, they are global.

So what are you suggesting now? That all Jews leave Israel?

I have read enough of Bin Laden's speeches to know what motivates
him. I also understand the religious ideology that drives him,
which you have never seemingly bothered with so far.
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 13 September 2010 10:55:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OSW and Yabby I agree every word.
KH we have found common ground of late but not even close here.
Our enemy fights us here in our own country not yet killing here but trying to.
Israel an invader.
Well extraordinary thing to say and wrong.
We must not talk of events in our courts happening now, but it would take just an hour to give evidence no one could say is untrue wars are being fought here.
With lies unbalanced claims and wants.
A cultural war is underway.
I favor the Mossad style of fighting, not trying to bail out the Sydney Harbor with a tea spoon.
Posted by Belly, Tuesday, 14 September 2010 6:35:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As the US Empire winds down and it cannot afford to finance military
expeditions to remote corners of the world, the whole conflict will
change.
Likewise even the Islamic terrorists will be affected by the slowdown
in the world economy. The problem in the west will be the now resident
Islamists who will call it an act of Allah.
They will claim the right to impose Sahria law and fix up all our
economic woes.

That will be the time when we will be most at risk from the fifth
column of Islamists in our midst.

We probably have no more than about 10 years to confront that situation.
Posted by Bazz, Tuesday, 14 September 2010 11:59:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why stay?

Ask that question to the innocent citizenry of Afghanistan. They know that without protection they have 2 choices in life (1) submit to the bad guys and live in political and fundamentalist servitude for life or (2) fight - - - and suffer murder, rape, genocide, no hope, no future other than death or eventual servitude.

It's very easy to ask "why stay?", when you live in a nice, safe, comfortable, wealthy and free country.
Posted by petej, Tuesday, 14 September 2010 12:27:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ok back up for a second, Belly you seem to be reading too far into the implications of my statements, Yabbby sadly nowhere near enough.

Firstly, I'm actually pro-Israel and staunchly hostile to fundamentalist Muslims, and find their extreme beliefs alone should warrant being barred from any Western country- even in the absence of likelihood to bomb us.

However, it has become simply too apparent that interacting with the Middle East is the primary motivation for the attacks. Also, that these attacks are always launched domestically by people we willingly let into our countries. USA, UK and Israel do both of these things, and they get the lion's share of terrorist attacks;

However, countries along mainland Europe are taking the exact opposite approach- staying out of conflicts while expressing how unwelcoming they are across the countries where such people would migrate from (such as Geert Wilder's gay-couples-in-Netherlands ad). As a result, they get almost nothing (except hate crimes from people they already let in previously).

In short, keep out fundies, check people that come in to make sure they're not fundies, and stay out of fundie-lands to ensure fundies abroad aren't going to go to the trouble of organizing a long distance attack.

It may be easy to find some inbred retard who's happy to carry a suicide vest into a market solely because he doesn't like the people there and will go to heaven (recruiters in Iraq selecting disabled persons for the job), but to get people competent enough to pull off an attack like 911 would require a much more compelling reason to quit your job, travel to the other side of the world, gain citizenship, learn how to fly a plane on a mission that WILL kill you, than that. Maybe God demanding it would work if it were within an hour's drive, but attacking someone on the far corner of the globe simply because they're not Muslim won't raise many heads.
Posted by King Hazza, Tuesday, 14 September 2010 2:58:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
King Hazza, Israel is no less fundamentalist in the way it degrades, murders and controls via force the daily lives of Palestinians. Islamic fundamentalism is a terrible thing, just as Israeli fundamentalism is equally a terrible thing. Two wrongs don't make a right. Israel is as equally guilty as it's enemies. In fact, Israel regularly inflicts FAR greater military harm against innocent, ordinary Palestinians, men women and children, than Palestinians inflict against innocent, ordinary citizens of Israel.

The warring elements of BOTH sides are equally to blame. And no amount of excuses or philosophical blame shifting can change that fact.
Posted by petej, Tuesday, 14 September 2010 3:42:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We in the West tend to choose our wars under the guise of democracy very particularly. There are numerous countries where human rights issues are marked and where, using the logic to stay in Afghanistan, we should be in there conflicting with all tyrannical regimes or where extremism is highest such as in the Sudan and Somalia.

Afghanistan is a difficult one, we are in there already and many Afghanis now rely on the protection of allied armies. However, there has to be an end and will the radical extremists ever be diverted from their destructive path - will remaining in-country be more inflammatory than the risks of leaving?

We would be better off applying better diplomacy and fairer foreign policy on the world stage.

A diplomacy approach coupled with vigilance around home grown terrorism will have more effect in the long term in the same way that education and better economic advantages in those countires will reduce terrorist activity.
Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 14 September 2010 5:26:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I say get the hell out and fast. Lick our wounds and be prepared to defend our own country because one thing is for certain, and that's that little ol Aus is looking pretty dam good compared to many other countries out there and that is something we should be both proud of, and afraid of.

Desperate people will do desperite things, and god knows, many are desperate right now.

Boy I hope I am wrong.

For the record, I don’t think we should have been there to start with as wars based on religion are un-winnable in my opinion.
Posted by rehctub, Tuesday, 14 September 2010 6:47:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*As the US Empire winds down and it cannot afford to finance military
expeditions to remote corners of the world, the whole conflict will
change.*

Well that is an interesting point Bazz, because Bin Laden did say
that he would bankrupt America. 911 cost maybe a few hundred grand
to make it happen. Think what America has spent since then. Their
treasury is in fact nearly broke.

*However, it has become simply too apparent that interacting with the Middle East is the primary motivation for the attacks.*

Hazza, you are confusing the two. Arafat was fighting for land, but
he was no religious nut. That is the case with many Palestinians.
That is not the case with the Islamists. For them any excuse will
do, for as Qutb wrote, Muslims had been exploited and discriminated
against for decades.

Now if you think that the Middle East is the only problem, then
answer straight about Israel. You cannot be pro Israel, yet deny
their right to exist. Should all the Jews leave?

There have indeed been other bombings, think of Spain. But what
you have is a very good intelligence service all through Europe,
who have been able to thwart countless attacks. From Germany,
Belgium, France to Italy. America has had no major attack, since
they improved their security. Just attempts, as in Europe.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 14 September 2010 7:17:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Show me, please, let me know, how do It ell a fundamentalist Islamists from A Muslim.
Yes we are at war, here and in Afghanistan.
But religion did not drive us there.
Self protection did,Taliban did not just want that country it sent its murderers over seas.
Afghanistan, petej trys to say we owe it to them to continue to die to stay.
Do we?
Can we change the in built fraud, lies, lack of willingness to help them selves.
We must stop the child like belief that by letting people transfer culture from these country's to ours we can breed the hate out of them.
Leave but fight smart never give in to primitive belief that enslaves whole peoples and harms women but watch the gates are not left open, we could see more refugee boats in a month than we have in total any time now.
Posted by Belly, Wednesday, 15 September 2010 5:36:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>Well that is an interesting point Bazz, because Bin Laden did say
that he would bankrupt America. 911 cost maybe a few hundred grand
to make it happen. Think what America has spent since then. Their
treasury is in fact nearly broke.

I heard recently that the US had spent in excess of one trillion dollars on both wars, and counting.

So, there is an understanding that we would turn to the US if we needed help in defending any future invation and, it is for this reason we must help them.

Well, what if they are broke and can't help us. Then what?
Posted by rehctub, Wednesday, 15 September 2010 6:50:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It will not be as simple as that rehctub,
Not only will energy decent cripple the US but also the Islamic
countries and their fundamentalist offshoots.

The Middle East countries are importers of food so they will have
enough problems at home to spend much time worrying about us.
There may be an increase in boat people but that will be the same
problem we have now only larger.

When that time comes most of our problems will be internal and may well
include an islamist segment.
Make no mistake, the whole economic and political regime is in for a
major shakeup which will force everything to be restructured.
As everything in complex societies is interlocked no one seems to be
able to decide if the collapse will be gradual or will fold up exponentially.
Posted by Bazz, Wednesday, 15 September 2010 9:17:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thought that post was from arjay at first Bazz.
America has cash problems for sure.
We will still have iron ore to sell in 30 years but so too will others.
Food? we and the world produce much more than 50 years ago and that growth will continue.
Hungry people however find ways to eat do not be too sure the middle east is no danger.
If famine hit Afghanistan we would see many more leaving ,but is it our duty to stay?
Horrible though, but tell me I am wrong.
We have seen floods earth quakes the lot, are sending aid to many country's.
People in those country's still die of starvation and neglect.
Is it possible self help may be driven by us leaving?
Posted by Belly, Wednesday, 15 September 2010 5:33:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Another slant from bigoted Belly, or is it thinking concerned?
This mornings press had a story about Australian children being asked to cover up from head to toe for?
Next years Ramadan.
Now before leaving for Afghanistan you can bet our troops are lectured in? religious sensibility's of that country.
Do we stay because we think it is right or just so our culture is treated no different than theirs.
See I put half the posters of, maybe diverted the thread but this complex issue comes down to why are we in this country.
And why, tell me , we learn their ways but have to bend in our own land to theirs?
Posted by Belly, Thursday, 16 September 2010 5:51:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No Belly, we tell them here that this is our country and tough S417 if they don't like it, while completely respecting whatever they want to do over there, only without us around to play a part.
Anyway, to differentiate, a simple quiz should suffice- such as about dressing secularly, marital questions etc.

Petej, that I also acknowledge. Personally I would rather stand neutral to the conflict (As it simply has no possibility of ending in my opinion until one of the two civilizations ceases to exist, and both sides have a rather poor record to put our name behind, and both sides have no qualms dragging innocent third parties down to enhance their campaigns)

Anyway I think I'm wasting my time otherwise in this thread, Yabby simply has no ability to understand simple points, such as differentiation against either fully supporting Israel and justifying absolutely everything they do as just and nice, or supporting the basket-case terrorist state in its crusade to destroy it.

And US being targeted because it is perceived as the heart of the free world? Please, did you get that one from FOX? How are Islamists going to know that, or for that matter, come to that conclusion?

Again, why did Bin Laden point out that he didn't attack the USA on this ground (or otherwise would have targeted Sweden) in his videos?
Why would anybody over there actually care, when they are surrounded by infidels half the distance away? What do you think jihad recruiters tell new members to encourage them to attack these states?
1 "these infidels murder our brothers and sisters"
2 "there are infidels across the sea that have nothing to do with us, but they are more infidel, based on their own judgement, than most of Europe which immediately borders our region, so we must show them to convert by making ourselves enemies and going underground!"

The deal is Yabby, I don't have to actually convince YOU, I only need to clarify these points for anyone else reading.
Posted by King Hazza, Thursday, 16 September 2010 10:18:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*Please, did you get that one from FOX?*

No Hazza, I did not, as I don't get Fox. But I am certainly better
informed about this then you are. Short term, because of a
drought situation that is happening here, I am focussing on how
to feed livestock for the next 8 months and not on posting on OLO.

If you would actually like to inform yourself, I could recommend
a book titled "Al Quaeda", by Jason Burke, who is the chief reporter
for the Guardian and spent 10 years in the ME and SW Asia.
He published it in 2003 and it will give you a deeper understanding
of the whole thing, then you presently have.
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 16 September 2010 2:46:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No thanks Yabby, because despite having reference of this book you have not been able to directly address my points so far shared, or construct some feasible logic as to why Bin Laden would orchestrate 911 from different motives than he himself has stated (or why he'd lie about his motives), and obsession with America in any shape or form were it not for its active Middle East interventions and its allegiance with Israel.

The fact that you didn't even realize America has NOT been a militarily/politically neutral actor in the Middle East, nor being able to acknowledge a connection with Israel as being a potential factor (right or wrong), doesn't exactly ring as an endorsement.

Sorry, but you're trying to pretend a case which contradicts both the declaration of the terrorist who committed them, and the gigantic logical flaw that is Europe's comparative immunity.

If America didn't do anything like you thought, then how could terrorists have possibly been able to single it out, as opposed to France, Sweden, Switzerland? Or, what would they have preached against it to encourage MORE people to join this extremist movement?

You're still insisting that AQ could have recruited operatives capable of 911 solely on them not LIKING some country that they have never interacted with far away across an ocean.
Posted by King Hazza, Thursday, 16 September 2010 4:37:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No Hazza, what I am saying is that you refuse to understand and
inform yourself about the complexity of this issue and you are clearly
a sucker for any politician or political strategist, if all that you
rely on is their press statement, to form a considered opinion about
what drives them. If only life were so simple.

What old Muhammed formed was not just a religion, but a tiny army
which eventually turned into a huge army. They conquered much of
the Med region and moved into Southern Europe, taking Christian slaves as as they went. That is how Islam spread.

Today much of the Muslim world suffers from a real problem of
self esteem and dignity in question. For despite this huge power
at the time, Islamic countries eventually sank into relative poverty
etc, whilst the West industrialised, became wealthy, became educated
and powerful, whilst they went downhill. That has left many scars,
including on Bin Laden.

The Muslim Salafists want things to go back to how they were at the
time of Muhammed. The Salafist Jihadis are quite prepared to use
violence, to achieve that objective. The Koran contains plenty of
violence and it can be interepreted in many ways.

tbc
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 16 September 2010 9:31:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Now you seem to think that if the US behaved like Sweden or
Switzerland, all would be fine and they would just go away.
That is very simplistic thinking.

I am the first to criticise the dummy that was George Bush and
the damage that he did to the cause of the West, in much of
the third world. Comparing him to a Clinton or an Obama is
like night and day. The latter actually have people skills,
which matters in global politics.

But Switerland and Sweden are basically politically neutral.
That is all very well, not even Hitler attacked the Swiss,
but there is a realpolitik that needs to be dealt with.

Fact is that the West is hooked on oil and the Islamists are
aware of that. Fact is that the West was largely responsible
for the Israel that we have today.

It is all very well for you to stand on the sidelines and say
"just do nothing". It is what Switzerland and Sweden do.

How sweet of you.

So if the Arabs overran and captured Israel, kicking out the
Jews, if the Islamists destroyed the House of Saud and thus
controlled the Western economies, by virtue of our dependance
on their oil, what would you say? Do nothing, as Islamists
controlled your job, your economy?

Fact is that both Switzerland and Sweden depend on America
having taken a stand on all this.

For I can assure you that if bin Laden and his jihadis
controlled the ME oilwells, you as an infidel, would either
play to his fundamentalist tune, or starve. Hardly a pretty
picture.
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 16 September 2010 10:06:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby truly sorry to hear about the drought, seems a shame most of us have had great rain.
And again while we are from different sides of the fence in politics it is much easier to find common ground with you than KH here.
Bit rich the left stance America is always wrong.
Freedom to think that would have been lost along time ago without them.
ISLAMISTS, not Muslims in general, are moving west with a reason, and intend if they can to take over.
But lets return to this threads question.
Can we win.
Do we need to.
If both answers are yes does it have to be done by foot soldiers.
I am proud of our troops, understand we need them but do we force them to fight battles we can not win over and over again?
A battle may well come, I see no other outcome, that we must win, and if we must fight this one now fight smarter.
Posted by Belly, Friday, 17 September 2010 5:39:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ok Yabby, ignore the clear relationship between the US and Israel's active presence in the Middle East (fact that Israel has no choice aside) and the fact that they always get singled out in the majority of hate literature and attacks in these regions, while other (and often more immediate) neighbors get completely ignored by international terrorists, except to target US or Israeli representatives.

It really IS simply because they randomly pick people up off the street offering candy, and suddenly convince them that their god needs them to attack USA to take over the world, because the USA would possibly stand out in the Middle East for no particular reason, as opposed to, say, Rome, Europe, China, Russia, India.

Anyway, if the extremists (that is, the terrorist extremists, not the Sauds) got control over the Saudi oil fields, WE would simply stop buying their oil unless they kept it cheap, and increasing our conversion to alternate fuels while relying more on our OWN oil reserves.

This conversation is getting ridiculous even for itself, Yabby
Posted by King Hazza, Friday, 17 September 2010 6:59:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*WE would simply stop buying their oil unless they kept it cheap, and increasing our conversion to alternate fuels while relying more on our OWN oil reserves.*

Hehe Hazza, you really are living in dreamland. Which oil reserves?
If the Straits of Hormuz were blocked tomorrow, the global economy
as we know it, would come to a grinding halt. Farmers could not
sow crops, truckies could not cart freight, cars would be off the
road. Global oil supply is very finely balanced.

Australia has gas, we import the majority of our oil. How long do
you think it would take to convert our fleets to gas? 10-15 years
maybe? But Europe, the USA, all depend on ME oil. Why do you think
that Obama is pushing so hard on alternative energy. But an actual
solution is decades away.

For that very reason, the US Navy is in the Gulf, to keep the
Straits open and oil flowing. If the ME did not have a large
chunk of global reserves, the place would hardly matter.

Some Arabs will never be content, until the Jews leave Israel.
So fundamentalists will always have a reason to motivate people.
The rewards for Muslim martyrs are very large. The Islamic
heaven makes our Christian description of heaven, look like
a hole.

Belly, what I stated in my first post, was that I am with Obama
on this. He is not a warmonger as Bush was. It took the Americans
a long time to get things right in Iraq. Finally they did. So
I think its worth changing tactics and giving the new strategy a
chance, for another 18 months or so. If it does not work, fair
enough. The revolution needs to come from everyday Afghan people
themselves, as it did in Iraq. But at the moment they are saying
that they don't want the Taliban, but when the allied forces leave,
all those who supported them, will be toast. That is the problem.
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 17 September 2010 8:42:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby, this is it, you really demonstrate how little you actually understand the situation by asking "What other oil reserves?"

Had you have spent one second typing world oil reserves into google, or even paid better attention to the news, you might have been more aware of the fact that every continent AND subcontinent has a substantial amount of oil each. You can type it in right now and go through numerous pie charts representing oil supplies by region, maps with oil reserves across the world etc).

So think of this, because I'm losing interest in this thread;
Why, despite:
-Not knowing that Israel has an aggressive foreign policy (to survive), and the USA also has a substantially non-commendable foreign policy towards the middle east
-Not knowing that there are oil reserves outside the Middle East (that are estimated to still hold over 40% of world oil)
-Not knowing that you can power a car without oil
Among many other things, WHY do you assume you're still right that a medieval theology alone somehow manages to recruit and encourage highly capable operatives to orchestrate a sophisticated terrorist attack, solely because they'll go into heaven, which their religion tells them they will go by default of being Muslim).

The fact that you cannot answer me so far, with any kind of logical counter-example leaves me to not hold my hopes up.
Posted by King Hazza, Saturday, 18 September 2010 12:53:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sheesh Hazza, so according to you we don't need ME oil, because
of course everyone has plenty of their own. Besides, we can just
run our cars on something else. You have seemingly solved some
of the world's major global issues overnight!

I've told you before, to understand why Islamic martyrs do it,
you need to inform yourself a bit more about their religion.
I gave you a great source, you prefer to stay ignorant. Fair enough,
its your choice. You refuse to examine the hatred which is
contained in the Koran, the them and us, the good and evil, the
good muslims and evil infidels, the 72 virgins, the theology
of hatred which drives the Salafists, the list goes on.

You refuse to try and understand their perspective, fanatical
religion is hardly a rational one. So you simply focus on your
rational one and it will never make sense to you. These people
were brainwashed with this stuff, from babies onwards, all their
lives. But lets just ignore all that it seems, it must be
American foreign policy that is to blame for all of this.

How sweet. How old are you Hazza, if I may ask
Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 18 September 2010 3:42:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
KH long before America became a super power.
Long before it had any roll in the middle east.
England was there.
Both playing a good and bad roll.
You just have think on this issue.
We are called Infidels,, because of an invasion a thousand years ago!
Yabby Obama is as you say, but unlikely to be given a chance.
NOTE
this mornings press has a story Australian troops are burning the Koran.
Unlikely and surely untrue, but lies are both a weapon and a way of life in these country's.
Only by defending them selves can these people find hope and only by open education to other ideas can they be free of a demanding intrusive religion.
Posted by Belly, Saturday, 18 September 2010 6:30:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Belly, you and Yabby are insisting that
1- Muslims are lining up to get revenge on a country that is scarcely related to infidels who attacked them over a THOUSAND YEARS AGO, as opposed to something that happened, you know, 5, 10 years.
2- That reassurance of the 72 virgins (which they would still get regardless of if they participated) can motivate not only morons, but smart people to sacrifice absolutely everything to achieve.

How much do I have to reiterate the point that to undergo Bin Laden's orders is something that your everyday patsy simply cannot do. You are convinced that somehow, an extremist set up a recruitment pad that everyday citizens (loony or otherwise), felt compelled to join, simply because they want to convert infidels by making themselves enemies of them, and they start, and focus entirely on, a country that never actually participated in the Crusades, simply because.

Time to take a step back.

My point is the evidence is there that the looniness of their religion is NOT enough to motivate international terrorist attacks (only domestic ones, which would only be worsened by our presence in Afghanistan).

And Yabby, it IS clear you live in gigantic isolation to be unaware of alternate fuels, but having google you really have no excuse to be ignorant. Don't even bother replying until you can actually name one already in use right now.
Posted by King Hazza, Sunday, 19 September 2010 12:49:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stg attacks rache for speaking the truth about terrorists being trained in the USA."rache is just another Arjay." We have have the solid scientific evidence on our side which people like Stg have no a hope in hell of debunking.http://patriotsquestion911.com/ http://ae911truth.org/

So Stg prowls this site trying to ridicule everything I write.Why bother if it is all BS.
Posted by Arjay, Sunday, 19 September 2010 2:08:11 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hazza, you are not even trying to understand the very basics.

Here, I will make it a bit easier for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism

Islamist terror groups have been attacking other Muslims and
infidels around the world, for a long time now. From
hijacking the Grand Mosque in Mecca for a week, to blowing
up other muslims who refuse to accept their version of Islam,
to blowing up Australians in Bali, its all part of their
ideology. From Russia to Spain, they have been violent as
part of their struggle for violent jihad.

But its pointless to discuss this, if you even refuse to
understand even the basic ideology which drives them.

Other fuels? The world burns around 85 million barrels
of oil a day. Nearly every tractor and truck on the
planet runs on diesel. If diesel production stops tomorrow,
your food production stops tomorrow and within days you
will go hungry, when those shelves at Coles and Woolies
are bare. That is the reality. Contemplating your navel
about what else might perhaps drive those vehicles one
day, which would take decades to implement, is not going
to produce your food next week, I am afraid.

Stop daydreaming Hazza.
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 19 September 2010 5:12:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
King Hazza sorry not intention to offend you are out of your depth in this subject.
Read the Koran.
Read the claims of these terrorists,see the plans to make a new country part of it would be in our top end.
You do your self a disservice in blaming America this way
And you true, are the very first person I EVER found who is unaware of the living breathing hatred that old war still brings.
Posted by Belly, Sunday, 19 September 2010 6:41:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You all want a laugh.There was a security conference here in Syd from 1-3 Sept.Nick Caldis the deputy Commissioner of Security for NSW recommended Robert Baer ex CIA to Ray Hadley, who interviewed him at the 2GB studios.Baer was saying it would be almost inevitable that Israel would attack Iran sending oil prices through the roof.If you go to http://patriotsquestion911.com/ On age 48 there is a picture of Robert Baer saying there is evidence that the US Govt was involved in 911.

Thom Hartman; "Are you of the opinion that there is an aspect of Inside job to 911?"

Robert Baer; "There is that possibility.The evidence points to it."

Baer can be also seen on youtube saying this and on Hardtalk in 2008 saying that Iran is in now way a threat to Israel or the Middle East.

Now we have Ex CIA totally contradicting official perceptions of foreign policy and the real perpetrators of 911.

So Stg,Pericles and stevenlmeyer,it is time to suck eggs.
Posted by Arjay, Sunday, 19 September 2010 7:27:35 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Forget it Yabby, if you're too lazy or incapable to have found out, using the same wikipedia your wahabism source came from, whether the US did actually have an active military role in the Muslim world, whether approximately 44% of world oil was actually OUTSIDE the Middle East, and that we now have vehicles powered by ethanol, fruit/nut oils, hydrogen and direct electricity supplies, then don't be surprised if I find your depth of research very lacking.
And for your information, I have actually read these Koranic hate passages, covering many sources factoring in fundamentalist doctrine into Islamist mindsets. So I know just as much (to say the very least) as you do.

What, were you expecting some lefty who thought wahabis are deep down nice friendly people who are misunderstood because they're hurting?

Belly, to answer your questions;
Many of the terrorist attacks, (in fact, almost all) were committed locally by locals; the terrorist simply conspired with nearby neighbours to create materials, and they targeted some locally-accessible people they hated. This is based on something they felt affected them, their culture or their community. Most importantly, they were independent, and unrelated, to the Taliban. In other words, naught but local attempts to rebel or gain ground within the country (Iraq sectarian violence), or a local hate crime (Bali, committed by East-Javanese)

However, virtually every single international terrorist attack was committed locally by somebody we willingly let in, and always the same political targets. And again, hardly any actually done by Al Queda (and zero by the Taliban, though they were happy to house the terrorists and protect them)- the rest were independent groups.

The only way these people are able to, and motivated enough to attack is because we keep exposing ourselves to them. By interracting we just raise our profile over there.
Posted by King Hazza, Sunday, 19 September 2010 10:03:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*we now have vehicles powered by ethanol, fruit/nut oils, hydrogen and direct electricity supplies*

Fruit/nut oils Hazza? How far do you think that will get you lol.
How many vehicles and production facilities do you have, ready
to go? It only needed the world demand/supply to be out of
balance by a small amount, for the oil price to double. Take
out 20 million barrels a day and what do you think would happen?
The West would bankrupt itself trying to pay for the % that
is left.

We are still hooked on ME oil, even George Bush, who was not
your smartest puppy, accepted and acknowledged that.

Yes, the Americans had a base in Saudi Arabia and still have
bases in Kuwait etc, at the invitation of Arab Govts. For
it was these Govts who were threatened by Saddam Hussein.

So what? The notion that terrorism will go away if America
leaves is a flawed one.

You claim to know so much about all this, why don't you understand
the difference between Wahabbis and Salafist jihadis and the
ideology that drives the latter?

Of course most terror groups act locally. They don't have the money
that bin Laden inherited from his extremely rich father.

But the band of Arab salafists don't act locally. They move around
and they have money. They are involved from Chechnya, to Afghanistan
to the Sudan. Afghanistan became their main training ground and a
base. Many originally went there to fight the Russians. There's
is a political-ideological war, for Islam is a political religion.

Their intention is a global Caliphate, as suggested by their
ideological leaders, such as Qutb. They want to take Islam back
to be the power that it once was.

You are not even going to be able to ban them from travelling to
the West, as the West has open societies and cannot just ban all
Muslims. For most of them are not violent jihadis.
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 19 September 2010 2:39:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby, there's coconut oil vehicles- look it up. It actually provides a perfect substitute for oil in warm climates (eg tropical Australia), and ethanol- whose only downside is that commercial trading raises the price of corn. electric Cars are already in use in much of Northern Europe, whose limitations are the requirement that society simply invest in recharge infrastructure.
There's your alternate fuel nailed "lol".
And I don't suppose George Bush's insistence on oil dependency had anything to do with the fact that his family, and their top business partners own oil companies? You seem to fail to factor considerations of lobbyists into your presumptions of reality.
This is rather basic knowledge.

Anyway, your examples of 'worldwide caliphate' are all still falling under my own category of motive;
Strangely, the only attacks we have encountered where the terrorists have travelled to our countries specifically to launch an attack, were all connected in that they demanded the withdrawal of the infidel from a Muslim country, or over some other transgression committed by an infidel against a Muslim. This is reinforced by the fact that there are plenty of smaller infidel countries that make little allowance to Islam in comparison who, for some reason, don't receive international attacks, coincidentally corresponding to their scarcer political presence in the Middle East!

And keeping out extremists?
Plenty of ways, enforcing secularist conduct laws such as banning items that only fundamentalists need to function (such as Burqas), and generally having the balls to refuse entry to someone who passes off as a security threat, isn't secular, or holds anti-western, anti-semetic views, achievable by some simple interview tests and monitoring their response, as opposed to solely a proven member of certain terrorist groups (hardly any WE actually ban ourselves).

I mean really Yabby for somebody who sneers about some gullible person taking things at face value based on what your told, and refusing to look into the deeper issues, you are doing a very good job of living up to it yourself.
Posted by King Hazza, Sunday, 19 September 2010 4:40:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*there's coconut oil vehicles*

ROFL Hazza :) We Aussies burn a million barrels a DAY. How many
coconuts do you have?

What % of the European fleet is electric cars, buses, trucks,
tractors? What about the other 99%?

So now you would interogate every muslim, to try and discover what
they really believe, to try and keep out those who might be militant.
Osama bin Laden would put you on top of his fatwa list for persecuting
muslims! What about the locally born ones with Aussie passports,
who have been won over by the ideology? That is Britain's problem,
more and more are young Muslims, who spent time in training camps
in SE Asia. Not the poor, not the downtrodden, but as with any
fanatical religion, the fanatical. The internet is their tool
of trade these days.

One thing about you Hazza, you clearly don't bother to think through
your ideas
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 19 September 2010 5:37:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
arjay how about giving it a miss bloke?
So far of subject and seemingly only trying to provoke some who are not posting here?
Your threads mate are out there as is your right.
I join in to some but found your last effort and for that matter posts here a mystery.
KH can it be your self confidence is miss placed?
I am stunned to think you believe that stuff, do you truly?
May I ask can we win? is it worth it? should we go or stay.
Posted by Belly, Sunday, 19 September 2010 6:02:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Belly"How about giving it a miss bloke." Here we see the very premise for being at war in Afghanistan,Iraq,Pakistan being flawed,all based upon a lie.Now we look like attacking Iran.

How about arguing the truth Belly,since you and others are hell bent on wars of greed and deception.We have scientific evidence of 911 being a lie and you ignore it at your peril.Neither you Pericles,stevenlmeyer,stg have the courage or the intellect to take me on.
Posted by Arjay, Sunday, 19 September 2010 8:51:36 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*Neither you Pericles,stevenlmeyer,stg have the courage or the intellect to take me on.*

Now now Arjay, you are getting carried away. Pericles, a long time
ago, intellectually chewed you up and spat you out, in his ever so
friendly way. Perhaps you are so carried away, that you hardly
noticed. The rest of us did.
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 19 September 2010 9:55:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby, seeing all fuel technologies are new, I don't exactly see how the percentage of use is remotely relevant.
And I'm not sure somebody told you, but quizzing unauthorized arrivals, and background checking authorized rivals, is completely standard practice in every country on the planet.

"What about the locally born ones with Aussie passports,
who have been won over by the ideology?"
Gee Yabby, I suppose we aught to invade some Muslim countries, that'd do the trick!

Belly- I do indeed. Although fundamentalist Islam is a cancer, and its adherents do actively try to attempt ways to twist whatever society they live in to become a Shariah-paradise. However, I don't believe for a second that international terrorism needs only this alone to motivate its followers to migrate and commit terrorist attacks in foreign countries. The connection between the targets and their associations in Middle-East politics is simply too strong. I don't even believe that conquest is the first thing on their mind when they migrate to western countries (greed for the easy life is)- the ambitions come later when they realize infidels are sinful and get offended).

To answer your question, can we win?
Depends- Afghanistan, no; the Taliban and other fundamentalists aare committing atrocities despite our presence, and have a huge advantage of getting around, getting reinforcements, and holding out in a prolonged conflict.
is it worth it? I believe staying is actually making the situation worse, and not better. The Taliban are only one fundamentalist group out of hundreds, maybe thousands who are watching this conflict on TV.
By staying in this region, we are harming stability elsewhere in the world, as this definitely provides considerably ammunition to fundamentalist recruitment, and may cause an exodus of extremists from the area.
Then there's the consideration of whether to ban book burning for fear of putting our soldiers in danger and aggravating the people of the countries we are occupying shows that we are now deciding whether to sacrifice part of our Free speech, or sacrifice our servicemen who likely joined to protect such rights.
Posted by King Hazza, Sunday, 19 September 2010 10:12:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*Yabby, seeing all fuel technologies are new, I don't exactly see how the percentage of use is remotely relevant.*

Of course they are relevant Hazza. The global economy ticks over
day by day. The US ensures that the Straits of Hormuz are open,
day by day. Some idea, which might take 20 years to implement,
might play a role in 20 years, not tomorrow, or next month, or
next year.

*but quizzing unauthorized arrivals, and background checking authorized rivals, is completely standard practice in every country on the planet.*

Exactly, quizzing, you want to interogate, there is a difference.
The 911 hijackers entered the US as tourists, as students wanting
to learn to fly, a common practise. People can enter Australia as
business people, as tourists, as students. If you start to want
to quizz people too closely about their religious beliefs, they will
either lie or you will be accused of persecuting muslims. Ban the
hijab and you are persecuting muslims, in bin Laden's eyes.

*Gee Yabby, I suppose we aught to invade some Muslim countries, that'd do the trick!*

Hazza, the Salafists were blowing up embassies long before the
Iraq or Afghan war. It is their ideology that you still refuse
to deal with. I told you, just read Qutb, one of the great Islamist
influences of the 20th century. He hated America for what it was,
a place of freedom. Time spent there shocked him to his core.

What Afghanistan did was show the Islamists that Allah was on their
side. All they needed was patience and they defeated one of the
great armies of the world.

Despite the high likelyhood of exactly the same happening again with
the US and allies, we owe it to the great majority of people in
Afghanistan, who don't want the Taliban back, to give them a chance
to build a local, village by village resistance and have Afghan troops
fighting, not Western troops.

It has worked so far in Iraq, so IMHO it should be given a go in
Afghanistan, despite the odds.
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 19 September 2010 10:59:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://www.news.com.au/national/muslim-women-protest-against-push-to-ban-burka-in-australia/story-e6frfkvr-1225926494355

There you go Hazza. Already the locals are complaing that you are
waging a "war on Islam" for trying to ban their burka. So you are
seen to be persecuting them, as an evil infidel. That's all it takes
to fight their jihad against you and your seemingly wicked ways.

Hazza, you are clearly doomed :)

.
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 20 September 2010 5:41:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How arjay can you be so blind? even China a sponsor of Iran grows weary with them.
KH note yabbys information for those unaware in this country yesterday NOT Afghanistan.
2000 people gathered to hear a speaker say our way of life was decadent.
We had no right to want the burka banned, every right to make me take my bike helmet of before walking into a bank but none to stop women hiding their faces.
What do we fight for Afghanistan?
Do we sit back and let our own country bend to those who will not bend to us?
Posted by Belly, Monday, 20 September 2010 6:30:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby, your point about ratio of fuel dependencies IS irrelevant because in a fuel crisis there could easily be a mass conversion to a different source- and with so many alternatives based on abundant fuel sources, and of course domestic oil supplies to carry the consumer over until the transfer, it IS a null point.

Discrimination? This kind of discrimination is the same that is practiced in many Muslim countries like Bosnia (who deported mujahadeen) and Turkey. And for that matter, much of Europe and it has not attracted any attention so far to say it is enough (but that would be the place where we would be to fight the fundamentalists when it comes down to it).

Embassies? Again, under the category of repelling infidels- or attacking USA and Israel. And again, a domestic crime.

And it HAS worked so far in Iraq- the Iraqis are fundamentally opposed to Al Queda, Wahabis and Salafists- even the nationalist rebels who attacked us fought against them too. The Iraqi people and government are more moderate and willing to make this work, in the face of sectarian attacks by criminal groups and warlords.

Afghanistan- despite being there for a considerably longer period, and lacking the ethnic divisions and historical conflict, has made little progress. Now the government (who were are defending- or should we overthrow them too?) is willing to join up with the Taliban.

And your link to the Burqa protest holds no water- for your point to be correct a terrorist would have to travel from another country on a tourist visa just to commit a terrorist attack.
And no, we aren't going to 'bend over',

If you can't differentiate not attacking foreign countries to avoid the primary motivation for terrorism against not making concessions to wahabis at home I really think I'm wasting my time. This is about getting out of a country that has nothing to do with us and clearly does not want to go moderate, and getting our own freedom back by not having to pander to their superstitions abroad so our troops don't get attacked.
Posted by King Hazza, Monday, 20 September 2010 9:31:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*Yabby, your point about ratio of fuel dependencies IS irrelevant because in a fuel crisis there could easily be a mass conversion to a different source- and with so many alternatives based on abundant fuel sources*

Its not a null point Hazza, because although dreams and theories
are in place, infrastructure is not in place to make it happen.
If the Straits of Hormuz close tomorrow, we are in deep doodoo
next month, not next year, in 5 years, in 10 years.

Yes we would survive, but not pleasantly. Whole industries would
close overnight, tens of millions would be unemployed, etc.

Fact is that the global economy still is hooked on and depends on
ME oil. That is why the US is there and stays there. Without them,
the Arabs would all be squabbling and killing each other. We've
seen it all before. The region is still tribal by nature.

*Discrimination?*

Hazza, what you think is discrimination and what they think is
discrimination, are two different subjects. All that matters
is their perception. If bin Laden declares you guilty, there
will be no trial and jury, just revenge for persecuting Islam,
in his perception of things.

*Afghanistan- despite being there for a considerably longer period, and lacking the ethnic divisions and historical conflict, has made little progress.*

That is because Afghanistan was put on the backburner, whilst Bush
focussed on Iraq. There are indeed ethnic divisions, Hazaras versus
Pashtuns for example. Iraq made little progress until they let
Petreus have a go with new ideas. He has now been moved to
Afghanistan, to try his skills there. Fair enough, we'll see what
happens in the next 18 months. Obama has made it clear that he
is not staying forever.

*for your point to be correct a terrorist would have to travel from another country on a tourist visa just to commit a terrorist attack.*

Hazza, if you haven't yet noticed, the zealots do in fact travel,
"just" to commit terrorist attacks.
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 20 September 2010 9:08:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It IS a null point because every single country has an alternate fuel and infrastructure already in place which it can transfer to immediately, and presently IS.

"Hazza, if you haven't yet noticed, the zealots do in fact travel,
"just" to commit terrorist attacks."
Care to list them?
That is, every terrorist attack committed in the West by somebody who migrated there to commit said attack or had prior literature to indicate hostile intents for travelling, AND this country was NOT related to a conflict back in the Middle East? and made a statement that was completely void of some kind of foreign policy issue?

Also, it has become quite sad that YOU are now advocating WE surrender to terrorists domestically so we do not offend them- just for the sake of arguing with me. So far I'm still waiting for Saudi or Afghani citizens to travel to Switzerland to avenge the minaret bans or France to avenge the Burqa bans.
Also, any terrorist attack that would happen would have nothing to do with the Taliban and could just as easily occur without it.

My point, again, is that we're putting the primary motives for terrorism on our heads purely for the purpose of staying in a conflict that is of zero benefit to anybody outside Afghanistan. I personally don't want to risk that (and risk instability and a stronger heroin trade from the lawlessness) just for the sake of protecting a fundamentalist country with a corrupt taliban-endearing government from a more fundamentalist militant group. However, my personal freedoms domestically I am quite happy to fight for. Quite simple really.

It's almost as if deep down you think the issue is that if we withdraw, terrorists will be emboldened and will start a campaign of conquest? But if we stop them they'll be totally demoralized and too scared to mess with us- Is that it?
Because world events point in exactly the opposite direction to the Team America explanation.

Playing dumb and failing to offer contradictions beyond vague hypotheticals based on limited perceptions is not helping- just wasting my time.
Posted by King Hazza, Tuesday, 21 September 2010 12:05:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*It IS a null point because every single country has an alternate fuel and infrastructure already in place which it can transfer to immediately, and presently IS*

Sheesh Hazza, if that were the case, we need not worry about the
price of oil, for the moment it goes up, we can switch to something
else. Why did those silly people pay 150$ a barrel, when demand
got ahead of supply? Only the GFC put a brake on it.

*Care to list them?*

Care to do your own frigging homework a bit better?

The head of Al Qaeda in Iraq, was a Jordanian. The shoe bomber
was Morrocan IIRC, in both Germany and France they have arrested
all sort of nationalities. In Afghanistan itself, there are all sorts
of Arab nationalities.

*Also, it has become quite sad that YOU are now advocating WE surrender to terrorists domestically so we do not offend them- just for the sake of arguing with me.*

No, I'm pointing out how easily you can become a target of Islamic
extremists. Rushdie just wrote a book upsetting them, that was
enough.

*It's almost as if deep down you think the issue is that if we withdraw, terrorists will be emboldened and will start a campaign of conquest?*

You are getting warm Hazza, for of course when Russia walked away,
suddenly Allah had made it happen, they then had a secure base from
which to operate and focus on their global conquest. Next we had
911 etc. Right now they are back in the hills, nervously watching
overhead, as American drones take them out, a few at a time.
Obama did not increase drone activity for nothing. So far the
results have been spectacular.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 21 September 2010 9:15:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby, Reid, again, was attacking America, from an American Airlines plane- bad example once again.
Jordan has a very large BORDER with Iraq, and there was the motive that we were INVADING Iraq to once again, reinforce my point.

Why (Australians) are we paying so much a barrel? It's what a combination of our local oil companies, carbon-discouragament price-hikes, and also government taxing allocates. Oh yeah, and lets not forget a huge jump in the oil price after we entered Iraq. But your "we're going to starve" scenario will be complete bunk because WE HAVE OUR OWN OIL. We only buy Middle Eastern stuff because it (Was) sold cheap and means preserving our own supplies in emergency. Of course, there is always the probability of more lobbyists discouraging allowing foreign businesses that manufacture or trade alternate products far outnumber those who would advocate it. (reason we don't get Walmart yet)

And I thought that would be your mindset; it's just too bad that between Russian withdrawal and the 911 plot, there has since been a lot of events of conflict between Israel and its neighbours (eg Lebanon) and the USA and multiple countries in the middle east which rather obscure your plan.

Since then there have been numerous attacks or attempted attacks on coalition countries demanding their withdrawal.

If trends pointed the opposite, I would support the conflict myself- as they point in the exact opposite direction, I must insist we are WASTING OUR TIME THERE and achieving NOTHING.

Also, why would a terrorist make up a phony list of demands that would not actually satisfy their own actual criteria to stop bombing. And WHY do they never travel to attack politically neutral infidel countries?
Posted by King Hazza, Wednesday, 22 September 2010 10:17:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*We only buy Middle Eastern stuff because it (Was) sold cheap and means preserving our own supplies in emergency.*

Hazza, you are kidding yourself or don't know much about oil
production. You can't just stick a straw in the ground and suck
it out next week. Australia's production is actually dropping
because as those wells are pumped, they produce less and less.
Reserves are simply what we expect the wells to yield in total,
eventually, before they run dry. So we could not increase
pumping capacity, if we wanted to. Even at 150$ a barrel, we
did not start pumping more, because we could not.

What we have more of, is gas. But last time they increased the
subsidy for cars to convert to gas, installers were booked out
for months, as they could not cope either.

Your next problem is that we live in a globally interdependant
economy. Let me give you a tiny example. I used to buy PET
bottles from a dairy plant in Perth. They made the bottles
on site. The machines that make those bottles are from France.
Parts are sourced by air, if they break down. If the planes
are not flying due to no oil, those machines come to a stop
and Perth residents run out of milk.

Now you are suggesting that you can take 20 million barrels
a day out of oil production, without huge global consequences.
You can't, without the whole thing nearly collapsing. For
that very reason the US stays in the ME to make sure the
supply lines stay open. For that very reason they stay on
good terms with the Sauds, who run oil supplies in SA,
as opposed to the Wahabbs, who run the religious side of
the country. Never forget, the ME is tribal and is still
run on tribal lines.

tbc
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 22 September 2010 12:44:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Now noboby, but nobody who is informed and with any credibility,
is arguing what you are arguing ie that the global economy could
continue as it is, without ME oil right now. In 10-20 years maybe,
we will see what technology brings, but not yet. Lots of dreams,
lots of hopes, lots of gonna do this or that.

So the US is set to stay in the ME, for good reasons. It is also
welcome by many Govts, for they well know that inter Arab squabbles
are a far larger threat to them, then the US. I remind you that
Kuwait had to be rescued by the US, when it was overrun and
ransacked by Iraq. The Saudis welcomed bases there, for they
fear Iran, or certainly used to.

Yes, they also support Israel with aid, as they do with Egypt etc.
Yes, their protective umbrella will make sure that Israel is not
overrun by Islamist fanatics. Most Arab Govts accept Israel's
right to exist, not so for the Islamists. The real problem with
Israel is religious fanatics of both persuasions, incluing Jewish
religious fanatics. Secular types seem to get along, for there
are no holy books in the way of peace.

* And WHY do they never travel to attack politically neutral infidel countries?*

Because there are countries and people, who they hate even more.
A Danish bloke only had to draw a few cartoons and he survives
now because of police protection.

If you are suggesting that we placate Islamists by giving in to
their every demand, well that will be a sad day. What the Afghan
war is doing is keeping them in the hills and under constant
threat, every day, from US drones. Thus occupied, they have
little time to think about their planned global jihad.

But global jihad is their ideology, as we know.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 22 September 2010 3:09:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
King Hazza I do not wish to offend you mate.
And you need not answer
But I truly find your stance here different.
With respect mate my question is are you from the middle east?
Posted by Belly, Wednesday, 22 September 2010 6:17:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Thus occupied, they have
little time to think about their planned global jihad."
THEY can't think about Global Jihad- anybody else so inclined throughout the rest of the world is at precisely the same capacity to act regardless of what state the Taliban and the Al Queda operatives they shelter are in.

THIS is the point you are missing. The Al Queda/Taliban coalition are only one single Islamist terrorist group out of thousands- and those thousand do not rely on them at all to commit attacks of their own- AQ and the Taliban are simply much better at it.

And Belly, nope, not from the Middle east or of Middle Eastern origin.
My point is that attacking Afghanistan will make not a dent in the majority of terrorists and their ability to attack us- instead it gives them a very strong motive (as history has demonstrated).

Domestic terrorists we were dumb enough to let in during the past we can and must handle (such as the Danish toon-hating ones)- terrorists abroad griping over Afghanistan we can do without the hassle.

I will repeat this line again- AL QUEDA doesn't factor jack into the rest of the terrorist world- terrorism only requires an angry fanatic with access to dangerous objects and a target he would use them on- he does not require Al Queda to tell him what to do. Which is why Afghanistan is a waste of time and people.
Posted by King Hazza, Thursday, 23 September 2010 12:35:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks KH I see the fanatics as a regional religion.
Not a country, our enemy is primitive belief that only some are meant to inhabit a heaven that never existed.
My question was go or stay, I am unsure still of my views
Posted by Belly, Thursday, 23 September 2010 5:19:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*THIS is the point you are missing. The Al Queda/Taliban coalition are only one single Islamist terrorist group out of thousands- and those thousand do not rely on them at all to commit attacks of their own*

I am not missing it at all, Hazza. But bin Laden became the
pinup boy and inpiration for many ideologists around the world,
because he was so successfull.

The fact that the key leaders of AQ are now either dead, in jail,
or hiding, takes some of the glow out of it all.

The bloke who was the key planner behind many of the AQ attacks,
can't think of his name right now, is in Gitmo.

What 911 changed is global state security. It was a wake up call
to what previously was not taken seriously. Everywhere you go,
intelligence services have their ears to the ground and any hint
of potential terrorism activity is jumped on. Countless potential
attacks have been thwarted.

One of the worrying things about Afghanistan when it was taken back
over from the Taliban, was what was going on there. Islamists
were doing research work on biological weapons and similar. They
were also trying to buy ex Soviet nuclear materials. Afghanistan
gave them a place to do all these things, in relative peace and
tranquility and with focus.

Not anyone can pull off a stunt like 911, it took some serious
planning, money and implementation
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 23 September 2010 9:06:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As do I Belly.
But quite frankly I just don't see any good in staying, especially that would have happened years ago, and in many ways we are not controlling Afghanistan, be it opium trade or preventing acts of brutality.

Yabby
"Everywhere you go,
intelligence services have their ears to the ground and any hint
of potential terrorism activity is jumped on. Countless potential
attacks have been thwarted."
-
Well there's your answer.

"One of the worrying things about Afghanistan when it was taken back
over from the Taliban, was what was going on there. Islamists
were doing research work on biological weapons and similar. "
-
Link?

"Not anyone can pull off a stunt like 911, it took some serious
planning, money and implementation"
-
It also took serious motivation towards the recruits to pull it off- which seems generally infidel countries that do not enter the 'holy land' seem not apply.
Posted by King Hazza, Thursday, 23 September 2010 10:59:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*Link?*

Hazza, that was around 8 or so years ago. No, I never saved a link
lol, but it was widely made public on both tv and the net I presume.
It was the reason that Americans started insisting that all containers
are checked before they leave any port here or elsewhere, for their
ultimate threat is a dirty bomb.

At the time, it actually cost me money. As an exporter, I suddenly
faced security at the airport, every box was scanned and of course
I had to pay the cost in the way of a security levy.

*It also took serious motivation towards the recruits to pull it off*

Amazingly its not that hard to motivate people to kill themselves,
in the name of religion. Press their emotional buttons and off they
go. Zealots are easily motivated.

People even offer to kill themselves for their country, by joining
their army.
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 23 September 2010 9:11:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
But Yabby, so far evidence points that people are only motivated enough to:

-Kill themselves in the name of their religion when they feel their values are under attack to an extreme case (basically their holy sanctuaries or lands being attacked, their cult about to be destroyed and they themselves arrested and jailed, or they need to takeover their own society)

-Commit an attack if their values are under attack (but only immediately domestically- like Theo Van Gogh by a Moroccan immigrant).

-Take up arms and travel to defend people they immediately relate to that are under attack (eg Muslims entering another Muslim country being invaded, Australians defending Britain in the World Wars).

There has not been a single shred of evidence to indicate that terrorists will organize a cross-national attack against an overseas foreign target, (requiring abandonment and surrounding yourself with infidel culture with sometimes not a single Halal food item in sight), solely because they're infidels. There has always, always been one of the above motives.

The terrorists were either immediately close enough so that organizing the attack would be no big deal, or they were motivated by a foreign political/military conflict against a Muslim country by the country in question, or both.

By isolating yourself from these countries politically, but elaborating you are hostile to fundamentalist Islamic values, a country seems to get much less of any form of Islamic aggression- the UK on the other hand, sticking its fingers in numerous contentious middle east conflicts but bending over for extremists at home seems to have it worse than anyone else in the West. Switzerland seems to be having it the best.

So far, a few odd crazies thought of trying to travel to Sweden to kill a cartoonist (immediately arrested, and planned only amongst themselves), and nobody has yet tried to harm Switzerland. So far only a Libyan dictator tried to look tough by declaring a holy war against it- so far nothing.
Posted by King Hazza, Friday, 24 September 2010 10:06:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*and nobody has yet tried to harm Switzerland.*

Not so Hazza. Already in 1970, the PLO blew up Swissair flight 330,
which crashed in Wuerenlingen, close to a nuclear power plant.
They were seemingly upset that 3 Palestians had been jailed by
Switzerland. Another Swissair flight was hijacked and blown up
on the tarmac.

The banning of minarets is not the banning of mosques. Minarets
come under planning laws and in Switzerland they tell you exactly
what you can and cannot build, what colour, what materials etc.
Hardly an attack on Islam.

The wars in Chechnya and the Philipines are not about people attacking
holy lands, but people wanting to create holy lands. So do we create
a new holy land in sections of Britain or Holland, when enough Muslims
live in sections of them? There have in fact already been
suggestions to do exactly that.
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 24 September 2010 1:29:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
yabby you have the staying power to win the Melbourne cup by ten lengths then keep going and running it again.
While I hoped to debate if we should stay you have made little progress while telling it like it is.
Hate to see the deaths hate the corruption.
Dislike the thieving by government officials.
The fact this poll over there is a fraud, and that they still have not got a government.
But if a chance exists, that we can do some good, prove me wrong about a far bigger war with radical Islam in our near future then stay.
If like that Asian war we are not allowed to win come home now.
So watch be hard on fraud but stay is my vote but not forever.
Posted by Belly, Friday, 24 September 2010 3:29:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Belly, this is the way I see it:

Obama is indeed seeking an exit strategy, but has decided to give
the Petreus option a go, over the next 18 months or so.

I feel that it is worth a try, even if the odds are against us.

We do in fact have an allegiance with the US, for if Australia was
ever attacked by anyone, it would be the US that we would rely on,
not our 3 battleships and a couple of planes or whatever we have.

I also feel for the people of Afghanistan. A takeover by the Taliban
will not be a pretty picture.

But I think that the role of the Australian forces should be more
as educators and trainers of locals, rather then fighting on the
frontlines themselves.

The West could easily afford to bankroll an Afghan army and in a country where wages are low and poverty is everywhere, joining
the army is a credible way for locals to make a living.

Meantime the US can continue with its drone project, which is
achieving great results.

But all this is for the next 18 months or two years, not forever.
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 24 September 2010 9:29:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
well put yabby and it in every word could have been my post.
I doubt, truly do, we can teach fundamentalists not to hate but worth a try.
Posted by Belly, Saturday, 25 September 2010 6:06:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"They were seemingly upset that 3 Palestians had been jailed by
Switzerland."
My category again on two accounts- nothing to do with Afghanistan, and motivation outside religious need to conquer infidels alone- and handled by domestic counter-terrorism.
And no, before you jump on another faulty binary presumption because anybody who thinks our middle east policy isn't working must obviously be a pacifist- the Swiss were right to arrest those people, and would reap far worse for their society by allowing them to operate in their midst and give in to domestic demands.

Chechnya and numerous islands among the Philippines had been substantially Islamic for a very long time- and no, again, we do not make any concessions for Islamists at home- again, a point I keep trying to convey and you don't seem to acknowledge.

It's almost like you simply cannot actually realize there are more than two discourses of action than "fight Islam in faraway lands" and "surrender absolutely everything to them and submit".

Quite frankly we set a better example by retaliating against a country that holds terrorists, refunding infrastructure and immediately withdrawing ASAP, than trying to hold the place and hope to convert the locals to our way of thinking and base any notions of achievement or failure in our ability to indefinitely repel whichever enemy we are fighting till the end of time or relinquish it eventually after potential losses.
In my opinion, we should have pulled out after the botched elections, now I think the imminent deadline is more than fair.
Posted by King Hazza, Saturday, 25 September 2010 6:44:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The point I am trying to get through to you Hazza, is that violent
Islamism is not just going to go away, because we change our ME
policy. But you seem totally disinterested in what these people
actually believe and why.

It is just something that the West is going to have to live with,
with continued tight security and continued intelligence work,
which has thwarted many attacks, including in Australia.

There were good reasons to enter Afghanistan and get rid of the
Taliban. Al Qaeda had openly attacked the West and were seemingly
quite content to let Al Qaeda use Afghanistan as a training ground
and base for further attacks. Turning the other cheeck is a Xtian
concept and it is a failure. They needed to know that wherever on
earth they were, they would pay a price.

Meantime the Afghan/Pakistan border has always been a difficult
area, where even the Pakistani army feared to tread. The drones
are dealing with that, Zawahiri was narrowly missed by a bomb
or two and its not over yet.

A solution needs to be found, so that Afghanistan does not once
again become another staging ground for attacks on the West,
as they plan their global jihad
Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 25 September 2010 8:37:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is no 'global Jihad' Yabby, this is the problem.
You keep equating any act of hostility between a Western and an Islamic entity as immediately a large organized movement whose headquarters is in Afghanistan- it isn't.
So far, Al Queda have, from Afghanistan, pulled off one attack against Western civilians. The rest of the attacks point to completely autonomous terrorists completely unrelated. And that, I repeat ad nausea, was motivated by US foreign policy- with absolutely, positively nothing of similar scale committed against a neutral country.
And again, there has been no evidence of a single attack where a caliphate was the sole motive- or for that matter, would have been enough motive at all in absence of another motive I described.

And guess what, fundamentalist Islamic terrorism isn't going to go away if we fight the Taliban, or even defeat the Taliban- it will however, get a lot more rabid and widespread as paranoia over evil Westerners trying to crusade are proven right in the minds of the nutheads, complete with a system of conquest and trying to convert them to our culture, and of course the fact that the Taliban can simply, you know, move and hide. Unless we'd like to lose our good relations with Pakistan by bombing their territory to weed out some more fundies.

All we achieve by staying in Afghanistan (other than rising opium production) is making a problem that remains rather domestic in one part of the world spread out, and a barbarous mindset that normally seems to not care less about faraway lands so long as these people get to throw rocks at adulterers, are confronted with an enemy crusade.

This is what you are also missing (despite me spelling it out last post)- the fact that we are STAYING.

Unless you seriously believe that if we defeat the Taliban, every shariaite around the world will say "Oh no, the Taliban are now defeated, I have lost the will to not be moderate anymore!"
Posted by King Hazza, Saturday, 25 September 2010 9:04:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*There is no 'global Jihad' Yabby, this is the problem.*

Yes there is Hazza, in the minds of some Salafist extremists there
is. You refuse to inform yourself about what they believe, at
your peril and ignorance.

*You keep equating any act of hostility between a Western and an Islamic entity as immediately a large organized movement whose headquarters is in Afghanistan- it isn't.*

Not so Hazza. Jason Burke made if very clear that bin Laden is
simply the pin up boy figurehead, for a whole group of divergent
jihadists. The difference is that he has serious money behind him,
unlike the rest. When you are talking that kind of money, it only
takes a few hundred nutheads, they can do serious damage.

There are good reasons why bin Laden wants the US, out of the ME.
He has no chance of taking over the Saudi oilfields, which is his
dream, whilst the US is in the Gulf. Bin Laden believes that Muslims
have been cheated by the West by far too cheap oil. He
believes that if he can get rid of the Sauds, the West is toast.
He has a point.

As I have pointed out before, without ME oil the West is indeed
toast, but you refuse to accept it.

Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who planned and executed the 911 attack,
also had a whole lot of other attacks planned. Bin Laden's money
was behind him. Right now he is in Gitmo, arrested in Pakistan.

*Unless we'd like to lose our good relations with Pakistan by bombing their territory to weed out some more fundies.*

Come on, the majority of Pakistanis don't want their country taken
over by the fundamentalists either. But its already happening.
People with video stores or music stores, forced to close down
at gunpoint, or they die.

Fact is that every day that the US operates on the border with their
drones, they are knocking out the ideological leaders. Meantime
Petreus is trying to find an on ground solution, so that the Afghan
people can defend themselves against another takeover by the Taliban.
Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 25 September 2010 9:51:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Yes there is Hazza, in the minds of some Salafist extremists there is. You refuse to inform yourself about what they believe, at your peril and ignorance."
I keep telling you I know damn well what these people think- and so far, after 16 pages you have FAILED to prove to me that;
1- internationally-orchestrated terrorist attacks occur based on a mythical fundamentalist crusade alone as the motive
2- that terrorists need Bin Laden, and will somehow dissapear if their favourite pinup boy becomes a, you know, martyr.
3- That invading and occupying these countries does not ENCOURAGE extremists to take arms. Who do you think they recruit? How do you think they attract more people?

It's funny you mention Bin Laden vs the Saudis- you should learn about the relationship between the Bin Laden family and the Saudi royals, especially business wise;

Also the increasing Taliban presence in Pakistan- can't possibly be a diaspora from Afghanistan, can it? And you didn't answer my question if we should violate Pakistan's airspace.

I'll skip the oil- the fact that this part of the argument never goes beyond the fact that you are convinced that no other country on the planet has domestic fuel sources and alternate fuels but instead are entirely dependent on importing Saudi oil.
And you are telling me the cost of suddenly transferring dependence on another fuel source in event of a full middle East takeover (which apparently will happen in one single act so that we can't possibly take measures before it happens entirely) is far worse than maintaining the number 1 motive for terrorism in the world?

In short, this discussion has not even changed since it began.
Long since I asked, still giving me evidence to reinforce my point instead of yours, and feeding silly hypothesis that depend on assuming simple things like ethanol not really existing despite it being in every petrol station.

I think this thread is drawing to a close, as there is nothing left to cover except this very post.
Posted by King Hazza, Saturday, 25 September 2010 11:58:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*and feeding silly hypothesis that depend on assuming simple things like ethanol not really existing despite it being in every petrol station.*

I have never made that claim, Hazza. Of course ethanol exists.
Of course it can be used in small quantities. But it cannot
replace the 17 million barrels of oil a day, which pass through the
Straits of Hormuz each day and the Straits could easily be blocked
by sinking a few ships. The laying of mines in the Straits would
be all it would in fact take.

Take 17 million barrels a day out of global oil supplies and our
global economy would spin out of control, with oil prices doubling
and tripling overnight and many industries coming to an effective
standstill. No, there are no ethanol refineries ready to go,
to produce that volume. No there are no spare oil fields to pump
replacement oil. It would take years to prepare for it.

So essentially we in the West are still hooked on Gulf oil for
our economic well being. That is why the US stays in the Gulf,
in all our interests.

When Saddam invaded Kuwait, the Saudis were nervous that they
would be next, as their oil fields were close by. They turned to
the US for help and defense, allowing US troops on Saudi soil.
Bin Laden was pissed off with King Fahd, for he was allowing
infidel troops on holy Muslim soil it seems. Bin Laden thought that
his band of fighters could defeat the Iraqi army. Fahd prefered to
rely on US defense systems.

So the West is basically a victim of inter Arab squabbles.

Bin Laden has 4 main hatreds. The US and its allies, Israel,
Shias and heretics.
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 26 September 2010 10:50:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
actually Yabby there is another reason Bin Laden hates the Sauds- you should look it up. His campaigns are substantially as much a vendetta against them alone and their allies than a generic Holy war.

Anyway, I think we're done here; It's becoming too hard to get you to elaborate how any of your doomsday scenarios are to actually occur (which are completely obvious to be based only on an assumption), or to answer half of my points;

Your scenario falls apart because it assumes that Al Queda will, magically, completely conquer the entire Middle East and take control of the oil fields overnight, withholding them from the west until the west converts to Islam; This fails to take into account the fact that a campaign would take TIME- enough for many Western businesses to start advertising the already existing fuel alternatives and enough time for most nations to start converting their fuel infrastructure in anticipation that the Middle East may fall. You instead insist that a dozen countries are going to be taken over and amalgamated into a Bin Laden Caliphate in as little time as a stock market crash.

And again, all this risk, just so we don't have to pay higher prices for fuel-dependent freight services for our goods and invest in alternate infrastructure?

Suit yourself.

Anyway, for everyone else I encourage you to read up on the Bin Ladens, and on the terrorist relations and make your own mind up over whether the motives for terrorists stop at a generic idealistic crusade or not.
Posted by King Hazza, Sunday, 26 September 2010 7:48:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*Your scenario falls apart because it assumes that Al Queda will, magically, completely conquer the entire Middle East and take control of the oil fields overnight, withholding them from the west until the west converts to Islam*

You are free to shoot down your own strawman arguments Hazza.
Personally I stick to what I have actually claimed.

If only the global energy problem could be so easily solved, as
creating a bit of ethanol. It ain't that simple. Even if you
converted the entire Australian wheat crop to ethanol, it would
still not be enough and then what would people eat?

My point really was that there are very good reasons for the
US staying in the Gulf, usually at the invitation of Arab Govts,
who know that they are far more threatened by inter Arab squabbling
them by the US. My point is that it is unreasonable to accept that
Arab extremists have the right to wipe Israel off the face of the
map.

Yet these are the very things that upset Islamists. Their global
jihad is a long term strategy, not a short term one. Plenty of
them have commented that long term they will win, simply by outbreeding
the West, so its a case of demographics. They have a
point, as Muslim migrants in places like Holland and the UK have
far more children then traditional Westerners. So its quite
possible, based purely on demographics, that these places will
eventually land up as Islamic. Then you seemingly will accept too,
that this is holy Muslim soil.
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 26 September 2010 9:20:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 15
  7. 16
  8. 17
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy