Taliban massacre children in Pakistani school

[Itchy]

Seafood and give her dicks will soon have this thread plastered in their one sided articles. Pair of fools in my opinion, no less blinkered in their assessment of the world than those they oppose.

[Mike Sheehy]

"Social issues, economic inequality etc"- pure political economy, the source of all political violence.

These issues were not why those lunatics fired point blank on those children and burned their teachers.

In fact, it is the exact opposite.  They were attacking , head on, the most important means of combating many of the issues that you highlight i.e. education.

Whatever. the war has been going on for 10 years and plenty of schools in the north have been destroyed.
How do you change the dynamic so that no more kids die ?

And jihad as the problem- why is Malaysia so stable ?

You can start by stopping the people that want to kill them from killing them or would that be considered "interference" in their "region" to you ?

Malaysia is more stable because the Malaysian government have obviously had more success in preventing the extremists from organizing and forming into a force as large as ISIS or the Taliban. Also, Malaysia, whilst containing its share of fundamentalists, is, far more accepting of western influence and the norms of a civilized society and that has been of benefit to that society.

Perhaps if you would focus your energies toward encouraging these countries to adopt western style democracy and secularism instead of constantly attacking the very countries which epitomize its success then maybe we wouldn't need to have these conversations.

Thanks for the laughs. Sheehy.
I see you're playing good cop today.
No insults at all? 

What is the main difference between Malaysia and Afghanistan regarding the US ?

pointing out your xenophobia toward the US is not "insulting" . It is merely pointing out a simple fact.

Malaysia does not contain the terrorist harbouring fanatics known as the Taliban who need to be confronted. That is the main difference.

Those that hold power in Malaysia make smarter choices about their priorities. It is a pity the fanatics in Afganistan don't do the same. They cause their people so much misery. You should never forget that. Your insistence on always looking to blame outside influence for the ills of a country merely sidesteps the main issue i.e. Islamic Jihad.

[gallsman]

Seafood and give her dicks will soon have this thread plastered in their one sided articles. Pair of fools in my opinion, no less blinkered in their assessment of the world than those they oppose.

Says the genius who manages to come up with "give her dicks".

Perhaps if you would focus your energies toward encouraging these countries to adopt western style democracy and secularism instead of constantly attacking the very countries which epitomize its success then maybe we wouldn't need to have these conversations.

Encouraging people to adopt western style democracy, with all it's flaws, is key here. The trouble is there are too many people, both in the US and elsewhere who would sympathise to the Ann Coulter (or the Fox guy who called for an "American Jihad") view of "encouraging".

[seafoid]

"Social issues, economic inequality etc"- pure political economy, the source of all political violence.

These issues were not why those lunatics fired point blank on those children and burned their teachers.

In fact, it is the exact opposite.  They were attacking , head on, the most important means of combating many of the issues that you highlight i.e. education.

Whatever. the war has been going on for 10 years and plenty of schools in the north have been destroyed.
How do you change the dynamic so that no more kids die ?

And jihad as the problem- why is Malaysia so stable ?

You can start by stopping the people that want to kill them from killing them or would that be considered "interference" in their "region" to you ?

Malaysia is more stable because the Malaysian government have obviously had more success in preventing the extremists from organizing and forming into a force as large as ISIS or the Taliban. Also, Malaysia, whilst containing its share of fundamentalists, is, far more accepting of western influence and the norms of a civilized society and that has been of benefit to that society.

Perhaps if you would focus your energies toward encouraging these countries to adopt western style democracy and secularism instead of constantly attacking the very countries which epitomize its success then maybe we wouldn't need to have these conversations.

Thanks for the laughs. Sheehy.
I see you're playing good cop today.
No insults at all? 

What is the main difference between Malaysia and Afghanistan regarding the US ?

pointing out your xenophobia toward the US is not "insulting" . It is merely pointing out a simple fact.

Malaysia does not contain the terrorist harbouring fanatics known as the Taliban who need to be confronted. That is the main difference.

Those that hold power in Malaysia make smarter choices about their priorities. It is a pity the fanatics in Afganistan don't do the same. They cause their people so much misery. You should never forget that. Your insistence on always looking to blame outside influence for the ills of a country merely sidesteps the main issue i.e. Islamic Jihad.

Malaysia is very close to Beijing so the US plays good cop
Afghanistan is closer to the middle East where it's the  bad cop schtick.
American influence in the Middle East is malign and has been for a very long time.
Jihad is a response to that.

[Mike Sheehy]

Malaysia is very close to Beijing so the US plays good cop
Afghanistan is closer to the middle East where it's the  bad cop schtick.
American influence in the Middle East is malign and has been for a very long time.

North Korean relations are also closer to Beijing. Does the US play good cop with them ? You always try to portray the complex economic and political relations between the US and other countries as something that is automatically nefarious whilst not applying the same standard to those allied to your anti-American world view I.e Russia, Iran etc.

Jihad is a response to that.

is Jihad, and all it entails,  a justified response ?

[Itchy]

Seafood and give her dicks will soon have this thread plastered in their one sided articles. Pair of fools in my opinion, no less blinkered in their assessment of the world than those they oppose.

Says the genius who manages to come up with "give her dicks".

Perhaps if you would focus your energies toward encouraging these countries to adopt western style democracy and secularism instead of constantly attacking the very countries which epitomize its success then maybe we wouldn't need to have these conversations.

Encouraging people to adopt western style democracy, with all it's flaws, is key here. The trouble is there are too many people, both in the US and elsewhere who would sympathise to the Ann Coulter (or the Fox guy who called for an "American Jihad") view of "encouraging".

Mind your own business gallbladder

[Mike Sheehy]

Encouraging people to adopt western style democracy, with all it's flaws, is key here. The trouble is there are too many people, both in the US and elsewhere who would sympathise to the Ann Coulter (or the Fox guy who called for an "American Jihad") view of "encouraging".

yup and Ann Coulter is an air headed shit stirrer and demagogue and there are plenty of people in the US that will gladly point that out. Believe me , there are no shortage of dissenting voices to those idiots.

[Eamonnca1]

deliberately trying to deflect attention from the root cause i.e. violent, radical Islam and Jihadism in order to fit in with an extremely biased geopolitical wordview won't solve the problem either.

Guess who funded the daddy of the Taliban, the mujahideen.
Extremely shortsighted geopolitical view, that was.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3f9mlUQzJA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXb_BUSU91s

#freedom fighters

The mujahideen. Armed to the teeth with American weapons. Didn't they once put in an appearance as "good guys" in a James Bond film?

[thebuzz]

Horrific attack all right but they aren't the only ones murdering children on a grand scale.

Bill Clinton imposed sanctions on Iraq that led to the deaths of 500, 000 people, the majority of them children and he gets a red carpet welcome practically everywhere he goes.

Bush and Blair have the blood of a million on their hands, and Israel mass murders children for fun without hardly a whisper from the west.

Maybe I'm being a little naive but to me the difference here is that these bastards carried out this atrocity on purpose whereas Clinton, etc were trying to make things better whether they made major mistakes or not.

[give her dixie]

Horrific attack all right but they aren't the only ones murdering children on a grand scale.

Bill Clinton imposed sanctions on Iraq that led to the deaths of 500, 000 people, the majority of them children and he gets a red carpet welcome practically everywhere he goes.

Bush and Blair have the blood of a million on their hands, and Israel mass murders children for fun without hardly a whisper from the west.

Maybe I'm being a little naive but to me the difference here is that these b**tards carried out this atrocity on purpose whereas Clinton, etc were trying to make things better whether they made major mistakes or not.

There is really no in between here. Children were killed in 2 different circumstances.

Yesterday in horrific circumstances, and via the US and the UK, a long slow death.

If you think Clinton was trying to make things better then you are way of the mark.

The deaths of 500,000 due to his sanctions is not a major mistake. It's genocide. There's a big difference

Madeleine Albright in an interview with 60 minutes said "the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children was worth it"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4PgpbQfxgo

How outraged would we be if a Taliban fighter apperared on TV and said the deaths of those children was worth it?

If you get a chance, read this article by John Pilger who witnessed the slow deaths of children in Iraq due to brutal sanctions imposed by the US and the UK via a corrupt UN Security Council.

http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2000/mar/04/weekend7.weekend9

[Wildweasel74]

somehow a slaughter at a school has ened up a bitching session about america policy in the middle east, there not a thread already on that? kindly f**k off over to it!

[seafoid]

Malaysia is very close to Beijing so the US plays good cop
Afghanistan is closer to the middle East where it's the  bad cop schtick.
American influence in the Middle East is malign and has been for a very long time.

North Korean relations are also closer to Beijing. Does the US play good cop with them ? You always try to portray the complex economic and political relations between the US and other countries as something that is automatically nefarious whilst not applying the same standard to those allied to your anti-American world view I.e Russia, Iran etc.

Jihad is a response to that.

is Jihad, and all it entails,  a justified response ?

I don't think violent Jihad is necessarily justified but it's not about justification.
It's political economy and it's how people behave in certain situations. 
Do you think that song about Joe McDonnell should be banned ?

The wonks who design US foreign policy don't understand culture

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/video/2011/oct/31/scott-atran-us-foreign-policy-video

US policy in Muslim countries is a complete disaster but maybe that's by design.

[Eamonnca1]

I should have known better than to think this thread would have stayed on topic.

[stew]

you sir are a sniveling git!

Hush now, the grown ups are talking. You're a complete and utter imbecile but you don't hear me banging on about it.

The primary issue is Islamic Jihad and their murderous mission to impose their creed on others.

And what causes jihadism (I presume you mean jihadism in general rather than the organisation specifically referred to as Islamic Jihad - please correct me if I'm wrong)? Is it down to the simplistic belief that Islam is a violent religion? If so, why are the vast majority of them peace loving civilians like any of the rest of us? Is it history or politics or economics?

Answer the question fcukwit! What has rape got to do with these children being slaughtered???

You are an arrogant ballbag galls, the answer to the question is that Rape has absolutely nothing to do with the slaughter of these children!

[gallsman]

you sir are a sniveling git!

Hush now, the grown ups are talking. You're a complete and utter imbecile but you don't hear me banging on about it.

The primary issue is Islamic Jihad and their murderous mission to impose their creed on others.

And what causes jihadism (I presume you mean jihadism in general rather than the organisation specifically referred to as Islamic Jihad - please correct me if I'm wrong)? Is it down to the simplistic belief that Islam is a violent religion? If so, why are the vast majority of them peace loving civilians like any of the rest of us? Is it history or politics or economics?

Answer the question fcukwit! What has rape got to do with these children being slaughtered???

You are an arrogant ballbag galls, the answer to the question is that Rape has absolutely nothing to do with the slaughter of these children!

Yours powers of deduction are quite simply breathtaking. It's called a tangent. Google it if you're struggling.