Muuuuuuuslim Baaaaaan! But don't call it that!

Dr Fallout said:
That invasion really fucked up Pakistan. Poor Pakistan, trying so hard and spending so much to ensure a Pakistan-friendly government so that when the war with India comes they have a place to retreat and recuperate. Instead, the US invaded and screwed them over hard with a shitty option of going on America's public shit list or backstabbing their Taliban allies. Course they with with the US, and the Taliban never really forgave them for that betrayal. India's real pleased though.

Yeah, but that's setting the bar really low.
Click to expand...

To be fair, the Taliban were shitty allies to begin with as they were literally only recognized as a legitimate government by...:drumroll: Pakistan and there was an alliance of other Muslim nation and tribes who considered the Taliban enemies of the faith. The Taliban heavily relied on Pakistan to legitimize them and when they backed away, immediately invaded Pakistan to flee the USA and set up their own new nation with whatever the opposite of black jack and hookers were.
 
CT Phipps said:
To be fair, the Taliban were shitty allies to begin with as they were literally only recognized as a legitimate government by...:drumroll: Pakistan and there was an alliance of other Muslim nation and tribes who considered the Taliban enemies of the faith. The Taliban heavily relied on Pakistan to legitimize them and when they backed away, immediately invaded Pakistan to flee the USA and set up their own new nation with whatever the opposite of black jack and hookers were.
Click to expand...
That didn't matter to Pakistan. As long as a Pakistan-friendly government existed in Pakistan all was well, as the whole point of backing the Taliban was for strategic considerations against India. A neutral government doesn't do, because there's the chance they'll refuse the Pakistan government and military to retreat deeper into the mountains and because there's the chance India will sway the Afghanistan government trapping Pakistan.
 
Dr Fallout said:
That didn't matter to Pakistan. As long as a Pakistan-friendly government existed in Pakistan all was well, as the whole point of backing the Taliban was for strategic considerations against India. A neutral government doesn't do, because there's the chance they'll refuse the Pakistan government and military to retreat deeper into the mountains and because there's the chance India will sway the Afghanistan government trapping Pakistan.
Click to expand...

I was just pointing out that putting all those eggs in one basket didn't really work out for them because while Afghanistan was a great potential ally for India (in the context of fleeing a potential irradiated nuclear wasteland for the non-irradiated Afghanistan), the simple fact was they'd made enemies of the rest of the world well before they started funding an organization already mounting attacks against the world's largest military.

Nasty as it may be, I'd argue Pakistan made the right choice as it has other options now should war ever come to India and Pakistan.
 
CT Phipps said:
I was just pointing out that putting all those eggs in one basket didn't really work out for them because while Afghanistan was a great potential ally for India (in the context of fleeing a potential irradiated nuclear wasteland for the non-irradiated Afghanistan), the simple fact was they'd made enemies of the rest of the world well before they started funding an organization already mounting attacks against the world's largest military.

Nasty as it may be, I'd argue Pakistan made the right choice as it has other options now should war ever come to India and Pakistan.
Click to expand...
The Taliban probably got a bit carried away with religious fervor, perhaps even got a bit cocky in helping Al Qaeda. Or Perhaps Osama Bin Laden offered them a really delicious deal after they created a middle eastern Islamic Caliphate. Who knows, but it was pretty stupid. They probably hoped that Pakistan would be able to protect them from foreign intervention (they must have known how important Afghanistan was to Pakistan) but didn't count the Americans almost threatening war ('you're either with us, or against us' doesn't sound particularly benevolent).
 
Dr Fallout said:
The Taliban probably got a bit carried away with religious fervor, perhaps even got a bit cocky in helping Al Qaeda. Or Perhaps Osama Bin Laden offered them a really delicious deal after they created a middle eastern Islamic Caliphate. Who knows, but it was pretty stupid. They probably hoped that Pakistan would be able to protect them from foreign intervention (they must have known how important Afghanistan was to Pakistan) but didn't count the Americans almost threatening war ('you're either with us, or against us' doesn't sound particularly benevolent).
Click to expand...

In the case of the Taliban, it seems they got used to the West being sound and fury signifying nothing. Al-Qaeda had already attempted to destroy the World Trade Center with a bomb and had attacked embassies. They may or may not have known it was planning a doomsday assault on the Pentagon as well as NYC but they knew what sort of group it was. They also attempted to protect Al-Qaeda when the actual attack happened, albeit with a "we don't KNOW they did it" defense.

Pakistan really had very little to gain from trying to throw good money after bad at that point, IMHO.

Hell, IRAN was okay with the US invading Afghanistan. It was Iraq everyone got off the train.
 
CT Phipps said:
In the case of the Taliban, it seems they got used to the West being sound and fury signifying nothing. Al-Qaeda had already attempted to destroy the World Trade Center with a bomb and had attacked embassies. They may or may not have known it was planning a doomsday assault on the Pentagon as well as NYC but they knew what sort of group it was. They also attempted to protect Al-Qaeda when the actual attack happened, albeit with a "we don't KNOW they did it" defense.

Pakistan really had very little to gain from trying to throw good money after bad at that point, IMHO.

Hell, IRAN was okay with the US invading Afghanistan. It was Iraq everyone got off the train.
Click to expand...
That's because Afghanistan was Pakistan's unwilling and usually pretty independent puppet. Iraq however was it's own regional power, and represented the willingness by the US to mess with the Middle East's bigger players directly which must have made Iran uncomfortable.
 
naossano said:
Jo"Geran

Weird stuff. I see the picture on several devices and others see it too.

CaptJ

- Three administrations went and gone since then. And more than 15 years.
- One time event, that doesn't reflect the yearly average
- Law agains't terrorism were updated then. There was a bit of controversy but at least you could say there was an event on US soil that could motivate things. Not so much happened on 2016-2017 that could *justify* the new update.
- In any case, there is a conscious decision to put a foreign enemy far away on the forefront, to take away attention from actual problems, often more lethal.
Click to expand...
I know that there is always going to be a cut off point but do you see why I pointed out how the statistics explicitly left out the biggest terrorist attack on American soil?
naossano said:
One time event, that doesn't reflect the yearly average
Click to expand...
I wasn't saying that every year is 2001 but they called averages for a reason. Give me one good reason that 9/11 shouldn't be included in the data set that doesn't involve an arbitrary time frame or any other arbitrary metric.
naossano said:
In any case, there is a conscious decision to put a foreign enemy far away on the forefront, to take away attention from actual problems, often more lethal.
Click to expand...
How do plan to solve those problems? One problem isn't case against another problem.

I don't doubt that terrorism causes relatively low deaths compared to other things such a "being shot by another American." When I say gang culture, @Walpknut just assume that I mean "minorities." I didn't say minorities. Also, is there a big string of bank robbers and serial killers that contribute to most of that gun violence? Then @Walpknut avoids my question and goes on about how it is society fault as if people have no agency or freewill.
 
What pisses me off is the people going, "TRUMP IS EVUL! HE'S BANNING MOOSLEMS!"

Oh? Really?

Go to the fucking places these 'refugees' are coming from, and see how long you last with a modern civil mindset.

Go ahead, say gays are fine, and that you're a christian/atheist/etc.

You'll last a week, tops, before you're dead.
 
Dr Fallout said:
Than why isn't he doing it on Saudi Arabia? The numero uno of terrorist supporting nations (in the middle east) and field marshal of anything referred to as Sharia law.
Click to expand...

Saudi Arabia is the absolute shithole #1 of earth, when it comes to morals...

But no one seems to do a single thing about them, sadly.
 
ThatZenoGuy said:
What pisses me off is the people going, "TRUMP IS EVUL! HE'S BANNING MOOSLEMS!"

Oh? Really?

Go to the fucking places these 'refugees' are coming from, and see how long you last with a modern civil mindset.

Go ahead, say gays are fine, and that you're a christian/atheist/etc.

You'll last a week, tops, before you're dead.
Click to expand...

You realize the refugees are the ones getting murdered by ISIS right? Also, Syria was a dictatorship but not some weird Medieval hellhole where people were stoned to death. The whole war started because of Assad's corruption being discovered and dissiminated on the INTERNET.
 
ThatZenoGuy said:
What pisses me off is the people going, "TRUMP IS EVUL! HE'S BANNING MOOSLEMS!"

Oh? Really?

Go to the fucking places these 'refugees' are coming from, and see how long you last with a modern civil mindset.

Go ahead, say gays are fine, and that you're a christian/atheist/etc.

You'll last a week, tops, before you're dead.
Click to expand...
"Go to the places that refugees are running away from and you'll see that it's a bad place you'd want to leave"

Do you see the flaw in reasoning there?
 
Dr Fallout said:
ISIS, ISIS everywhere.
Click to expand...

The "head tilt like I'm watching porno and seen something kinky" thing is that Iraq is banned when they're the guys doing the majority of the fighting against ISIS. There's also the fact the Syrian ban includes Syrian soldiers and their families fighting ISIS with the USA.

I brought this up earlier.

A similiar thing happened in Vietnam where everyone was left behind--including plenty of families Americans had made.
 
CT Phipps said:
A similiar thing happened in Vietnam where everyone was left behind--including plenty of families Americans had made.
Click to expand...
That's kind of funny that you mentioned that, because John Oliver in the video you posted said that Vietnam was an example where America handled that perfectly, and you said he was right on the mark for the topic.
 
Dr Fallout said:
That's kind of funny that you mentioned that, because John Oliver in the video you posted said that Vietnam was an example where America handled that perfectly, and you said he was right on the mark for the topic.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but that was like, hours ago.
CT Phipps said:
I don't agree with about 90% of what John Oliver says but he was dead on with this bit.

Click to expand...

MAKE GUAM GREAT AGAIN
 

Attachments

  • upload_2017-1-31_16-26-33.jpeg
    upload_2017-1-31_16-26-33.jpeg
    6.9 KB · Views: 408
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top