Taliban threat

[LlamaNamedOsama]

well read this maybe will refresh your memory...

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

Thank you :icon_rolleyes:

 

[DeletedUser66088]

You forgot to add free and Catholic :icon_wink: Religion played it's fair share in the troubles in N. Ireland

religon was not the cause they fought for. hence my point.:icon_wink:

 

[RED BROODER]

The IRA's cause was to blow up the English

The Talibans is to blow up America

If what your saying is 'the IRA had a cause so blowing up inocent people is ok' so why is the talibans cause not ok?

Im not saying it is but how can you say blowing up an Englishman/woman for a cause is ok. But blowing up a Yank is not?

England occupied Ireland & they are fighting to be free but the case is opposite in taliban-USA case.

 

[RED BROODER]

Their main goal (the Islamic terrorists, Al Qaeda, Taliban) is reform the once great, and once most feared empire of the world, the Caliphate empire.

The Irish wanted independence, just like our founding fathers wanted, just as the Indians (India) wanted, the Frenchies, Russians, Greeks ect.

Agree with you

 

[RED BROODER]

um lilfatjoey i have studied history and know of many great empires... Persian, Ottoman, Songhai, Mongolian, Roman, (arguably Viking or Macedonian).... i have never heard of the Caliphate empire and dont think it is the greatest ever if its not even famous.... (also the most feared would be the Hunnic or Mongolian because of the ruthless leaders of Atila and Genghis)

It did exist,its called the Golden era in Islam. When the caliphate empire was at its zenith before Genghis Khan destroyed it.

 

[DeletedUser]

If we had delayed they would have had it & started firing it(nuclear tip-head) or blackmailing the world to dance to Iraq's tune. Now North Korea has nuclear bombs,what do anti-war people suggest? how do we neutralize the threat?

North Korea isn't a 'threat' to be 'neutralized'. This kind of line from the neo-cons just fuels North Korea's paranoia.

Nuclear 'blackmail' doesn't work. Let me refer you to America's age-old doctrine of MAD. There will never be a situation where a state has more to gain my employing nuclear weapons aggressively than there would be to lose in response.

Or are you referring to to some 'mad' leader? Mad enough to sign both his and his country's death warrant? Yet mad enough to retain control of a proto-nuclear state dancing rings around the international community? If such a fictitious leader existed who wanted to enact some great revenge on the West it wouldn't be through the nuclear route anyway. Think assassination, think biological weapons.

If you're interested in the role of nuclear weapons in international relations theory for a post-cold-war era I thoroughly recommend this book.

(Incidentally, nuclear weapons are a long shot away from the dooms day devices as portrayed in the media. Crucially they're fairly limited in blast radius and radiation contamination.)

 

[DeletedUser]

The mongols would trash the Huns. Ghengis was a tactical genious. The only man ever to come even close to his genious was hitler. ( not saying I support hitler, but he was a genious) " the only difference between a genious and a maniac is his audiance

Hitler was no military genius, his early successes came from his generals making use of superior tank tactics to hit Poland/France faster than was thought possible. The French defensive strategy was based on a line of static defences on the German border. Germany simply went through Belgium to avoid them and had made it to Paris before anyone could react.

Hitler's military decisions arguably cost Germany the war. He declared on Russia, then when it seemed the German forces would reach Moscow and end the war in the first few months he ordered the army to turn around to take Kiev. This delay meant they eventually reached Moscow in the middle of winter, and due to Hitler's 'genius' they had no supplies for cold weather and were routed by the Russians and slowly forced back.

Hitler spent the last year of the war ordering fictitious armies about a map that no longer had any bearing on reality. He may have been a political genius but as a military commander he was pretty poor.

 

[DeletedUser66088]

i enjoyed learning about the blitzkrieg and the french defence. was qute intruiging. the americans used the blitzkrieg method in iraq.

 

[DeletedUser]

England occupied Ireland & they are fighting to be free but the case is opposite in taliban-USA case.

How? Taliban wants to be free of American oppression, in their own way. As said the Taliban wants to resurrect an Islamic state within that region combining Pakistan Afghanistan and Iran and if they could, a whole lot more. America is oppressing that, rightly or wrongly.

The fact is American involvement has aggravated the middle east for 50+ years, due to the idiotic way they created Israel. They also funded the IRA causing a 25+ year guerrilla war. Funded Osama Bin Laden in the Soviet-afghan war, which has now lead to the whole of the Western world being on constant alert of Islamic terrorist threats and attacks. I could go on but to be honest that is enough for anyone.

 

[RED BROODER]

How? Taliban wants to be free of American oppression, in their own way. As said the Taliban wants to resurrect an Islamic state within that region combining Pakistan Afghanistan and Iran and if they could, a whole lot more. America is oppressing that, rightly or wrongly.

The fact is American involvement has aggravated the middle east for 50+ years, due to the idiotic way they created Israel. They also funded the IRA causing a 25+ year guerrilla war. Funded Osama Bin Laden in the Soviet-afghan war, which has now lead to the whole of the Western world being on constant alert of Islamic terrorist threats and attacks. I could go on but to be honest that is enough for anyone.

I dnt want to argue on US policies,i knw they are for the greater good of this world. Btw Israel was created by the British & not America.

 

[DeletedUser70293]

Israel was a product of both Britain and America. (Among other nations?)

 

[DeletedUser]

You dont need to argue over politics, But us brits will always be recentful over the US helping the IRA, but when it happens to them, they demand sympathy/help.

You occupied Iraq, we wont comment over the oil over there :icon_biggrin:, but afganistan doesnt get as much troop presence, I wonder why :icon_rolleyes:

 

[DeletedUser70293]

You dont need to argue over politics, But us brits will always be recentful over the US helping the IRA, but when it happens to them, they demand sympathy/help.

You occupied Iraq, we wont comment over the oil over there :icon_biggrin:, but afganistan doesnt get as much troop presence, I wonder why :icon_rolleyes:

? Troop levels are increasing by 50,000 troops.

Oil deals took place, and yet US companies took the back stage.

 

[DeletedUser]

? Troop levels are increasing by 50,000 troops.

Oil deals took place, and yet US companies took the back stage.

US foreign policy merely ensures the oil will be available on the Western market. This has been the case since the 1973 oil crisis. Whether or not US firms are directly involved is irrelevant.

 

[DeletedUser]

I dnt want to argue on US policies,i knw they are for the greater good of this world. Btw Israel was created by the British & not America.

Well thats totally wrong I had family who served in Palastine when Israel was created. The fact is I said the idiotic way Israel was created, if you read up, not that it was indeed created. Something needed to be done and a nation of Israel was needed to be formed.

Britain wanted to drip feed Jewish settlers into the area. Secondly wanted set up Jerusalem as a seperate state that would be controlled independantly so that it was not fought over by different religions.

America wanted to dump a huge amount of populace on the area at once as the area 'belonged' to the Jewish people so had ownership.

Of course Britain was rotting from the inside out and its Empire collapsing so had very little say in the matter.

 

[DeletedUser74857]

Hitler was no military genius, his early successes came from his generals making use of superior tank tactics to hit Poland/France faster than was thought possible. The French defensive strategy was based on a line of static defences on the German border. Germany simply went through Belgium to avoid them and had made it to Paris before anyone could react.

Hitler's military decisions arguably cost Germany the war. He declared on Russia, then when it seemed the German forces would reach Moscow and end the war in the first few months he ordered the army to turn around to take Kiev. This delay meant they eventually reached Moscow in the middle of winter, and due to Hitler's 'genius' they had no supplies for cold weather and were routed by the Russians and slowly forced back.

Hitler spent the last year of the war ordering fictitious armies about a map that no longer had any bearing on reality. He may have been a political genius but as a military commander he was pretty poor.

Hitler's failure was not because of his military inteligence. It was because he couldn't control his own feelings. few people know that the only thing hitler hated more than Jews were Russians. Had he laid low and not massacred so many people. He could have won easily. I agree however, his plan in russia was a mistake. He should have built vertically much longer before trying to expand any further. But Hitler was able to conquer the majority of Europe. While repelling back the forces of the UK. The truth is though, losing the war was not hitler's mistake. it was the japs when they attacked Pearl Harbor. Had the Japenese not done that the USA would have waited longer to enter the war. Thus giving Nazi Germany more time to prepare.

 

[RED BROODER]

Hitler's failure was not because of his military inteligence. It was because he couldn't control his own feelings. few people know that the only thing hitler hated more than Jews were Russians. Had he laid low and not massacred so many people. He could have won easily. I agree however, his plan in russia was a mistake. He should have built vertically much longer before trying to expand any further. But Hitler was able to conquer the majority of Europe. While repelling back the forces of the UK. The truth is though, losing the war was not hitler's mistake. it was the japs when they attacked Pearl Harbor. Had the Japenese not done that the USA would have waited longer to enter the war. Thus giving Nazi Germany more time to prepare.

Hitler attacked Russia,only becuase the Russians were trying to expand their influence in neutral countries which supplied oil to Germany,they felt threatned & hence attacked,actually it was well planned but the invasion was delayed by two-three weeks due to balkan wars. Hitler knew he had to capture Moscow before the Russian winter starts. The mistake Hitler did was when they invaded Russia,Russians were glad to break away frm Communist clutches,hence saw this invasion as a blessing but Hitler's troops were much brutal & they disliked them & started fighting for the communists.

I must say its USA's mistake again,they bullied Japan to submit their asian colonies to USA,they even imposed oil embargo,hence Japs had to strike back.

 

[DeletedUser74857]

It only made sense that we cut supplies. The Japs were fighting our allies.

 

[DeletedUser70293]

And they broke the Washington Naval Treaty.

 

[RED BROODER]

Pakistan has been milking USA for arms & billions of funds in the pretext of fighting Taliban,if Pakistan falls to taliban,then they will use the same weapons to fight USA