Afghanistan

[egg]

23 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

They did defeat Al qaeda. That's pretty unarguable. So your solution would have been to carpet bomb swathes of Afghanistan? How is that preferable to an invasion? 

See my post above. You can also list the positive legacy we've left behind if you like. Personally, I'm looking at a shameful clusterfuck, a destroyed country, and people left without hope. 

[badgerx16]

8 hours ago, Warriorsaint said:

Funny that before today IS wasn’t mentioned much. We will hear of them a lot more now.

If you don't watch or read the news perhaps. They have been active in Afghanistan for several years, trying to take territory and fighting the Taliban. Splinter groups in East and sub-Saharan Africa have been similarly active in places such as Kenya and Mali, ( where the French military are heavily involved ). And they haven't been removed from their spawning grounds in Syria snd Iraq. 

[badgerx16]

26 minutes ago, egg said:

See my post above. You can also list the positive legacy we've left behind if you like. Personally, I'm looking at a shameful clusterfuck, a destroyed country, and people left without hope. 

And the US retreats back to it's mainland, with thousands of miles of ocean either side to provide a buffer.

[hypochondriac]

33 minutes ago, egg said:

Have a little think Whelk. Doing something created the shit show that is the diminishing west bank and gaza. Doing nothing about the actions of Israel, ie its treatment of Palestinians and settlements etc, is something that has led to fundamentalism and terrorism. That's something we should have dealt with, and the umpteen UN resolutions that have been breached, all whilst we arm the Israeli's is shameful. 

Back to the subject. Tell me how our meddling has helped build safe and stable countries in Afghanistan. Ditto Syria. Ditto Iraq. Write down all the benefits - Afghanistan didn’t have an ISIS until we all but created it, it didn't have all the warplanes and tanks etc the US have left them to play with, it didn't have a generation of people who'd had their hopes built and the rug built, etc, etc. 

The Taliban are a disgrace. Strict interpretation of Sharia law is unpleasant, but here's the thing, it's someone else's culture and problem. We perpetually wade into other countries imposing what we think they need, fuck it up, and leave. 

Afghanistan is a worse place after out meddling. Anyone who disagrees is an idiot. 

 

Again you're just ignore the climate of post 9/11 America and pretending that they should have either done nothing or carpet bombed Afghanistan. No one has denied that enforcing societal change and now leaving in the way we have done is shameful and a cluster fuck. It simply wasn't an option to not take forceful action against those who perpetrated 9/11. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/08/26/robert-kagan-afghanistan-americans-forget/

 

We live history forward, in the chaos of onrushing events, without a clear guide. But we judge history backward, smugly armed with the knowledge of what did happen and uninterested in what might have happened. This partly explains the oscillation of U.S. foreign policy over the decades between periods of high involvement overseas and periods of withdrawal and retrenchment.

Edited 27 August, 2021 by hypochondriac

[egg]

6 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Again you're just ignore the climate of post 9/11 America and pretending that they should have either done nothing or carpet bombed Afghanistan. No one has denied that enforcing societal change and now leaving in the way we have done is shameful and a cluster fuck. It simply wasn't an option to not take forceful action against those who perpetrated 9/11. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/08/26/robert-kagan-afghanistan-americans-forget/

 

We live history forward, in the chaos of onrushing events, without a clear guide. But we judge history backward, smugly armed with the knowledge of what did happen and uninterested in what might have happened. This partly explains the oscillation of U.S. foreign policy over the decades between periods of high involvement overseas and periods of withdrawal and retrenchment.

Yep, that suggests hindsight is all we have. It's untrue. We saw what happened in Afghanistan with Russia. That gave foresight, and our failing mission on Afghanistan taught lessons which we didn't heed when we then proceeded to destroy Syria. We then walked away leaving yet more division and chaos there.

Sure, teach al qaeda a lesson, but that did not warrant an invasion, occupation, and what we've left for the Afghans - and the wider region courtesy of the arsenal left behind - to live with. 

We've fucked up. 

 

Edited 27 August, 2021 by egg

[hypochondriac]

Just now, egg said:

Yep, that suggests hindsight is all we have. It's untrue. We saw what happened in Afghanistan with Russia. That gave foresight which we didn't heed when we then proceeded to destroy Syria and walk away leaving yet more division. 

Sure, teach al qaeda a lesson, but that did not warrant an invasion, occupation, and what we've left for the Afghans - and the wider region courtesy of the arsenal left behind - to live with. 

We've fucked up. 

 

So you're in America in 2002, have a public clamouring for revenge and shaken to your core. Al Qaeda and those who harbour them have to be destroyed and your solution is to not destroy them but engage in some appraisals from afar through bombing? It's ideological nonsense and it wouldn't have destroyed Al Qaeda which was the whole point. The fact that Bush changed things in 2006 to an occupying force seeking to force ideological change as I said doesn't change the fact that that isn't why America went into Afghanistan. Read the article I posted. 

[egg]

13 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

And the US retreats back to it's mainland, with thousands of miles of ocean either side to provide a buffer.

Yep, all whilst the afghan (and syrian) people seek refuge in europe, with Turkey at the heart of that and involved in yet more political conflict with its nato partners. The wider geopolitics of these should not be underestimated. 

[egg]

4 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

So you're in America in 2002, have a public clamouring for revenge and shaken to your core. Al Qaeda and those who harbour them have to be destroyed and your solution is to not destroy them but engage in some appraisals from afar through bombing? It's ideological nonsense and it wouldn't have destroyed Al Qaeda which was the whole point. The fact that Bush changed things in 2006 to an occupying force seeking to force ideological change as I said doesn't change the fact that that isn't why America went into Afghanistan. Read the article I posted. 

You don't strike me as naive, but any belief that entering and occupying Afghanistan would end the risk of terrorism from people in Afghanistan, and it's supporters, is naive in the extreme. Ditto that the US changed its policy mid course. And yes, I know what Bush said. 

Edited 27 August, 2021 by egg

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, egg said:

You don't strike me as naive, but any belief that entering and occupying Afghanistan would end the risk of terrorism from people in Afghanistan, and it's supporters, is naive in the extreme. Ditto that the US changed its policy mid course. And yes, I know what Bush said. 

You're just ignoring the facts. You've clearly forgotten what happened at the time and are using hindsight to lecture people on a fictional version of events. Read the article: 

 

A collective failure today to recall what the world looked like to Americans after 9/11 has certainly clouded our understanding of the consequential decisions taken in those first years. Today, one reads that Americans went to war “almost gleefully”; that in launching the intervention, President George W. Bush was filled with “optimism” based on the belief that “democracy would flourish when given the opportunity”; that “imperial hubris” led Americans to believe “that we could shape the world in our image using our guns and our money.” Today, we read that even as “the twin towers and the Pentagon were still smoldering, there was a sense among America’s warrior and diplomatic class that history was starting anew for the people of Afghanistan and much of the Muslim world.”

This is a myth, or to use the term preferred by The Post’s extensive report on Afghanistan, a “lie.” For better or for worse, it was fear that drove the United States into Afghanistan — fear of another attack by al-Qaeda, which was then firmly ensconced in the Taliban-controlled country; fear of possible attacks by other groups using chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons; fear of other sleeper cells already hiding in the United States. Experts warned that it was just a matter of time before the next big attack. And these fears persisted.

[egg]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

You're just ignoring the facts. You've clearly forgotten what happened at the time and are using hindsight to lecture people on a fictional version of events. Read the article: 

 

A collective failure today to recall what the world looked like to Americans after 9/11 has certainly clouded our understanding of the consequential decisions taken in those first years. Today, one reads that Americans went to war “almost gleefully”; that in launching the intervention, President George W. Bush was filled with “optimism” based on the belief that “democracy would flourish when given the opportunity”; that “imperial hubris” led Americans to believe “that we could shape the world in our image using our guns and our money.” Today, we read that even as “the twin towers and the Pentagon were still smoldering, there was a sense among America’s warrior and diplomatic class that history was starting anew for the people of Afghanistan and much of the Muslim world.”

This is a myth, or to use the term preferred by The Post’s extensive report on Afghanistan, a “lie.” For better or for worse, it was fear that drove the United States into Afghanistan — fear of another attack by al-Qaeda, which was then firmly ensconced in the Taliban-controlled country; fear of possible attacks by other groups using chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons; fear of other sleeper cells already hiding in the United States. Experts warned that it was just a matter of time before the next big attack. And these fears persisted.

I know that. That's got nothing to do with a 20 year occupation which would never have stopped the risk of terrorism. I'd imagine that whoever chooses to use the weaponry and warplanes left behind in Afghanistan could cause a bit of damage with it. 

We disagree massively so I'll leave it there. 

[Warriorsaint]

1 hour ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Good statement.

Yeah, that's right, we had our thumb on 'these people' who clearly weren't capable of running their own country so we should have continued our occupation and building that empire.

All. Over. The. Place.

Selective aren’t you? For me its always been about Al Quaida and  ISIS. I have changed my mind and the mission creep was a mistake.

These people I refer to are those terrorists we had our thumb on.

 I suspect you know that but a contrarian will be contrary.

 I find your internalised rage quite worrying. You offer nothing to a debate and seem to be so set in your opinions that you cannot see other points of view and evolve your thoughts. It is not weakness to visit your own opinions and admit you are wrong or change your mind. I doubt you have ever changed your mind on anything. You have my sympathy.

Edited 27 August, 2021 by Warriorsaint

[Warriorsaint]

2 hours ago, benjii said:

The reason Biden got elected is because he isn't Trump, so he really shouldn't have just fallen in line with Trump's idiotic strategy here. And if he felt he had to, he could have at least made damn sure he implemented it as best as possible.

The whole thing looks so incompetent you almost wonder if it's deliberate and there's something else going on - but I don't think that's the case at all. It's just baffling incompetence. 

I genuinely worry for the future of the UK and the US if the best our democracies can offer are nasty morons like Trump and weaklings like Johnson and Biden. And we've shown the world that we cannot be depended upon or trusted to do the right thing.

This situation is unbelievably sad. Imagine being a teenage girl - or even a boy - over the last few weeks. Your life hopes trampled on by a bunch of filthy degenerates. People handing their children over to strangers FFS; that tells you all you need to know. 

Shameful.

A fair and balanced post

[Warriorsaint]

39 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

If you don't watch or read the news perhaps

I try not to these days. Used to be a newshound but cant do it anymore. All too much really. I find my natural optimism is taking a kicking as I get older and find more and more that ignorance is bliss.

 I think the lack of control over events or ability to influence events is not good for our mental health so trying to care less really.

Indeed the last council elections was the first time I had never voted in thirty years.  

I realise shouting into the void is pointless as well but it can be fun. 

 

[hypochondriac]

55 minutes ago, egg said:

I know that. That's got nothing to do with a 20 year occupation which would never have stopped the risk of terrorism. I'd imagine that whoever chooses to use the weaponry and warplanes left behind in Afghanistan could cause a bit of damage with it. 

We disagree massively so I'll leave it there. 

Everything about weapons and warplanes left behind after the event has nothing to do with the original invasion. Making a disaster of a withdrawal doesn't change the feeling of necessity to defeat Al Qaeda at the time. You're still ignoring the consensus of opinion and the climate immediately after 9/11. 

The article I posted and other similar ones is my evidence that what I'm saying is correct (along with my recollections of what happened over that period.) What can you point to that suggests that American motivations were substantially different to what I've already outlined? And no it's not naive as you tried to claim, it's an accurate retelling of events. 

[egg]

8 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Everything about weapons and warplanes left behind after the event has nothing to do with the original invasion. Making a disaster of a withdrawal doesn't change the feeling of necessity to defeat Al Qaeda at the time. You're still ignoring the consensus of opinion and the climate immediately after 9/11. 

The article I posted and other similar ones is my evidence that what I'm saying is correct (along with my recollections of what happened over that period.) What can you point to that suggests that American motivations were substantially different to what I've already outlined? And no it's not naive as you tried to claim, it's an accurate retelling of events. 

The point is that it does. When you go somewhere you have to play the tape forward and think how you'll get out. Leaving was always an inevitability unless permanent occupation was intended which I doubt. 

I can't point to anything to suggest that regime change was the initial objective, save for history suggesting that the US have form for it, and refusing to accept that 4 years into their mission that the US suddenly thought it'd be a grand idea. 

[hypochondriac]

6 minutes ago, egg said:

The point is that it does. When you go somewhere you have to play the tape forward and think how you'll get out. Leaving was always an inevitability unless permanent occupation was intended which I doubt. 

I can't point to anything to suggest that regime change was the initial objective, save for history suggesting that the US have form for it, and refusing to accept that 4 years into their mission that the US suddenly thought it'd be a grand idea. 

 

Are you suggesting that the manner of our leaving was the only possible outcome and that this should have been known two decades earlier and in the fearful climate immediately post 9/11?

Read the article. It cites numerous sources debunking your claim that nation building was the initial aim. In fact it specifically refutes the claim and uses wide-ranging accounts to do so. Your "refusal to accept" citing nothing isn't much of a counterpoint is it. 

[Warriorsaint]

I agree that regime change wasn’t the objective. Just mission creep. A nice bonus.

 I remember at the time it was Tony’s ethical foreign policy that was more influential for the mission creep.

The Us were launching cruise missles and then had to engage in country to get the nutjobs out of the mountains. The Taliban were in the way.

Doesn’t matter both egg and Hypo have elements of truth. Both correct and both wrong.

Truth is ill conceived from the start and Olivers army pay as always 

[aintforever]

Afghanistan was always going to have a messy ending, I don’t think there was little option but to go in but when you look at the history there was no way it could be turned into a Western style democracy without wasting a ridiculous amount of lives, money and resources. We fucked up the withdrawal but it would always have ended in something similar to what we are seeing, under Trump it would probably be worse.

The biggest mistake we made with Afghanistan was starting a pointless war in Iraq, we left it to rot under a corrupt government which is why there was little resistance to the Taliban, for many there was nothing worth fighting and dying for.

[hypochondriac]

We can add David Baddiel (not that he's an expert) to a growing list of people who agree with the Washington Posts analysis above judging by his twitter feed. 

[AlexLaw76]

We should treat the Afghan regime (Sharia Law), like we do with other Sharia Law governed nations - Give them the world cup and as much weaponry as they can buy (although, probably not needed in this case)

[Warriorsaint]

7 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

We should treat the Afghan regime (Sharia Law), like we do with other Sharia Law governed nations - Give them the world cup and as much weaponry as they can buy (although, probably not needed in this case)

TBF this is a good post

[Weston Super Saint]

3 hours ago, Warriorsaint said:

Selective aren’t you? For me its always been about Al Quaida and  ISIS. I have changed my mind and the mission creep was a mistake.

These people I refer to are those terrorists we had our thumb on.

 I suspect you know that but a contrarian will be contrary.

Utterly delusional if you think we had 'those terrorists' under our thumb during the past 20 years.  They popped up at will, killed soldiers and kept the local populations scared shitless of reprisals.  The ultimate leadership of the taliban that we hunted for 20 years and never even caught site of were nicely harboured in the Arab Emirates or hiding in the hills biding their time.  

For 20 years we were second best in the world's longest game of hide and seek and you claim we had our thumbs on their heads.  Bless.

[Warriorsaint]

45 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Utterly delusional if you think we had 'those terrorists' under our thumb during the past 20 years.  They popped up at will, killed soldiers and kept the local populations scared shitless of reprisals.  The ultimate leadership of the taliban that we hunted for 20 years and never even caught site of were nicely harboured in the Arab Emirates or hiding in the hills biding their time.  

For 20 years we were second best in the world's longest game of hide and seek and you claim we had our thumbs on their heads.  Bless.

Rather keep them running there than our streets. It a messy business. No training camps out in the open. There will be now. Not really bothered about the Taliban.

are you deliberately obtuse? Or is it just a persona?

Edited 27 August, 2021 by Warriorsaint

[Weston Super Saint]

10 minutes ago, Warriorsaint said:

Rather keep them running there than our streets. It a messy business. No training camps out in the open. There will be now. Not really bothered about the Taliban.

are you deliberately obtuse? Or is it just a persona?

Just to recap, the fact that they didn't have training camps out in the open during our occupation is how you've defined us 'having our thumbs on their heads'?

Have the Taliban ever been running on 'our streets'?

[Warriorsaint]

41 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Just to recap, the fact that they didn't have training camps out in the open during our occupation is how you've defined us 'having our thumbs on their heads'?

Have the Taliban ever been running on 'our streets'?

OMG, you are doing this for a wind up aren’t you? Utter wummery

[badgerx16]

I wouldn't think that any BlackHawk left behind is serviceable, at least for very long. They were being maintained by US contractors, and no way that spares could be found. They need constant attention in the heat and dust, it is not like hot wiring a Humvee.

Edited 27 August, 2021 by badgerx16

[whelk]

Well at least we got the fucking pets out

[badgerx16]

11 minutes ago, whelk said:

Well at least we got the fucking pets out

Good.

[badgerx16]

BoJo says that it is a time to reflect on the achievements of the last 10 years, like girls' education.  Pity it has stopped now.

[Lord Duckhunter]

13 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

Good.

That chump was all over Sky news last week, saying he wouldn’t be leaving without all his staff, no matter what happened. Seems like he did, and now his disease ridden animals are in quarantine and he’s fucked off to Norway. 

[aintforever]

14 hours ago, whelk said:

Well at least we got the fucking pets out

It’s mental that with the right contacts you can get a load of pets out but there are people that the British government have just left to be killed.

[Warriorsaint]

Raab, no calls to Afghan or Pakistani foreign office for 6 months. Anyone left to defend this grifter?

Sunday times for context

 

Edited 29 August, 2021 by Warriorsaint

[ecuk268]

On 27/08/2021 at 12:20, Weston Super Saint said:

Utterly delusional if you think we had 'those terrorists' under our thumb during the past 20 years.  They popped up at will, killed soldiers and kept the local populations scared shitless of reprisals.  The ultimate leadership of the taliban that we hunted for 20 years and never even caught site of were nicely harboured in the Arab Emirates or hiding in the hills biding their time.  

For 20 years we were second best in the world's longest game of hide and seek and you claim we had our thumbs on their heads.  Bless.

Very true. A lot of the Taliban quietly slipped over the border into Pakistan who were happy to give them board and lodging.

For some reason the Western powers never seemed to put any pressure on Pakistan to do anything about it.

[badgerx16]

25 minutes ago, ecuk268 said:

Very true. A lot of the Taliban quietly slipped over the border into Pakistan who were happy to give them board and lodging.

For some reason the Western powers never seemed to put any pressure on Pakistan to do anything about it.

Never try to put pressure on a nuclear power 😉

[Warriorsaint]

1 hour ago, ecuk268 said:

Very true. A lot of the Taliban quietly slipped over the border into Pakistan who were happy to give them board and lodging.

For some reason the Western powers never seemed to put any pressure on Pakistan to do anything about it.

The Taliban are not Al Quiada, of which I refer. The Taliban are bastards yes but our presence  in Afghanistan allowed us to have our thumbs on the training camps for insurgents  intent on launching attacks on the west. 

To me it was a price worth paying and yes a heavy one. All we’ve done by pulling out is give twenty years of money to arms firms and no further on. 

Insurgent training camps will now continue to pop up . With the west kicked out it will be that much harder to launch attacks against them.

Indeed the Taliban have liberated many prisons that have had insurgents locked up for years.

Weston knows this, of course, but likes to play the contrarian. Probably a very nice old lady in real life. I won’t know though as I have him/her on ignore.

[Warriorsaint]

 

[Weston Super Saint]

3 hours ago, Warriorsaint said:

Weston knows this, of course, but likes to play the contrarian. Probably a very nice old lady in real life. I won’t know though as I have him/her on ignore.

Bless.

[Weston Super Saint]

4 hours ago, Warriorsaint said:

Insurgent training camps will now continue to pop up . With the west kicked out it will be that much harder to launch attacks against them.

Yep, really, really, really difficult to launch attacks against 'them' 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-58372458

Quote

A US drone strike in the Afghan capital Kabul has prevented another deadly suicide attack at the airport, US military officials say.

The strike targeted a vehicle carrying at least one person associated with the Afghan branch of the Islamic State group, US Central Command said.

 

Edited 29 August, 2021 by Weston Super Saint

[aintforever]

On 17/08/2021 at 07:52, Warriorsaint said:

Ok, we’ll leave the I told you so until the next atrocity in Tokyo, Seattle, Newcastle.

People tend to forget the Us has stationed troops in Germany, Philipines, Korea, all over the  place after the war has been won to keep a presence. Afganistan is no different.

 

To be fair there has been a fair few atrocities whilst we have been in Afghanistan and there will be more wether we stayed or not.

[Weston Super Saint]

44 minutes ago, aintforever said:

To be fair there has been a fair few atrocities whilst we have been in Afghanistan and there will be more wether we stayed or not.

Indeed.

I even posted a graphic and link showing there had been more terrorist attacks in the last 20 years than in the preceding 20 (which included the NI troubles). Oddly boriersaint seems convinced that there will now be a dirty bomb in London.

[Tamesaint]

6 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Indeed.

I even posted a graphic and link showing there had been more terrorist attacks in the last 20 years than in the preceding 20 (which included the NI troubles). Oddly boriersaint seems convinced that there will now be a dirty bomb in London.

Weston - you have a lot of views on political matters whether it is Afghanistan, Coronavirus , Brexit, Johnson etc etc.

Did you catch the match yesterday? What did you think of our performance? 

[badgerx16]

A long but interesting insight into how ordinary rural Afghans have experienced the last 40 years. Reading this it is easy to see how stable Taliban government might be seen as preferable to the other options they have encountered;

 

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/09/13/the-other-afghan-women?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB

[Lighthouse]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-58560923
 

It’ll be interesting to see how the Taliban are going to cope when they don’t have a foreign power or a western puppet government to rage against. A lot can change ideologically in 20 years, there could be some ‘heated’ debates about who’s in charge and how to run the country.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

9 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-58560923
 

It’ll be interesting to see how the Taliban are going to cope when they don’t have a foreign power or a western puppet government to rage against. A lot can change ideologically in 20 years, there could be some ‘heated’ debates about who’s in charge and how to run the country.

Yeah and I'd expect a fair bit of infighting as they work out what they actually want.  Wouldn't be surprised if some of the Talibanisters turned up in Kabul and thought "bloody hell this modern stuff is cool", whereas some will want it all raised to the ground.

[whelk]

https://apple.news/Atw6oYqRTTBWNTjA4TyhoyA

is staggering how this seems to happen. Surely they must have control after control to ensure target isn’t a family and 7 kids. Wiki leaks showed the Call of Duty approach so you’d think they learn by now. 

[Dyslexic Saint]

Tragic as it is. At least we have a free media that can report on this. And to some extent  (i said some) allies that can admit to this. 

Edited 17 September, 2021 by Dyslexic Saint

[Weston Super Saint]

Odd really as I'm sure we were told that IS would 'flourish' with the Taliban back in control of Afghanistan and that it would only be a matter of time before nukes were exploded in our cities 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-58781717

Quote

Several people have been killed by a bombing at a mosque in the Afghan capital Kabul, the Taliban have said.

 

But the Islamic State group (IS) recently said it carried out several bombings in the eastern city of Jalalabad.

The Islamist group is violently opposed to the Taliban, which regained nearly full control of Afghanistan in a lightning offensive as international forces started to leave.

 

[badgerx16]

9 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Odd really as I'm sure we were told that IS would 'flourish' with the Taliban back in control of Afghanistan and that it would only be a matter of time before nukes were exploded in our cities 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-58781717

 

A few people may have said that, most have pointed out that the Taliban and IS-K have been fighting each other for at least 5 years. It is Al-Quaeda that is the basis of the big unanswered question.

Try to get your dictionary of Islamic militant terrorism up to date.

[Weston Super Saint]

4 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

A few people may have said that, most have pointed out that the Taliban and IS-K have been fighting each other for at least 5 years. It is Al-Quaeda that is the basis of the big unanswered question.

Try to get your dictionary of Islamic militant terrorism up to date.

It's not my dictionary, it was another one of Borriersaint's misplaced claims...

[badgerx16]

17 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

It's not my dictionary, it was another one of Borriersaint's misplaced claims...

If you are trying to score a point against him, then at least make it clearer where you are aiming. 😉