Play Nice Random Chat Thread VI

[Royal Flush]

A good news story. A good human story.

Let's keep hitting the rich for wealth inequality and being greedy campaigners.

On Pixel 4 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[rooboy_07]

Grain of salt and all that. I assume it’s been proofread?

Let me know how you go.

We are on mate! We are on. Very excited.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

We are on mate! We are on. Very excited.

Excellent, congratulations.

 

[DesertRoo]

When a Taliban spokesman is asked about freedom of speech, he points to Facebook's and big tech's censorship of Americans.

America has lost all moral authority to speak on freedom of speech due to a handful of Silicon Valley billionaires.

Taliban hits back at question on free speech and says Facebook censors

Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid on Tuesday hit back at questions whether his Islamist government would respect freedom of speech, pointing out that Facebook censors many.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[rooboy_07]

Excellent, congratulations.

Thanks mate.

 

[Tas]

Oh look, it is the war criminal, John Howard, who sent Australians to die in Iraq and Afghanistan under false pretences crawling out from under a rock to defend the "war on terror". The only terrorist organisation worth fighting is the CIA, the mob who created the Taliban, funded and trained them to kill Russians. Created ISIS, funded and trained them to kill Russians. These American dogs of war got off the leash and lock-jawed on their own balls. That was their problem to deal with. Howard being the spineless coward legitimised their war and paid for it with the blood of Australians. He should be tried as a war criminal.

 

[Ligma]

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Oh look, it is the war criminal, John Howard, who sent Australians to die in Iraq and Afghanistan under false pretences crawling out from under a rock to defend the "war on terror". The only terrorist organisation worth fighting is the CIA, the mob who created the Taliban, funded and trained them to kill Russians. Created ISIS, funded and trained them to kill Russians. These American dogs of war got off the leash and lock-jawed on their own balls. That was their problem to deal with. Howard being the spineless coward legitimised their war and paid for it with the blood of Australians. He should be tried as a war criminal.

I know this is not going to be popular, or well received (I should be used to that by now), but I feel that you are conflating a few points here.


1. The CIA-backed Mujahideen and Taliban are not the same. The latter emerged after the factional infighting between various Mujahideen factions after they defeated the Soviets. The Taliban had emerged in a Pashtun village around 1994, after being taught in Saudi-style Wahhabi Madrassas colleges and in Pakistan refugee camps. They were backed by Pakistan intelligence. Al-Qaeda emerged in 1988 right towards the end of the Soviet War, therefore, some of it members benefited indirectly from the US programs. Very likely the Saudis and others backed the multinational group too.

The problem was, following the Soviet Union's collapse, Washington could have more effectively pressured Pakistan to tone down the support for Islamic fundamentalism, especially after the rise of the Taliban. Instead, Washington ceded her responsibility and gave Pakistan a sphere of influence in Afghanistan unlimited by any other foreign pressure as well as left 40,000 pissed off Islamic fighters. This led to the exponential growth of terror threats in the 1990s that continue to this day.

2. The Afghanistan commitment was not launched under false pretenses. It was publicly based on failed extradition terms and the ever-so curious relationship between Bin Laden and the Taliban, rather than genuine ass-covering on the US' behalf. It was the Iraq War that really lacked the adequate pretext. Public opinion in Australia leading up to the 2003 Iraq War was actually in favour of intervening oddly enough.

3. We didn't actually suffer any deaths against ISIS, not including the people that ran off to join them.

4. Australia has always fought alongside its great and powerful friends in defence of their interests. Should Cook and Fisher be classed as war criminals for involving us in what was a European generated war (WWI)? Menzies in Korea, Malaya, Borneo or Vietnam due to Commonwealth and Cold War reasons? Keating during the First Gulf War?

Our military commitments since 1945, with the exception of Korea and Vietnam, have generally been minimal because we are trying to minimise causalities and display alliance solidarity in exchange for security, equipment we cannot develop ourselves and a degree of stability.

Don't get me wrong, we should not have been in Afghanistan or Iraq, but Howard is not a war criminal for making the exact same type of decision that many Australian leaders before him have made.

 

[DesertRoo]

I know this is not going to be popular, or well received (I should be used to that by now), but I feel that you are conflating a few points here.


1. The CIA-backed Mujahideen and Taliban are not the same. The latter emerged after the factional infighting between various Mujahideen factions after they defeated the Soviets. The Taliban had emerged in a Pashtun village around 1994, after being taught in Saudi-style Wahhabi Madrassas colleges and in Pakistan refugee camps. They were backed by Pakistan intelligence. Al-Qaeda emerged in 1988 right towards the end of the Soviet War, therefore, some of it members benefited indirectly from the US programs. Very likely the Saudis and others backed the multinational group too.

The problem was, following the Soviet Union's collapse, Washington could have more effectively pressured Pakistan to tone down the support for Islamic fundamentalism, especially after the rise of the Taliban. Instead, Washington ceded her responsibility and gave Pakistan a sphere of influence in Afghanistan unlimited by any other foreign pressure as well as left 40,000 pissed off Islamic fighters. This lead to the exponential growth of terror threats in the 1990s that continue to this day.

2. The Afghanistan commitment was not launched under false pretenses. It was publicly based on failed extradition terms and the ever-so curious relationship between Bin Laden and the Taliban. It was the Iraq War that really lacked the adequate pretext. Public opinion leading up to the 2003 Iraq War was actually in favour of intervening oddly enough.

3. Australia has always fought alongside its great and powerful friends in defence of their interests. Should Cook and Fisher be classed as war criminals for involving us in what was a European generated war (WWI)? Menzies in Korea or Vietnam with the Cold War powers and their proxies going at it? Keating during the First Gulf War?

Our military commitments since 1945, with the exception of Korea and Vietnam, have generally been tiny because we are trying to minimise causalities and display alliance solidarity in exchange for security, equipment we cannot develop ourselves and a degree of stability.

Don't get me wrong, we should not have been in Afghanistan or Iraq, but Howard is not a war criminal for making the exact same type of decision that many Australian leaders before him have made.

Wasn’t the Taliban formed in relation to Iran backed Hezb-e Wahdat, which later in tern became a large part of the northern alliance, like most parts of that world, complicated because you certainly wouldn’t want an Iran backed proxy force..

 

[Ligma]

I have a consult with Nathan Parnham, a strength and conditioning director and an author of ‘The sporting parent’ a book about ensuring your child succeeds in sport.

if you have any questions regarding either s&c or child’s sporting desires, ask away and I will ask on behalf of you

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Wasn’t the Taliban formed in relation to Iran backed Hezb-e Wahdat, which later in tern became a large part of the northern alliance, like most parts of that world, complicated because you certainly wouldn’t want an Iran backed proxy force..

In part, I would definitely say yes. The factional infighting and the civil war also provided ample opportunity for a new group and the early Taliban leaders felt that many of the other groups were not properly adhering the teachings and moral code of Islam.

 

[DesertRoo]

In part, I would definitely say yes. The factional infighting and the civil war also provided amply opportunity for a new group and the early Taliban leaders felt that many of the other groups were not properly adhering the teachings and moral code of Islam.

It’s my belief creating zealots go hand in hand with a strict moral code..

It’s what the isi and the Saudi were teaching.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

It’s my belief creating zealots go hand in hand with a strict moral code..

It’s what the isi and the Saudi were teaching.

The Soviet-Afghan war and US indifference of it afterwards helped the unhappy genie escape out of the bottle.

 

[Intothewind]

Yeah but they sent Rambo so they weren't totally dissinterested.

On Pixel 4a using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Yeah but they sent Rambo so they weren't totally dissinterested.

On Pixel 4a using BigFooty.com mobile app

Well, you got me there.

 

[DesertRoo]

The Soviet-Afghan war and US indifference of it afterwards helped the unhappy genie escape out of the bottle.

Between the two super powers, I believe there was a massive ignorance to what the age old enemies actual means… I believe the brits knew and drove a massive stake in between them after the fall of the ottoman.

 

[Lomas]

The Soviet-Afghan war and US indifference of it afterwards helped the unhappy genie escape out of the bottle.

Tbf, they did send Rambo.

 

[Ligma]

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Tbf, they did send Rambo.

Never really watched any of the Rambo films, except for that recent Burma one a few years back.

 

[Lomas]

Never really watched any of the Rambo films, except for that recent Burma one a few years back.

I just had the video game on the Commodore64

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

I just had the video game on the Commodore64

Showing your age a bit there mate.

My first console was the Sega. I though the N64 was an absolute game-changer with Goldeneye and Mario Kart.

 

[Lomas]

Showing your age a bit there mate.

My first console was the Sega. I though the N64 was an absolute game-changer with Goldeneye and Mario Kart.

I'm from the country, and my parents didn't approve of video games. Got it from my uncle in 1994.

 

[Lomas]

Showing your age a bit there mate.

My first console was the Sega. I though the N64 was an absolute game-changer with Goldeneye and Mario Kart.

Spent many hours playing Goldeneye. Play mario kart with the kids now on one of those retro consoles that comes with all the games loaded.

 

[DesertRoo]

Showing your age a bit there mate.

My first console was the Sega. I though the N64 was an absolute game-changer with Goldeneye and Mario Kart.

Wasted way to many hours on Golden Eye, my bro cracked it because id memorised all the levels and would hunt him down from his screen.

 

[Tas]

I know this is not going to be popular, or well received (I should be used to that by now), but I feel that you conflating a few points here.


1. The Mujahadeen and Taliban are not the same. The latter emerged after the faction infighting between various Mujahadeen factions after they defeated the Soviets. The Taliban had emerged in a Pashtun village around 1994, after being taught in Saudi-style Wahhabi Madrassas colleges and in Pakistan refugee camps. They were backed by Pakistan intelligence. The problem was, following the Soviet Union's collapse, Washington could have more effectively pressured Pakistan to tone down the support for Islamic fundamentalism, especially after the rise of the Taliban. Instead, Washington ceded her responsibility and gave Pakistan a sphere of influence in Afghanistan unlimited by any other foreign pressure. This lead to the exponential growth of terror threats in the 1990s that continue to this day.

From the horse's mouth:

2. The Afghanistan commitment was not launched under false pretenses. It was publicly based on failed extradition terms and the ever-so curious relationship between Bin Laden and the Taliban. It was the Iraq War that lacked the adequate pretext. Public opinion leading up to the 2003 Iraq War was actually in favour of intervening oddly enough.

Right, we have international laws and the law of war which regulates the conditions for war from banning certain practices to the process of declaration of wars, surrendering and minimising the loss of civilian life, treatment of prisoners, etc. So we have all these rules and conventions which we signed off on and members of the United Nations are expected to uphold.

We, nor the United States, declared war against Afghanistan. We had no authority to enter their territory, we had no mandate to change their government or try to install a puppet government. Anyone a party to this cause of action is a war criminal regardless if they have been prosecuted or not.

Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over

9.30pm update: * Taliban demand evidence of Bin Laden's guilt * Second week of airstrikes starts * Taliban urges US to halt bombing

www.theguardian.com

Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden if they would stop bombing Afghanistan. Bush rejected it. Bombing a country without declaring war is also a war crime.

The Americans during the soviet war called the Taliban and Al Qaeda freedom fighters while they were killing Russians.

3. Australia has always fought alongside its great and powerful friends in defence of their interests. Should Cook and Fisher be classed as war criminals for involving us in what was a European generated war (WWI)? Menzies in Korea or Vietnam with the Cold War powers and their proxies going at it? Keating during the First Gulf War?

Our military commitments since 1945, with the exception of Korea and Vietnam, have generally been tiny because we are trying to minimise causalities and display alliance solidarity in exchange for security, equipment we cannot develop ourselves and a degree of stability.

Don't get me wrong, we should not have been in Afghanistan or Iraq, but Howard is not a war criminal for making the exact same type of decision that many leaders before him have made.

We declared war against Germany and it's allies before we got involved in that conflict. The Korean and Vietnam wars were colonial wars, against Communism. As much as you do not like it, it is up to the people of Vietnam, Korea and elsewhere to decide for themselves how their country functions and is governed. America spent $300m a day for two decades propping up a puppet government and army. It didn't last 24hrs, America didn't even get the chance to leave fully before the puppet government collapsed.

It was wrong to be there, it was wrong to legitimise the war. Bush often referred to all the allies that joined him on this "war on terror" to legitimise it, saying this was a global community decision. Everyone was coerced into it and we should have had the nuts to say no.

The only conflict we thrust ourselves into that had any legitimacy was the East Timor conflict which was the right thing to do, getting caught spying on them and trying to screw them on oil and gas exploration soured things somewhat since then.

We are one of the biggest minnows going around, we have a small population and we don't make anything of note, we just export primary produce and natural resources and we try and act like a super power. On the grand scale our contribution is meaningless, but for the world, when a country like ours took a hit economically to oppose Indonesia and support the independence of East Timor, a country like that gave the USA some semblance of legitimacy.

Australia acting like a puppet state of the USA has brought terrorism to our shores, we are now part of collective that interferes with the middle-east and their ability to self-govern. We aren't on the right side of history as it will be remembered in the future.

How many bombs have we dropped on Syria? Have we declared war? No. Seriously, wtf are we doing and what do we stand for?