Muslim topic  permalink

The Taliban no longer Al-qaeda

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 1 - 33 of 33
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by RayofSun (U14818146) on Tuesday, 21st June 2011

    www.theleader.co.za/...

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by RayofSun (U14818146) on Tuesday, 21st June 2011

    A new classification of the Taliban because the powers that be realize that they are losing the war in Afghanistan?

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by Abubakar55 (U14258389) on Tuesday, 21st June 2011

    Which begs the question, has the Taliban and Al Quaida suddenly split ?

    Or were they never the same group in the first place?

    And does this give the lie to the alleged bombing reprisals in Pakistan by the Taliban after the reports of Osama Bin Laden's death?

    I would suggest that there is a strong whiff of information manipulation here.

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by RayofSun (U14818146) on Tuesday, 21st June 2011

    Yes the powers that be, always manipulate information so that they can have their wars.

    from wikipedia:

    In Propaganda (1928), Bernays argued that the manipulation of public opinion was a necessary part of democracy:

    The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by Sebastian Toe (U11262149) on Tuesday, 21st June 2011

    Which begs the question, is someone trying to convince us that the Taliban and Al Quaida suddenly split , when really they haven't?

    In order to try to manipulate opnion to think that they were ever the same group in the first place?

    To try to deflect from the truth that in fact that the Taliban did cause the bombing reprisals in Pakistan after the reports of Osama Bin Laden's death?

    I would suggest that there is a strong whiff of double bluff information manipulation here.

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by Abubakar55 (U14258389) on Tuesday, 21st June 2011

    Which begs the question, is someone trying to convince us that the Taliban and Al Quaida suddenly split , when really they haven't?

    In order to try to manipulate opnion to think that they were ever the same group in the first place?

    To try to deflect from the truth that in fact that the Taliban did cause the bombing reprisals in Pakistan after the reports of Osama Bin Laden's death?

    I would suggest that there is a strong whiff of double bluff information manipulation here.
     
    What?

    What?

    I doubt it.

    I think you are on a triple bluff !!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I trust you will post again as it would be sad to leave the board on this poor excuse for a post.

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by Sebastian Toe (U11262149) on Wednesday, 22nd June 2011

    I trust you will post again as it would be sad to leave the board on this poor excuse for a post. 

    I won't be posting it again as it was a parody to highlight that any old conspiracy nonsense can be double/triple/whatever 'bluffed' to the 'n'th degree.

    Only a die hard conspiracy theorist with a closed mind would not have been able to spot that. smiley - laugh
    Some people just take themselve far too seriously!

    Thus I am happy to leave it as it stands but I thank you for your concern.

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 7.

    Posted by Abubakar55 (U14258389) on Wednesday, 22nd June 2011

    I trust you will post again as it would be sad to leave the board on this poor excuse for a post. 

    I won't be posting it again as it was a parody to highlight that any old conspiracy nonsense can be double/triple/whatever 'bluffed' to the 'n'th degree.

    Only a die hard conspiracy theorist with a closed mind would not have been able to spot that. smiley - laugh
    Some people just take themselve far too seriously!

    Thus I am happy to leave it as it stands but I thank you for your concern. 
    I agree 'the war on terror' and terrorist outrages are just a good laugh, 9/11 what a hoot !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    There was no conspiracy nonsense in my post.

    Al Quaida and the Taliban up until last week were treated as though they were one organisation by the invaders of Afghanistan, now with no change in either the actions or policy of both groups, they have been deemed to have separated.

    Its a bunch of tosh, if you can't see it then perhaps you should post out the last days on the teletubbies board.

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 8.

    Posted by GurningMonkey (U14592265) on Wednesday, 22nd June 2011

    'Al Quaida and the Taliban up until last week were treated as though they were one organisation by the invaders of Afghanistan, now with no change in either the actions or policy of both groups, they have been deemed to have separated.'

    Really? I've never come across this idea. Surely Mullar Omar Heads the Taliban, who were a separate entity with different goals, but a similar ideology, to Al Quada. I don't think anyone has ever promoted them as the same organisation.

    They may well have fought together, but I doubt anyone ever thought they were one and the same.

    Let's not forget that the Taliban were being negotiated with by the US government prior to 9/11- even invited to the US for meetings in regard to the planned Turkmenistan/ Pakistan gas pipeline. Once the original planned gas pipeline was rejected by the Central Asia Gas Pipeline, Ltd. (CentGas) consortium headed by Unocal (the Union Oil Company of California) in 1998 (although in reality the deal was dead by 1996- the year Bin Laden appeared in Afghanistan- not a coincidence methinks) relations soured and the turning point was 9/11.

    In reality what probably occurred is the Taliban, upset with the rejection and ultimate failure of the deal, were probably aware and in full support of bin Ladens plans, thinking this would give the west a bloody nose, in retaliation to the perceived pulling of the deal.

    Still, that wouldn't make for a good anti Western rant now would it.

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by MoutonNoir (U11287672) on Wednesday, 22nd June 2011

    RayofSun, it is a shame that this board is being closed, being as it gives such a great opportunity for people such as yourself to express your views on important topics like this.

    Do you think the Taliban would support such freedom of speech?

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by Abubakar55 (U14258389) on Wednesday, 22nd June 2011

    Gurning

    Do you have any evidence that the Taliban were aware of 9/11 prior to it happening?

    Please let us in on it.

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by GurningMonkey (U14592265) on Wednesday, 22nd June 2011

    'Do you have any evidence that the Taliban were aware of 9/11 prior to it happening?

    Please let us in on it.'


    I said 'what probably occurred'. The idea that OBL ordered an attack on the US, without the foreknowledge of his hosts, seems a tad disingenuous. The Taliban were angry with the US for pulling out of the pipeline deal, that much is obvious (the planned rerouting would have deprived them of the spectacular income they would have earned). Let's not pretend there wasn't an economic imperative to the Talibans touting the pipeline to the US. Hell they even set up an office in Washington for this to happen!

    I've as much evidence as you have that they didn't- ie speculation. However, when one looks at the project, the timings, and the resultant attack would indicate a ill thought out process- personally I think the Taliban didn't expect it to go quite the way it did, and were probably quite shocked at it's success- but fudged diplomatically resulting in the invasion.

    The fact is the loss of the pipeline was massive for the Taliban- it was going to be the largest revenue generator in the country, and would have propped up the regime much in the way the Saudi's have been propped up. When that was taken away (largely due to their inability to control the north, where the pipe would run) I think they probably sought to leverage bin Laden to get the deal going again.

    I firmly believe they knew about the attacks, but didn't expect them to be successful, and even if so that they thought the US would have no appetite for a war. The US was too insular at the time, and had been pretty quiet for a decade.

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by GurningMonkey (U14592265) on Wednesday, 22nd June 2011

    Oh, and the deal is back on now (apparently).

    I'd hazard a reward to the northern tribes, but also as a means of rebuilding a shattered society, with a continued revenue stream.

    It must be noted that the alternative, Russian, route for the pipeline would have increased their stranglehold on Gas- not good.

    Also Afghanistan is not the producer- merely a transit point.

    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by Abubakar55 (U14258389) on Thursday, 23rd June 2011

    'Do you have any evidence that the Taliban were aware of 9/11 prior to it happening?

    Please let us in on it.'


    I said 'what probably occurred'. The idea that OBL ordered an attack on the US, without the foreknowledge of his hosts, seems a tad disingenuous. The Taliban were angry with the US for pulling out of the pipeline deal, that much is obvious (the planned rerouting would have deprived them of the spectacular income they would have earned). Let's not pretend there wasn't an economic imperative to the Talibans touting the pipeline to the US. Hell they even set up an office in Washington for this to happen!

    I've as much evidence as you have that they didn't- ie speculation. However, when one looks at the project, the timings, and the resultant attack would indicate a ill thought out process- personally I think the Taliban didn't expect it to go quite the way it did, and were probably quite shocked at it's success- but fudged diplomatically resulting in the invasion.

    The fact is the loss of the pipeline was massive for the Taliban- it was going to be the largest revenue generator in the country, and would have propped up the regime much in the way the Saudi's have been propped up. When that was taken away (largely due to their inability to control the north, where the pipe would run) I think they probably sought to leverage bin Laden to get the deal going again.

    I firmly believe they knew about the attacks, but didn't expect them to be successful, and even if so that they thought the US would have no appetite for a war. The US was too insular at the time, and had been pretty quiet for a decade.  
    Gurning
    So your post is pure speculation, and wild speculation at that, with no supporting facts at all.

    The Taliban awarded pipeline contract to Bidas, an Argentinian Company, Unocal (Kahzi's employer) lost out and if anyone was miffed it would be them.
    news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/...

    It appears your speculation starts off on the wrong foot and continues downhill.

    You have no evidence of Taliban pre-knowledge of 9/11, could I suggest you research this subject a little before you continue.

    A little information about some aspects of Afghanistan, the pipeline and leading US officials:

    www.mediamonitors.ne...

    Please feel free to point out the inaccuracies in it.

    Report message14

  • Message 15

    , in reply to message 13.

    Posted by GurningMonkey (U14592265) on Thursday, 23rd June 2011

    It's worth noting about Afghanistan that their own resources (ie potential mining prospects) are quite good- not fantastic, but not bad. The countries problems have all but stopped the development of these prospects, but there is a possibility that once the country settles down they could make a good fist of being a relatively prosperous nation based on industrial materials. Of course, with little or no indigenous capability these would be farmed out to the highest bidder.

    It's worth looking at the Afghan Geological Survey if you're interested:
    www.bgs.ac.uk/Afghan...

    In terms of the pipeline, with gas prices set to rise (particularly as it's seen as the main replacement to Oil- and something that is going to be a precursor to our move to more sustainable resource usage) in the long term, the project could put them on an even keel- as long as the ongoing conflict dissipates.

    What is a great pity about Afghanistan is that no-one actually wants to be there, but industry, and it's economy, won't show green shoots until the fighting has stopped. Leave too soon and the country will collapse aka the Sudan, but the longer troops are on the ground the greater the resentment. It's my view that we'll be there for the foreseeable future, albeit in fewer numbers.

    If the pipeline does go ahead I've no doubt the Taliban will target it- without the collapse of the Afghan economy the Talibs are a busted flush- as they're squeezed from both sides I'd hazard in 10 years they'll be little more than a guerrilla terror group whose Pashtun supporters will begin turning away from when they see the money roll in.

    In the long term I'd imagine them getting themselves a nice, slightly loopy, ruthless dictator like Saparmurat Niyazov over in Turkmenistan. It's got no chance at having an operational democracy- that's pie in the sky.

    I can't see much of a future for the country to be honest- stability, possibly, but only under an iron fist. Will it be better than under the Taliban, probably. Will it be better than the current government, again possibly. Will it be a nice place to go and live- nope.

    Oh well.

    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to message 14.

    Posted by GurningMonkey (U14592265) on Thursday, 23rd June 2011

    'The Taliban awarded pipeline contract to Bidas, an Argentinian Company, Unocal (Kahzi's employer) lost out and if anyone was miffed it would be them.'

    No it wasn't. Get your facts straight. Unocal (Centgas) won the project. This is well known.

    en.wikipedia.org/wik...

    The original project started in March 1995 when an inaugural memorandum of understanding between the governments of Turkmenistan and Pakistan for a pipeline project was signed. In August 1996, the Central Asia Gas Pipeline, Ltd. (CentGas) consortium for construction of a pipeline, led by U.S. oil company Unocal, was formed. On 27 October 1997, CentGas was incorporated in formal signing ceremonies in Ashgabat, Turkmenistan by several international oil companies along with the Government of Turkmenistan. In January 1998, the Taliban, selecting CentGas over Argentinian competitor Bridas Corporation, signed an agreement that allowed the proposed project to proceed. In June 1998, Russian Gazprom relinquished its 10% stake in the project. Unocal withdrew from the consortium on 8 December 1998.


    'It appears your speculation starts off on the wrong foot and continues downhill.'

    Really. I think not.

    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by RayofSun (U14818146) on Thursday, 23rd June 2011

    GurningApe

    Quote
    "Really? I've never come across this idea. Surely Mullar Omar Heads the Taliban, who were a separate entity with different goals, but a similar ideology, to Al Quada. I don't think anyone has ever promoted them as the same organisation.

    They may well have fought together, but I doubt anyone ever thought they were one and the same."


    The point is now the US is trying to open up talks with the Taliban, when they were considered to be part of the Terrorist enemy! Why are they now doing this? Are they losing the war? It certainly appears like it.

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to message 8.

    Posted by Sebastian Toe (U11262149) on Thursday, 23rd June 2011

    In reply to Abubakar55:

    I agree 'the war on terror' and terrorist outrages are just a good laugh, 9/11 what a hoot !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     


    What a strange person you are!!!!!!!!!!
    Does the '55' in your name relate to to your IQ?

    There was no conspiracy nonsense in my post. 

    To be expected, typical conspiracist reply.smiley - laugh

    perhaps you should post out the last days on the teletubbies board. 

    I've never heard of the teletubies board, it seems that you are trying to promote it, are you a founder member?
    Maybe you can give me a link and I'll pop on over and look out for you.
    What user name do you post under there?
    Maybe you can introduce me to your friends on it?

    Report message18

  • Message 19

    , in reply to message 17.

    Posted by martg44 (U14046142) on Thursday, 23rd June 2011

    ""The point is now the US is trying to open up talks with the Taliban, when they were considered to be part of the Terrorist enemy! Why are they now doing this? Are they losing the war? It certainly appears like it.""

    Which kind of proves that they are not 'all powerful' and casts more doubt on the state conspiracy theories.

    Martg.

    Report message19

  • Message 20

    , in reply to message 17.

    Posted by GurningMonkey (U14592265) on Thursday, 23rd June 2011

    'The point is now the US is trying to open up talks with the Taliban, when they were considered to be part of the Terrorist enemy! Why are they now doing this? Are they losing the war? It certainly appears like it'

    Simple. The US knows that the Taliban are weakened and need to do a deal- this will be their chance to speed up the peace needed in order to make the state once more viable and economically operational- the precursor to a troop pull out.

    The current war of attrition does nobody any good- at some point the Talibs have to be brought to the table, and there's no better time than when your opponent is on it's knees.

    Make no mistake, the US could keep this going in perpetuity- certainly in terms of manpower. There's just not much appetite for it. Better to get them to the table, negotiate a peace, build the pipeline, get industry going and let the country try and stand on it's own two feet.

    Thing is at some point, whoever has power in Afghanistan, they're going to have to deal with either the West or the Chinese- in order for the country to progress. Otherwise it'll just end up as another Sudan- somewhere nobody really gives a stuff about. I'm sure either way works for the West- who are, I'm sure, getting rather sick of the place.

    The US has lost 1,540 troops over the last 10 years- about a 1.5% attrition rate for troop levels of 100,000. This is about 4 times the normal death rate in civilian life, so not exactly a blood bath. It's quite well reported that current death rates even with Iraq and Afghanistan are actually below the peace time losses of the 80's.

    www.wnd.com/?pageId=...

    I don't think the US is anywhere even close to being defeated.

    Report message20

  • Message 21

    , in reply to message 17.

    Posted by GurningMonkey (U14592265) on Thursday, 23rd June 2011

    And RayofSun,
    It's good that you acknowledge that apes and monkeys are of the same genus.

    I take it you're not a creationist then.....

    Report message21

  • Message 22

    , in reply to message 20.

    Posted by RayofSun (U14818146) on Thursday, 23rd June 2011

    GM

    It makes no sense to open negotiations with a hated Terrorist enemy when they are already defeated! Go for total victory and never negotiate with Terrorists!

    Report message22

  • Message 23

    , in reply to message 22.

    Posted by GurningMonkey (U14592265) on Thursday, 23rd June 2011

    'It makes no sense to open negotiations with a hated Terrorist enemy when they are already defeated! Go for total victory and never negotiate with Terrorists!'

    There can never be total victory- particularly as the support base is in a different country (Pakistan).

    You could, I suppose, nuke the whole lot- but that might not go down so well. Get 'em to the table, knock out a deal, secure the pipeline, build industry.

    What you don't want is a group of nut jobs destroying infrastructure in an attempt to topple an economy just so they can get into power. We see plenty of that happening in Western Africa as it is.

    I honestly don't think the West would really care less if the Taliban were in power- especially if they wanted to do business. Sometimes you have to deal with very bad people, but that's life.

    In the end, if the Taliban didn't give sanctuary to terrorists, and didn't go around blowing people up, I don't see why they couldn't return to power- sure they're a nasty, nasty outfit. But they're not our nasty outfit, and wouldn't be our problem.

    They're certainly not much worse than the Saudi's, and they're good mates.

    Besides, it's always nice to have regimes to laugh at. Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are the only two real jokes left out there (Gaddaffi's days are numbered), the African ones are just a bit too genocidal. WE could do with the light relief of the Talibans pronouncements. They were that comic.

    Report message23

  • Message 24

    , in reply to message 23.

    Posted by RayofSun (U14818146) on Thursday, 23rd June 2011

    GM

    Nuke em, might as well thats why you have weapons like that, so you can use them against Terrorists?

    It makes no sense to open negotiations against defeated enemies, if the support base is in Pakistan, attack Pakistan that is the whole point of the war on Terror it is global and they need to be rooted out so there are no more Terrorists in the future.

    I think America is feeling the pinch, after 10 years it knows they cannot win, their war has done what was intended which is to make some people very rich.

    Report message24

  • Message 25

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by juswonderin (U1905495) on Thursday, 23rd June 2011

    And does this give the lie to the alleged bombing reprisals in Pakistan by the Taliban after the reports of Osama Bin Laden's death? 

    what an utterly odd statement to make.....with the Pakistan Taliban loudly claiming responsibility for most the post Osama bombings on military targets resulting in many civilian deaths with the aim of taking revenge for Osama, you are implying a conspiracy to implicate your 'beloved' Taliban who you have chosen to defend on the MB in a typically indirect manner for some time now.

    is it any surprise you've been on pre mod on this MB for the last 5 years?

    Report message25

  • Message 26

    , in reply to message 24.

    Posted by GurningMonkey (U14592265) on Thursday, 23rd June 2011

    'Nuke em, might as well thats why you have weapons like that, so you can use them against Terrorists?'

    Nah, I was just kidding. They ain't worth the effort.


    'It makes no sense to open negotiations against defeated enemies, if the support base is in Pakistan, attack Pakistan that is the whole point of the war on Terror it is global and they need to be rooted out so there are no more Terrorists in the future.'

    Nope- you always have to negotiate, even with defeated enemies. the point is to negotiate from a position of power. Leverage. The US are in a good position tactically in Afghanistan, and with the drone attacks in Pakistan have the Taliban needing to do a deal to stay alive. Over the past two years they've had much of the life chocked out of them, a disillusioned population who are probably past caring who's in charge as long as the killing stops.

    There is no end to the war on terror, just negotiated small victories.


    'I think America is feeling the pinch, after 10 years it knows they cannot win, their war has done what was intended which is to make some people very rich.'

    In Afghanistan? What you think the whole thing was orchestrated by a few firms do you? To make a few billion quid. Do me a favour.

    Report message26

  • Message 27

    , in reply to message 11.

    Posted by blaidd_cymraeg (U5517039) on Thursday, 23rd June 2011

    Gurning

    Do you have any evidence that the Taliban were aware of 9/11 prior to it happening?

    Please let us in on it.

     
    well Ahmad Shah Massoud was aware that an atrocity was planned on us soil and had passed on that information to the us they just didnt know what or where.

    so if the northern alliance heard rumours of it then i would think the taliban knew more wouldnt you hay abu .

    Report message27

  • Message 28

    , in reply to message 27.

    Posted by IK (U14551302) on Thursday, 23rd June 2011

    The American, British invading terrorists and their friends are getting a good hiding that's why they want out. God bless the freedom fighters.

    Report message28

  • Message 29

    , in reply to message 20.

    Posted by Abubakar55 (U14258389) on Friday, 24th June 2011

    'The point is now the US is trying to open up talks with the Taliban, when they were considered to be part of the Terrorist enemy! Why are they now doing this? Are they losing the war? It certainly appears like it'

    Simple. The US knows that the Taliban are weakened and need to do a deal- this will be their chance to speed up the peace needed in order to make the state once more viable and economically operational- the precursor to a troop pull out.

    The current war of attrition does nobody any good- at some point the Talibs have to be brought to the table, and there's no better time than when your opponent is on it's knees.

    Make no mistake, the US could keep this going in perpetuity- certainly in terms of manpower. There's just not much appetite for it. Better to get them to the table, negotiate a peace, build the pipeline, get industry going and let the country try and stand on it's own two feet.

    Thing is at some point, whoever has power in Afghanistan, they're going to have to deal with either the West or the Chinese- in order for the country to progress. Otherwise it'll just end up as another Sudan- somewhere nobody really gives a stuff about. I'm sure either way works for the West- who are, I'm sure, getting rather sick of the place.

    The US has lost 1,540 troops over the last 10 years- about a 1.5% attrition rate for troop levels of 100,000. This is about 4 times the normal death rate in civilian life, so not exactly a blood bath. It's quite well reported that current death rates even with Iraq and Afghanistan are actually below the peace time losses of the 80's.

    www.wnd.com/?pageId=...

    I don't think the US is anywhere even close to being defeated. 
    There is no evidence of Taliban or any of the other resistance groups being weakened or on their knees, these talks are not new and the USA clearly wants out.

    The USA and friends are of course no where near being defeated militarily but are giving up, the war is too expensive, it has reduced public support and they don't have the heart for it.

    They also have the Vietnam experience etched in their memory.

    Report message29

  • Message 30

    , in reply to message 29.

    Posted by RayofSun (U14818146) on Saturday, 25th June 2011

    The US is leaving Afghanistan – formally anyway. It is true; other forms of warfare may now be aimed at Afghanistan, including private mercenary warfare. Pakistan may become a bigger target of Anglo-American aggression. But the formal attempt, a third attempt, to Westernize the stiff-necked Pashtuns, to dominate the tribes generally of Southern Eurasia has failed once again.

    It was not about oil, or minerals or pipelines after all. It was, as all colonial wars are, a struggle of naked aggression, designed to shatter ancient ways of living in order to impose a Western state for purposes of global control.

    This was a colonial war. The leftist notion that it was a corporatist struggle for raw materials is questionable at best. The first thing the Anglosphere elites did in Afghanistan was set up a central bank – and then a full-fledged private banking system along with a parliament, a president (Hamid Karzai), a taxing facility and a public school network. The banking system today is all but dead, tax collection is dysfunctional (to put it mildly) and the political system is entirely corrupt. These are the notions the US approved of and intended to defend and expand. They were no accident.

    That Western elites were successful in getting young American men and women to die and maim themselves to impose this sort of civic slavery on the Afghans is neither admirable nor patriotic. America's Founding Fathers waged war so that the US would NOT come under the yoke of Money Power and its appurtenances.

    thedailybell.com/255...

    Report message30

  • Message 31

    , in reply to message 14.

    Posted by netherdutch (U5703301) on Saturday, 25th June 2011

    Abubakar55,

    You said (I think you meant Hamid Karzai) worked for Unocal. I could be wrong, but I thought that was one of those urban myths especially considering where he was many of those years. Do you have a source from Unocal or Karzai that says he worked for Unocal?

    Report message31

  • Message 32

    , in reply to message 29.

    Posted by blaidd_cymraeg (U5517039) on Sunday, 26th June 2011

    <quote>They also have the Vietnam experience etched in their memory.<quote>
    abu
    true but i have yet to see any demos on the scale of the stop the war ones held during that conflict which is why the islamofascists thought the usa was an easy target and have found out its not.


    and i would have thought with you're snowdrop experience you would know you negotiate from a position of strength.

    Report message32

  • Message 33

    , in reply to message 30.

    Posted by blaidd_cymraeg (U5517039) on Sunday, 26th June 2011

    oh rayof darkness

    i think you need to think a bit more about what colonial wars were about
    <quote>It was not about oil, or minerals or pipelines after all. It was, as all colonial wars are, a struggle of naked aggression, designed to shatter ancient ways of living in order to impose a Western state for purposes of global control.<quote>

    they were about getting land and resources,reading tip go look up the east india companysmiley - ok

    and the american war of independence was about not paying taxes to pay for the war britain had fought on the colonialists behalf against the french .
    tightwads.

    Report message33

Back to top

About this Board

The BBC Religion and ethics message boards are now closed.

They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available.

Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.

We will be introducing a new blog later in the year. Aaqil Ahmed, Commissioning Editor Religion and Head of Religion & Ethics, has a blog with more details.

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.

Opening times:
No longer applicable

This messageboard is post-moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Copyright © 2014 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.