- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
I find the notion of waiting for the final day of judgement quite hilarious, you don't have to wait to see hell, just to go some parts of the third world, people (by "people" I mean crazy evangelicals) in the West have the luxury of being able to anticipate hell, some people aren't so lucky;-)
That reminds me of a joke:
"This guy is driving his car in the desert. He notices this guy jumping along the road. He's naked and his hands and feet are tied with rope. The guy stops his car and asks the guy, 'Hey, buddy, what's the matter?' And the guy tells him, 'Well, I was driving along and I saw this bastard hitch-hiking so I stopped and the son-of-a-bitch pulls a gun on me, takes my clothes away and then ties me up. Then the dirty son-of-a-bitch reams me in the ass!' 'Oh yeah?' says the guy getting out of his car. 'Yeah, that's what that dirty son-of-a-bitch did!' says the man. 'Well,' says the guy unzipping his fly, I guess this just isn't your lucky day!' ""
Sorry I hadn't realised you replied to this, I'll try to get around to the one about Urinating on corpses as well.
"Ron Paul never said the United States was the world's largest terrorist group."
Of course he didn't, he's american, he doesn't think like that, nor has he suffered in any way from your countries actions, but he got accused of providing justification for 9/11, he said he wasn't, he said he just wanted people to understand the motive instead of them being convinced it was due to there (supposed) freedom.
"Comparing yourself to Ron Paul, won't do you any good"
I think the comparison is quite valid actually, please explain to me how it isn't.
"That's exactly what you've done. Saying "It's the only way they can resist" is a justification,"
Well, then saying they blew up the twin towers because you keep Isreal's genocide going, and have military bases on their holyland, and have supported brutal dictators is also a justification, so ya, I was justifying it, in the same way Ron Paul was justifying 9/11.
"a false one at that"
How else could they resist? They either employ guerrilla tactics or face irrevocable destruction.
"You said "Innocent of what?"."
Yes, because I wanted to know exactly what he thought they were guilty of.
"Your denial will cost you this debate."
I don't deny it, justification doesn't imply support, if it did Ron Paul would be an Al Queda supporter.
"Why am I not surprised that you were unaware of this?"
Because you falsely beleive you know far more about this than I do.
"No, this is not an isolated incident."
I have done the necessary research and I have to say I conceed this point entirely, I could try to argue that the Taliban have denied this (probably because of the shame), and that they are not used regularly (only 7 in 2009), but these are meaningless details, the fact that they are used for this purpose at all is the only crucial detail.
"Like I said, the Taliban has a fucked up ideology."
I have never argued against this point.
"If that aim was getting rid of Americans, I'm sure they probably did have a majority support at one point,"
Not just at one point, for the overwhelming majority of the conflict, thus far.
"that support has since eroded."
30% doesn't imply 100% erosion, and at the rate you keep indiscriminately killing their civilians while the Karzi government tolerates it (7 children died in an air raid recently), the more support they generate.
"The more important point to make is that the Taliban ideology has always been a minority view."
This is true, the reason the Taliban came to power in the first place was because the USA and Russia used it as their war games playground, when your influences left there was complete anarchy, war lords ruled certain sectors with an Iron fist, the people welcomed the Taliban originally (despite their extremist ideology) because they restored order to their society, that is also why I beleive many have completely turned on the Taliban i.e. they are starting to realise they can have order without extremism.
"The Northern Alliance had been fighting the Taliban long before the U.S. came in."
I agree, I could write far more, but I don't to write too much unnecessarily.
"Not when you harbor and give safe haven to the world's most wanted man,"
He was only placed number 1 on your most wanted list, you don't speak for the world, this is yet more american exceptionalism seeping out without you even realising it.
"Not when you train and support the people responsible for the 9/11 attacks."
Osama's involvment is almost certainly true, but lets not speak like all the facts are out in the open and the evidence is as clear as day, while I don't consider myself a 9/11 truther, it would be utterly illogical of me to exclude the possibility of some government collusion (possibly willful ignorance). Al Queda is a US creation, and there is evidence currently beginning to suface that suggests you may be supplying them in Syria. Could there have been a plot by a small number of powerful individuals to take down the twin towers by using some US proxy forces, again, while it may not be extremely likely based on what is known, given the way the commission was conducted, given the all the other unaccounted for facts, as I said, it would be utterly illogical to exclude it. Or rmaybe they simply ignored the warning, and intentionally let it happen, there are strong reasons to support this claim also.
Governments are in the business of lying, think of the Iraq justification (you even beleived A Queda was found in Iraq, or the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
"You mean like saying that the United States Invaded Afghanistan for it's non-existent oil?"
I've already outlined Afghanistan geostrategic importance, and I have already provided ample evidence i.e. US state departments documents, testimony from officials who were privy to the sensitive details of negotiations between the US and Taliban prior to the invasion.
Please let's disupte the facts, a country doesn't have to have oil to be very important, having privileged access to the oil pipeline adversely affected Russian influence while simultaneously enhancing your own.
"Not according to Osama Bin Laden. "
Osama Bin Laden didn't speak for any country, how can you not see that? His support came from people radicalised by religion and your ill treatment of them.
"According to him, it was a war against the Great Satan, and a war against the Infidels."
Ya, I'm sure we could find plenty of white supremacists in your country who want to wipe out all africans or muslims in some big biblical war, it doesn't mean Zambia or Turkey have the moral right to invade and occupy the US, your inability to see that doesn't stem from lack of insight, it stems from the grip your ideology has on you.
"Ever since the cold war, there has been this irrational fear of communism,"
This was intentionally created in order to instill fear in the population. Submission to authority is created by fear, which is why there is so much scare mongering and war mongering in the US mainstream media. The media job is to manufacture consent for government policy, it used to mould people’s minds in order to create compliant, pliable, and heavily indoctrinated individuals, and you (or I for that matter, but to a lesser extent) are no exceptions.
Militant radical Islam is simply a replacement for communism.
"many conservatives believed that countries one-by-one would fall to communism and that The US would be swallowed up."
Please wacth the clip I provided from 0:40-1:27, it s a segment from a half hour documentary on americas hisotry by americas greatest historian (and possibly greatest author), Gore Vidal. I would also strongly recommend you watch teh whole thing.
"They adopted policies to oppose communism by any means necessary, and sometimes that meant supporting brutal groups like the Contras."
This inane rationalisation is not even worthy of response, I hope you are not too blind to see why.
"He was charged with lying to federal agents and for falsifying his immigration papers"
And not blwoing up a commerical airliner that killed over 70 civilians.
"then held in an Texas Jail for nearly 5 years"
He was jailed for 3 years in Panama until american pressure got him released, when his presence in the US was realised hundreds of thousands of people poured onto the street of Havana demanding justice, he was detained by Homeland security while they tried to find a friendly nation that would give him asylm, Venzueala sought his extradition, it was denied on the grounds that he would be tortured (hypocrisy at its finest), he was released in 2007 and was essentially free, he faced another trial in 2010 in which he was cleared of all charges. Not too sure where you're getting your info. from.
"He was ruled innocent of those crimes."
It's called a PR show
"Hell, the Taliban constructed training camps for Bin Laden's soldiers in Afghanistan."
Bin Laden paid for everything I can assure you, all they did was allow him in their country, the principle is exactly the same.
"Luis posada, was one man."
He was just the pertinent example, the document history of hired US terrorist and henchmen is too long to detail.
"Osama Bin Laden had a small army."
I would advise you watch a documentary called "the power of nightmares" by renowned documentary film maker Adam Curtis.
"he Taliban seized military control of Afghanistan with Pakistani militia soldiers, weapons, and supplies."
I didn't mean they were voted into power, I meant the people welcomed them and the security they brought.
"And without this Pakistani support it probably would have failed."
I don't deny that.
"The Taliban also launched rockets into cities, burned crop fields, denied UN food to 160,000 starving people dragged people out of their homes and executed them."
Ya, they have done mnay horrible things, but your country has done far worse to Afghanistan, I'm not even talking aboiut the war in '01.
"This caused people to flee the country."
I'm not saying the people didn't turn on them once they realsied the kind of society the Taliban had in mind, but to neglect the fact the many supported them prior to taking power doesn't due justice to history.
I disagree, the movie calls to attention the degradation in culture that has taken place in the Western world. Pop/celebrity culture is an embarrassment to the human race, I don't beleive this culture should be encouraged as it has very little artistic or creative merit, it is anti-intellectual, it is completely neurotic, it glorifies the ego in way that forces people to conform to highly destructive (to the mind, personal happiness, freedom etc.) mode's of thought and behaviour.
As usual your response is laden with american exceptionalism masquerading as decency.
"Bullshit you're not. Should we review past comments"
You know this was the exact same insult levied against Ron Paul when he tried to explain the motivation for 9/11, typical.
"When I questioned you about the Taliban using children as suicide bombers you said and I quote: "it is the only way they can resist...", Please tell me what this is if not a justification?"
I'm not trying to justify the act itself, it is quite obviously deplorable, and I was even unaware they used such practices, this is first time I've heard of Taliban strapping bombs to children, are you sure this is a routine practice and not an isolated incident?
Also, I don't have to condone their savagery to understand it.
"When I questioned about them using IEDs in heavily populated areas you again said: "the Taliban have had to use all available means of maintaining their existence"
Because they do, it doesn't mean I support them.
"You think this is a war between countries?"
Well, maybe not anymore, but for most of the war the population supported the aims of the taliban against the foreign invaders, so yeah, when the majority of a countries people despise the invaders and what to rid themseves of them, and they simultaneously support the force that is trying to accomplish that, I don't think it's intellectually dishonest to describe it as a war between two couintres (aolbeit an unconventional one), one very small and weak, another very large and agressive. Up to about three years ago that's exactly what it was.
"And the Taliban doesn't have either the moral nor the legal high ground."
Actually as the legal government of the country when it was invaded they have the legal high ground, I can assure you.
"The Taliban was part of the Al Qaeda support structure, the U.S. was perfectly within it's right to take out that support structure"
Can you not even realise when you make such stupid statement that directly contradict the fundamental tenets of international law? You are unbeleiveable. 9/11 was a crime, not an act of war. Osama Bin Laden was a terrorist, not the ruler of a country. To show you how stupid you sound like me hihglight one of the many terrorist and foprmer cia mass murderers currently provided with asylm in the USA e.g.
Now, by your logic, since he is responsible for hundreds of civilian deaths across latin american (e.g. in Cuba and Venezuala most notably), they have the legal right to invade the US, is this not directly comparable to Afghanistan granting asylm to Bin ladn and few associates?
Do not see your own inherent hypocrisy? I don't think you do, I think it's like programming, it's hardwire into you, you run on an operating system called "american exceptionalism 2.0"
To quote Chomsky, "terrorism" is only what other people do.
"What do you think the Taliban has been doing since they came to power?"
The Taliban are an indigenous group that came to power with popular backing in Afghanistan in 1992, they may have proved to be unpopular subsequent to that but I think we both know there is a qualitative difference between them enforcing something and you enforcing something.
"Telling people how to live their lives."
I admit that the principle's of democracy don't allow for tranny of the majority, but we have no right (legal or moral) to force our ideals upon them, watch the Robert Fisk interview.
"Remember what I said earlier, the Taliban represents a minority ideology and any who opposes that is threatened with violence or even death."
They maybe a minority now, but it has taken almost 11 years of war for that to happen, and they still have the support of probably a third of country, so really, it isn;t exactly a tiny minority, and they rose to power with popular backing. They will be a political force in Afghanistan again, i just hope their ideology get's watered down by the presence of other more moderate politcal elements.
"this however does not require me to agree with your assessments."
Would you support an aggresive invasion of Iran if Isreal decides to knock out their nuclear facilities?
"Well if everybody knew about it then it wouldn't very well be clandestine, then would it?"
It also wouldn't help with the false image the US paint's of itself, and then successfullly sells to the population, and much of the rest of the western world, although in recent times your atrocious crimes have become much harder to conceal.
"This issue is much more complex than I think you are willing to admit."
Yes, it's all very complex, just like the Stalinist Russian, there the little truth with a small t (i.e. actual truth, purges, Gulags etc.), but then there's the big truth with a big T(Soviet ideal tommorrow).
"Does the U.S. government support and fund rebel/insurgent forces in other countries. Yes."
And these are the very same groups that cut the heads off civilians and post it online, and you back them with guns and money, and provide offices for their politcal wings in washington.
"The US Government has a history of backing rebel/insurgent groups"
You have a history of backing them against democractically elected governments, yes, and they are called terrorists, cause their job is to create terror in order to fufilll a politcal aim, and let me make clear that you have no bones about doing the dirty work yourselves (i.e. US military) if the objective is important enough, you only use these brutal terrorists (that are just as bad as any Al Queda) when the PR hit isn't worth the reward.
"if it perceives the Dictatorship which it is rebelling against as being the greater of the two evils."
This is classic grade A america BULLSHIT, this is the very propaganda washington is so good at peddling, unfortunately it bears no relation to the truth e.g.
Were the Sandanistas an unelected dictatorship?
What about President Salvador Allende in Chile?
What about Mohammad Mosadegh?
What about Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán, the democratically-elected President of Guatemala?
What about Patrice Émery Lumumba, the first legally elected Prime Minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo?
I could on and on and on, you have a consistent policy of overthorwing any government that is not aligned with your interests, you don't mind dictatorships, you don't mind democracies, you really don't care as long as they are subservient to your interests.
"Most of the time though the dictatorships are worse than the rebel/insurgent groups backed by the U.S."
I can see why you have to beleive that bullshit, I mean your views would become quite tenuous if you didn't.
"Time will tell."
Time has already told, the West used the false justification of a "supposed" blood bath that was about to occur to remove Gaddafi for something more pliable (the NTC), they have proven to be no better than Gaddafi himself, they are guilty of atrocious war crimes, Libyan civilian are no better off, in fact they are worse as it has become as lawless place, but you won't see that on any Western news station, fuck no.
"As I pointed out and as you neglected, the support was only for the --aims-- of the Taliba"
As I pointed out, that still meant that they supported them and not you, you were the foreign invaders.
"even then it was still a minority."
No, they had majoity support for a long time, let's not distort history here, they have a monirity now, but it is a recent development.
"Apparently you don't realize that Afghanistan doesn't have any oil of it's own. It has to be imported into the country."
Perhaphs you are unaware of the strategic importance of Afghanistan i.e.
"One of the recently released State Department documents, from March 2000, notes that a proposed “gas pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Multan, Pakistan figured prominently in discussions” about the mutual goal between the U.S. and regional players of stabilizing Afghanistan."
The US planned on invading long vefore 9/11 ever happened, interviews from people in know have proved this i.e.
"He said that he was in no doubt that after the World Trade Center bombings this pre-existing US plan had been built upon and would be implemented within two or three weeks.
And he said it was doubtful that Washington would drop its plan even if Bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the Taleban.Former Pakistani Foreign Secretary Niaz Naik"
"They affirm that until August, the US government saw the Taliban regime "as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of an oil pipeline across Central Asia" from the rich oilfields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. Until now, "the oil and gas reserves of Central Asia have been controlled by Russia. The Bush government wanted to change all that."
But, confronted with Taliban's refusal to accept US conditions, "this rationale of energy security changed into a military one".
"At one moment during the negotiations, the US representatives told the Taliban, 'either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs,'" Brisard said in an interview in Paris. "
"I would like to see it."
It can be hard to see anything when you're blinded by nationalistic propaganda.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!