…the lesson Vietnam should’ve taught you is that you can’t win a guerilla war…
Wrong. The lesson Vietnam should’ve taught us is that you can’t win a guerilla war the way we attempted to in Vietnam. With one intentionally broken leg, one arm tied behind our back, blindfolded and ear plugs in.
Know your history, eph, before you swagger around on this forum. I simply can’t abide history dunces yapping and expecting to be taken seriously.
Guerrilla wars can and have been won. They just take different strategies and tactics than conventional wars.
…yeah, good luck with that…
I have a feeling you’re still in the “coffee shop”.[/quote]
…nah, i’m at home and haven’t smoked weed in 5 years, sorry kisses
If that’s the case then you need to amend your statement about seeking out Bin Laden. You need to admit that there’s a whole lot more to fighting the war on terror than one man. You need to be sophisticated and intelligent enough to concede that the U.S. and its allies including The Netherlands must prosecute the war vigorously against an entire network that takes in several countries. You need to concede that getting Bin Laden personally does not capture the king and end the chess game.
You need to be somewhat grateful and acknowledge that the American taxpayer is funding a humongous portion of this effort that directly and indirectly benefits the Dutch (and European) people.
Yeah, you also need to start agreeing with me more than once. You’d be right more often if you did.[/quote]
…that would require taking over most of the middle east and possibly Indonesia. It would perhaps even mean WW3, and don’t be fooled Push; the only one benefitting from this war is the military industrial complex…
…so even if Bin Laden was merely a plotdevice to get the ball rolling, the story will end in sorrow. I can’t be thankful for that, sorry…
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
orion wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote
I am so sorry, but, you, who are proficient at finding “straw men” where there are none, kindly point out to me where, in this thread, I “justify killing in the name of Freedom and Democracy?”
LM is beyond help, which is why he keeps such good company with you.
[/quote]
Oh, my bad.
So you would agree that the US has no business still being in Afghanistan and none being in Iraq at all and that all that killing was a terrible waste of time, resources and human life and a disgrace before God and all men?
Because if its just the Nazi comparison, I did not bring it up.
…the only one benefitting from this war is the military industrial complex…
A whole lot of Americans and Europeans have benefited enormously, eph. Do you need a lesson?
…go on then, how have i benefitted from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?
If I have to explain it to you then you’re too dense to understand anyway.
I mean honestly, eph, you can’t think of any reasons why a battered and severely wounded Al Qeada would benefit a Dutchman? [/quote]
…that’s your job Push, don’t shy away now. I’ve not benefitted from the wars, and even if AQ could be defeated, it will not make a difference to me personally. Please educate me why you think i’m wrong…
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I mean honestly, eph, you can’t think of any reasons why a battered and severely wounded Al Qaeda would benefit a Dutchman?
Or the opposite? That a robust and vigorous Al Qaeda could possibly hurt a Dutchman and The Netherlands in general?
No thoughts to this effect, huh? Holland, all snug as a bug in a rug by the shores of the North Sea and it has NOTHING to do with America’s efforts against terrorism?[/quote]
…i see you added some text. So tell me, were London, Madrid, Rabat, Mumbai and Bali safer after the invasions? I know they were safer before that, so what’s your point again?
…that’s your job Push, don’t shy away now. I’ve not benefitted from the wars, and even if AQ could be defeated, it will not make a difference to me personally. Please educate me why you think i’m wrong…
It’s not my job to teach the unteachable. [/quote]
[quote]pushharder wrote:
ephrem wrote:
pushharder wrote:
I mean honestly, eph, you can’t think of any reasons why a battered and severely wounded Al Qaeda would benefit a Dutchman?
Or the opposite? That a robust and vigorous Al Qaeda could possibly hurt a Dutchman and The Netherlands in general?
No thoughts to this effect, huh? Holland, all snug as a bug in a rug by the shores of the North Sea and it has NOTHING to do with America’s efforts against terrorism?
…i see you added some text.
I did it immediately but you know how slow the TN servers can be.
So tell me, were London, Madrid, Rabat, Mumbai and Bali safer after the invasions? I know they were safer before that, so what’s your point again?
You know this, huh? Try answering my questions before you ask one of your own. Is Holland safer from terrorism because of a severely wounded Al Qaeda or not?[/quote]
…i wasn’t accusing you of anything you know, just stating that fact. Anyway, i asked you a question first remember? How have i benefitted from the wars?
Now i’ll do you a favor and go ahead and answer yours, if only to show you how it’s done. Here it comes: i’ve experienced no correlation in safety levels here in Holland between a healthy AQ and a severely wounded AQ. IOW, nothing changed…
[quote]pushharder wrote:
ephrem wrote:…i wasn’t accusing you of anything you know, just stating that fact. Anyway, i asked you a question first remember? How have i benefitted from the wars?
Now i’ll do you a favor and go ahead and answer yours, if only to show you how it’s done. Here it comes: i’ve experienced no correlation in safety levels here in Holland between a healthy AQ and a severely wounded AQ. IOW, nothing changed…
It should go without saying that Islamic extremists have much, much easier access to Europe than North America but you’re still going to tell me that despite an Al Aqaeda that has been heavily wounded primarily by the U.S. that Europe enjoys no benefits? C’mon, eph, do I have to completely dismiss you here as irrelevant like I did Navajo Joe?[/quote]
…it wouldn’t bother me if you did, but honestly Pushy, prior to 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq, suicide bombthreats by muslims in Europe were virtually nonexistent. That changed, and you could argue that because AQ is severly wounded 8 years later we’re back to those levels [more or less], but i don’t know if we should thank you for that though…
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Tokoya wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Tokoya wrote:
Yes, it’s a shame that radical islam does not allow for the grey. Not sure you really want that “bad awakening” though. If it did and the Euopeans felt it was important to remember the day of the terrorist attack ~ and bristled at those that said they after 8 years should “move on” “get over it” ~ I’d understand how they felt. I think gets to the heart of what started this thread.
…Europe’s seen it’s share of muslim suicide attacks and killings Tokoya, don’t you remember?
Absolutely. Would never think of telling them to “get over” or “just move on” from the horrible memories of what happend in London, Madrid ~ or suggest that had it coming for having troops in Afghanistan. Or equate the efforts their troops were making over there to actions of nazis, SS. You see me working here and get my point I’m sure.
…i do, and i’m confident that in no way, in this thread, i’m guilty of what you just accused me of…
[/quote]
It was an open ended statement that pertains those that did ~ in this thread made that assertion.