In Sweden they do not. They fight for other peoples presumed freedoms in different parts of the world.
In Sweden they do not. They fight for other peoples presumed freedoms in different parts of the world.
But soon after Mr Xi secured a third term, Apple released a new version of the feature in China, limiting its scope. Now Chinese users of iPhones and other Apple devices are restricted to a 10-minute window when receiving files from people who are not listed as a contact. After 10 minutes, users can only receive files from contacts.
Apple did not explain why the update was first introduced in China, but over the years, the tech giant has been criticised for appeasing Beijing.
The organisation responsible was al queda and they operated out of several countries at once, but their main base of operations was in Afghanistan. When the Taliban were approached by the US to assist in the capture of its leaders, they refused to assist, resulting in a NATO mission to route out the terrorists. Had the Taliban assisted, it realistic to presume they would still be in power now. You can see the difference as central government in Pakistan is at least putting up the pretence that they are assisted in the fight against terrorism and therefore have not had even the threat of invasion (not that most of NATO can afford another war anyhow).
So in summary, by failing to assist in the capture or termination of the continued threat that was al queda and openly blocking George dubya, they left no other option to neutralise the threat via open warfare with the Taliban siding with the US 's enemy. Since then, it has been guerrilla warfare against an enemy only interested in its own outcomes and its hardlined attitudes, no matter who is hurt, which is much different to its NATO backed origins, the mudjahedin, who were for the people.
uhm i thought i´d read somewhere that they actually tried to assist but the US refused... or was that iran?
i guess the US isn´t fighting pakistan is because pakistan actually owns nuclear weapons and not because "yeah they are allright, they hid bin laden but well at least they tried"
I am thankfull, but it's a job like any other. A baker for example is just as important to keep the country/world working. People who are more thankfull for military serving their country are rather ignorant of how important other jobs are.
Interesting point. I personally hadn't thought of it like that.
It's actually a military duty to refuse an order if it is unjust.
There seems to be this myth that military personnel sit in dark rooms being ordered to shoot everyone they come into contact with, or that every round fired is only fired because they've been ordered to do so.
Orders are given and military personnel conduct themselves according to their training, rules of engagement, personal conduct within those general framework.
Order: "Capture compound (x)"
Action: Capture compound (x) whilst adapting to situations encountered whilst on task.
That's how it actually goes down. What happens inbetween is invariably down to the soldier holding the weapon kicking in the door of compound (x) not because they were ordered to behave in a specific manner.
Last edited by mmoc36f8af66e9; 2013-02-08 at 03:46 PM.
The most funny part about your invasion in Afghan is that drugs export from this country increased by several times comparing to so called "terrorist's" ruling, who has been actually destroying opium fields. Yeah, drug dealing clearly fits into concept of freedom and country defense.
Well, original post style isn't very clear, but that's how I interpreted it. But well, as soon as you say anything "wrong" about military, people just should back at you "but they're very nice people !" and get flagged as anti-patriotic or things like that, unless you talk about some exceptional media covered cases of torture or such (and even in this case, some people will still do that). This is kind of sad, makes talking seriously about their actions a real pain in a lot of countries.
One can be admiring of the faith/devotion these people put in their job, while criticizing them for lots of the actions they do. And this has nothing to do with being "anti-patriotic" or something like that. On the contrary, criticizing military can be a very patriotic act, if you believe they don't serve the interest or image of the country you live in. And I personally think this is something everyone living in a militarized country should think about.
as far as i know, that´s a very dilemma down there, the only solution for the farmers is to grow opium because the cartells actually pick that shit right up at the farm and so the likelyness of being robbed is pretty much zero... so the unstable situation causes the farmers to work for the cartell to not lose everything thats left
For the majority of us it is a moot point what they we are fighting for. We risk our lives for our brothers in arms to make sure each and every one of us comes back from this shit hole in one piece, I could really care less what "people" think we are fighting for.
If you have an issue with the reason, take it up with your elected representative.
-SSG C, U.S Army....via Afghanistan.
LOL funny thread...
Two thoughts for you:
1. No middle east country is a threat to the US? Please visit the families of the WTC victims and tell them that, I'm sure it'll comfort them.
2. If you're a solider and have given an oath to obey orders (or you get sent to prison and shit), would you rather make yourself believe you were doing it for a righteous reason or prefer to believe you're just blindly murdering people and families because some dick that you don't even like told you to for a reason not even he understands?
Think about that and then get back to me, k?
While I have no comment on the whole fighting for freedom/defense of our country, I would just like to say that those shootings that happened were not really an act of terrorism. Those people were just not right in the head and thought it was a good idea to shoot people for some reason. Terrorism is different. I mean killing is killing but when you compare terrorism to deranged murderers it changes. To say that those shooters were terrorists you are calling every single murderer out there a terrorist. Those kind of people kill because their fucked up brain is telling them to do so. Terrorists kill because they have a reason behind it whether it's stupid religion or whatever.
Here's a definition of terrorist from Dictionary.com: "a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism."
Also terrorism:
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
So I'm pretty sure those shooters weren't terrorists nor do I think they were committing any act of terrorism.
Last edited by Pony Soldier; 2013-02-08 at 04:57 PM.
- "If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black" - Jo Bodin, BLM supporter
- "I got hairy legs that turn blonde in the sun. The kids used to come up and reach in the pool & rub my leg down so it was straight & watch the hair come back up again. So I learned about roaches, I learned about kids jumping on my lap, and I love kids jumping on my lap...” - Pedo Joe