The Fall of Iraq - What You Aren't Being Told

[Da Bannu Mazdigar]

NATO lost in Afghanistan?really?how?

They have a govt installed in the country with Talibs govt thrown out within first week of invasion,People of Afghanistan has already accepted the NATO/America presence with the major chunk of the population in favour of NATO longer stay,

They have killed more than 80k talibs loosing less than 4k.

Now tell me how the hell have they lost in Afghanistan?Yes i agree they have lost in Iraq but How Afghanistan?The common people of Afghanistna have never shown any resistance to the foriegn troops in the past decade

Will someone explain me how the hell they lost in Afghanistan?

Obama has already made it clear that it never was American strategy to make Afghanistan a perfect place

[کیش]

No, you failed to understand my point, jihadist. There is a difference between fighting a guerrilla war against a half-hearted enemy, which according to many political analysts was never and is not really dedicated in the first place, and that is profoundly limiting its true warfare potential, predicated on the principle of keeping civilian casualty to a compromise minimum, and fighting an all out conventional war much less a world war, like you idiotic jihadists think you will be able to do. If NATO wanted to, all it would take is a few nuclear fusion bombs to turn every single breathing thing in Afghanistan to dust (this is actually what the Abrahamic God ordered the Israelites to do to some of their enemies). Or it could utilize a more sadistic approach and use chemical and biological warfare to turn the country into a living hell. They are not doing that because unlike you heart eating, low IQed jihadists, NATO is at least partly accountable to the civilized world. On second thought, Im not sure why you are bringing Afghanistan into this, I have no qualms with the average Pashtun resistance fighter fighting for his land and people; the Taliban are not international jihadists (as far as Im aware, they have no intention of going to war with anyone other than an occupying force nor are they trying to establish a global caliphate).

My credentials? Oh, I'm just a mildly gifted (I am a member of Mensa but I won't say any more) high school (sixth form) graduate about to enter medical school, who spends all his free time studying everything important. If I say any more, I'd be violating my precept of humility more than is necessary and besides, given the fact that you literally have been unable to grasp even the tenor of my previous posts, Ive now realized that discussion with you, as is usually the case with jihadists, is hopeless, and I think Ive had enough fun putting garbage in its place.

You're opinion is just an opinion, and that too of a young man in his early 20's. All you have done is throw made up words like "Jihadist" everywhere. You lose credibility when you say stuff like that.

The other statements are moving in circle. The old "I wasn't talking about this, but I was saying this" that proofs that you are wrong.


And it is sad tha someone would like your post, which is emotional, anger, and bias against Muslims.

How many books have you read on the topic of the Caliphs, Umayyads and Abbasids? I am up to 10 ranging from Sunni/Shia/non-Muslim sources. How many books have you read about Muhammad PBUH, and the rise of Islam? Because I am up to 30, from every source possible.

You don't know the history of the Hijaz, As-Shams and the Sasanids. You don't have the right to comment in this matter, cause its irrelevant.

[کیش]

NATO lost in Afghanistan?really?how?

They have a govt installed in the country with Talibs govt thrown out within first week of invasion,People of Afghanistan has already accepted the NATO/America presence with the major chunk of the population in favour of NATO longer stay,

They have killed more than 80k talibs loosing less than 4k.

Now tell me how the hell have they lost in Afghanistan?Yes i agree they have lost in Iraq but How Afghanistan?The common people of Afghanistna have never shown any resistance to the foriegn troops in the past decade

Will someone explain me how the hell they lost in Afghanistan?

Obama has already made it clear that it never was American strategy to make Afghanistan a perfect place

Is the "Taliban" still operational? Cause they are still around even after losing 80K soldiers. NATO spent billions of dollars executing their strategy, Taliban spent a few million.

Truth speaks for itself

[DSM0305]

No, you failed to understand my point, jihadist. There is a difference between fighting a guerrilla war against a half-hearted enemy, which according to many political analysts was never and is not really dedicated in the first place, and that is profoundly limiting its true warfare potential, predicated on the principle of keeping civilian casualty to a compromise minimum, and fighting an all out conventional war much less a world war, like you idiotic jihadists think you will be able to do. If NATO wanted to, all it would take is a few nuclear fusion bombs to turn every single breathing thing in Afghanistan to dust (this is actually what the Abrahamic God ordered the Israelites to do to some of their enemies). Or it could utilize a more sadistic approach and use chemical and biological warfare to turn the country into a living hell. They are not doing that because unlike you heart eating, low IQed jihadists, NATO is at least partly accountable to the civilized world. On second thought, Im not sure why you are bringing Afghanistan into this, I have no qualms with the average Pashtun resistance fighter fighting for his land and people; the Taliban are not international jihadists (as far as Im aware, they have no intention of going to war with anyone other than an occupying force nor are they trying to establish a global caliphate).

My credentials? Oh, I'm just a mildly gifted (I am a member of Mensa but I won't say any more) high school (sixth form) graduate about to enter medical school, who spends all his free time studying everything important. If I say any more, I'd be violating my precept of humility more than is necessary and besides, given the fact that you literally have been unable to grasp even the tenor of my previous posts, Ive now realized that discussion with you, as is usually the case with jihadists, is hopeless, and I think Ive had enough fun putting garbage in its place.

You're really overestimating the capability of western world. I do agree that a few uneducated people with hand-held weapons cant achieve world domination, but saying that the western power can pulverizes the entire Afghan population is beyond a lie. Yes, I do agree that an atom bomb have that capability, but using an atom have consequence far beyond the capability of any modern states to ever be able to solve. Chemical and biological weapons have been used in Vietnam with little to no success. Actually more bombs got dropped in Vietnam war, than entire World war 2. My point is, that full scale war have been conducted by so called superpowers against guerrilla fighters both in Vietnam and Afghanistan, so one can easily make a comparison between a war between two states and a guerrilla struggle. In Afghanistan, when even if 1 mujahadeen engaged the soviets, the soviets destroyed the entire nearby village. The very same thing happened in Vietnam by USA. So much for accountability and compromise of civilian casualties... While I agree that ISIS or other group will never gain ground beyond their own country, but I completely disagree with your high opinion regarding the west. They never were humanitarian when it came to war and they will never be, nor does their firepower exceed to that extent which you claim.

[DSM0305]

No, you failed to understand my point, jihadist. There is a difference between fighting a guerrilla war against a half-hearted enemy, which according to many political analysts was never and is not really dedicated in the first place, and that is profoundly limiting its true warfare potential, predicated on the principle of keeping civilian casualty to a compromise minimum, and fighting an all out conventional war much less a world war, like you idiotic jihadists think you will be able to do. If NATO wanted to, all it would take is a few nuclear fusion bombs to turn every single breathing thing in Afghanistan to dust (this is actually what the Abrahamic God ordered the Israelites to do to some of their enemies). Or it could utilize a more sadistic approach and use chemical and biological warfare to turn the country into a living hell. They are not doing that because unlike you heart eating, low IQed jihadists, NATO is at least partly accountable to the civilized world. On second thought, Im not sure why you are bringing Afghanistan into this, I have no qualms with the average Pashtun resistance fighter fighting for his land and people; the Taliban are not international jihadists (as far as Im aware, they have no intention of going to war with anyone other than an occupying force nor are they trying to establish a global caliphate).

My credentials? Oh, I'm just a mildly gifted (I am a member of Mensa but I won't say any more) high school (sixth form) graduate about to enter medical school, who spends all his free time studying everything important. If I say any more, I'd be violating my precept of humility more than is necessary and besides, given the fact that you literally have been unable to grasp even the tenor of my previous posts, Ive now realized that discussion with you, as is usually the case with jihadists, is hopeless, and I think Ive had enough fun putting garbage in its place.

There doesn't exist nuclear fusion bombs. If humanity achieved fusion technology, we would have an eternal environmental friendly energy supply + we would have had a Mars colony by now.

[Da Bannu Mazdigar]

Is the "Taliban" still operational? Cause they are still around even after losing 80K soldiers. NATO spent billions of dollars executing their strategy, Taliban spent a few million.

Truth speaks for itself

Well sir,in there own country NATO has forced them into ambush attacks(Very rarely on nato troops) and bombing of unarmed civilian.

Majority of the People of Afghanistan will choose nato over talibs and this probably is the sole reason for NATO being the winner.

[DSM0305]

Well sir,in there own country NATO has forced them into ambush attacks(Very rarely on nato troops) and bombing of unarmed civilian.

Majority of the People of Afghanistan will choose nato over talibs and this probably is the sole reason for NATO being the winner.

Do you know what guerrilla warfare is? Don't talk about something you have no knowledge about.

[khushal]

No, you failed to understand my point, jihadist. There is a difference between fighting a guerrilla war against a half-hearted enemy, which according to many political analysts was never and is not really dedicated in the first place, and that is profoundly limiting its true warfare potential, predicated on the principle of keeping civilian casualty to a compromise minimum, and fighting an all out conventional war much less a world war, like you idiotic jihadists think you will be able to do. If NATO wanted to, all it would take is a few nuclear fusion bombs to turn every single breathing thing in Afghanistan to dust (this is actually what the Abrahamic God ordered the Israelites to do to some of their enemies). Or it could utilize a more sadistic approach and use chemical and biological warfare to turn the country into a living hell. They are not doing that because unlike you heart eating, low IQed jihadists, NATO is at least partly accountable to the civilized world. On second thought, Im not sure why you are bringing Afghanistan into this, I have no qualms with the average Pashtun resistance fighter fighting for his land and people; the Taliban are not international jihadists (as far as Im aware, they have no intention of going to war with anyone other than an occupying force nor are they trying to establish a global caliphate).

My credentials? Oh, I'm just a mildly gifted (I am a member of Mensa but I won't say any more) high school (sixth form) graduate about to enter medical school, who spends all his free time studying everything important. If I say any more, I'd be violating my precept of humility more than is necessary and besides, given the fact that you literally have been unable to grasp even the tenor of my previous posts, Ive now realized that discussion with you, as is usually the case with jihadists, is hopeless, and I think Ive had enough fun putting garbage in its place.

hahaha, NATO is accountable to the civilized world. That is the joke of the century. Dude they illegally invaded Iraq and Afghanistan killing millions in the process. Guantanamo bay prison is illegal, Abu graib prison and bagram prison torture is illegal. etc. Saddam is evil but the Saudis are saints hypocrisy. SAddam has not right to Kuwait which originally belonged to them but the jews have a right to palistinian land hypocrisy. etc. The election in Afghanistan under nato guns is legit but crimeas election for joining Russia under Russian guns is illegitimate hypocrisy. etc.

The only law they follow is might is right.

[khushal]

bannu mazdigar is smoking that afghan hash again.

[Herat]

You're really overestimating the capability of western world. I do agree that a few uneducated people with hand-held weapons cant achieve world domination, but saying that the western power can pulverizes the entire Afghan population is beyond a lie. Yes, I do agree that an atom bomb have that capability, but using an atom have consequence far beyond the capability of any modern states to ever be able to solve. Chemical and biological weapons have been used in Vietnam with little to no success. Actually more bombs got dropped in Vietnam war, than entire World war 2. My point is, that full scale war have been conducted by so called superpowers against guerrilla fighters both in Vietnam and Afghanistan, so one can easily make a comparison between a war between two states and a guerrilla struggle. In Afghanistan, when even if 1 mujahadeen engaged the soviets, the soviets destroyed the entire nearby village. The very same thing happened in Vietnam by USA. So much for accountability and compromise of civilian casualties... While I agree that ISIS or other group will never gain ground beyond their own country, but I completely disagree with your high opinion regarding the west. They never were humanitarian when it came to war and they will never be, nor does their firepower exceed to that extent which you claim.

Man, none of you guys have a clue: here is what a bombing campaign did to Japan in WWII:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo
100,000+ Japanese civilians of Tokyo were killed in this bombing campaign that lasted a year (the bombings did not really begin until the B-29 raids of 1944-1945). This is the same order of magnitude for the result of the fission bombing of Hiroshima (100,000+ immediate casualties of the nuke).

Here is what a 2-day bombing campaign did to Germany in WWII:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing...n_World_War_II
In a single night, over 20,000 Germans were killed in the bombing of Dresden.

Do you know the total (estimated) civilian casualties for the war in Afghanistan that has now lasted for a decade? Just under 20,000 (no, I won't accept conspiracy theories) so about the same number of Afghan civilians have been murdered in 12 years as Germans in a night in Dresden. These were just bombing campaigns and they happened in WWII, technology has - in this case unfortunately- come a long way since then. Tell me again that Im "overestimating wests capability". No my friend, Vietnam, Iraq and Soviet-Afghanistan were not conventional wars, the above is what a real 1st world war looks like. And you are both correct and wrong on fusion bombs, they do exist, they are called hydrogen bombs and in fact utilize both fission and fusion (fission is used to generate a fusion process). The problem of fusion energy is not generating fusion because it has and can be generated with a bomb as well as in the lab, the problem is confining and controlling the reaction in a sustainable process that gives you more energy than you put in the process, that is something the Physicists are currently working on.

[DSM0305]

Man, none of you guys have a clue: here is what a bombing campaign did to Japan in WWII:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo
100,000+ Japanese civilians of Tokyo were killed in this bombing campaign that lasted a year (the bombings did not really begin until the B-29 raids of 1944-1945). This is the same order of magnitude for the result of the fission bombing of Hiroshima (100,000+ immediate casualties of the nuke).

Here is what a 2-day bombing campaign did to Germany in WWII:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing...n_World_War_II
In a single night, over 20,000 Germans were killed in the bombing of Dresden.

Do you know the total (estimated) civilian casualties for the war in Afghanistan that has now lasted for a decade? Just under 20,000 (no, I won't accept conspiracy theories) so about the same number of Afghan civilians have been murdered in 12 years as Germans in a night in Dresden. These were just bombing campaigns and they happened in WWII, technology has - in this case unfortunately- come a long way since then. Tell me again that Im "overestimating wests capability". No my friend, Vietnam, Iraq and Soviet-Afghanistan were not conventional wars, the above is what a real 1st world war looks like. And you are both correct and wrong on fusion bombs, they do exist, they are called hydrogen bombs and in fact utilize both fission and fusion (fission is used to generate a fusion process). The problem of fusion energy is not generating fusion because it has and can be generated with a bomb, the problem is controlling the reaction in a sustainable process that gives you more energy than you put in the process, that is something the Physicists are currently working on.

Firstly, you're using wikipedia as a source. Which is kinda ironic coming from a boy of 'science'. Secondly, do you even know what the consequences of an Atom bomb is?(especially in modern day)

Next time learn to comprehend a text before answering back with little to no contribution to discussions main point/statement. All you did is Putting wikipedia regarding random numbers. And randomly stating, as if we had claimed that Vietnam/Afghan war was conventional war. Afghan and Vietnam war was a guerrilla struggle, which both superpowers(USA and Soviets) went all ind.

1,5 million Afghans were killed and more than 5 million displaced. Around 2 million lost limps. At that time the Afghan population was no more than 14 million. Basically 8,5/14 million got heavily effected.

The same thing happened in Vietnam.

Even the current Afghan war. Just the Taliban casualties is 35000, more than 15000 ANA casualties and more than 20000 civilian casualties(which is claimed, but could be far higher). If the casualties is this hight, when they try to win hearts and minds, imagine if they didn't.

The hydrogen bomb is mostly fission, with few elements of fusion after it is detonated. Which scientifically hardly can be considered a fusion bomb. The military simply calling it that for show of strength.

[khushal]

@Herat,
Those conflicts you refer to were between imperial powers and they were of the belief that the fight was for survival so anything goes. The conflicts the US has been involved in ie viatnam, north korea, Cuba, Somalia, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Iraq are not conflicts for survival for the US.
Go back to biological evolution. the fight or flight scenario. In the latter scenarios fleeing was an option but in WW2, they were of the opinion that fleeing was not an option.