if you knew anything about what happened in Iran for the past 60 years, or the fact that the CIA CREATED the Taliban to fight socialists and the Russians. you would have typed that post out, realized how ignorant it is, and deleted it post-haste.the Ayattolahs in Iran
I thought the point is primarily that the US didn't care much about reducing corruption, as there was obviously corruption before as well.
And sending in sacks of dollar bills to a corrupt country seems consistent with not caring about reducing corruption.
An autocratic iron fist rule wouldn't prevent corruption.
nothing to do with the US exhibit a : https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/29/w...rs-office.html
- - - Updated - - -
muja doesnt = talib
The author who wrote the underlying book has recently seen Australia's lockdown as being autocratic, https://twitter.com/johnpilger/statu...80017617068036
and he has also been cozy with actual autocrats like Chavez in "The War on Democracy".
Added: He also posted bail for Julian Assange thinking that Assange would absolutely not skip bail.
Demonstrating that: A fool and his money are soon parted.
That makes him an unreliable source, at best.
Last edited by Forogil; 2021-08-21 at 06:28 PM.
then I don't give a shit about your opinion... you know at least I went though the effort of trying to back my claims instead of... you who are just saying "nuh uh!" like what the hell, what are you even doing here? saying I'm dumb because you can't be bothered to look at evidence of my claims? yea cool, bye.
- - - Updated - - -
cool I don't see how that makes what is said in the video any less correct.
Last edited by uuuhname; 2021-08-21 at 06:29 PM.
The Afghan mujahideen consisted of groups that eventually went to war with each other after the Soviet withdrawal from the region. The Taliban is a product of that civil war. The U.S. didn't help anyone by getting involved there in the '80s but they didn't literally create the Taliban.
- Christopher HitchensPopulists (and "national socialists") look at the supposedly secret deals that run the world "behind the scenes". Child's play. Except that childishness is sinister in adults.
ok, so US's hands are therefore completely clean and their actions in that area had no reverberating consequences. got it.
- - - Updated - - -
unless you can bother to point out what is wrong then sorry I really don't care about your objections in this particular instance.
Didn't say that at all. Of course, the United States isn't absolved of any wrongdoing in Afghanistan during that period. I'm just saying that framing their existence solely as a product of American imperialism is an oversimplification of who those people are and how and why they exist. It's also annoying because it's a western-centric way to view Afghanistan and denies them agency.
edit* just want to point out that I'm not trying to dogpile you, just discussing history. I enjoy the vast majority of your posts.
Last edited by downnola; 2021-08-21 at 06:48 PM.
- Christopher HitchensPopulists (and "national socialists") look at the supposedly secret deals that run the world "behind the scenes". Child's play. Except that childishness is sinister in adults.
The errors are:
- Linking to a youtube video instead of presenting any actual statements; thus there are no actual statements to refute.
- That the author of the underlying book thinks that Australia's lockdown is an autocratic move.
- And he was cozy with an actual autocrat like Hugo Chavez.
- And he thought Assange would surely not skip bail. People with poor judgements don't deserve monetized views, and don't deserve to be refuted in each specific instance.