Cops investigate Ibrox soldiers

[The Real PapaBear 0]

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on your fundamental premise; although I certainly do agree that all the latter categories are deserving of our support, albeit in a different and perhaps more tangible way.

 

For example Rangers fans support for Erskine Hospital is legend and rightly so.

 

I also think that I have made it clear that I am not comfortable with the way these tributes have been held up until now and I would not support them being used as one in the eye for Celtic FC or their fans.

 

However, I have no problem with a dignified military parade and a military display along the lines of the Edinburgh Festival. Discussing this on the way back from Brechin yesterday, one friend suggested that part of the issue is that 400 is just too many personnel; and I think that is valid. Perhaps the services could take turn about and send 100-200 at the most who could do marching displays etc.

 

I don't want to be rude or be accused of avoiding the issue so I'll say now that I won't be adding to these comments.

 

Fair enough, mate. It's all about opinions.

[der Berliner 3,249]

and where was the problem with medieval islam before 1989, say? If you want to suggest that Islam is the problem (rather than the occupation of Islamic countries) why did we have no problem with Islam before the fall of the Soviets?

 

"Taliban freedom" is fine if you are a young man following Islam. I reckon that not all anti-Soviet fighters where as diehard Islamists as the Taliban of today.

 

Do you expect to see this in Kabul during Taliban days, or indeed, even now?

 

I would not rather say that NATO got involved in any war - and I'm at a loss as to why you would say that or how you can reach that conclusion.

As to the drugs issue, it's interesting that you ignore the facts of Western involvement resulting in more drug production, but rather that prefer to harp on about how drug money funds the Taliban. Initially you claimed that drugs money funded "much" of Taliban weaponry. Now, you've moved on to saying that they don' "solely" rely on drugs money. Face facts.

 

Nope. I said in my very first reply to you that "Saudi sheikh money aside" they finance their war with drug money. Can't verify this with facts, but would be hesitant to believe that they don't.

Your reply made it look, to me at least, that one of the reasons that brought the Europeans into this war was the Taliban knockdown of drug production. Drugs "needed" in Europe. Probably a bit far fetched, a touch sarcastic too, I agree. Of course, I'm open to hear why the British, US and Germans got involved into the war then. What's the export hits of Afghanistan that would attract the Western Europeans, if any?

[The Real PapaBear 0]

"Taliban freedom" is fine if you are a young man following Islam. I reckon that not all anti-Soviet fighters where as diehard Islamists as the Taliban of today.

 

Do you expect to see this in Kabul during Taliban days, or indeed, even now?

 

 

 

Nope. I said in my very first reply to you that "Saudi sheikh money aside" they finance their war with drug money. Can't verify this with facts, but would be hesitant to believe that they don't.

Your reply made it look, to me at least, that one of the reasons that brought the Europeans into this war was the Taliban knockdown of drug production. Drugs "needed" in Europe. Probably a bit far fetched, a touch sarcastic too, I agree. Of course, I'm open to hear why the British, US and Germans got involved into the war then. What's the export hits of Afghanistan that would attract the Western Europeans, if any?

 

Firstly, the picture; no, I wouldn't expect to see that now or under the Taliban. What's your point?

As to the rest, you think that the Taliban who fought the Soviets were less Islamist than those fighting us today, although you have no evidence for this.

You also think that the Taliban fund their war against us using the proceeds from drug sales, although you have no evidence for this.

 

You see my problem here, dB? I'm giving you evidence to support my claims whereas you are happy to make statements without any supporting evidence at all.

And not only that, but to continue to make statements in the face of evidence to the contrary.

And not only that, but are happy to admit doing so.

 

It's very hard to have a rational debate under those circumstances.

 

One of the reasons for our involvement in Afghanistan was almost certainly drugs as even a cursory examination of US/CIA involvement in drug trafficking would indicate.

[andy steel 0]

OT & sexist I know, but the wench on the right has got a body you'd never get tired of.

[aweebluesoandso 290]

The Taliban never fought the Russians, that was the Mujahideen (Multi-international insurgent groups) The Taliban came later after the Russian where forced out. The Mujahideen were back militarily by the American, Pakistan and China, the Taliban is made up of ex-Mujahideen Pashtun and many other Islamic fundamentalist organisations, they are believed to be financed by Pakistan, Iran and Saudia Arabia. The Taliban were also linked to Al-Queda.

[chilledbear 16]

OT & sexist I know, but the wench on the right has got a body you'd never get tired of.

 

Like your thinking, straight to the heart of the matter.

[Chibmark 15]

OT & sexist I know, but the wench on the right has got a body you'd never get tired of.

 

That's Fatima Whitbread you old scoundrel.