I am wondering if people can critique this.

Solving the problem in a few hours or days requires the nuclear option, naivete. or stupidity. Or all three.

You do realise that the marriage to Aisha (who was nine at the time) was an act of political convenience, of the type that was very common in that and other middle-eastern cultures, and would not have been consumated until much later?

Yes, I think the Afghan war was disproportionate and unjustified. Moreover, whatever the objective was supposed to be, it hasn't been achieved and a lot of blood has been spilt and treasure expended to no good end.

And anyone who's read history could tell you what happens when you invade Afghanistan. All the leaders responsible were alive during the Soviet occupation so there's really no excuse.

I never said that the all middle east's problems are the west's fault, merely that our interventions have created many problems and that therefore we should stop a) pretending that we're blameless, and b) intervening.

Now you know how we feel about your posts here.

I assume you realize that flying say 100 or so heavy bombers over a major city and dropping maximum conventional bomb loads would be roughly the equivalent of a nuclear attack don't you?

6,000,000 lbs. of ordnance would be roughly equivalent to 3 kilotons of explosive force spread out over the target area.

and how exactly would this take care of the problem?

I didn't suggest it would. I was merely pointing out that effectively destroying a large populated area like a city in short order does not require anything exotic or extreme as weapons of mass destruction.

People don't realize just how far regular weapons have come since their large scale use in World War Two.

I've seen suggestions that a World War Two scale conflict in modern times could kill 600 million to 1 billion people (as opposed to the 60 million in WW2)

Even the first point was pretty stupid. If you want to call this a war - which it ain't - who the fuck is fueling the 'war'? Why has the West been fucking around for decades in the Middle East? What do you expect if you're bombing a people for no real reason - and we've been bombing Iraq for no reason for decades? Muslims number 1.5 billion, is it a surprise there's a percentage of them willing to retaliate against a foreign nation who is bombing the shit out of them for no reason other than greedy, economic interests? People wonder why Islamic whack-jobs commit terrorism against the West every so often and Hindus and Sikhs don't. Well I guarantee you this - if America, Britain or anyone else started to randomly bomb Hindus and Sikhs in India, you can be pretty damned sure Hindu and Sikhs will retaliate against these countries one way or the other.

But we don't bomb Hindus and Sikhs because they're not a bunch of violent wack jobs who must murder anyone who disputes their religion. Instead, they get killed by Muslim terrorists, just like Jews, Christians, and all the rest.

Chup is a worthless goat fucker. We know way he is why he is, it is because, like Mohemmad, he is a goat rapist. That is just the way it is.

El Chup! You sick bastard! Stop abusing that goat!

[img=http://s16.postimg.org/rqbjod99d/goat_rape.jpg]

*NSFW IMAGE AT THIS LINK*

http://i65.tinypic.com/1zwzyv8.jpg[/IMG]​

Goat rapist!

Gul, why do you rape the poor goats? That is unforgivable, you sick fucker.

>Image removed by mod<

That's enough of that, @Dinner .

No more pics like that.

I think you need to spend more time reading about India matey.....

So you get called on your Nazism, and this is how desperate you get.....instead of actually being able to answer the questions that are put to you on your bigotry.

How utterly puerile you are.

No part of India has the percentage of deaths by religious fanatics as California does, and the country overall has less than a third of California's religious fatality rate - and that's just counting the attack by the two Muslims in San Barnardino.

I was actually referring to this, you uneducated fool. Your Wiki powers are letting you down:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saffron_terror

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalistan_movement


I guess you'd better ban Hindus and Skihs as well.

In fact, talking of violent wack jobs murdering in the names of religion....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord's_Resistance_Army

...What's the best way to go about banning Christians?


Twat.

And if you add up the deaths from all those incidents you get what, 0.03 deaths per 100,000 per year? The US probably has a higher death rate from that from playing beer pong. My housemate's friend's brother just got murdered at beer pong last week. It's a rough sport.

That's about as strong an argument as any of the others you've made. You are a racist scum, so this post is pretty much on par for all your other failings these past few months. When did you fall so far off the wagon? What was the precipitating event?

Ahhhh so now you want to start talking about percentages.

When I asked you what percentage of 1.6 billion Muslims were Islamists, suggesting to you it was at best in the hundreds of thousands. You couldn't answer because you had no clue what you were talking about, instead just listing the organisations, some of whom only have memberships of hundreds or less than 10k. So let's actually take a larger figure for your sake and say there are half a million in ISIS and their allies. Do you know what half a million is out of 1.6 billion? 0.03125%, or rounded up, the exact same percentage you quoted above.

That is why you and Dinner are revealed as bigots - it is because you are ignorant, low minded suckers who believe rhetoric over exploring facts. The Sikh, Hindu and Christian terrorist examples are things I bet you didn't even have a clue about. How about Buddhist persecution of Muslims in Burma? Bet you didn't know that either. Oh no, Buddhists can't possibly be violent!!

The real problem isn't Muslims. It is religion and how religion and be manipulated and used as an excuse for any kind of action. But then that's a whole other debate, and another one in which you'd again squirm and wriggle because it doesn't support your bigoted and low brow narrative.

Probably asked a Middle Eastern girl out for a date and got rejected.

Seems we did have a member here who was engaged at one point to a Muslim or at least Middle Eastern woman?

Or that might've been at the TrekBBS.

I do know there was a guy who used to irritate me at the TrekBBS who was dating a Japanese girl and I asked him when they made love if they called it "30 Seconds over Tokyo"

Yes. Me. She was Anglo-Persian and (not a practicing Muslim).

Have you ever looked at real polling data? Try Pew Research. Shocking stuff, and it also covers the UK and France. The Telegraph's look a polls in UK found that 40% of British Muslims want sharia law.

This is a good opportunity to remind people about Wordforge rule # 4:

@Dinner posted a link to an image that isn't even legal in most countries. Rule 4 definitely applies. And such a post won't go unwarned the next time. Also worth mentioning, it goes against the don't be a dipshit rule.

I've read about a number of people of Iranian descent living in Britain. IIRC actress Catherine Bell (J.A.G., The Good Witch) was one.

My lord she was hot, hot, hot. When Amy and I watched J.A.G. I had to make diversionary comments.

We converted her to Scientology.

Replace "jihadist" with "communist," and it's the same advocacy for total war that armchair generals have been pushing for decades.

Seems like a rather unconventional transformation.