Re: Robches
Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 6:09 am
"It may amaze you, but the west was not the only player in arming the Muj. There are a lot of very rich Saudis (such as Bin Laden) who got in on the act"
Of course they had help not just from the west. You obviously agree with my point that the west helped arm the mujaheddin in their fight with the Russians and they then went on to take over the country.
For more info. read this about the leader of the Taliban, Mullah Omar who fought against the Russians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Omar
"Saddam Hussein's army was almost exclusively equipped with Soviet bloc weapons, although the French sold him some stuff. The west didn't arm him to any great extent, he had the money to buy his own arms, he was a big boy, who had an unfortunate habit of invading his neighbours. This was why, in the final analysis, he was removed. There was no way to deal with him, he was a snake.
You are wrong. Again, read this to improve your background knowledge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80 ... t_for_Iraq
In particular read the section on Foreign Support to Iraq and Iran e.g. "During the war, Iraq was regarded by the West (and specifically the United States) as a counterbalance to post-revolutionary Iran. The support of Iraq took the form of technological aid, intelligence, the sale of dual-use and military equipment and satellite intelligence to Iraq".
"That will be why most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi citizens then will it? Face it, they were Muslim fanatics. Saudi Arabia was never a European colony, it was never oppressed or exploited by the west, but that's not the point for these people. It's about their religion. "
Side issue. There have been a number of terrorist attacks. Some of the people involved have been Saudi, some have been Pakistani, Indonesian, African origin etc etc. You are stating the obvious.
You seem to struggle to understand basic points. I have stated that the terrorist attacks were done by Muslim extremists. But as the UK Security Services pointed out to Blair before the Iraq invasion, that the invasion would widen and increase the spread of extremism. They were right.
I note you totally ignored my request for you to summarise your view in a sentence. I repeat yet again for you, my point is that you cannot tarnish an entire religion based on the actions of a few. Your view seems to be "Muslims are bad. The religion is bad"
Is this your view or not?
I'm getting a bit bored with having to correct your statements in every single message you post. Can't you do a bit of reading beforehand?
Cheers
D
Of course they had help not just from the west. You obviously agree with my point that the west helped arm the mujaheddin in their fight with the Russians and they then went on to take over the country.
For more info. read this about the leader of the Taliban, Mullah Omar who fought against the Russians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Omar
"Saddam Hussein's army was almost exclusively equipped with Soviet bloc weapons, although the French sold him some stuff. The west didn't arm him to any great extent, he had the money to buy his own arms, he was a big boy, who had an unfortunate habit of invading his neighbours. This was why, in the final analysis, he was removed. There was no way to deal with him, he was a snake.
You are wrong. Again, read this to improve your background knowledge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80 ... t_for_Iraq
In particular read the section on Foreign Support to Iraq and Iran e.g. "During the war, Iraq was regarded by the West (and specifically the United States) as a counterbalance to post-revolutionary Iran. The support of Iraq took the form of technological aid, intelligence, the sale of dual-use and military equipment and satellite intelligence to Iraq".
"That will be why most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi citizens then will it? Face it, they were Muslim fanatics. Saudi Arabia was never a European colony, it was never oppressed or exploited by the west, but that's not the point for these people. It's about their religion. "
Side issue. There have been a number of terrorist attacks. Some of the people involved have been Saudi, some have been Pakistani, Indonesian, African origin etc etc. You are stating the obvious.
You seem to struggle to understand basic points. I have stated that the terrorist attacks were done by Muslim extremists. But as the UK Security Services pointed out to Blair before the Iraq invasion, that the invasion would widen and increase the spread of extremism. They were right.
I note you totally ignored my request for you to summarise your view in a sentence. I repeat yet again for you, my point is that you cannot tarnish an entire religion based on the actions of a few. Your view seems to be "Muslims are bad. The religion is bad"
Is this your view or not?
I'm getting a bit bored with having to correct your statements in every single message you post. Can't you do a bit of reading beforehand?
Cheers
D