Anonymous engages attack on Israel Apartheid State

[mrjarrell]

I'm pretty sure we were not in Asscrackistan before 9/11.

Physically? No. But we flooded the place with weaponry to fight the Russians and we put the Taliban in power. We had our hands pretty dirty there, prior to our invasion of the place.

 

[hornadylnl]

Question:


Answer:


I'm pretty sure we were not in Asscrackistan before 9/11.

And 99.99% of Afghanistan wasn't here on 9/11.

 

[jbombelli]

And 99.99% of Afghanistan wasn't here on 9/11.

But those who were IN CHARGE in Afghanistan, were actively protecting the people who sent the 9/11 hijackers here. So they get what they get.

The Taliban and Al Qaeda brought us there. If the people of Afghanistan didn't like that, too bad. THEIR LEADERS brought us there.

 

[mrjarrell]

But those who were IN CHARGE in Afghanistan, were actively protecting the people who sent the 9/11 hijackers here. So they get what they get.

The Taliban and Al Qaeda brought us there. If the people of Afghanistan didn't like that, too bad. THEIR LEADERS brought us there.

Both of whom, we created.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

IIRC, between '47 and '56, Russia supplied Israel with some military equipment. And, of course, after the '67 conflict, they had plenty of "lightly used" Egyptian military equipment to arm their reserves. The US got involved in supplying the Israelis, at least in part, because it was policy to oppose Soviet arms support when they switched to supporting the Arabs.

 

[jbombelli]

Both of whom, we created.

Regardless of who created them, THEY STILL BROUGHT US THERE. They had free will, and made their choices.

They could have chosen differently.

 

[hornadylnl]

But those who were IN CHARGE in Afghanistan, were actively protecting the people who sent the 9/11 hijackers here. So they get what they get.

The Taliban and Al Qaeda brought us there. If the people of Afghanistan didn't like that, too bad. THEIR LEADERS brought us there.

Many here seemed to think we should have nuked Libya for the Benghazi attack. So you'd be ok with China nuking us because slick willy dropped a bomb on the Chinese embassy? So your family should die due to the actions of the few in Washington?

 

[jbombelli]

Many here seemed to think we should have nuked Libya for the Benghazi attack. So you'd be ok with China nuking us because slick willy dropped a bomb on the Chinese embassy? So your family should die due to the actions of the few in Washington?

Personally, as far as embassies go, I wouldn't go to war over an embassy. Then again, I'd never accept a position working in an embassy.

That said, if you start something, you'd better be prepared to finish it.

If we were dropping bombs or crashing planes into mainland China, toppling skyscrapers and killing thousands, I'd expect the Chinese to attack us. I wouldn't like it, but I'd understand it and I would expect it. And I would hope we finish what we started.

 

[hornadylnl]

Personally, as far as embassies go, I wouldn't go to war over an embassy. Then again, I'd never accept a position working in an embassy.

That said, if you start something, you'd better be prepared to finish it.

If we were dropping bombs or crashing planes into mainland China, toppling skyscrapers and killing thousands, I'd expect the Chinese to attack us. I wouldn't like it, but I'd understand it and I would expect it. And I would hope we finish what we started.

Just checking to see if this was a 2 way street. Since a goat farmer in Afghanistan deserves to suffer because of the few in charge there, we all deserve to suffer any foreign retaliation for anything that Obama does.

 

[jbombelli]

Just checking to see if this was a 2 way street. Since a goat farmer in Afghanistan deserves to suffer because of the few in charge there, we all deserve to suffer any foreign retaliation for anything that Obama does.

It's definitely a two-way street. If we're not willing to cast off our rulers, then their decisions and the wars they start are indeed our responsibility. It's as true here as it is there.

 

[hornadylnl]

It's definitely a two-way street. If we're not willing to cast off our rulers, then their decisions and the wars they start are indeed our responsibility. It's as true here as it is there.

Does that apply to our constant meddling foreign affairs as well? Does that mean blowback exists?

 

[jbombelli]

Does that apply to our constant meddling foreign affairs as well? Does that mean blowback exists?

Of course. I'm against being the world's police department. We do indeed need to mind our own business. But: trying to influence others, and ATTACKING them, are two different things. Governments always through one method or another try to influence one another. That's expected. Every country, every government does it. Crashing planes into buildings and killing thousands of people, and then protecting those responsible, is a whole new level - a level that requires a serious military reaction.

 

[hornadylnl]

Of course. I'm against being the world's police department. We do indeed need to mind our own business. But: trying to influence others, and ATTACKING them, are two different things. Governments always through one method or another try to influence one another. That's expected. Every country, every government does it. Crashing planes into buildings and killing thousands of people, and then protecting those responsible, is a whole new level - a level that requires a serious military reaction.

But in many cases, we seem to want to poke a tiger with a stick and keep poking til they react and then cry fowl. I don't believe bullets have to fly to constitute an act of war.

 

[Classic]

Having allies is a bit like having friends. I don't consider supporting an ally at all like being the world's policeman. Most of us on here have friends and we would watch their back just as they would watch ours. None of us are policeman by that act.

 

[jbombelli]

But in many cases, we seem to want to poke a tiger with a stick and keep poking til they react and then cry fowl. I don't believe bullets have to fly to constitute an act of war.

Hence my issue with being the world's police department. It causes far more problems than it solves, in the long run.

But once the shooting war starts, once people are dying, you gotta be willing to go all the way and finish what you start. THAT is my main point.

 

[hornadylnl]

Having allies is a bit like having friends. I don't consider supporting an ally at all like being the world's policeman. Most of us on here have friends and we would watch their back just as they would watch ours. None of us are policeman by that act.

So if you were my friend and I picked a fight for something stupid, you'd have my back no matter what?

 

[Classic]

Probably.

 

[jbombelli]

So if you were my friend and I picked a fight for something stupid, you'd have my back no matter what?

Hell yeah! Hand you weapons too, and then pretend he had nothing to do with it when he gets dragged into it.

 

[hornadylnl]

Probably.

Hell yeah! Hand you weapons too, and then pretend he had nothing to do with it when he gets dragged into it.

Allies can be a wonderful thing and also a massive liability. If my friend walked into the middle of a group of minorities and started yelling racial slurs, he's on his own. Hell, I may even join in on the beat down because he's an idiot. At minimum, he's no longer my friend.

I think it's time we start questioning who our allies are. Just as a friend who only takes and never gives, a country who benefits from us and never offers anything in return, they're not our allies.

 

[IndyDave1776]

In retrospect, allowing Afghanistan to have become a SSR, not arming Egypt with F-16s and Abrams tanks and warships, and not doing likewise with Turkey which is turning in an unsettling direction (in addition to invading Cyprus) likely would have been good decisions. Not strong-arming Israel into giving back territory it won in its wars would have been a good decision. Not strong-arming Israel into giving up on taking out Hezbollah when it could have been done much more easily than at the present would have been a good decision. Not strong-arming Israel into accepting peace accords with people who intend no more or less than using them as a reprieve in which to gear up for conflict would have been a good decision (Jimmy, Bill, you hear that?). Not strong-arming Israel into doing little or nothing about rockets being lobbed into its cities would be a good decision. Not strong-arming Israel into doing nothing about Iran's nuclear program in spite of remarkably clear threats regarding the intended use of the nuclear weapons with which Iran simultaneously threatens Israel and denies constructing.

All things considered, we really haven't accomplished much positive for the cause of peace.