ISIS and Islamic militants - discussion

scorza said:
I thought this was pretty much considered to be a myth by anyone who has actually looked into the issue.
Click to expand...

Nope it's something that was lauded all the time back when Osama was considered a good guy and friend to the USA. I't pretty much common knowledge that the USA funded/armed the Islamic fundamentalists in Afghan, hell Rambo and James Bond even fought along side them in 80's movies (after Rambo's commander was captured while delivering weapons to them)

Here's a nice US article on Osama lol:

pics_yesterday_s_warriors_today_s_terrorists.jpg
 
Last edited:
ubersonic said:
No it's just the method, they only dropped 97 tons of bombs, one RAF officer said of the technique "within 45 minutes a full-sized village can be practically wiped out and a third of its inhabitants killed or injured".
Click to expand...

again lets stop cherry picking quotes:

An uprising of more than 100,000 armed tribesmen against the British occupation swept through Iraq in the summer of 1920. In went the RAF. It flew missions totalling 4,008 hours, dropped 97 tons of bombs and fired 183,861 rounds for the loss of nine men killed, seven wounded and 11 aircraft destroyed behind rebel lines. The rebellion was thwarted, with nearly 9,000 Iraqis killed. Even so, concern was expressed in Westminster: the operation had cost more than the entire British-funded Arab rising against the Ottoman Empire in 1917-18.
Click to expand...


and


The Arab and Kurd now know", reported Squadron Leader Harris after several such raids, "what real bombing means within 45 minutes a full-sized village can be practically wiped out, and a third of its inhabitants killed or injured, by four or five machines which offer them no real target, no opportunity for glory as warriors, no effective means of escape."
Click to expand...

and


Wing Commander J A Chamier suggested that the best way to demoralise local people was to concentrate bombing on the "most inaccessible village of the most prominent tribe which it is desired to punish. All available aircraft must be collected the attack with bombs and machine guns must be relentless and unremitting and carried on continuously by day and night, on houses, inhabitants, crops and cattle."
Click to expand...

you *******ized 2 separate quotes to make them appear as the same.
 
ubersonic said:
Nope it's something that was lauded all the time back when Osama was considered a good guy and friend to the USA. I't pretty much common knowledge that the USA funded/armed the Islamic fundamentalists in Afghan, hell Rambo and James Bond even fought along side them in 80's movies (after Rambo's commander was captured while delivering weapons to them)
Click to expand...

Are you really sure about that? Because I think the "mujaheddin" the CIA supported in Afghanistan basically became the Northern Alliance that the US openly supported during the post September 11th invasion of Afghanistan. While it's true that there were foreign fighters fighting alongside the mujaheddin (including Osama) there's no evidence that the US supported them and plenty of evidence that the local Afghan mujaheddin viewed them with suspicion and mistrust - correctly as it turned out when they switched allegiance to the Taliban after the Soviets had pulled out.
 
scorza said:
Are you really sure about that? Because I think the "mujaheddin" the CIA supported in Afghanistan basically became the Northern Alliance that the US openly supported during the post September 11th invasion of Afghanistan. While it's true that there were foreign fighters fighting alongside the mujaheddin (including Osama) there's no evidence that the US supported them and plenty of evidence that the local Afghan mujaheddin viewed them with suspicion and mistrust - correctly as it turned out when they switched allegiance to the Taliban after the Soviets had pulled out.
Click to expand...

Correct, Bin Laden received no arms, money or training direct from the U.S.A.
Pakistan's ISI intelligence agency received training & funding from the USA who then passed it onto the Afghanistan mujahideen.
 
C.R.A.Z.Y said:
Correct, Bin Laden received no arms, money or training direct from the U.S.A.
Pakistan's ISI intelligence agency received training & funding from the USA who then passed it onto the Afghanistan mujahideen.
Click to expand...

already provided a BBC link which disputes what you`ve posted. The BBC have said he received funding , materials and training directly from the CIA to fight as one of the Mujahideen groups in the proxy war against the USSR.
 
Harlequin said:
you *******ized 2 separate quotes to make them appear as the same.
Click to expand...

No I didn't, I only posted one quote, admittedly it was shorter than yours because the site I got it form didn't have the entire quote, but I only posted the one. The bit about 97 tons was not a quote (and was completely separated from the quote) merely a statement of fact in answer to question.

Please don't falsely accuse me of things because you have difficulty reading, it's very rude.
 
ubersonic said:
No I didn't, I only posted one quote, admittedly it was shorter than yours because the site I got it form didn't have the entire quote, but I only posted the one. The bit about 97 tons was not a quote (and was completely separated from the quote) merely a statement of fact in answer to question.

Please don't falsely accuse me of things because you have difficulty reading, it's very rude.
Click to expand...

and so is mis representing information to further your owned biased agenda. stop it.
 
ubersonic said:
Sadly I can't stop it because I have never done that :(
Click to expand...

I caught you out, by showing you cherry picked quotes to suit your own agenda, simply by quoting everything in full that your picked apart.

and now you try to squirm your way out of it by claiming you have never done that.
 
Harlequin said:
I caught you out, by showing you cherry picked quotes to suit your own agenda, simply by quoting everything in full that your picked apart.
Click to expand...

No you didn't, you misread my post then set about trying to counter your own assumptions.

Only quoting part of a quote, when that is all you have (and don't know it's not in it's entirety) is not cherry picking. And furthermore, even when the full quote is used it doesn't change anything, in fact it actually makes my post stronger/better, so why would I intentionally remove part of it? /derp.
 
Harlequin said:
and now you try to squirm your way out of it by claiming you have never done that.
Click to expand...

You know what, as you're being so abusive I'll destroy your argument.

---

Firstly this quote of yours:

Harlequin said:
An uprising of more than 100,000 armed tribesmen against the British occupation swept through Iraq in the summer of 1920. In went the RAF. It flew missions totalling 4,008 hours, dropped 97 tons of bombs and fired 183,861 rounds for the loss of nine men killed, seven wounded and 11 aircraft destroyed behind rebel lines. The rebellion was thwarted, with nearly 9,000 Iraqis killed. Even so, concern was expressed in Westminster: the operation had cost more than the entire British-funded Arab rising against the Ottoman Empire in 1917-18.
Click to expand...

Is very nice and all, but I haven't seen it before, this is the quote I got the figure from to answer the question on tonnage:

The Secretary for War, Winston Churchill, decided that the best (and cheapest) way to defeat the rebels was by bombing them into submission, using the new Royal Air Force. 97 tons of bombs were dropped.
Click to expand...

The bit about Churchill was omitted not because I was trying to misrepresent anything, but because it was irrelevant to the question of how many tons of bombs were dropped.

---

Secondly, this quote of yours:

Harlequin said:
The Arab and Kurd now know", reported Squadron Leader Harris after several such raids, "what real bombing means within 45 minutes a full-sized village can be practically wiped out, and a third of its inhabitants killed or injured, by four or five machines which offer them no real target, no opportunity for glory as warriors, no effective means of escape."
Click to expand...

Is very nice, but I only saw this one:

"bombing means within 45 minutes a full-sized village can be practically wiped out, and a third of its inhabitants killed or injured"
Click to expand...

Had I seen the one you posted then I would have used that as it makes my point stronger. Hence why it's ludicrous that you would suggest I would withhold it intentionally lol.

---

Third and finally, this quote of yours:

Harlequin said:
Wing Commander J A Chamier suggested that the best way to demoralise local people was to concentrate bombing on the "most inaccessible village of the most prominent tribe which it is desired to punish. All available aircraft must be collected the attack with bombs and machine guns must be relentless and unremitting and carried on continuously by day and night, on houses, inhabitants, crops and cattle."
Click to expand...

Is nice I suppose, but I have never seen it before and it isn't even related to my post :confused:
 
Harlequin said:
and so is mis representing information to further your owned biased agenda. stop it.
Click to expand...

I've only just come into this thread Harlequin but he didn't misrepresent the information at all, he has not done what your are accusing him of.

Not having a go, think you've just got the wrong end of the stick here.

His quote was purely an excerpt from one of the quotes you posted, not an amalgation of multiple quotes as you stated.

It's not a big deal mate, don't get defensive. But you are wrong here in what you are saying.
 
Hey don't forget they are rolling around in brand new Hilux pickups paid for by the US :O lol

(That one is actually part-true, but they were supplied to moderate Syrian rebels not ISIS, ISIS just appropriated them).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom