Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Terrorism behind the scenario.


jeem

Recommended Posts

Britain was once the biggest exporters of opium from Afghanistan, remember the opium war and Hong Kong. This was well before the Russians.

Personally I think the people behind all this today are the pharmaceutical companies, who have a massive reason to keep their foot in these countries producing opium.

i forgot to mention that After a major U.S. offensive in Kandahar province in 2011, Colonel Abdul Razziq was appointed provincial police chief, boosting a heroine smuggling operatioon that already earned him $60 million in a year.

Look what type of people US puts in power

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, so .. a quick half-time summary.

1) Afghans are corrupt.

2) The Taliban encourage drug production, providing only that those drugs are exported to non-Muslim nations, particularly America.

3) The CIA love destabalising regimes that are hostile to US interests.

Hmmm.... I'm not sure any of the above will come as an entire surprise to regular UM readers. More like a collection of golden oldies.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i forgot to mention that After a major U.S. offensive in Kandahar province in 2011, Colonel Abdul Razziq was appointed provincial police chief, boosting a heroine smuggling operatioon that already earned him $60 million in a year.

Look what type of people US puts in power

It goes far back further than that.

America where not the first to try and get a share, the British did it, the French did the Germans and the Soviet Union and thats just for starters.

You may find this interesting, this is how the pharmaceutical companies work in Afghanistan:

http://www.areu.org.af/Uploads/EditionPdfs/532E-Market%20for%20Pharmaceuticals-CS-web.pdf

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the U.S and U.K. leave the Afghanies to their own devices and move out, I would give the Afghan Gov't and Military/Police,less than 5 years before they revert to Taliban control again.Thats the way they want it.Thats the way they like it.and that's what is going to happen,so the whole exercise of trying to "help" them is just a waste of time,and a waste of lives lost to a cause that cannot be changed,because its been going on for so long that's its become a way of life..

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, so .. a quick half-time summary.

1) Afghans are corrupt.

2) The Taliban encourage drug production, providing only that those drugs are exported to non-Muslim nations, particularly America.

3) The CIA love destabalising regimes that are hostile to US interests.

Hmmm.... I'm not sure any of the above will come as an entire surprise to regular UM readers. More like a collection of golden oldies.

Perhaps you don't know that the Taliban government reduce opium production by 95% in two years 1999-2001.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the point I have been trying to make for years, they have everything to do with modern day islamists. They follow the same beliefs and the same agenda of killing, eg: travellers and government bodies. The only difference today is the weapons they use are much more advanced. But their beliefs do not differ from when they first started. They still believe in the old man in the mountain, where they will go to and meet their 72 virgins. The sect divided into 2, today we have the islamists who want rid of the governments (which today include the west) and all which is not islam, no different from back then.

Actually modern terrorism has nothing to do with these beliefs.It is political rather than religious.Post colonial efforts at state formation and creation of Israel engendered a series of anti-Western transformations and movements throughout the Arab world.The growth of these nationalist and revolutionary movements, along with their view that terrorism could be effective in reaching political goals, generated the first phase of modern international terrorism.Two of the major political goal of Al-Qaeda was to end western(American) influence in the middle east(specially withdrawal of all US military base from Saudi-Arabia ) and to fight against Israel for their tyrannical behavior of the Palestinian

Edited by jeem
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually modern terrorism has nothing to do with these beliefs.It is political rather than religious.Post colonial efforts at state formation and creation of Israel engendered a series of anti-Western transformations and movements throughout the Arab world.The growth of these nationalist and revolutionary movements, along with their view that terrorism could be effective in reaching political goals, generated the first phase of modern international terrorism.Two of the major political goal of Al-Qaeda was to end western(American) influence in the middle east(specially withdrawal of all US military base from Saudi-Arabia ) and to fight against Israel for their tyrannical behavior of the Palestinian

Come now Jeem, you know the behavior of the Israelis has little to do with this. They were being attacked before ever they settled a single inch of extra land after the partition. It's the EXISTENCE of Israel that is the issue. At least be honest about that much.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps you don't know that the Taliban government reduce opium production by 95% in two years 1999-2001.

On 15 October 1999, citing the failure of the Taliban authorities to respond to this demand, the Council applied broad sanctions under the enforcement provisions of the UN Charter.

http://www.un.org/news/dh/latest/afghan/un-afghan-history.shtml

Please read the links provided for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually modern terrorism has nothing to do with these beliefs.It is political rather than religious.Post colonial efforts at state formation and creation of Israel engendered a series of anti-Western transformations and movements throughout the Arab world.The growth of these nationalist and revolutionary movements, along with their view that terrorism could be effective in reaching political goals, generated the first phase of modern international terrorism.Two of the major political goal of Al-Qaeda was to end western(American) influence in the middle east(specially withdrawal of all US military base from Saudi-Arabia ) and to fight against Israel for their tyrannical behavior of the Palestinian

With the islamists, politics and their religion go hand in hand. This is not new! There are islamic political parties all over the globe, some have been banned in certain countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually modern terrorism has nothing to do with these beliefs.It is political rather than religious.Post colonial efforts at state formation and creation of Israel engendered a series of anti-Western transformations and movements throughout the Arab world.The growth of these nationalist and revolutionary movements, along with their view that terrorism could be effective in reaching political goals, generated the first phase of modern international terrorism.Two of the major political goal of Al-Qaeda was to end western(American) influence in the middle east(specially withdrawal of all US military base from Saudi-Arabia ) and to fight against Israel for their tyrannical behavior of the Palestinian

Weeell.... PERHAPS.... but I'd like to offer you an alternative suggestion.

First of all...

Actually modern terrorism has nothing to do with these beliefs.It is political rather than religious.

I tend to disagree. Consider that the Ottoman Empire occupied all of the Levant for.. what... 300 years ? More ? There where no significant Arab revolts against it. Guess what.. the Ottomans where Muslim. And - since the extensive Muslim conquest of the Arabian peninsula (and for that matter, modern Turkey), so where the Arabs .

Secondly, rate the following two statements as "most likely to appear in the news".

1) Muslims riot and attack Jews after Politics Lecture at <insert name of university>

2) Muslims riot and attack Jews after Friday Prayers.

Islam is unique amongst major religions in that it integrates politics with religion, but with religion in the driving seat.

The growth of these nationalist and revolutionary movements, along with their view that terrorism could be effective in reaching political goals, generated the first phase of modern international terrorism.

Hmmm... possibly.. depending on your definition of terrorism. Muslims have been indulging in intermittent pogroms against their local Jews for centuries, both in the MIddle East, Africa, Spain and Turkey. Is that terrorism ? If not, what do we call it ?

In addition, most Muslim-conquered nations have forced Jews to live in a "dhimmi" status - also for centuries. Is THAT terrorism ? If not, what do we call it ?

When Israel called itself into being, the Arab's didn't respond with terrorism ... or at least... no more than their usual background riots against the Jews... but instead the Arab League armies invaded with tanks, mechanised infantry, and arial bombing. It was only when they lost - several times over the course of 30 years - that they realised they where incompetent at organised modern warfare, and instead became associated with what we now call "terrorism".

"Hey.. we failed at invading with tanks... and we can't do the "Friday Prayers Riots" 'cos the Jews fight back... so lets try slaughtering some Olympic Athletes in Germany instead... "

Two of the major political goal of Al-Qaeda was to end western(American) influence in the middle east(specially withdrawal of all US military base from Saudi-Arabia ) and to fight against Israel for their tyrannical behavior of the Palestinian

I can agree with the first part of that statement, and can even have some (qualified) sympathy for their motives, though not with their methods. But don't try and tell me that Al_Qaeda has ANY genuine interest over the plight of the Palestinians. They - like most of the "Arab" world, treat the Palestinians at best like chess pieces, and at worst with contempt.

The above was written in haste, and I know I've painted with a broad brush. So feel free to pick holes in it, and I'll debate you item-by-item.

But I don't think you will. You give the impression of a "drive-by" poster. Quick to dash of a poisoned polemic... slow to justify it.

Perhaps you'll surprise me Jeem ?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You miss the fact here.He wasn't trying to sit in power.He wishes to nationalize British oil which would benefit the Iranian people.So CIA removed him

He may or may not have meant to usurp power but that is in effect what his intentions would have led to. And his backers were enemies of the state, including influence from the Soviet Union. That is the main fact. The CIA didn’t remove him because it would have benefited the Iranian people. I know that many think that is the kind of strategic planning that goes on in the Pentagon but that's pretty asinine. I agree with his intentions of nationalizing Iranian Oil, not British BTW – think about it, even you consider the oil industry in Iran as British. But he was the wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time. But let’s not forget that if it wasn’t for British Oil, those resources would have never been developed. I’d say at the very least, the entire effort should be equally divided. If the Shah was not so weak and wasn’t afraid of his enemies, he should have been the one to kick out the British and nationalize Iran’s oil industry.

You are trying to say that US should help the Iranian Shah(in fact US did its best to keep the Shah in power) who was in fact a dictator and whose secret police SAVAK was just as brutal as GESTAPO.

I’m not trying to say it, I said it. Yes, the SAVAK had to be every bit as brutal as the GESTAPO. Look at his enemies; they were just as brutal. He was only brutal to the Radical Islamists and the Communists. Is what we have now ruling Iran a worthwhile trade? Every modern advancement that Iran has today is due to the Shah. Iran was the third Muslim nation to grant women the right to vote in 1963. Persian culture was once again stepping out on the world stage. Now, it is considered a pariah and bully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually modern terrorism has nothing to do with these beliefs.It is political rather than religious.Post colonial efforts at state formation and creation of Israel engendered a series of anti-Western transformations and movements throughout the Arab world.The growth of these nationalist and revolutionary movements, along with their view that terrorism could be effective in reaching political goals, generated the first phase of modern international terrorism.Two of the major political goal of Al-Qaeda was to end western(American) influence in the middle east(specially withdrawal of all US military base from Saudi-Arabia ) and to fight against Israel for their tyrannical behavior of the Palestinian

It sounds like the usual suspects who can't understand what you're saying are implying that one cannot have terrorism without religion.

I'm not trying to say it, I said it. Yes, the SAVAK had to be every bit as brutal as the GESTAPO. Look at his enemies; they were just as brutal. He was only brutal to the Radical Islamists and the Communists. Is what we have now ruling Iran a worthwhile trade? Every modern advancement that Iran has today is due to the Shah. Iran was the third Muslim nation to grant women the right to vote in 1963. Persian culture was once again stepping out on the world stage. Now, it is considered a pariah and bully.

You're advocating for the Gestapo! Do you even listen to yourself!? If having brutal enemies is the reason for brutality, the human race would be as brutal today as it ever was. Nobody with a superior mind would have ever stood up and shown a better way, a human way, and made the world a less brutal place. But I would predict that anyone who advocates for ethnic cleansing could also agree with what you just wrote.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sounds like the usual suspects who can't understand what you're saying are implying that one cannot have terrorism without religion.

.....

Or perhaps it is a 'usual suspect' who DOES understand what Jeem is saying, but who disagrees with it on issues of fact.

Now, please show me where I said that you can't have terrorism without religion. I didn't say - or imply - that, did I ?

In another post you - quite rightly - complained about people mis-quoting you, or attributing statements to you that you never made. It ill behooves you to complain if you are going to do it to others, old chap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or perhaps it is a 'usual suspect' who DOES understand what Jeem is saying, but who disagrees with it on issues of fact.

Now, please show me where I said that you can't have terrorism without religion. I didn't say - or imply - that, did I ?

In another post you - quite rightly - complained about people mis-quoting you, or attributing statements to you that you never made. It ill behooves you to complain if you are going to do it to others, old chap.

You even quote me in your signature without my permission. I'm not going to babysit after you for you to misquote me and cause misinterpretations. I don't trust you to accurately convey something I say, either in wording or in context. Please link to the quote where I made it if you're going to quote me in your signature as well as link to my profile, thanks. I'm flattered that you're quoting me, but it's a bit trollish when you don't even ask first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, please show me where I said that you can't have terrorism without religion. I didn't say - or imply - that, did I ?

Why are you putting yourself in the company of usual suspects? Where did I say or imply that? I think you're just looking for a disagreement with someone and you're trying hard to manufacture one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You even quote me in your signature without my permission.

Did you get Nelson Mandela's permission ?

I'm not going to babysit after you for you to misquote me and cause misinterpretations. I don't trust you to accurately convey something I say, either in wording or in context. Please link to the quote where I made it if you're going to quote me in your signature as well as link to my profile, thanks. I'm flattered that you're quoting me, but it's a bit trollish when you don't even ask first.

pram.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're advocating for the Gestapo!

No, I am not. Another example of you failing comprehension.

Do you even listen to yourself!?

I do, you obviously don’t. You just insert what you want.

If having brutal enemies is the reason for brutality, the human race would be as brutal today as it ever was.

And it is. As long as Man exists, there will be brutality. That is probably axiom #1. Trying to ignore that it exists just causes it to fester. In a world where it exists, you must fight fire with fire.

Nobody with a superior mind would have ever stood up and shown a better way, a human way, and made the world a less brutal place.

Nobody with a superior mind would have shown weakness and get steamrolled. Brutality *IS* the human way. I’m not necessarily advocating it; I merely acknowledge that this is our nature. That’s what you don’t seem to understand, yet you exhibit it with everyone that disagrees with you.

But I would predict that anyone who advocates for ethnic cleansing could also agree with what you just wrote.

Ethnic cleansing is how civilization evolves. How many times have we been over this and you still haven’t learned? It may not fit your altruistic fantasy world but it is reality. If you want to change the world, you first must control it. The last time I looked, that’s a pretty difficult thing to do.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you get Nelson Mandela's permission ?

pram.jpg

How do you ask the dead for permission? I'm not taking the chance of you removing a word or adding a word to my quote in three months from now and nobody notices except a new person who actually reads it. I don't trust you, I don't know you. If you actually want to advertise me under your posts, include the evidence you have for those being my words with it. That's all I ask. People can link to my profile from the quote anyway with one click of the mouse. Why is this request a problem for you btw?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I am not. Another example of you failing comprehension.

I do, you obviously don't. You just insert what you want.

And it is. As long as Man exists, there will be brutality. That is probably axiom #1. Trying to ignore that it exists just causes it to fester. In a world where it exists, you must fight fire with fire.

Nobody with a superior mind would have shown weakness and get steamrolled. Brutality *IS* the human way. I'm not necessarily advocating it; I merely acknowledge that this is our nature. That's what you don't seem to understand, yet you exhibit it with everyone that disagrees with you.

Ethnic cleansing is how civilization evolves. How many times have we been over this and you still haven't learned? It may not fit your altruistic fantasy world but it is reality. If you want to change the world, you first must control it. The last time I looked, that's a pretty difficult thing to do.

Huh? So you DON'T advocate for the Shah of Iran overthrowing Mossadeq?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ethnic cleansing is how civilization evolves. How many times have we been over this and you still haven't learned? It may not fit your altruistic fantasy world but it is reality. If you want to change the world, you first must control it.

I might have to ask Saru if I can use this quote in my profile signature with a link to Ravenhawk's profile page.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might have to ask Saru if I can use this quote in my profile signature with a link to Ravenhawk's profile page.

What part of it is inaccurate? Your question seems fraught with subtle malice - as usual. If a person makes an observation of a well known fact, this makes the person RESPONSIBLE for the fact?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What part of it is inaccurate? Your question seems fraught with subtle malice - as usual. If a person makes an observation of a well known fact, this makes the person RESPONSIBLE for the fact?

What well known fact is that? That people who advocate for ethnic cleansing are as bad as people who advocate for ethnic cleansing?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ethnic cleansing is wrong in absolute terms. However, if it is that, or violent civil war, then sometimes it might be the lesser of two evils.

Yamato, if you are going to campaign against ethnic cleansing, then for the most part I would agree with you. However, are you applying it consistently ? You criticise Israel (by implication) for ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, but why don't you similarly criticise the the ethnic cleansing and apartheid behavior of neighboring countries like Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia etc. Try getting into most Arab states with a Jewish passport, and see how far you get.

Once more, Israel is singled out for criticism, and Israel alone, and THAT is what annoys me.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weeell.... PERHAPS.... but I'd like to offer you an alternative suggestion.

First of all...

I tend to disagree. Consider that the Ottoman Empire occupied all of the Levant for.. what... 300 years ? More ? There where no significant Arab revolts against it. Guess what.. the Ottomans where Muslim. And - since the extensive Muslim conquest of the Arabian peninsula (and for that matter, modern Turkey), so where the Arabs .

May be because there were no leader among Arabs to raise the voice against the ottoman empire

Secondly, rate the following two statements as "most likely to appear in the news".

1) Muslims riot and attack Jews after Politics Lecture at <insert name of university>

2) Muslims riot and attack Jews after Friday Prayers.

Islam is unique amongst major religions in that it integrates politics with religion, but with religion in the driving seat.

Hmmm... possibly.. depending on your definition of terrorism. Muslims have been indulging in intermittent pogroms against their local Jews for centuries, both in the MIddle East, Africa, Spain and Turkey. Is that terrorism ? If not, what do we call it ?

In addition, most Muslim-conquered nations have forced Jews to live in a "dhimmi" status - also for centuries. Is THAT terrorism ? If not, what do we call it ?

When Israel called itself into being, the Arab's didn't respond with terrorism ... or at least... no more than their usual background riots against the Jews... but instead the Arab League armies invaded with tanks, mechanised infantry, and arial bombing. It was only when they lost - several times over the course of 30 years - that they realised they where incompetent at organised modern warfare, and instead became associated with what we now call "terrorism".

"Hey.. we failed at invading with tanks... and we can't do the "Friday Prayers Riots" 'cos the Jews fight back... so lets try slaughtering some Olympic Athletes in Germany instead... "

I can agree with the first part of that statement, and can even have some (qualified) sympathy for their motives, though not with their methods. But don't try and tell me that Al_Qaeda has ANY genuine interest over the plight of the Palestinians. They - like most of the "Arab" world, treat the Palestinians at best like chess pieces, and at worst with contempt.

The above was written in haste, and I know I've painted with a broad brush. So feel free to pick holes in it, and I'll debate you item-by-item.

But I don't think you will. You give the impression of a "drive-by" poster. Quick to dash of a poisoned polemic... slow to justify it.

Perhaps you'll surprise me Jeem ?

Oh and you believe Christian were very nice to the Jews.

So killing innocent children is self defense? Destroying peoples house for making Jewish settlements is self defense?

Just take a look what ordinary US citizen's taxes used for

http://thewe.cc/contents/more/archive/atrocities.htm

Roof I can say many things about Israel's terrorism.But I wonder will it change anything?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

May be because there were no leader among Arabs to raise the voice against the ottoman empire

Oh and you believe Christian were very nice to the Jews.

So killing innocent children is self defense? Destroying peoples house for making Jewish settlements is self defense?

Just take a look what ordinary US citizen's taxes used for

http://thewe.cc/cont.../atrocities.htm

Roof I can say many things about Israel's terrorism.But I wonder will it change anything?

Man that link... Its no wonder that suicides take more lives from israeli soldiers then palestinian bombs do. And about that man who was shooting at palestinians while Israel army people were around him - i think he is foreigner most likely - come to 'shooting range' and shot kid in the neck.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.