- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 140 Hour
- Reading permission
Originally posted by esoteriksky at 2010-1-26 18:42
as for all your other allegations early in your declaration it would be interesting if you added a shred of proof,
Some things I figure are just common knowledge. If you are not onboard with all the things I feel very confident about, lets ignore all the allegations are you not sure we are guilty of.
So lets just look at the Muslim fundementalists we funded, organized, and equiped to topple Afghanistan for the crime of being too close to the Soviets. It is a hard fact that we supported the Mujihadeen to attack the Afghan Govt long before the USSR came to support their friends who were under attack by a CIA sponsored campaign to topple Afghanistan. Russia was invited again and again to save Afghanistan from us, and they finally came to help, by invitation.
Those are the hard facts. Now how has that been characterized by our spin doctors?
1. It was freedom fighters that resisted the USSR.
--No, it was an Islamic fundementalist uprising armed by the CIA
--Their were not resisting the USSR, they were attacking the legitimate Govt.
--The USSR came in later to support the legitimate Govt.
2. The fighters resisting us now are terrorists.
--No, they are resistance fighters. We invaded, they resist. That is resistance fighter. If you are our friends, we change the term to 'freedom fighter', but neutral observers say 'resistance fighter'. Do they do terrorism? There are an endless supply of resistance fighters. They hate us, and they will continue to resist us as long as there is one Afghani still alive. Terrorism is the extreme minority of attacks aimed at the will of the invaders and the will of those who cooperate with the invader. There is plenty of terror attacks in Afghanistan, but characterizing the snuffing of 7 CIA as a terror attack is the most ridiculous twist ever. Did Bruce willis use a terror attack against the big asteroid in Armageddon? No, self sacrifice does not = terror. We know that. But it's twistable, "He was Arab or Persian? He had a weapon? He attacked our frontline military instillation ok, definite terrorist."
3. We are in Afghanistan to bring womens rights. Clean things up
--No. We came to topple the Govt, we did it. Mission accomplished. We publicized our invasion plan before 911, it was never a secret. Somehow, after advertising the impending attack for months, as soon as 911 happened we changed our story to "oh, it's because of 911". According to the sequence of events, it looks more like US says, "we're gonna punch you in the mouth" and then "Hey! why you punch us, we didn't even punch you yet!?" Before we put the Taliban in power, women did not wear burkas, and women went to university. The people we put into place kicked girls out of school and put burkas on them. Now that we have toppled the ones we crowned, are things cleaned up? Not at all. Now that our puppet is on the thrown and our army is on the groud there is a rampant drug trade and wide ranging exploitation of women and children. Every time we touch Afghanistan in a long history of meddling, we have set them back further and further. The place was not a living hell when we began this process of musical regime change, and now it is. Yet we continue to proclaim ourselves the saviors of a people that hate us.
4. Wait, the people of Afghanistan love us. They are so grateful for our salvation.
--No. We have made thousands of widows, armies or orphans. Hatred for the USA in Afghanistan is at an all-time high. Wait, I'm suppose to give only verifiable facts. Ok, attacks against Americans in Afghanistan are higher now than ever before. More and more people are volunteering to fight the invader, even to give up their own life if they can just kill one American. Does any American believe that hatred for America was stronger in Afghanistan before we invaded? And now after we've killed thousands of civilians in cowardly attacks, they love us? I call upon common sense to refrute that.
5. Did someone say cowardly? The resistance fighters are cowardly.
--No. The resistance fighters die by the dozen and yet they will never give up. They fight the most powerful force in the universe in spite of immeasurable risk which most commonly results in death. Their survival rate is amazingly low, but new recruits continue to sign up. They are not afraid to face near certain death if they have a chance to kill one invader or one collaborator. If we were invaded, you know we'd praise whoever would be brave enough to attack the invincible occupation. In contrast to the resistance in Afghanistan, you can witness videos of our brave attacks against 'suspected insurgents'. Sometimes we're reasonably certain we're aiming at the enemy, but many many our bombs fall bravely from out of the night sky and land squarely in the midst of a bunch of civilians because we can't be bothered to double check the target and the policy is to use the munitions if ur reasonably sure there might be a bad guy down there somewhere. This is verifiable in all the videos that show our brave operators using video game controls to slaughter blips on a computer screen with no idea of who those people are. Another verifications is to simply count the dead women and children and ask how brave are the unmanned drones that have managed to kill and maim so many kids and pregnant women?
Now come on. I say that we twist the words. Maybe you can argue one or two of my points above, I don't doubt that. I give you that. So give me something. Tell me, can you find one thing I've referenced where you agree that we twisted the truth of things? Or am I wrong on every point. Our leaders are truly saints and they have never twisted the truth at all? I'm sure some people still think I've got it all wrong, but if you can agree that at least some of what I've said is true, please let me know which part I got right.