Teddybare Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 another one pops up that cannot think further than there own nose Afghanistan's been a plaything for foreign invaders for hundreds and hundreds of years. Why is it acceptable to support Palestinian, Libyan, Iraqi, Kurdish, Iranian and Syrian rebels in their cause but not afghanis? British deaths in Afghanistan shouldn't be happening but it's western governments that are to blame. Mandela was a terrorist. Look how he is viewed now with hindsight. Not particularly thrilled at thought of more "terrorists" being let in but we accept the lot from places like Somalia and Sudan so why should afghans be treated any differently? Some might argue that we have more of a responsibility to displaced afghans who can never return home because Britain was directly involved in creating this situation. Saudi money paid for the 9/11 attacks, Saudis committed the attacks and bin laden the Saudi was hiding in Pakistan all along. So why are we not invading Saudia or Pakistan instead? And let's not forget who created this "evil" organisation in the first place. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone# Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 thought BF was the sexy one today? Oo Only in his own lunchtime Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teddybare Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 None of which makes a bit of difference he should be in his country fighting to make it better, if he thinks the Taliban are good for his country he should side with them and if he thinks the new government and our troops are good for his country he should side with them. He's a deserter from a cause that the west created. If he deserted he obviously doesn't think they are a force for good in his country. There are afghanis still living in Britain that thatcher's government paid and encouraged to return to terrorise the Russians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 Mandela was a terrorist. Look how he is viewed now with hindsight. one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist also, i think the vast majority of hardline terrorists in both iraq and afganistan are actually foriegners, ones already brainwashed, fighting a "just" cause in their minds, and ready to die like i said before, a lot of the minor ones would just be either kids or older men who are scared and think they have no other choice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 He's a deserter from a cause that the west created. If he deserted he obviously doesn't think they are a force for good in his country. There are afghanis still living in Britain that thatcher's government paid and encouraged to return to terrorise the Russians. and ones who we trained, educated and armed such as osama bin laden to kill the russians there, we are now hunting down and killing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 Only in his own lunchtime oh BF you know how to let a man down gently lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 A: a soldier dieing before hes even armed is no good for any country B: he prolly did think the taliban were good for his country that would be why he joined, but then saw the realities of his actions, innocents dieing, fellow countrymen, women and children So now he should be in his country fighting to rid it of the Taliban. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 So now he should be in his country fighting to rid it of the Taliban. do you really think the afgani government / army wouldnt torture and kill him for being an ex taliban fighter as soon as he set foot back on afgan soil? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 No Mel. Not this time. Its wrong, plain and simple. It will send a shocking message to the troops who are still fighting. And an even more shocking message to the troops who have been sacked through cuts. Its mental. Its deranged, its wrong wrong wrong!!! What message does it send to our troops ? Never forgive ? Once an enemy always an enemy ? Trust nobody ? The only good afghan is a dead afghan ? Top military in the uk and us have already said the war is unwinnable and the Taliban are going to get a seat at the negotiating table. Is that better or worse than a former Taliban terrorist/soldier/freedom fighter/conscript (choose your favourite) being given asylum ? Those still fighting and indeed killing and maiming our troops aren't renouncing anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 What message does it send to our troops ? Never forgive ? Once an enemy always an enemy ? Trust nobody ? The only good afghan is a dead afghan ? Top military in the uk and us have already said the war is unwinnable and the Taliban are going to get a seat at the negotiating table. Is that better or worse than a former Taliban terrorist/soldier/freedom fighter/conscript (choose your favourite) being given asylum ? Those still fighting and indeed killing and maiming our troops aren't renouncing anything. like i said earlier, least its one less killing and maiming our troops, thats got to be a good thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.