Go back
Afghanistan - gloom & doom?

Afghanistan - gloom & doom?

Debates

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by zeeblebot
the answer may be clear to you ... is it zero? ...
No.

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Red_Army

Shigenobu had been a leading member of the Red Army Faction (Sekigun-ha) in Japan, whose roots lay in the militant new-left Communist League. Advocating imminent revolution, they set up their own group, declaring war on the state in September, 1969. The police arrested many of them very soon, its founder and intellectual leader Takaya Shiomi was in jail in 1970. The Sekigun lost about 200 members and the very few left merged with a maoist group to form the Rengo Sekigun or United Red Army in July, 1971. This group grew famous because its members slaughtered twelve of their own in its training camp hideout in the Japanese Alps in the winter of that year. A weeklong siege by hundreds of police, the Asama-Sanso incident ended this fiasco. The Red Army in Japan was finished. Fusako Shigenobu had left Japan with only a handful of dedicated people, but her group is said to have had about 40 members at its height and was from the suicidal Lod airport attack on one of the best-known armed leftist groups in the world.[1] The Japanese Red Army, Nihon Sekigun from 1971 had very close ties to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). By 1972 the United Red Army in Japan was finished and the Shigenobu group dependent on the PFLP for financing, training and weaponry.

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban

Strength

45,000 (2001 est.)

7,000 to 11,000 (2008 est.)

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

If the U.S. were to nuke Afghanistan, I'd imagine half a dozen cities in Coalition Of The Willing countries would get blown to smithereens within 5 years. The U.S. wouldn't know which country to strike back at. And the so-called GWOT would still be going on in 100 years from now.

Vote Up
Vote Down

after the bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki, the number of japanese terrorists seems miniscule. in afghanistan, sans nuclear bombings, not so miniscule.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by zeeblebot
after the bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki, the number of japanese terrorists seems miniscule. in afghanistan, sans nuclear bombings, not so miniscule.
What an absolutely marvelous argument.

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by FMF
What an absolutely marvelous argument.

thank you.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by FMF
If the U.S. were to nuke Afghanistan, I'd imagine half a dozen cities in Coalition Of The Willing countries would get blown to smithereens within 5 years. The U.S. wouldn't know which country to strike back at. And the so-called GWOT would still be going on in 100 years from now.
From terrorists who disguise themselfs as women to escape and use plastic bottles full of a mixture you get from a chemist , how do you think they would blow 6 major cities to smithereens within 5 years ? If they could blow a major city to .." smithereens".. i think they would have by now, dont you ?

Vote Up
Vote Down

How about executing the entire population? That will surely kill all the terrorists!

Nuking Afghanistan is probably the worst idea in the history of mankind since voting for Reagan - and isn't even going to "win the war". Killing millions of civilians and Agent Orange didn't stop the Vietcong either.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by phil3000
From terrorists who disguise themselfs as women to escape and use plastic bottles full of a mixture you get from a chemist , how do you think they would blow 6 major cities to smithereens within 5 years ? If they could blow a major city to .." smithereens".. i think they would have by now, dont you ?
No.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by FMF
No.
Why not ?

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by zeeblebot
after the bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki, the number of japanese terrorists seems miniscule. in afghanistan, sans nuclear bombings, not so miniscule.
BUt as we see, after using atomic bombs to kill terrorists, more terrorists spring up in their stead. So really all that happens is a brief repreave until the next group of terrorist spring up and the next atomic bomb hits.

Can this cycle be broken or should it be?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by whodey
BUt as we see, after using atomic bombs to kill terrorists, more terrorists spring up in their stead. So really all that happens is a brief repreave until the next group of terrorist spring up and the next atomic bomb hits.

Can this cycle be broken or should it be?
I don't remember the Japanese as being terrorists while studying ww2. I don't count the fact that the imprisoned Japanese americans as proof. I consider all that they did as acts of war including the bomb balloons. Only recently have we been using the term terrorist as describing an enemy. Who were the terrorists during the american civil war?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by FMF
Putting your swagger to one side for a moment, how many more generations longer would the current struggle to contain terrorism last, do you think, if the 'West' were to drop nuclear weapons on Afghanistan?
you don't like my idea?

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
How about executing the entire population? That will surely kill all the terrorists!

Nuking Afghanistan is probably the worst idea in the history of mankind since voting for Reagan - and isn't even going to "win the war". Killing millions of civilians and Agent Orange didn't stop the Vietcong either.
And he STILL has yet to miss even the most innocuous opportunity to get in a dig at Ronald Reagan...

Your punishment in Hell for being an Atheist is going to be to spend eternity in Reagan's presidential library, having to stare at his smiling mug and clippings about his greatness 24/7/365.25 😏

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.