Pakistani troops involved in skirmish with US troops [Archive]

Mikeus Caesar

09-15-2008, 12:18

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7396366.stm

Pakistan soldiers 'confront US'

Pakistani troops have fired shots into the air to stop US troops crossing into the South Waziristan region of Pakistan, local officials say.

Reports say seven US helicopters landed on the Afghan side of the border and US troops then tried to cross the border.

South Waziristan is one of the main areas from which Islamist militants launch attacks into Afghanistan.

The incident comes amid growing anger in Pakistan over US attacks along the border region.

The confrontation began at around midnight, local people say.

They say seven US helicopter gunships and two troop-carrying Chinook helicopters landed in the Afghan province of Paktika near the Zohba mountain range.

US troops from the Chinooks then tried to cross the border. As they did so, Pakistani paramilitary soldiers at a checkpoint opened fire into the air and the US troops decided not to continue forward, local Pakistani officials say.

Interesting developments. I don't know what might come of this, but Pakistan is quickly becoming a joke, and if a war did occur between the US and Pakistan, there is quite the worrying possibility of amid the pandemonium, some nukes may go missing...

Guess we just see how it goes.

Caius

09-15-2008, 12:51

Nuke Pakistan. No more problems.

CountArach

09-15-2008, 12:52

Nuke Pakistan. No more problems.
Except for the Nukes that fly back.

KrooK

09-15-2008, 13:21

Its normal that when you are soldier and you see foreign military helicopters landing into your country, you can shot them. Americans should be absolutely aware of it.

Mikeus Caesar

09-15-2008, 13:32

Except for the Nukes that fly back.

From what little google-fu i've done, there's hardly much chance of nukes flying back the other way. Maybe a few military bases hit, a tragedy, yes, but no major Western population centres. On the other hand though, if Pakistan decided to just go all out crazy with the end in sight, they could quite happily fire a few off at India, and i imagine India wouldn't be too happy about that, and would probably want to retaliate some way, and thus make the rest of the Arab world rather miffed...

CountArach

09-15-2008, 13:51

From what little google-fu i've done, there's hardly much chance of nukes flying back the other way. Maybe a few military bases hit, a tragedy, yes, but no major Western population centres. On the other hand though, if Pakistan decided to just go all out crazy with the end in sight, they could quite happily fire a few off at India, and i imagine India wouldn't be too happy about that, and would probably want to retaliate some way, and thus make the rest of the Arab world rather miffed...
Either way, it isn't a great thing. Plus, hitting the military bases starts that way, but what about the fallout?

Sarmatian

09-15-2008, 13:52

Why do people talk about nuclear weapons like they're popcorn...

Not a good, trying to cross the border into Pakistan. Things are very heated up in Pakistan and could go wrong very quickly...

Mikeus Caesar

09-15-2008, 13:59

Either way, it isn't a great thing. Plus, hitting the military bases starts that way, but what about the fallout?

A few immediate deaths a few miles downwind, and a massive longterm increase in cancer rates for a few hundred miles downwind, presuming that a fair few nuke are used.

ICantSpellDawg

09-15-2008, 14:22

This is a good thing, or it could be. If we lead incursions into Waziristan that are countered with larger Pakistani troop numbers, we would be getting what we want. We simply want Pakistan to do their jobs in the west and that job includes a larger military presence with more independent action.
They can use the pretext of securing the border from Americans in order to hammer hidden Afghan and Pashtun insurgents - this will make the actions less sensational to traditionalist Muslims.

We can keep it cordial while they keep pressing the enemy. Pakistan would prefer war with terrorists over any sort of confrontation with the U.S. that they couldn't back out of - so let them choose that option instead of putting the choice on the back burner.

The Nuclear option is absurd. Pakistan is a lazy ally, not the enemy. These incursions will help get their eyes back on the ball.

Tribesman

09-15-2008, 14:50

This is a good thing, or it could be.
~:rolleyes:
Its just one of a long line of incidents between the coilition and the Pakitani army / border police /frontier force.
There are no positives about it as each incident has led to less co-operation between the Pakistani government and the coilition and more co-operation between the taliban and elements of the armed forces , plus every stike and incursion has meant more hostility towards the coilition by the local tribes and every government move at working with the coilition has led to increased hostility to the government from the population nationwide .

These incursions will help get their eyes back on the ball.
No these incidents mean that they take away the ball and stop any semblance of being on the same team .

ICantSpellDawg

09-15-2008, 15:28

~:rolleyes:
Its just one of a long line of incidents between the coilition and the Pakitani army / border police /frontier force.
There are no positives about it as each incident has led to less co-operation between the Pakistani government and the coilition and more co-operation between the taliban and elements of the armed forces , plus every stike and incursion has meant more hostility towards the coilition by the local tribes and every government move at working with the coilition has led to increased hostility to the government from the population nationwide .

No these incidents mean that they take away the ball and stop any semblance of being on the same team .

What would you have done? Even Obama has proposed incursions into Waziristan and the rest of the border regions without adequate Pakistani action. If anything, the Bush administration has avoided it for too long.

The reality about the Pakistan/Afghan border is that the regions are ethnically and linguistically identical. Couple this with the fact that the border is about the size of the border between Mexico and the United States and you have a serious strategic problem. I know that since you are Irish you don't have a horse in this race, but NATO is in Afghanistan and nearly everyone on this forum believes that the war there was both legal and necessary. How would you do it differently; just keep fighting the same way in Afghanistan while the border creeps east without us? Or should we be any nicer to the Pakistani government than we have been over the past 25 years?

I said that it could be a good thing because sometimes incursions get people on the ball. Colombia went into Ecuador - who is a quasi enemy - just this year and it almost sparked a war. In the end though, Ecuador was pressured to increase its anti-insurgency action along the common border. We have a long standing and pleasant diplomatic relationship with Pakistan. It's time that we cashed some of that in for firm action on the part of their government in response to these wild accusations that Afghan insurgents are living scot free within their Federal border lands.

It could go both ways, but I'm putting out an alternate scenario to all the talk of "cataclysmic nuclear holocaust" that we have in this thread.

JAG

09-15-2008, 16:25

Ridiculous to think that this is good in any way. For instance Pakistani leaders are already threatening to join the Taliban if the US military illegally enter their territory. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/15/pakistan.usforeignpolicy) By continuing this absurd and let me state again, completely illegal practice, the US is creating an enemy of the one of the few significant allies they have in that area. It is mind bogglingly stupid. However if the illegal incursions are continued what BS story is going to be used to justify it this time? Damn those democratic Arab countries, they make invasion so hard!

Tribesman

09-15-2008, 16:39

We have a long standing and pleasant diplomatic relationship with Pakistan.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Hold on , I thought the american backed dictator just lost power:inquisitive:

What would you have done?
I do wish someone would sticky my Iraq and Afghanistan posts so people don't keep asking the same questions year after year .

Even Obama has proposed incursions into Waziristan and the rest of the border regions without adequate Pakistani action.
Yes because they are now so backed into a corner . They is buggered ain't they.

If anything, the Bush administration has avoided it for too long.

Actually the Bush administration screwed the Afghan plan from day 1 , its not just that they avoided the issue of the tribal belt , its that they blundered blindly during the whole Afghan fiasco .
Well no thats not fair really , they were not blind , the Armed forces had lots of studies on what to do if the area and what not to do , the administration decided not to just ignore the whole lot but to go against many of the core theories at the planning stage, so they wasn't blind just stupid .

ICantSpellDawg

09-15-2008, 17:00

Here's a pretty good article.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/158861/page/1

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88

09-15-2008, 17:56

Nuke Pakistan. No more problems.

Nuke The whole reigon, then we will have no more problems, but to logical for people....

Strike For The South

09-15-2008, 18:04

Nuke The whole reigon, then we will have no more problems, but to logical for people....

This, ladies and gentleman, is a breakthrough in geopolitical thought! For to many years we have been shackled with problems of the world when the answer has been staring us in the face the whole time. Nuclear weapons the solution to all your petty disagreements.

Sith have you considered running for public office? Your exactly what this country needs a headstrong leader who follows his gut that'll show those people over there. Who are they all high and mighty with there oil walking around in there damn pajamas all day. The Heathens.

Fragony

09-15-2008, 18:51

I am with JAG. Pakistani's borders should be respected.

CrossLOPER

09-15-2008, 19:30

NUKE THE WORLD. NO PROBLEMS. EVER AGAIN.

Vladimir

09-15-2008, 20:00

I am with JAG. Pakistani's borders should be respected.

Looks like I’m going to get the jump on Tribesy here. There is no officially recognized border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. (I believe) The official position of Afghanistan is that the border (drawn by the British over 100 years ago) needs to be redefined as it was to last for only 100 years. Much like the Hong Kong lease agreement.

Fragony

09-15-2008, 20:22

That place is beardistan the pakistan government has no power there but it's still theirs. Entering someone's border I wouldn't really call redefining, and it only weakens the power of that very government you need.

Kadagar_AV

09-15-2008, 20:53

I will point americans who don't get why Europeans dislike them to this thread.

As a sidenote, I have had family dying in Afghanistan. NO I am not american, I am Swedish, so was the trooper.

You see, USA long ago gave up on that war, and left other countries to do their dirty job of cleaning up.

So, contrary to, well, 90% of the other posters in this therad, I am up to date with what happens there...

And no, NUKES is not the solution.

I do think the world would be a better place if someone nuked USA, would get some sence of vulnerability back, and, would make them understand what nukes does to people, for generations.

*sigh*

I got very sad when I read this thread.

Also, it creeps me out that the ONLY country ever to have used such a malign weapon as nukes, is the one claiming the morale highground, while their teenage (I hope you are teenage) citizens are screaming for more nukes...

Scary...

Vladimir

09-15-2008, 20:55

Frag,

The issue here is that people saying the US is crossing the border with Pakistan. We're not redefining the border, there isn't one. It's not just that there is no control of the region.

And no, NUKES is not the solution.

I do think the world would be a better place if someone nuked USA, would get some sence of vulnerability back, and, would make them understand what nukes does to people, for generations.

Yes. Nukes aren't the solution in less it is your solution. :yes:

Kadagar_AV

09-15-2008, 21:03

ICantSpellDawg

09-15-2008, 21:59

drone

09-15-2008, 22:04

I am not saying I am for it, i am against people getting killed and wounded in any and all ways.

I am however saying I think that would stop the happy attitude some US citizens has towards nukes... And maybe they would start seeing the world in a different way.

I mean... name one country, other than the US, that has not gone 10 years without waring? And this is the country talking about morale highground and mission from god?

The talking points of the current administration do not necessarily reflect that of the majority of the populace.

But you are sadly mistaken if you think a nuclear explosion in the US would have your desired effect. 9/11 made us "feel vulnerable", but look at the response. Pity the country with a reactor that matches the radioactive signature of the material. Whoever is in charge after an attack would respond in kind, vengeance would be demanded by the populace. Sad to say, there would be no period of reflection, the country as a whole is not wired that way. Fear plus power is not a good combination.

seireikhaan

09-15-2008, 22:24

Strike For The South

09-15-2008, 22:26

This is BS. Why's everyone getting so up in arms over the US crossing into Waziristan? Tell me this; if you're chasing Bin Laden and his cronies all through Afghanistan, you're finally chasing them down, you see the "welcome to Pakistan, have a nice day!" sign, do you suddenly just stop? The Taliban and Al Qaeda are breaking international law with their movements all over international borders; as far as I'm concerned, if Pakistan's not going to get off its :daisy: and start actually DOING something like they're supposed to be, then we've got to hunt the :daisy:'s down even if it crossing the border. Or I suppose the Euros would rather the war in Afhanistan just go on forever while we try to play whack-a-mole trying to pin down forces whose bases we cannot extinguish and who's movements we cannot predict or monitor.

jurisdiction (from the Latin ius, iuris meaning "law" and dicere meaning "to speak") is the practical authority granted to a formally constituted legal body or to a political leader to deal with and make pronouncements on legal matters and, by implication, to administer justice within a defined area of responsibility.
Or in common English: Jurisdiction is the authority given to a legal body, or to a political leader (Prime Minister, President, etc.) to deal with legal matters, and to pronounce or enforce legal matters.

seireikhaan

09-15-2008, 22:28

jurisdiction (from the Latin ius, iuris meaning "law" and dicere meaning "to speak") is the practical authority granted to a formally constituted legal body or to a political leader to deal with and make pronouncements on legal matters and, by implication, to administer justice within a defined area of responsibility.
Or in common English: Jurisdiction is the authority given to a legal body, or to a political leader (Prime Minister, President, etc.) to deal with legal matters, and to pronounce or enforce legal matters.
So we should give someone legal jurisdiction of a territory even when they have no actual authority over it? Pakistan as a government has somewhere between zero and no actual power over Waziristan.

Strike For The South

09-15-2008, 22:31

So we should give someone legal jurisdiction of a territory even when they have no actual authority over it? Pakistan as a government has somewhere between zero and no actual power over Waziristan.

It doesn't matter. The last thing we need to do is push this country over the edge and you know what will tick these guys off? Poaching on their sovrigenty. Im willing to let a few bad guys get away to keep an ally. a nuclear ally

seireikhaan

09-15-2008, 22:41

Strike For The South

09-15-2008, 22:45

ALLY? :laugh4:

I doubt that. If they were an ALLY, there would be all kinds of hell being raised on their border with Afghanistan; the previous ruler of the country was a former general, and had full support of their military. Yet, the situation only dissolved the longer he was in power. Musharraf did NOTHING to stop the influx of militant groups into his OWN country, and the new government has done little better. And now we've got a democratically elected government, whom I'm sure just LOVES how we propped up the regime of a man who usurped power from, of all things, A DEMOCRACY. That Pakistan is actually an ally to us is a laughable to me.

okay keep impeding on their sovrigenty squander any sort if diaoulge we can have them. Squander any sort of sway we have with the general populace. Squander it all for what? More miles of terrorists? Does Pakistan need to get on the ball? yes, however poaching on their lands is more likely to make them want to help them then it will make them want to help us. I like to play Rambo to but sometimes you have to look at the big picture.

seireikhaan

09-15-2008, 22:52

okay keep impeding on their sovrigenty squander any sort if diaoulge we can have them. Squander any sort of sway we have with the general populace. Squander it all for what? More miles of terrorists? Does Pakistan need to get on the ball? yes, however poaching on their lands is more likely to make them want to help them then it will make them want to help us. I like to play Rambo to but sometimes you have to look at the big picture.
Big picture? Like playing whack-a-mole for ages against forces you can't pin down because they keep prancing back across the border to safety? This would be different if there was ANY indication that Pakistan was actually DOING something that was helping us put down the taliban and Al Qaeda. However, I have yet to see any evidence that they're actually doing anything to us. So yes, in the big picture, lets not cross into Waziristan so we can continue to fight a war we can't win until we eventually drain our resources and eventually have to withdraw because the American people get sick of sending their sons over to a country all the way across the globe to fight an unwinnable war only to have them come back maimed or worse.

ICantSpellDawg

09-15-2008, 22:52

Pakistan is pissed because they were having fun as 3rd party blackmailers. They say "if only we had attack choppers we could effectively deal with the Taliban threat", "if only we had enough anti-India missiles or fighter aircraft". They love terrorism within their borders, it allows them to engage in unparalleled extortion. If the U.S. does the job themselves, Pakistan's military gifts would dry up - they won't have that.

We need to let them know that the party is over - we've come to collect. All those years of military aid should mean cooperation in eliminating mutual threats.

yesdachi

09-15-2008, 22:56

I am not saying I am for it, i am against people getting killed and wounded in any and all ways.
and yet you just said...

I do think the world would be a better place if someone nuked USA

Elevator doesn’t go all the way to the top anymore does it? :freak:

As to the topic, a boarder is a boarder and out of policy we need to get permission to cross. If that permission is given thanks to coercion then so be it, there are things that Pakistan wants that I am sure the US has to negotiate with.

Strike For The South

09-15-2008, 22:57

Big picture? Like playing whack-a-mole for ages against forces you can't pin down because they keep prancing back across the border to safety? This would be different if there was ANY indication that Pakistan was actually DOING something that was helping us put down the taliban and Al Qaeda. However, I have yet to see any evidence that they're actually doing anything to us. So yes, in the big picture, lets not cross into Waziristan so we can continue to fight a war we can't win until we eventually drain our resources and eventually have to withdraw because the American people get sick of sending their sons over to a country all the way across the globe to fight an unwinnable war only to have them come back maimed or worse.

If thats what you wanna do fine but be prepared for a war. The US needs to find another way in. Directly is not going to work. Time to think outside the box

Kadagar_AV

09-15-2008, 23:13

TuffStuffMcGruff, can you honestly say the USA is keeping their promise of rebuilding the country? People have it worse now than before you started the bombings, no?

Drone, I more pity the country the US leadership choose to but the blame on... Concrete evidence has never been much of a factor when it comes to US bombings.

makaikhaan, crossing the border (uninvited) with more than 10 men in uniform is called an "invasion". Are you seriosly arguing US legitimacy to invade any country they want to?

Yesdachi, Being against something, and believing the world would be a better place if it happened, is not the same thing...

I believe the world would be a better place without uggly people, however, I do not think we should kill all uggly people. Get the point?

ICantSpellDawg

09-15-2008, 23:16

What is it with the air and water in Sweden?

Kadagar_AV

09-15-2008, 23:23

Among the cleanest in the world, back on topic? Are you claiming the USA is doing much about afghanistan these days?

seireikhaan

09-15-2008, 23:27

makaikhaan, crossing the border (uninvited) with more than 10 men in uniform is called an "invasion". Are you seriosly arguing US legitimacy to invade any country they want to?
To put a stop to a group of international (war)criminals? Yes.

drone

09-15-2008, 23:30

Drone, I more pity the country the US leadership choose to but the blame on... Concrete evidence has never been much of a factor when it comes to US bombings.

I never said it was. I'm just saying that if someone plants a nuke in the US and sets it off, your "better world" theory will not stand up. There will be vengeance and bloodshed and the world will not be a better place for it. Fear, anger, politics, and a whole arsenal of toys makes for a bad combination. The country with the reactor that matches the isotope fingerprint will be the first on the list.

I would not necessarily agree with the reprisal, but I know my country and it's people. The response would be horrific.

Kadagar_AV

09-15-2008, 23:45

To put a stop to a group of international (war)criminals? Yes.

So... by your logic, it is ok if some country invaded US and arrested some of your warcriminals?

Or, heck, why cant some country break your boarders just in the search of warcriminals?

...

:oops:

ICantSpellDawg

09-15-2008, 23:56

So... by your logic, it is ok if some country invaded US and arrested some of your warcriminals?

Or, heck, why cant some country break your boarders just in the search of warcriminals?

...

:oops:

They are free to try.:smoking:

If a nation can't contain and control terrorism and insurgency within its borders and it is affecting the security of a neighboring country - they can expect help, whether they'd like it or not.

Let's use a hypothetical Russian-Georgian conflict as an example. If North Ossetia was in rebellion from Russia and the Russians secured North Ossetia - but South Ossetia was part of Georgia and Georgia couldn't keep South Ossetians from doing cross border raids and then returning to safety... I would have supported a Russian incursion into South Ossetia to do the job that Georgia was responsible for, but unable to accomplish.

ESPECIALLY if Russia had been giving freebies and military aid to Georgia for a decade for the expressed purpose of securing their borders.

Kadagar_AV

09-16-2008, 00:06

They are free to try.:smoking:

So... your point is that power = right?

Did I get you right?

*again, this is a great thread to show americans who dont understand why people over the world has a problem with them*

EDIT: Oh, you added more... In that case, what is the difference between a "freedom fighter" and a terrorist?
Afghanistan has been invaded, doesnt that mean the people opposing are freedom fighters, rather than terrorists?

seireikhaan

09-16-2008, 00:08

Kadagar_AV

09-16-2008, 00:12

That'd be quite okay, as long as they didn't wreck the place up while they were here, and left once they got their man.

What? We are not allowed to do any "collateral damage"?

Say Russian special forces blew up a house containing a warcriminal, like someone who had fought in Vietnam, and the neighbouring houses blew up too (as is often the case with US bombings, as you might know). Would that be ok?

The Black Ship

09-16-2008, 00:13

Nuke Pakistan. No more problems.

Since your statement has the Swedes calling for the nuking of the US, Caius are you even from the US?

Second, both the Pakistani military and the ISAF claim this never happened.

Third, Afghan reconstruction is alive and well. It might not be as fast as we all would like, but with at least half the population (women) already experiencing a better life-style it would be wrong to say that Afghanistan is worse off. Afghanistan had one of the poorest economies in the world, since like forever, that they're struggling should not surprise anyone.

seireikhaan

09-16-2008, 00:19

What? We are not allowed to do any "collateral damage"?

Say Russian special forces blew up a house containing a warcriminal, like someone who had fought in Vietnam, and the neighbouring houses blew up too (as is often the case with US bombings, as you might know). Would that be ok?
First off: if the Russians payed for the damages in the form of an international 'civil' case, then yes.

Second: Contrary to popular belief, we don't just bomb everything; rather to the contrary as of recently, as we have discovered that the only possible way to deal with terrorists in hiding is through boots on the ground, particularly in desolate, mountainous regions such as Waziristan. So the whole argument for this case is rather ineffectual.

Third, to your point on people not liking Americans: please refer to my previous 'whack-a-mole' statements. You seem to be operating under the belief that America should follow procedure to its own death when its enemies quite clearly do not. I feel that we do not 'owe' Pakistan anything: as far as I'm concerned, they're harboring terrorists, and until there is some kind of actual evidence that they're actually holding up to their end of our deal to help us out, they are simply taking advantage of the US desire for an ally somewhere in the middle east.

ICantSpellDawg

09-16-2008, 00:21

EDIT: Oh, you added more... In that case, what is the difference between a "freedom fighter" and a terrorist?
Afghanistan has been invaded, doesnt that mean the people opposing are freedom fighters, rather than terrorists?

I am reminded of an excellent quote by non other than the vile oppressor and former hydra head Abraham Lincoln :

"The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty."

Kadagar_AV

09-16-2008, 00:32

ICantSpellDawg

09-16-2008, 00:34

makaikhaan, US war criminals dont face international courts... why should others?
*I think all should, I am just interested in your reasoning why america should be an exception*

TuffStuffMcGruff, great quote, now if it only made sence in the current situation too...

I used it in regards to whether or not the taliban and their supporters are terrorists or freedom fighters. I maintain that they are the wolves, seeking only the "freedom" to ravage the sheep.

Kadagar_AV

09-16-2008, 00:42

I used it in regards to whether or not the taliban and their supporters are terrorists or freedom fighters. I maintain that they are the wolves, seeking only the "freedom" to ravage the sheep.

Ok... but are you open to others seeing them as freedom fighters?

Nelson Mandela was also called terrorist, it's quite arbitrary who gets what label these days, you know...

Heck, JESUS was a terrorist according to the Romans, the equivalence of the US when it comes to super power...

Do you think Jesus was a terrorist?

Redleg

09-16-2008, 00:43

makaikhaan, US war criminals dont face international courts... why should others?

I dont expect others to face an international court either, the court of the nation that captures them is acceptable, or as with Saddam a trail by their own people.

*I think all should, I am just interested in your reasoning why america should be an exception*

International law is nothing other then international treaties - they are not enforcable by a soverign government hence they ebb and flow according to how nations desire to deal with each other. The United States has always mainten its national soveriegnity over its soldiers. However ask yourself why there are United States Soldiers serving time in a South Korean prison is you believe we don't allow other nations to prosecute American soldiers. Same can be said of Germany and a few other nations.

TuffStuffMcGruff, great quote, now if it only made sence in the current situation too...

As some who claims to understand the situation in Afganstan - your sadly misinformed about several things. For instance your claim is that a greater burdern is carried by other nations, or as you state "You see, USA long ago gave up on that war, and left other countries to do their dirty job of cleaning up."

Unfortunately for your comment the facts dont really hold up - the United States still has the largest committed force in Afganstan. Yes the United States has asked for help from its allies and many have agreed to assist in the effort, but your claim is in complete error.

CountArach

09-16-2008, 01:14

ICantSpellDawg

09-16-2008, 01:18

Ok... but are you open to others seeing them as freedom fighters?

Nelson Mandela was also called terrorist, it's quite arbitrary who gets what label these days, you know...

Heck, JESUS was a terrorist according to the Romans, the equivalence of the US when it comes to super power...

Do you think Jesus was a terrorist?

Yes - Wolves may see other wolves as freedom fighters against shepherds if you insist.

Romans called Jesus a terrorist? They said that he used terror for his purposes? I had no idea...

KarlXII

09-16-2008, 01:23

Since your statement has the Swedes calling for the nuking of the US

WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE ME????

drone

09-16-2008, 01:36

"The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty."
As much as I like Abe, that quote uses a poor analogy. The end result for the sheep is the same, the shepherd isn't minding the flock out of the kindness of his heart. ~D

And Jesus wasn't a terrorist, he was a hippie trying to shake up the system.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

09-16-2008, 01:44

Nelson Mandela was also called terrorist, it's quite arbitrary who gets what label these days, you know...

Do you think Jesus was a terrorist?

Jesus and Mandela attacked civilian targets of those who opposed them? That's news to me. :dizzy2:

ICantSpellDawg

09-16-2008, 01:55

As much as I like Abe, that quote uses a poor analogy. The end result for the sheep is the same, the shepherd isn't minding the flock out of the kindness of his heart. ~D

And Jesus wasn't a terrorist, he was a hippie trying to shake up the system.

He was a pretty conservative hippie.

seireikhaan

09-16-2008, 01:57

He was a pretty conservative hippie.
Define "conservative", in Jesus' sense.

nice troll job, btw:wink:

ICantSpellDawg

09-16-2008, 02:07

Define "conservative", in Jesus' sense.

nice troll job, btw:wink:

C'mon. He wasn't pulling a Herod Antipas, there is no material evidence that he used drugs. Without the sex and drugs he wouldn't have been much of a hippie at all. He seemed to have been even more intense in many parts of his religious observance than the traditionalists; if your eye, hand, foot offends you with sin cut/pluck them off/out.

Also - we don't know what happened after our second cheek was struck. "If a man strikes you, turn the other cheek" could have been followed by "if they strike the other cheek, drop the mother-effing hammer".

Tribesman

09-16-2008, 02:16

Just wondering , what with all this go across the border and attack the terrorist safe havens stuff in a nominally friendly country , does it remind anyone of another conflict America couldn't win ?

Big_John

09-16-2008, 02:18

jesus and hippies? they both needed to cut their hair and get a job.

Strike For The South

09-16-2008, 02:22

ICantSpellDawg

09-16-2008, 02:25

Just wondering , what with all this go across the border and attack the terrorist safe havens stuff in a nominally friendly country , does it remind anyone of another conflict America couldn't win ?

I was thinking Laos during the American operations in Vietnam, but every situation has unique nooks and crannies. What didn't work for one may work for another.

Please don't say "Madness is doing the same thing and expecting different results". It is never the same thing and you should always expect different results.

Sarmatian

09-16-2008, 02:29

And if "define conservative in Jesus' sense" we've practically solved the problem, right? What the heck Jesus has got to do with US crossing border into Pakistan? :dizzy2:

You guys are thinking too much about morality when you should be thinking about reality. It doesn't matter much if incursion is morally justified if the goal is catching terrorists - what matter is what Pakistanis are going to do.

They're not going to be happy about it and at one point they may decide to test those weapons on their maker. And this is not Iraq or Afghanistan, this is a country that has nuclear weapons, 800,000 sq km territory, 200 million people living in it and 7th largest army in the world. Care should be taken when dealing with such a nation, especially considering that militancy is high after what's been happening in the recent past. US troops rolling across the border would make perfect target to those elements within the country that are looking for one.

Better to play whack-a-mole with a few more terrorists than to try to take head on Pakistani army. Intensify border patrols and use carrot and stick system to get Pakistan to close those camps. It takes time but it is safest and offers the only sustainable solution. Has anyone thought what would happen if let's say US troops get in, destroy all terrorist camps and get out? No? New ones would be made.

So the strategy: get in, destroy, get out has two possible outcomes:

Outcome 1: Pakistanis don't react, in which case camps are reopened very soon after US soldiers leave - it doesn't change anything.
Outcome 2: Pakistan reacts and there is war and many more US soldiers die. And even if America manages to acquire control of Pakistan you get Iraq and Afghanistan times 100 and many more US soldiers die.

To sum up - incursions into Pakistan won't solve anything, won't reduce the risks of US soldiers getting killed (in the best of the best case it might, but only for a short time) and it may lead US army which is already very stretched out into bigger conflicts with the 7th largest military in the world. What those incursions can do, and likely will, is piss of Pakistan, which is in very delicate situation and should be treated very carefully...

ICantSpellDawg

09-16-2008, 02:33

We all know what you think about territorial integrity...

I favor a very cautious approach with respect to borders - particularly of allies, particularly of allies whose support is absolutely necessary to the pursuance of major strategic aims.

However - the reluctance of Pakistan to solve the problem and it's importance to the overall stability of the project in Afghanistan causes a vacuum that needs to be filled by action. It is arguable as to how this will get done.

seireikhaan

09-16-2008, 03:19

C'mon. He wasn't pulling a Herod Antipas, there is no material evidence that he used drugs. Without the sex and drugs he wouldn't have been much of a hippie at all. He seemed to have been even more intense in many parts of his religious observance than the traditionalists; if your eye, hand, foot offends you with sin cut/pluck them off/out.
True, but he also disregarded the letter in other parts, such as not working on the Sabbath, issues about dealing with gentiles, Samaritans, tax collectors etc... Point is, Jesus wasn't really conservative or liberal. But he WAS a hippy, no doubt. :hippy:

Also - we don't know what happened after our second cheek was struck. "If a man strikes you, turn the other cheek" could have been followed by "if they strike the other cheek, drop the mother-effing hammer".
:laugh4:

Tribesman

09-16-2008, 03:28

However - the reluctance of Pakistan to solve the problem
Reluctance ? possibly to a certain extent , though more probably its through the realisation that they like everyone else who tried cannot solve the problem ...and I don't think the US has the faintest idea how to solve the problem of the tribal belt either .

Vladimir

09-16-2008, 14:05

http://govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=40969&dcn=todaysnews

This is a pretty good article I recently read. It should combat a lot of the ignorance thrown around about teh eval Bushie giving up on Afghanistan. Truth is, no one is more committed to the fight.

The article is a bit long but a good read. Seems the bad guys are starting to give up on Iraq and head to Afghanistan. Right behind them are hopefully the first of many reinforcements, from the U.S.

It seems that if anyone has given up on Afghanistan, it is Afghanistan itself. Also the key to winning there, is to strike insurgent sanctuaries in Pakistan.

Kadagar_AV

09-16-2008, 14:34

Jesus and Mandela attacked civilian targets of those who opposed them? That's news to me. :dizzy2:

Mandela did not. Yet he was labeled terrorist, and sent to prison cause of it. Much like many of the "terrorist" in Guantanamo have not "fought" or "attacked civilian targets", but have argued against the US, have had texts supporting freedom fights, and so on... :book:
Or, are you actually saying that everyone in Guantanamo has attacked civilian targets??

Jesus however did...

Matthew 21:12-16
"And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves."

Isn't that attacking a civilian target of the Romans? :oops:

There has been a case study of Jesus as the first terrorist... Written by Björn Kumm, I am unsure if it is translated to english or not.

Vladimir

09-16-2008, 15:47

Dude, you need to stay! I like you. ~;)

Mandela did not. Yet he was labeled terrorist, and sent to prison cause of it. Much like many of the "terrorist" in Guantanamo have not "fought" or "attacked civilian targets", but have argued against the US, have had texts supporting freedom fights, and so on... :book:
Or, are you actually saying that everyone in Guantanamo has attacked civilian targets??

Reeealy? How many people at Gitmo are labeled "terrorists?" How do you know many of those labeled "terrorists" haven't fought, attacked (or planned to attack) civilian targets? Are you saying that people have been imprisoned there for reading books? You must be a very well informed chap. :yes:

Oh, another question: Why didn't you put "freedom fights" in quotes? Did you mean to say freedom fries? :stupido2:

ICantSpellDawg

09-16-2008, 15:50

Mandela did not. Yet he was labeled terrorist, and sent to prison cause of it. Much like many of the "terrorist" in Guantanamo have not "fought" or "attacked civilian targets", but have argued against the US, have had texts supporting freedom fights, and so on... :book:
Or, are you actually saying that everyone in Guantanamo has attacked civilian targets??

Jesus however did...

Matthew 21:12-16
"And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves."

Isn't that attacking a civilian target of the Romans? :oops:

There has been a case study of Jesus as the first terrorist... Written by Björn Kumm, I am unsure if it is translated to english or not.

Oh you got me - a single outburst in which a table is thrown upside down is terrorism if I've ever seen it.

Start a new thread.

Vladimir

09-16-2008, 15:58

http://www.jesuswasaterrorist.net/Apollonius_the_Nazarene_prt1.htm

Apparently divine intervention took down the site! :laugh4:

FactionHeir

09-16-2008, 16:52

Oh you got me - a single outburst in which a table is thrown upside down is terrorism if I've ever seen it.

I imagine people get sent to Guantanamo for similar things. Y'know, single outburst, throwing things.

Its off-topic in regards to cross border invasion and nation sovereignity though.

I think Pakistan has every right to stop the US from attacking its citizens. I mean Mexico isn't sending soldiers to the US to hunt down some escaped aliens now are they? (Of course they couldn't care less, but just for sake of argument :grin:)

Tribesman

09-16-2008, 17:16

Oh you got me - a single outburst in which a table is thrown upside down is terrorism if I've ever seen it.

Actually Kadagar is right , that is an example of using force to disrupt the economy of the empire , no different from calling in a bomb threat to wall street to disturb their trading , well it could be worse as with Jesus confrontation actual violence and damage to property occured where with a bomb threat its just a threat of violence and damage .

Kralizec

09-16-2008, 17:24

Does the transport of goods and people to Afghanistan go through Pakistan?

Either way, killing people on the territory of someone who's supposed to be an ally you depend heavily upon without their consent is really just a messed up idea.

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88

09-16-2008, 18:57

This, ladies and gentleman, is a breakthrough in geopolitical thought! For to many years we have been shackled with problems of the world when the answer has been staring us in the face the whole time. Nuclear weapons the solution to all your petty disagreements.

Sith have you considered running for public office? Your exactly what this country needs a headstrong leader who follows his gut that'll show those people over there. Who are they all high and mighty with there oil walking around in there damn pajamas all day. The Heathens.

Yes I have! Warman8 and Mr.Peanut for US Preisdent in 2008! :laugh4:

I will point americans who don't get why Europeans dislike them to this thread.

As a sidenote, I have had family dying in Afghanistan. NO I am not american, I am Swedish, so was the trooper.

You see, USA long ago gave up on that war, and left other countries to do their dirty job of cleaning up.

So, contrary to, well, 90% of the other posters in this therad, I am up to date with what happens there...

And no, NUKES is not the solution.

I do think the world would be a better place if someone nuked USA, would get some sence of vulnerability back, and, would make them understand what nukes does to people, for generations.

*sigh*

I got very sad when I read this thread.

Also, it creeps me out that the ONLY country ever to have used such a malign weapon as nukes, is the one claiming the morale highground, while their teenage (I hope you are teenage) citizens are screaming for more nukes...

Scary...

How has the US given up on Afghanistan? And Besides, I don't think Europe should talk since they can't take care of Russia (go figure)....

Your Sweds Sure are funny! Remeber How bad these people beat you :beam::

https://img185.imageshack.us/my.php?image=polishhussar8nz2.jpg

( Dad side of the family is Polish)

Maybe We should Nuke Sweden Instead? They seem to not be able losing to Poland in the 1600's quite a bit....

Yes, I am 16, but I still have a brain. How well you thinking I don't know chief, but I'm thinking quite clear. If you just nuke the Middle East....

Oh Wait, I'm just a dumb American Kid that needs to be nuke, forget it :wall: :laugh4:

ICantSpellDawg

09-16-2008, 19:13

Actually Kadagar is right , that is an example of using force to disrupt the economy of the empire , no different from calling in a bomb threat to wall street to disturb their trading , well it could be worse as with Jesus confrontation actual violence and damage to property occured where with a bomb threat its just a threat of violence and damage .

No wonder you hate the right - in your opinion a kid throwing a single rock at a U.S. tank is a terrorist. Everyone is two steps away from being shipped off to guantanamo.

yesdachi

09-16-2008, 19:21

Oh Wait, I'm just a dumb American Kid that needs to be nuke, forget it :wall: :laugh4:

Don’t worry, Kadager wont nuke you he just won’t feel bad if someone else nukes you. :laugh4:

Kadagar_AV

09-16-2008, 19:36

No wonder you hate the right - in your opinion a kid throwing a single rock at a U.S. tank is a terrorist. Everyone is two steps away from being shipped off to guantanamo.

Well... to be quite honest, you dont even need to throw a rock to be shipped to Guantanamo...

Have you heard the story of the swedish guy? He was released after 3 years in Guantanamo...

He never even got to know what he was accused of.

He had a long beard and islamic litterature though.

Vladimir

09-16-2008, 19:51

Well... to be quite honest, you dont even need to throw a rock to be shipped to Guantanamo...

Have you heard the story of the swedish guy? He was released after 3 years in Guantanamo...

He never even got to know what he was accused of.

He had a long beard and islamic litterature though.

Yea, that one guy, with the thing, that did the other thing, who was a, you know...

Kadagar_AV

09-16-2008, 20:15

http://www.bokus.com/b/9789173430869.html

only in swedish though.

I am sure some other swedes can verify this story in true.

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88

09-16-2008, 20:42

Kadagar_AV

09-16-2008, 20:45

One Less Potental Radical Muslim out there,right?

He was more like a the average Joe.... Just at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Otherwise they would not have let him go.

However, spending 2,5 years in prison, with torture and stuff, not even knowing what you are accused of... There is only ONE western country that can happen in... USA.

Are you proud?

:elephant::elephant::elephant::elephant::elephant::elephant::elephant::elephant:

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88

09-16-2008, 21:04

Tribesman

09-16-2008, 21:51

One Less Potental Radical Muslim out there,right?

Wrong , its stuff like that which makes lots of real radical muslims .

in your opinion a kid throwing a single rock at a U.S. tank is a terrorist.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Thats a military tartget isn't it , I thought the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter was that the former only attacked civilian targets :2thumbsup:

How has the US given up on Afghanistan?
Where have you been this century ? They gave up when they didn't fully exploit the very narrow window of opertunity , now that window has closed they are just pissing in the wind with no purpose .

Kadagar_AV

09-16-2008, 21:52

Again.... and americans wonder why they are hated.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

09-16-2008, 22:04

Again.... and americans wonder why they are hated.

If you hate Americans, you're blind. :bow:

ICantSpellDawg

09-16-2008, 22:48

Again.... and americans wonder why they are hated.

Why? Because we lash out at crazy people who believe that a nuclear attack against America would make the world a better place?

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88

09-16-2008, 23:08

Wrong , its stuff like that which makes lots of real radical muslims .

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Thats a military tartget isn't it , I thought the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter was that the former only attacked civilian targets :2thumbsup:

Where have you been this century ? They gave up when they didn't fully exploit the very narrow window of opertunity , now that window has closed they are just pissing in the wind with no purpose .

Ah Tribes, I been waiting for you to quote some of my posts :yes:.

No, Where have you been? Last time I checked, we been doing most of the work, since Europe can't do anything....

Also, Muslims turn radical because of their comrades, not us.

Again.... and americans wonder why they are hated.

By people like you who thinks America should be nuked.... yea, you make sense :laugh4:

Tribesman

09-17-2008, 01:41

Also, Muslims turn radical because of their comrades, not us.

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Yes the nutters do it all by themselves , they would never rant about how they shed blood fighting the communists for America and were then abandoned , neither would they rant about America supporting corrupt and murderous dictatorships in their countries , they certainly wouldn't get pissed if someone bombed the hell out of their countries over a pile of obvious lies and they most definately wouldn't become radical over someone who preaches about freedom democracy and justice kidnapping and torturing people then detaining them for years on the basis of the whims of a half wit president .
You are right as usual Warman ,the people are radicalised by nothing at all that the west does .

Last time I checked, we been doing most of the work, since Europe can't do anything....

If the work is counter productive then it would be best if you didn't bother . Just about every single thing the US military planners said not to do in Afghanistan unless you want to turn it into a waste of time the administration has gone ahead and done .
You have an absolute bunch of muppets calling the shots and while I understand that your military is sort of obliged to follow its comander in chief I can't believe so many european nations bothered making any contribution at all .
When their initial offers after 9/11 were turned down because America thought it could do Afghanistan by itself they should never have stepped in when America made a complete balls of it in a very short time .

ICantSpellDawg

09-17-2008, 01:57

When their initial offers after 9/11 were turned down because America thought it could do Afghanistan by itself they should never have stepped in when America made a complete balls of it in a very short time .

That's why the Irish aren't a part of NATO. You're entitled to your own opinion, but it isn't shared by the rest of your responsible European brothers and sisters. The Irish have become a bunch of security freeloaders - what happened? I used to be so proud of my ancestral homeland.

Freeloaded off of the European Economic Community and now you are successful - Congratulations! and may everyone else burn.

And then , to add insult to injury - you're toys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Defence_Forces) are crappy and few so you have to step on our toys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO)(or these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_military)) and make fun.

I'm glad that we have Banquo on these forums. If Ireland was left with you as it's ambassador this forum might think it was somewhere in between Venezuela and Cuba.

Samurai Waki

09-17-2008, 02:11

It seems that so many people base opinion from emotion, fear, or ignorance. So many decisions are made without paying heed to those consequences which can be formed because of the opinion. I dislike this war just as much as everyone else does, I think anger and fear drove the US into making some pretty tough moral decisions, which put and has continued to put thousands (if not millions of lives now) in jeopardy. However, the US like any sovereign (democratic) nation has that right, and it has the obligation to support and defend the masses both internally and externally using whatever means it deems necessary.

Sweden may have its own problems some day, and it will need to respond. And there leadership will make mistakes, and there will be people wondering why not just nuke them? I know historically speaking, more than one nation if it had access to nuclear weapons would've done just that.

The Same goes for Ireland. And I've met a few people on both sides of the Troubles who wouldn't have cared, just because they hated each other that much.

Its all bollocks.

Sarmatian

09-17-2008, 02:46

However, the US like any sovereign (democratic) nation has that right, and it has the obligation to support and defend the masses both internally and externally using whatever means it deems necessary.

This is too much authority for any one nation...

Evil_Maniac From Mars

09-17-2008, 03:08

This is too much authority for any one nation...

It is the ultimate in realpolitik, and I could hardly criticize the United States for attempting to practice a policy I believe in.

CrossLOPER

09-17-2008, 04:32

It is the ultimate in realpolitik, and I could hardly criticize the United States for attempting to practice a policy I believe in.It's a lot easier to believe when you're not "an area of interest".

Banquo's Ghost

09-17-2008, 07:17

That's why the Irish aren't a part of NATO. You're entitled to your own opinion, but it isn't shared by the rest of your responsible European brothers and sisters. The Irish have become a bunch of security freeloaders - what happened? I used to be so proud of my ancestral homeland.

The Republic's commitment to neutrality is a significant thread in our history. It is a philosophy very much in line with that of the United States prior to Pearl Harbour. Rather than derail this thread any further, and as it is subject I have been thinking about for some time, I'll start a new thread when I get back later today.

Tribesman

09-17-2008, 09:26

That's why the Irish aren't a part of NATO. You're entitled to your own opinion, but it isn't shared by the rest of your responsible European brothers and sisters.
It isn't responsible for a government to join a madcap scheme after someone has already made a balls of it Tuff .

The Irish have become a bunch of security freeloaders - what happened?
Actually the IDF have a habit of getting sent to places where the US screwed up and then turned tail , like Lebanon and Somalia .

And then , to add insult to injury - you're toys are crappy and few so you have to step on our toys(or these) and make fun.

Yes terrible isn't it :laugh4::laugh4:, rubbish though our government is at least it doesn't waste huge amounts of money on unneeded toys . Though I do miss the Irish air corps fighter squadron display at the Salthill airshow now , them Magisters put on a much more entertaining display than the Thunderbirds , all the more entertaining when you consider that they were doing it in museum pieces that even the French and Belgians retired 40 years ago.:yes:

The Republic's commitment to neutrality is a significant thread in our history.
That wouldn't be the little thing involving the stupidity of a pointlesss war that was triggered by countries being in alliances and having to follow each other on a path of massive death , destruction and financial ruin over a small insignificant incident in a far off country with lots of crazy seperatist terrorists of different flavours would it .

Mikeus Caesar

09-17-2008, 11:23

I'm so proud, i've made a backroom thread with more than 1 page. My life is complete.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

09-17-2008, 13:09

It's a lot easier to believe when you're not "an area of interest".

Well, if you're getting screwed over, do something realistic to stop what's going on. It works both ways.

CrossLOPER

09-17-2008, 14:21

Well, if you're getting screwed over, do something realistic to stop what's going on. It works both ways.
Fire wildly into the air? :shrug:

Sarmatian

09-17-2008, 15:17

It is the ultimate in realpolitik, and I could hardly criticize the United States for attempting to practice a policy I believe in.

Bah, the same lines could be used to justify the need for Lebensraum. Realpolitik works fine and is a decent concept but within certain limits...

rory_20_uk

09-17-2008, 16:52

I'm with Tribesman.

People are not being sent to court where they are tried for their crimes with use of such things as evidence and due process. They (along with many around them who are often children) are killed from afar as one country says they're terrorists - with no recource to international or local justice or even evidence.

Of course this is going to make things worse - but it quick and simple in the short term, which is all that appears to matter. Taking to court and proving anything is long and expensive.

I fail to see how "winning" is supposed to occur. Invading, bombing and killing with the occasional "look, we've rebuilt your school - aren't we nice?" can be answered by "yes, and filled the cemetary..." will mean that on withdrawl there's no much distrust and dislike against a country that only a few years ago most will not have even heard of any terrorist organisation will have plentiful supplies of eager recruits.

Yes, nothing is better than this.

~:smoking:

Evil_Maniac From Mars

09-17-2008, 22:22

Fire wildly into the air? :shrug:

If that's what you do best. ~;)

Bah, the same lines could be used to justify the need for Lebensraum. Realpolitik works fine and is a decent concept but within certain limits...

Well, the Lebensraum idea was both unnecessary and backfired, and was therefore not realpolitik. Realpolitik is realism. If you can realistically do something and gain from it, and it is necessary, go ahead. Lebensraum was not a realistic goal, or necessary.

KarlXII

09-17-2008, 22:53

How has the US given up on Afghanistan? And Besides, I don't think Europe should talk since they can't take care of Russia (go figure)....

Europe needs to take care of Russia? :dizzy2:

Your Sweds Sure are funny! Remeber How bad these people beat you :beam::

https://img185.imageshack.us/my.php?image=polishhussar8nz2.jpg

Depends on what you're talking about, seeing as the Swedes have defeated the Polish quite a number of times. Russia was what broke the Empire, as it later did to Poland :juggle2:.

Maybe We should Nuke Sweden Instead? They seem to not be able losing to Poland in the 1600's quite a bit....

Make that Poland-Lithuania. Besides, if the nuking of Sweden is justified through wars fought back 400 years ago, you may also want to nuke Poland, England, Spain, France, Russia, Denmark, Germany, Norway, Holland, Belgium, to name a few countries that have lost wars in the past 400 years.....

It's funny, at least to me, that Sweden still remained sovereign after it's many wars, even after losing to Russia, yet Poland....well....must I go on?

Yes, I am 16, but I still have a brain. How well you thinking I don't know chief, but I'm thinking quite clear. If you just nuke the Middle East....

You'll A. Turn the place into glass B. Kill a lot of people (apparently you could care less anyway) and C. Probabaly turn to cannibalism after comitting such barbarity.

Makes me glad you're only 16.

Oh Wait, I'm just a dumb American Kid that needs to be nuke, forget it :wall: :laugh4:

Apparently you're the one who wants to do all the nuking......

Redleg

09-18-2008, 02:03

He was more like a the average Joe.... Just at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Otherwise they would not have let him go.

However, spending 2,5 years in prison, with torture and stuff, not even knowing what you are accused of... There is only ONE western country that can happen in... USA.

Are you proud?

:elephant::elephant::elephant::elephant::elephant::elephant::elephant::elephant:

Dont kid yourself, there are infact other western nations where that can happen. Several European's in Gitmo ended up there with the aid of the Western government in Europe. When you speak in absolutes about rendition be very careful because the plane doesn't land or go through airspace without the knowledge of the government that controls the airspace

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88

09-18-2008, 22:55

Europe needs to take care of Russia? :dizzy2:

Depends on what you're talking about, seeing as the Swedes have defeated the Polish quite a number of times. Russia was what broke the Empire, as it later did to Poland :juggle2:.

Make that Poland-Lithuania. Besides, if the nuking of Sweden is justified through wars fought back 400 years ago, you may also want to nuke Poland, England, Spain, France, Russia, Denmark, Germany, Norway, Holland, Belgium, to name a few countries that have lost wars in the past 400 years.....

It's funny, at least to me, that Sweden still remained sovereign after it's many wars, even after losing to Russia, yet Poland....well....must I go on?

You'll A. Turn the place into glass B. Kill a lot of people (apparently you could care less anyway) and C. Probabaly turn to cannibalism after comitting such barbarity.

Makes me glad you're only 16.

Apparently you're the one who wants to do all the nuking......

You forget to add Sweden to the country that losts wars in the past 400 years that needs to be nuke. Must have bad memory :juggle2:

Doesn't matter. Poland also did quite of bit of winning/work during their heyday, including beating Sweden. Plus, I didn't see Sweden At Vienna 1683. :idea2:. We did the work then, not Sweden. (lets contiune this in Montasy shall we?)

I have no regret about my nuking comments. If A lot of people die, so be it. They have no problem killing innocent people, so, just return the favour.

You happy I'm only 16? Yes, and you can't admit my logical decison is the way to go. Typical Responce of a Liberal 30 something year old from Europe.

And What is this about France opening up to a lot of Muslims? I guess the French are still upset France isn't the superpower it once was, so it's letting in Muslims to try to boast it's name again. :juggle2:

And Besides, Sweden is by Russia, try looking at a map sometime. I think your country has some problems to worry about other then some American Kid. :yes:

f the work is counter productive then it would be best if you didn't bother . Just about every single thing the US military planners said not to do in Afghanistan unless you want to turn it into a waste of time the administration has gone ahead and done .
You have an absolute bunch of muppets calling the shots and while I understand that your military is sort of obliged to follow its comander in chief I can't believe so many european nations bothered making any contribution at all .
When their initial offers after 9/11 were turned down because America thought it could do Afghanistan by itself they should never have stepped in when America made a complete balls of it in a very short time .

Doesn't Matter. Europe doesn't do anything. Look at WWII, Britian and the Rest of them just sat back and enjoyed Mr.Hitler's show.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

09-18-2008, 23:20

Doesn't Matter. Europe doesn't do anything. Look at WWII, Britian and the Rest of them just sat back and enjoyed Mr.Hitler's show.

Jim Hacker: Napoleon Prize?
Bill (Foreign Secretary): Yes, it's a NATO award given once every five years, big ceremony in Brussels, gold medal, £100 000. The PM's the front runner this time, it's for the statesman who's made the biggest contribution to European unity.
Sir Humphrey: Since Napoleon, that is if you don't count Hitler.

~;)

CrossLOPER

09-19-2008, 00:13

Well, the Lebensraum idea was both unnecessary and backfired, and was therefore not realpolitik.
NOTHING IS NECESSARY.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

09-19-2008, 00:14

NOTHING IS NECESSARY.

We've crossed the line from politics to philosophy with this statement.

KarlXII

09-19-2008, 00:32

You forget to add Sweden to the country that losts wars in the past 400 years that needs to be nuke. Must have bad memory :juggle2:

I included other countries with Sweden. Maybe you could read it again.

Doesn't matter. Poland also did quite of bit of winning/work during their heyday, including beating Sweden. Plus, I didn't see Sweden At Vienna 1683. :idea2:. We did the work then, not Sweden. (lets contiune this in Montasy shall we?)

So? You fought the Ottomans in 1683, the Swedes had their own country to worry about. I'll gladly take it to the Monastery if you wish to continue bringing up the Miracle of Vienna (I guess that;s what you'd call it, seeig as it's been the only Polish miracle in the last 400 years, but I digress.)

I have no regret about my nuking comments. If A lot of people die, so be it. They have no problem killing innocent people, so, just return the favour.

You really are twisted, aren't you? You believe, to defeat those who bomb civilian targets, we mus tbomb civilians in return? Are you kidding me?

You happy I'm only 16? Yes, and you can't admit my logical decison is the way to go. Typical Responce of a Liberal 30 something year old from Europe.

Your logical decision? How is it logical to nuke civilians?

Oh, and A. I'm American-Swedish
B. I consider myself fairly Independant on the political scale.
C. I'm not 30

And What is this about France opening up to a lot of Muslims? I guess the French are still upset France isn't the superpower it once was, so it's letting in Muslims to try to boast it's name again. :juggle2:

How does that work? You're somehow a superpower with Muslims?

And Besides, Sweden is by Russia, try looking at a map sometime. I think your country has some problems to worry about other then some American Kid. :yes:

Glad you care, but I doubt Russia wants anything to do with Sweden.

I do worry about you, the 16 year old who advocates the intentional nuking of civilians.

Doesn't Matter. Europe doesn't do anything. Look at WWII, Britian and the Rest of them just sat back and enjoyed Mr.Hitler's show.

Battle of France- BEF, Dunkirk
Battle of Britain- RAF vs Luftwaffe
Battle of the Atlantic- Convoys
North African Campaign- Cyrenia campaign, El Alamein, Libya, Tunisia
Italian Campaign- Sicily, Monte Cassino etc.
Western Front- Gold/Sword Beach, Caen

I guess you should be glad you don't live in Coventry. I suggest you put down the penis measuring device and pick up a few books.

Sarmatian

09-19-2008, 01:05

Doesn't matter. Poland also did quite of bit of winning/work during their heyday, including beating Sweden. Plus, I didn't see Sweden At Vienna 1683. :idea2:. We did the work then, not Sweden. (lets contiune this in Montasy shall we?)

Fascinating, I've thought all eyewitnesses of the Siege of Vienna were long dead. Who did you see at Vienna in 1683?

On a related note, why do people give all credit to Poland for the battle of Vienna? What about Austrians? It's not like they ran off and let the Poles fight Ottomans. It reminds me of a joke when 3 guys want to cross the border without passports and the police officer tells them he'll only let them cross if together their penises are longer than 50cm. First guy takes it out - 22cm, second guy - 26cm. They all look at the third and last guy - 3cm. All together 51cm. On the other side of the border the third guy turns to the other two and says: "You two should thank me, we wouldn't have made if I didn't have an erection".

Strike For The South

09-19-2008, 01:14

You forget to add Sweden to the country that losts wars in the past 400 years that needs to be nuke. Must have bad memory :juggle2:

Doesn't matter. Poland also did quite of bit of winning/work during their heyday, including beating Sweden. Plus, I didn't see Sweden At Vienna 1683. :idea2:. We did the work then, not Sweden. (lets contiune this in Montasy shall we?)

I have no regret about my nuking comments. If A lot of people die, so be it. They have no problem killing innocent people, so, just return the favour.

You happy I'm only 16? Yes, and you can't admit my logical decison is the way to go. Typical Responce of a Liberal 30 something year old from Europe.

And What is this about France opening up to a lot of Muslims? I guess the French are still upset France isn't the superpower it once was, so it's letting in Muslims to try to boast it's name again. :juggle2:

And Besides, Sweden is by Russia, try looking at a map sometime. I think your country has some problems to worry about other then some American Kid. :yes:

Doesn't Matter. Europe doesn't do anything. Look at WWII, Britian and the Rest of them just sat back and enjoyed Mr.Hitler's show.

I find it utterly deplorable you take pride in Polish achievement. You are an American.

Lord Winter

09-19-2008, 04:10

I'm tired of hearing about Polish nationalism. I don't care how much you twist history to make the poles to look like gods but they weren't. They where human, they lost, they argued they bickered, yes they also won but they have flaws like everyone else back then. Isn't the first world war enough of an example to what happens with blind nationalism.

As for the bombings of civillians, are you crazy? Is it worth saving 10,000 people defined only by where they live if we must kill 100 million? Honestly patriotism is useless is we lose our humanity.

Doesn't Matter. Europe doesn't do anything. Look at WWII, Britian and the Rest of them just sat back and enjoyed Mr.Hitler's show.

More revisionist history Britian was doing what they could they were under a lot of preasure. Besides Russia won the war not the U.S. efforts.