That reminded me of Harrison Ford.


“Although security risks have been ‘limited’ in the past few months, there is now clear and present danger following the announcement of Geert Wilders’ film as well as the government’s decision to prolong its military operations in Uruzgan in the south of Afghanistan”, delcared the dutch newspaper, Het Algemeen Dagblad, making reference to valid and “authorised” information.

The Dutch government after trying to ban the film for fear of reprisals has called on muslim countries not to confound their stance with that of Geert Wilders’. It is in this light that they approached their european partners hoping for support in the event of a diplomatic crisis with Iran, Egypt and Pakistan who have expressed their righteous anger over FITNA. The Hague is seeking to cover itself under the protection of NATO. It also wants to avoid an offensive against its 1600 military contingent after threats of a doubling of attacks from the taliban.

According to Le Monde, The Hague is ready to exfiltrate Geert Wilders, who is already under a high security protection after death threats were leveled at him, should the situation go bad. It is perhaps to prevent another gruesome murder, with Theo Van Gogh’s fate still fresh in people’s minds.

Someone should tell the Dutch they're over reacting.

I mean, come on, troops in Afghanistan in danger? Duh!

http://en.afrik.com/article12817.html

Someone should tell the Dutch they're over reacting.

That's a joke, right? Over reacting? :rolleyes:

That's a joke, right? Over reacting? :rolleyes:

Yeah, sort of like Dutch troops who are afraid of their safety while you know, invading a country and occupying it.

Can you give me a reason why Afghanis should not kill Dutch troops occupying their country?

Can you give me a reason why Afghanis should not kill Dutch troops occupying their country?
Does that mean that the Afghanis would rather have the Taliban in power than the Dutch occupying their country?

Does that mean that the Afghanis would rather have the Taliban in power than the Dutch occupying their country?

Would you like someone else to make a decision like that for you?

Like would you rather have Bush as President or the British occupying you?

What do you think?

All that weed and they can't bring themselves to chill the f out... Strange (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy) thing indeed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_(film_director))

Maybe they should try some BC Skunk. That's the real good shit.

Destroy all of the opium fields and the "enemy" won't have any money to buy weapons. That will stop them cold. By not doing that one thing many people die for nothing more than trying to control the opium output . :mad:

Destroy all of the opium fields and the "enemy" won't have any money to buy weapons. That will stop them cold. By not doing that one thing many people die for nothing more than trying to control the opium output . :mad:

The Taliban had completely stopped (http://www.tni.org/detail_page.phtml?page=archives_jelsma_taliban) opium production, its haram according to them.




The Taliban opium ban in 2000/2001 had, there is no doubt, the most profound impact on opium/heroin supply in modern history, as the authors argue. Exogenous global causes can indeed be eliminated as explanations. It was a rare historical moment that allowed almost absolute compliance in the south of the country, with hardly any direct enforcement or punishment required. From the eastern regions, where Taliban control was far from absolute, several cases of disobedience were reported, largely resolved by means of negotiations and pay-offs to local war lords. By harvest time in spring 2001, the effectiveness of the ban was already confirmed beyond any doubt, and astonished the international community at the time.

Its Bush who does not want to bother.


The Bush administration has decided not to destroy the opium crop in Afghanistan. President Bush, who previously linked the Afghan drug trade directly to terrorism, has now decided not to destroy the Afghan opium crop.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/3/28/95240.shtml


And you're in their country, telling them what to do.

The Taliban had completely stopped opium production, its haram according to them.

I'm only stating ways other than war to stop the problems in Afghanistan. The Teliban created other problems like beheading women that didn't do everything they were told or taking away education and making indoctrination into the Teliban the main education goal.

I'm only stating ways other than war to stop the problems in Afghanistan. The Teliban created other problems like beheading women that didn't do everything they were told or taking away education and making indoctrination into the Teliban the main education goal.

Hmm so if the Taliban has issues with the US (like Gitmo), they should kill some Americans?

I know you're probably bored with all that time on your hands, but is this really the best you can come up with? I mean, this is just lazy. Besides the obvious ham-handed trolling, you don't even address the topic that YOU tried to create. If there was a question (and there should have been) then debate over the fears of the Dutch could be discussed. But there was no question, only another troll.

You don't even make an effort anymore...:shrug:

debate over the fears of the Dutch could be discussed

Who cares what fears an occupying army has?

The Taliban had completely stopped (http://www.tni.org/detail_page.phtml?page=archives_jelsma_taliban) opium production, its haram according to them.
I seriously doubt the Taliban stopped anything except freedom. I don't think opium fields just 'magically' appeared and was in full production within a week or two after we went in. They were there before we ever got there. Either the Taliban was oblivious to their existence or they just flat out lied about it.
IIRC they were responsible for destroying quite a bit of books, historical documents and the like, and they were also responsible for the destruction of those 180 foot tall Buddha statues(I have a HUGE problem with that). Religious intolerance much?
The Bush administration is by far not my favorite, but I'd take Dubya 1 million times over the Taliban.

I seriously doubt the Taliban stopped anything except freedom. I don't think opium fields just 'magically' appeared and was in full production within a week or two after we went in. They were there before we ever got there. Either the Taliban was oblivious to their existence or they just flat out lied about it.
IIRC they were responsible for destroying quite a bit of books, historical documents and the like, and they were also responsible for the destruction of those 180 foot tall Buddha statues(I have a HUGE problem with that). Religious intolerance much?
The Bush administration is by far not my favorite, but I'd take Dubya 1 million times over the Taliban.

Not a week or two. A year later. And yeah, the stopping of opium production was pretty big news, maybe not in the US.

Did you see the source?
Learning Lessons from the Taliban Opium Ban
Martin Jelsma
International Journal on Drug Policy, Volume 16, Issue 2, March 2005

http://www.nerf-herders-anonymous.net/images/HarrisonFord_PatriotGames.gif

So... the Dutch rightfully fear Islams flipping shit over the showing of a movie (remember the crap the crapped over cartoons?), are like, hey we're kind of scared. Therefore, Islams are justified in attacking Dutch embassies, tourists, and other civilians because Afghanistan is occupied?

That's like saying America would be justified in invading Iraq after a bunch of Saudis hijacked an airplane, or that America would be justified in kidnapping Islams and locking them up for being Islams since some Saudis attacked the pentagon.

So... the Dutch rightfully fear Islams flipping shit over the showing of a movie (remember the crap the crapped over cartoons?), are like, hey we're kind of scared. Therefore, Islams are justified in attacking Dutch embassies, tourists, and other civilians because Afghanistan is occupied?

That's like saying America would be justified in invading Iraq after a bunch of Saudis hijacked an airplane, or that America would be justified in kidnapping Islams and locking them up for being Islams since some Saudis attacked the pentagon.

Are you saying that the Afghanis should care about the right to freedom of expression of their occupiers?

Yeah, sort of like Dutch troops who are afraid of their safety while you know, invading a country and occupying it.

Can you give me a reason why Afghanis should not kill Dutch troops occupying their country?

Sure, if you can give me a reason why a filmmaker was knifed in the street? And, why another filmmaker most likely will meet the same fate?

Sure, if you can give me a reason why a filmmaker was knifed in the street? And, why another filmmaker most likely will meet the same fate?

Freedom of expression?

The knifer took the consequences of his action, much like the filmmaker did.

The knifer took the consequences of his action, much like the filmmaker did.

And in your unbiased opinion, the filmmaker deserved to die for making a film.

Justice was served?

I know you're probably bored with all that time on your hands, but is this really the best you can come up with? I mean, this is just lazy. Besides the obvious ham-handed trolling, you don't even address the topic that YOU tried to create. If there was a question (and there should have been) then debate over the fears of the Dutch could be discussed. But there was no question, only another troll.


Trolling is not defined as someone having vastly different views as you/the average american.

Apparently to you something like,

Can you give me a reason why Afghanis should not kill Dutch troops occupying their country?

is highly extreme, and you find it incomprehensible to be seriously put forward, so bluntly?

I find it rather rational. They are suffering under an occupation. Does this actually need to be explained further?

I'm sure that if the US was occupied by China you would have no problem with the concept.

You're right. Afghanistan was a lovely place back in 2001.

I don't why anybody bothers anymore. This is like arguing with my 2 year old.

You're right. Afghanistan was a lovely place back in 2001.

Who said that? Please elaborate (I don't want to have to guess which point you're making).



I don't why anybody bothers anymore. This is like arguing with my 2 year old.

I'm unable to help you there.

What is clearly so blatantly obvious to everyone else fails entirely on Muslims.

Bad reviews hurt filmmakers far more than cutlery. The pen IS mightier than the sword.

Perhaps what we're dealing with is the inability of Muslims to use a pen.

Not all Muslims are using the sword, and I'm sure a lot of them have used the pen.

Perhaps what we're dealing with is the inability of Muslims to use a pen.
Q means use a pen in ways other than having them stuck through your eye sockets.

I wonder if the Dutch troops working in Afghanistan under the ISAF would bother to risk it all if they were aware just how worthless some of the lives are that they are defending?

Is that what they are doing? Risking their lives for the betterment of Afghanis?

Is that what they are doing? Risking their lives for the betterment of Afghanis?

I wasn't referring to the Afghanis.:)

With your complaint of "ham-handed trolling" you sure don't do much to have a intelligent conversation. I wanted to debate the point of view of Afghanistan's occupation that an Afghani should be expected to have, but I guess I'll abort.

With your complaint of "ham-handed trolling" you sure don't do much to have a intelligent conversation. I wanted to debate the point of view of Afghanistan's occupation that an Afghani should be expected to have, but I guess I'll abort.

Abort? This whole thread is an abortion. Listen, you can pretend to care, but the fact is you don't. You never have.

I guess what continues to just puzzle me is how on earth someone like you, or SAM for that matter, surrenders their mind to hatred to the point that they defend the indefensible. You don't even understand that which you try to stick up for. How does that work, exactly?

Abort? This whole thread is an abortion. Listen, you can pretend to care, but the fact is you don't. You never have.

Are you projecting on me? In any case, all I don't see how that has anything to with anything.



I guess what continues to just puzzle me is how on earth someone like you, or SAM for that matter, surrenders their mind to hatred to the point that they defend the indefensible.

Then I'm happy to inform you that such a thing did not happen. What puzzles *me* is how you are unable to understand legitimate disagreements, and you must assume it is hate. You sound like Bush, saying terrorists "hate our freedom", rather than facing reality.


How does that work, exactly?

I already made a point of debate with you on this, but so far you've preferred to talk about personal things. I'll try again.

I don't think it is reasonable to expect the Afghanistan people to tolerate an occupation, especially given the way it has gone, and it's lack of progress.

If your rebuttal is to say that they deserved it because of terrorist attacks, and are in no position to complain... how would you like it if the same happened to you? The US has done plenty of things itself. What if someone attacked and occupied us for 7 years (and counting)? For some reason, I don't think you would be tolerant of an occupier, no matter what.

You're not going to answer my questions. Why in the hell should I answer yours?

Just answer this: Would the world be better off if the U.S. had made no response after 9/11, and the Taliban was still controlling Afghanistan, and allowing Al Qaeda a safe haven to operate and coordinate more attacks around the world?

You're not going to answer my questions. Why in the hell should I answer yours?

Just answer this: Would the world be better off if the U.S. had made no response after 9/11, and the Taliban was still controlling Afghanistan, and allowing Al Qaeda a safe haven to operate and coordinate more attacks around the world?

There is a lot of room between no response and invasion + occupation. But, since you didn't ask that, I will just say yes.

Look at the statistics of terrorist attacks. They aren't a huge threat. The invasion of Afghanistan has done incomparably more damage to them than they did to us.

And on the contrary to thinking that we are safer from them not having a safe haven in Afghanistan, I think we are worse off. We've created more terrorist and strengthened the extreme elements.

Also, what do you think the chances of success are in Afghanistan? Occupations tend not to work.

There is a lot of room between no response and invasion + occupation. But, since you didn't ask that, I will just say yes.

Look at the statistics of terrorist attacks. They aren't a huge threat. The invasion of Afghanistan has done incomparably more damage to them than they did to us.

And on the contrary to thinking that we are safer from them not having a safe haven in Afghanistan, I think we are worse off. We've created more terrorist and strengthened the extreme elements.

Also, what do you think the chances of success are in Afghanistan? Occupations tend not to work.

If you had been the POTUS on 9/12/01, what steps would you have taken to deal with the attack?

Fired the CIA and FBI chiefs for incompetence.

Multilateral diplomacy. There was a lot of support of the US during that time, a lot could of been done. Whether much would of been accomplished with Afghanistan directly, I don't know. I didn't say there was a immediate, perfect solution for all parties. But a lot could have been done. There was a huge diplomatic opportunity with Iran, who tried to make themselves an ally in dealing with Afghanistan. I would end US actions that give justifications to extremists. I would give aid to progressive elements in the entire region.

They are human beings after all. I'm sure the people of Afghanistan would choose progress towards normalcy (as they did before the US supported Osama decades ago) over living in the conditions they were in.

Multilateral diplomacy. There was a lot of support of the US during that time, a lot could of been done. Whether much would of been accomplished with Afghanistan directly, I don't know. I didn't say there was a immediate, perfect solution for all parties. But a lot could have been done. There was a huge diplomatic opportunity with Iran, who tried to make themselves an ally in dealing with Afghanistan. I would end US actions that give justifications to extremists. I would give aid to progressive elements in the entire region.

They are human beings after all. I'm sure the people of Afghanistan would choose progress towards normalcy (as they did before the US supported Osama decades ago) over living in the conditions they were in.

Clinton attempted to establish diplomatic relations with the Taliban, but it became apparent that they simply weren't able to understand the concept. You must remember, we're talking about the equivalent of backwoods hillbillies as government officials. They had no concept of foreign policy.

I'm sure you mean well, but you're simply out of your element here. You've obviously done nothing to educate yourself about what the situation was on the ground in Afghanistan in 2001. This wasn't a sovereign nation with diplomatic protocols in place with which to negotiate. It was a failed state, recognized diplomatically by only two countries, if my memory serves me correctly.

Regardless, they were giving safe haven to terrorists, and they knew it, and ultimately paid the price as they should have.

You talk of occupation. Would you consider the Marshall Plan an occupation? And if so, would it have better if the Allies had just left Germany and Japan in utter ruin?

Clinton attempted to establish diplomatic relations with the Taliban, but it became apparent that they simply weren't able to understand the concept. You must remember, we're talking about the equivalent of backwoods hillbillies as government officials. They had no concept of foreign policy.

The people at the top, perhaps, but I'm sure the majority of the population could be turned towards progress. Indoctrination is hard to fight, but all humans tend to want similar things. I think the extremist culture can be dealt with diplomatically, eventually. Simply because it is not a desirable condition for any normal person, and if they have no provocation, or moral justification, they will opt towards progressiveness.

Perhaps you could succinctly inform me what Clinton tried. I know of nothing besides sanctions and retaliatory bombing of terrorist camps.



I'm sure you mean well, but you're simply out of your element here. You've obviously done nothing to educate yourself about what the situation was on the ground in Afghanistan in 2001. This wasn't a sovereign nation with diplomatic protocols in place with which to negotiate. It was a failed state, recognized diplomatically by only two countries, if my memory serves me correctly.

They did have people to negotiate with, I am fairly sure of that.



Regardless, they were giving safe haven to terrorists, and they knew it, and ultimately paid the price as they should have.

Some of them paid a price, while the people of Afghanistan payed most of it for them. Lots of the organization survived and simply relocated. I consider that a big reason for invasion to be a poor decision.



You talk of occupation. Would you consider the Marshall Plan an occupation? And if so, would it have better if the Allies had just left Germany and Japan in utter ruin?

Well, they were occupied. The circumstances in those cases were different, especially Japan. What happened in Japan is pretty unique. As far as I know, there was no guerrilla warfare resistance in Germany, or none of significance.

The people at the top, perhaps, but I'm sure the majority of the population could be turned towards progress. Indoctrination is hard to fight, but all humans tend to want similar things. I think the extremist culture can be dealt with diplomatically, eventually. Simply because it is not a desirable condition for any normal person, and if they have no provocation, or moral justification, they will opt towards progressiveness.

Perhaps you could succinctly inform me what Clinton tried. I know of nothing besides sanctions and retaliatory bombing of terrorist camps.



They did have people to negotiate with, I am fairly sure of that.



Some of them paid a price, while the people of Afghanistan payed most of it for them. Lots of the organization survived and simply relocated. I consider that a big reason for invasion to be a poor decision.



Well, they were occupied. The circumstances in those cases were different, especially Japan. What happened in Japan is pretty unique. As far as I know, there was no guerrilla warfare resistance in Germany, or none of significance.

Ok, so you more or less concede that there was no negotiating with the Taliban, and you would be correct to accept that fact, because it's true.

As for the rest of what you posted, I don't know what the hell you're talking about. How does one nation establish diplomatic relations with the man on the street? I guess that's what you were trying to say, but honestly, I'm not sure. I think you want to believe there was something there to deal with that just wasn't.

As to your response to my question about the Marshall Plan, it was a nice dodge, but you really didn't answer the question. I'll answer for you: If the U.S. had not stayed in Germany and Japan and helped restore the government and rebuild the infrastructure, those countries would still be lagging behind where they are today. There is no question that the U.S. presence in those countries expedited their respective rise to be the economic powers that they became. And all the while, an occupation was underway, at least under your definition of it.

Ok, so you more or less concede that there was no negotiating with the Taliban, and you would be correct to accept that fact, because it's true.

Well, as I initially said, I did not expect a overnight solution with Afghanistan. I think it could eventually have changed, which is still better than worsening relations with an occupation that has a high chance of failure.

Also, there was a lot to be gained diplomatically from other countries, as I mentioned. Who knows how much could of been accomplished with the vast support the US had then.



As for the rest of what you posted, I don't know what the hell you're talking about. How does one nation establish diplomatic relations with the man on the street? I guess that's what you were trying to say, but honestly, I'm not sure. I think you want to believe there was something there to deal with that just wasn't.

I recall hearing of negotiations before, so there must have been some form. But I will check this (tomorrow, going to sleep soon).



As to your response to my question about the Marshall Plan, it was a nice dodge, but you really didn't answer the question. I'll answer for you: If the U.S. had not stayed in Germany and Japan and helped restore the government and rebuild the infrastructure, those countries would still be lagging behind where they are today. There is no question that the U.S. presence in those countries expedited their respective rise to be the economic powers that they became. And all the while, an occupation was underway, at least under your definition of it.

I don't disagree with what happened in Germany and Japan. I know less about Germany, but Japan was particularly unique in their response. Perhaps it would be better to compare Afghanistan to Vietnam, because the dilemma is similar. They continue to fight our presence there, but due to using guerrilla-warfare there really is not a military solution.

Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende said he was angry at recent anti-Netherlands protests in Afghanistan which were sparked by a soon-to-be-released Dutch film critical of Islam, Dutch media reported Wednesday.

"This is not acceptable. I am extremely angry about it," Balkenende was quoted as saying on television program Het Elfde Uur Tuesday.

Around 15,000 Afghans took part in demonstrations in two Afghan cities Saturday to protest against an anti-Koran film which will be released later this month by Dutch right-wing lawmaker Geert Wilders and the reprinting of a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad in several Danish newspapers.

The demonstrators shouted "Death to the Netherlands" and demanded the withdrawal of Dutch troops from Afghanistan.


http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-03/12/content_7776148.htm
:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: