Can America finish terrorism alone ?

[Bereta_Eder]

Facts stay:

US only wants:

_To push its interests abraod. It doesn matter how many are killed by doing it. Unless there is a too big backlash against her in which time, it will stop.

_Protect its own people. This doesnt mean protect Indians or anyone else. If with her actions it does, so much the better, if by its actions it makes more Indians be killed, sorry.


clear goat mama teddy? it's the supreme irony you calling me a piece of ****. check it out on the dictionary.


now in what regards Pakistan, I see that Indians are begining to understand very clearly.

The domino is clear:

US wanted to satiate its bloodlust and confirm that still has the power to do so (as a sidenot these are clear signals of "imperial" decay)

Pakistan found itslef on a tight spot. So did the US.

US collaborated with the terrorism backing dictator in order to be in a easier position to drop some bombs.


collaborate with dictators and terrorists is not a first for her.


Now Pakistan said: damn if i dont colaborate those ruthless maniacs (like he's an angel) could start dropping bombs on me too

So he did.


But by doing so he wanted something in return.

main interest pressuring India.

US has no intention of screwing you up (it doesnt have anything to gain for the moment) but as long as it needs pakistan it will do so by giving it geopolitical clout.


this is the way it works.



dont try to see it "rationally" or based on democracy or human rights.
US doesnt operate like that.

few countries do, but the US prefers to have no social state if it means more bombs. so more damage. and more profits to the big corps.

it operates based on interests.

think of it like a beast: if it can it will do, if it hurts it will not.

[aneeshm]

The VHP is not a terrorist group , even though some of it's stances on issues make them seem like such . They are a political party (some of whose menbers may have been involved in inciting riots , though nothing can be confirmed) .

I don't support them (or any party biased by religion) .

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
actually it was an ideology before Bin laden. AQ is itself rooted in the world of Pakistani jihadism, and the jihadi - deobandie madrassahs of Northwest pakistan. Which were associated with various pakistani groups that engaged in terrorist violence. Similarly Salafist violence was involved in the Algerian civil war, and a similar civil war in Egypt, which started with the Murder of Sadat. Bin ladens innovation was to take the war directly to the "infidels", instead of focusing on their "puppets". The ideological roots go far back as well, and include Sayed Qutb and the Egyptian Islamic brotherhoods, and other extremist interpreters of Wahabism.

Most of the madrasahs in Pakistan, Afghistan, and Indonesia were founded and funded by Saudi money. The Saudis have been trying to export their proto-facist Wahabism for decades.

[aneeshm]

And , sad to say , they seem to have succeeded .

[aneeshm]

That , in reply to paiktis , is why so few of the third world and Middle Eastern nations are supporting the US actions . And that is why America is unlikely to find many allies in it's future raids/wars .

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by paiktis22
Facts stay:

Shut up, poodle boy.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by aneeshm
That , in reply to paiktis , is why so few of the third world and Middle Eastern nations are supporting the US actions . And that is why America is unlikely to find many allies in it's future raids/wars .

There is antiamericanism all over the globe but it is located with white hot fury in middle east and parts of africa. teh reasons are much much older. it has to do with israel and its continuous support to it despite the thousand of palestinian civilian deaths.

US tries to have good relations with the governments of these countries. if they are dictatorships, it's better because if they are democracies they would hear more the opinions of the people who are very antiamerican.


europe just thinks in terms of what it can get - thats the first "principle"

and it also doesnt agree with the US on the way to handle things. that's second.

[chequita guevara]

USA! USA! USA!

[MrFun]

Actually, the puppet dictatorships that the United States set up was part of the anti-communist Cold War era policy.

[Arrian]

Who are you, and what have you done with Che?

CHE! CAN YOU HEAR ME?!? SHOULD I CALL 9-1-1?

-Arrian

[Bereta_Eder]

MrFun, cold war was sometimes the reason, some times an excellent excuse to put up a pupet regime that would sell her things.

it still does it and there's no cold war.


but maybe i should leave che do the talking because it doesnt seem nice for me critisizing another country.

[MrFun]

I'm surprised Che is acting like a hyper-patriot.

Usually he's more intelligent than that.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by aneeshm
That , in reply to paiktis , is why so few of the third world and Middle Eastern nations are supporting the US actions . And that is why America is unlikely to find many allies in it's future raids/wars .

Other than the invasion of iraq, what US raids wars are there that 3rd world and Mid eastern nations are not supporting?

[aneeshm]

We all have to look to our own best interests . What gets me is the USA's persistent refusal to see their own . To finish one dictator , you support five . A few decades later , you have five more to deal with . AND five times the resistance and terrorism . Isn't this obvious ?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MrFun
I'm surprised Che is acting like a hyper-patriot.

Usually he's more intelligent than that.

I think he was being sarcastic.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by aneeshm
We all have to look to our own best interests . What gets me is the USA's persistent refusal to see their own . To finish one dictator , you support five . A few decades later , you have five more to deal with . AND five times the resistance and terrorism . Isn't this obvious ?

To finish with the Taliban we supported Pakistan, and a couple of central asian nasties. But we didnt go into afghanistan to create democracy as much as to deal with Al qaeeda - we had to do that, it wasnt an option. And, BTW perv is not nearly as bad a regime as the taliban.

In iraq where have we supported any dictators we hadng been supporting already - indeed going into Iraq makes us LESS dependent on Saudi Arabia.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by aneeshm
We all have to look to our own best interests . What gets me is the USA's persistent refusal to see their own . To finish one dictator , you support five . A few decades later , you have five more to deal with . AND five times the resistance and terrorism . Isn't this obvious ?

Maybe it thinks that it wll not have to deal with them.

Osama and his thugs were supported by the US though when Afganis were fighting the USSR.

Spread/plant winds and you will harvest tornadoes, (i dont know how to translate this little phrase better in english)

[aneeshm]

But that hardly justifies anything . Covert ops could have gotten rid of the Taliban better that any war . It would also not have involved bribing Musharraf . And don't forget , 9/11 was funded , at least in part , by saudi money .

Concerning Iraq , "He may be a SOB , but he's our SOB ."

[Arrian]

Not anymore, he's not.

And though we did business with him, he wasn't really "our SOB." He got even more goodies from the Soviets.

Dunno why I'm quibbling, though, since I generally agree that we shouldn't have "our SOBs" at all.

-Arrian

[Bereta_Eder]

And it is true that we'll all have to look for our best interests. it's good to realize sometimes that our interests is for our neighboor to be ok too. a little thing i like about the european union is that it has come to this realization for its members. although it took attrocities to happen to finally accept this little fact.

[aneeshm]

And the translation is "You have sown the wind , now you shall reap the whirlwind ."

It's happening everywhere , you give me one dictator who is causing problems now , America have interfered in the past .

This is not to blame anyone , just that change is required . You have to consider the people whom you liberate .

[Flubber]

Originally posted by aneeshm
In my opinion , no nation , not even the sole superpower , can do this alone .

I agree. In fact I don't think terrorism could be eliminated even if every nation on earth was working against it.

[Bereta_Eder]

Eliminating its source will take a long time but it is not unfeasable IMHO.

Punching wildly at the water will not do it though. You have to go to the source of the river and stop it.

What's the use in celebrating the Bali killer conviction if there's 1 million other people behind him ready to take his place?


I think this fundamentalism is a new (rather sick) "ideology" like many others before it. Its emergance is why the world will not be the same again. And it had been predicted by bright minds of sociopolitical sciences a long time ago.

But it mainly has to do with the US. Other people have other problems, many times the US is one of them.

I'll be sure to remember Chile as well as WTC tomorrow.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by aneeshm
But that hardly justifies anything . Covert ops could have gotten rid of the Taliban better that any war .
."

I doubt that very much. As it was we tried using covert ops with the Pashtuns in the South. Seems they werent willing to turn on the Taliban till they saw the Taliban actually losing militarily.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by paiktis22
Eliminating its source will take a long time but it is not unfeasable IMHO.

Punching wildly at the water will not do it though. You have to go to the source of the river and stop it.

What's the use in celebrating the Bali killer conviction if there's 1 million other people behind him ready to take his place?

.

cause the bali killer had a strategy. to attack the indonesian economy - to fight against economic growth and democracy, the very things that will stop the river at its source. If the Indon economy collapses, there will be more than 1 million to take his place. If it improves, and indon becomes better, there will be far fewer.

[Bereta_Eder]

for the economy to get better, maybe some "superpowers" and some others should stop exploiting it and its rich people in that country not getting richer while the poor get poorer?

who are sponsoring terrorism?

[aneeshm]

Though I'm not directly blaming the US , even they have to admit thay have funded half their own problems . Osama , Saddam , and better believe me now , Musharraf in the future , not to forget Saudi Arabia , have heen key people/nations , and all have gotten help from the US one way or another .

Whan I say covert ops , I mean assassination of the terrorist leadership . War makes the terrorists seem important to the rest of the world .

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by paiktis22
for the economy to get better, maybe some "superpowers" and some others should stop exploiting it and its rich people in that country not getting richer while the poor get poorer?

who are sponsoring terrorism?

Of course you consider setting up factories and providing jobs to be explotation.

[aneeshm]

Just for the record , saddam restored power within one month of gulf war 1 . The americans ave not done it even now (ot fully) .

[DanS]

Saddam hadn't restored power fully 12 years after the end of Gulf War I.