Boots on the Ground

[BmorePat87]

(05-21-2015, 06:24 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Yeah France and the Brits did that to keep getting resources .... Good ole Sykes-Picot

Very true. Even before that, Britain and Russia were spreading around the area in the late 1800s.

[fredtoast]

(05-21-2015, 06:22 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I like how documented history is being called "biased articles".

He wasn't even there for any type of learning experience. He was there with the military.

And he thinks that makes him an expert of the history of the region.

What a joke.

[fredtoast]

(05-20-2015, 12:26 AM)bfine32 Wrote: ....he also said the Bush was more concerned with reading his storybooks to children that he was about the attacks on the WTC.

I guess we all have folks that we take at their word. Your choice is surprising.

No doubt you know more about the history because you read about it. I only experienced it,

So when it comes to the motives of Bin Laden i should trust you over his own words?

You experienced nothing with Bin Laden. You were never a member of Alqueda. You can not give one reason that he would lie about his motives. And your denial of the influence of the west in that area proves it. you honestly believe that Alqueda really doesn't care about our support of Israel and our having troops in Saudi Arabia?

[*bfine32*]

(05-22-2015, 03:25 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So when it comes to the motives of Bin Laden i should trust you over his own words?

You experienced nothing with Bin Laden.  You were never a member of Alqueda.  You can not give one reason that he would lie about his motives.  And your denial of the influence of the west in that area proves it.  you honestly believe that Alqueda really doesn't care about our support of Israel and our having troops in Saudi Arabia?

Do you believe Bush cared more about reading a storybook to children than he did his buildinging getting attacked?

Of course Al-Queda doesn't agree with our support of Isreral or Troops in Saudi 9I would also assert other muslems may not be in favor of this; however, the building were attacked because Bin laden and his type are zealot pyscopaths.

I experienced the ideology and fear that Ben Laden brought to a region. You can call that "nothing" from your Living Room if you wish.

[Bengalzona]

(05-16-2015, 09:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: These "kind of groups" were there long before we showed up. We just brought the cameras.

Yeah. It is sort of like running the troops into the backwoods of the Appalachians and running into to a bunch a heavily armed zealot hillbillies.

[*bfine32*]

(05-22-2015, 03:19 PM)fredtoast Wrote: He wasn't even there for any type of learning experience.  He was there with the military.  

And he thinks that makes him an expert of the history of the region.

What a joke.

Never said i was an expert on the history of the region, just stated that I have a better understanding of the history and its effects that someone that has merely read about it.

Do you think true experts on the history of the region ever visited the region or just repeated what they read from books in their Living Room?

Hell, there's a slim chance you might know more about Tennessee courtrooms than me.

[*bfine32*]

(05-21-2015, 06:22 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I like how documented history is being called "biased articles".

Yes I consider someone that states "The only thing going on is that we are bombing them instead of someone else" to have gotten this notion from biased articles. Unless there is "documented history" that the only thing that is going on is us bombing them.

I have seen the improvements we have made in the region, but, that most likely does not count.

[BmorePat87]

(05-22-2015, 06:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes I consider someone that states "The only thing going on is that we are bombing them instead of someone else" to have gotten this notion from biased articles. Unless there is "documented history" that the only thing that is going on is us bombing them.

I have seen the improvements we have made in the region, but, that most likely does not count.

You first used the articles line with Matt when he was discussing the history of Afghanistan as a whole. Dino used the "bombing them line" but only to point out that our invasion and occupation was one of many that have happened over the last century (and even further back than that).

Here are the posts

(05-20-2015, 01:35 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That's still not experiencing the history of the region that we are discussing.

(05-20-2015, 01:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If you say so. Keep reading those articles.

(05-20-2015, 02:39 PM)GMDino Wrote: That doesn't even make sense.

The only thing that's gone on in the last decade is the US bombing them instead of someone else.

Over the previous century plus they've had multiple wars, power struggles, coups...and you think more changed in the last decade?

Being there give you unique insight into what it is like now...but to ignore everything before that because you think seeing it now is better than reading about what it was like before you got there is inane.

(05-20-2015, 03:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote:
I see you have been busy reading (most likely biased) articles. I have seen election reform and advancement of women's rights more in the last decade than had taken place in the last half-millennium. I have seen school destroyed by the Taliban becuase they wanted anyone to learn, being rebuilt and attended. I have seen wells constructed in places that had never had acces to water in there history.

I have seen countless other progresses. You feel free to go with the only thing that has changed in that we are bombing them more.

So... well documented history for the last few centuries = biased articles? You can save yourself a lot of trouble but just acknowledging that stuff happened in Afghanistan in the 400 years prior to 2001. Like, a lot more stuff than in the last 14 years. A lot more. Like... not enough close to the same amount of stuff. 400 years versus 14 years...

[*bfine32*]

(05-23-2015, 07:18 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You first used the articles line with Matt when he was discussing the history of Afghanistan as a whole. Dino used the "bombing them line" but only to point out that our invasion and occupation was one of many that have happened over the last century (and even further back than that).

Here are the posts










So... well documented history for the last few centuries = biased articles? You can save yourself a lot of trouble but just acknowledging that stuff happened in Afghanistan in the 400 years prior to 2001. Like, a lot more stuff than in the last 14 years. A lot more. Like... not enough close to the same amount of stuff. 400 years versus 14 years...

Well I had little doubt you would run to Dino's defense. The results from clicking on his rep count are kinda creepy. Seems he has quite the admirer.

[BmorePat87]

(05-23-2015, 10:31 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Well I had little doubt you would run to Dino's defense. The results from clicking on his rep count are kinda creepy. Seems he has quite the admirer.

I just scroll up and down threads repping people I like.

I find it amusing that this is the only response you're capable of making to this.

[GMDino]

(05-23-2015, 10:31 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Well I had little doubt you would run to Dino's defense. The results from clicking on his rep count are kinda creepy. Seems he has quite the admirer.

Or I'm right and you're wrong.

Whatever the reason please do some reading of the articles you don't like. They will help you understand so much more.

[*bfine32*]

(05-23-2015, 10:44 AM)GMDino Wrote: Or I'm right and you're wrong.

Well Bmorepat damn sure seems to think so. It appears he is kinda flying solo though.

[BmorePat87]

Is bfine the new Brad?

I'm counting at least 5 posters in this thread who responded multiple times saying that he is wrong.

Oh well, what more would we expect from him? I guess this thread is done.

[GMDino]

(05-23-2015, 10:48 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Well Bmorepat damn sure seems to think so. It appears he is kinda flying solo though.

How people are in this thread? the three of us are the only ones still discussing it mainly because you can't admit you could possibly have been wrong.

But please, continue...

[*bfine32*]

(05-23-2015, 11:46 AM)GMDino Wrote: How people are in this thread?  the three of us are the only ones still discussing it mainly because you can't admit you could possibly have been wrong.

But please, continue...

I'm still discussing it because I am the OP and it is good form for an OP to "host" his thread.

I think there's something deeper with you and Pat

[GMDino]

(05-23-2015, 11:59 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm still discussing it because I am the OP and it is good form for an OP to "host" his thread.

I think there's something deeper with you and Pat

Yes. We both understand you are wrong and can't admit it.

[*bfine32*]

(05-23-2015, 12:10 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yes.  We both understand you are wrong and can't admit it.

(like you're really two different people)

What exactly am I wrong about?

Am I wrong that someone that have spent time in a country, travelling throughout it, speaking with its elders and former warlords has a better understanding of a country's history than someone that just read about it in a book?

Am I wrong that there has been more voter reform and rights for women established in the last decade than there was the century prior?

Am I wrong that Bin Laden destroyed the WTC because he is a psychopath?

[BmorePat87]

(05-23-2015, 12:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Am I wrong that someone that have spent time in a country, travelling throughout it, speaking with its elders and former warlords has a better understanding of a country's history than someone that just read about it in a book?

Yes. Traveling somewhere and talking to people there doesn't mean you have a better understanding of the history.

It certainly could lead to knowing more, but based on your comments where you dismissed documented history of the last couple hundred years, the answer to whether or not you have a better understanding appears to be "no". Not that you asked if you had a better understanding, but that would be the answer until proven otherwise.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-22-2015, 03:19 PM)fredtoast Wrote: He wasn't even there for any type of learning experience.  He was there with the military.  

And he thinks that makes him an expert of the history of the region.

What a joke.

You don't believe his experiences would be a learning experience?

[fredtoast]

(05-24-2015, 03:12 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You don't believe his experiences would be a learning experience?

No.

I could travel through Alabama and talk to the locals today and learn that black people really didn't have it that bad under slavery or in the Jim Crow era.

He was there as a member of the US military. People probably told him what he wanted to hear.

Bin Laden had made his motives very clear going all the way back to the 1990's. Read "Imperial Hubris" by Michael Sheuer. he studied the history of the region and quotes Bin Laden's exact words.