Look at the dates you just quoted and responded to.
I see you noted the big one instantly
But then you have the huge pile of european ones, then you have the US ambassador getting murdered and Daffys own family getting convicted of that crime, then you have his adventures in Lebanon and then in Palestine back to Chad and Niger and Mali and Mauritania and Sudan and western sahara.
After France bombed him into surrender he went on and financed the revolution to overthrow of Frances friend. Meanwhile he also repeated his coastal claims with the US giving the same results as previous.

So I don't know how on earth even if you thought Pan Am was an Iranian job you could possibly claim he was keeping his head down after that bombing in '86 as that was a period when he went on a real rampage of terrorism and terrorst financing.


Sorry Haplo, but it isn't the first time you have made this claim about the bombing of Libya working and it isn't the first time you have been told you are getting most of your facts completely backwards on it.

I was not necessarily supporting either model.It is plainly obvious that maintaining a "super power" size military one that "intervenes as needed":88)
or not it gong to be expensive either way.Of course I don't see any western nation choosing to pay off its debts when there is still a very willing lender out there.(China)

Hapalos little "outside of modern thinking" plan is not going to help with our deficit any we all know that most politicians will simply come up with a lot of reasons to intervene.


@ CaptainHapolo like I said before if you think that Libya stopped supporting terror after the 1986 bombing by the US you are looking foolish to about 99% of the the subsim members that read the general topics.

Khamenei is Irans attempt to control the worlds Shia population by claiming that Iran is the protector of all Shia in reality it has actually provided aid to the enemies of neighboring countries during the Nagorno-Karabakh War Iran backed the ethnic Armenian(Armenians are mostly Christian Orthodox) side not the Azerbaijani (they are Muslim and many are Shia) the reason being is the Azerbaijani are Turkic peoples and Iran dislikes this bunch alot they fear the threat that this ethnic group generates.Surely Khamenei allowed this him being the great leader and all.

Meanwhile in Iran....

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/btb.../2011/09/1.png

This thread has really taken an interesting turn from impeachable offences to Iran.

Spiffy picture of Djad he is not wearing is usual members only jacket must have dressed up he wants to look good when the US decides to intervene after it gets another loan from China.

By the way Haplo the CIA advisers where all in Pakistan during the Soviet-Afghan War.I know it does not say that in your "Beginners Guide to Non-internationalism and minimal internationalism".

shi'it happens...:haha:

I like that - I edited my post concerning libya and terrorism at 8:59. No one had yet pointed out my error - and in the interest of full disclosure I pointed it out myself and let my original comment stay in acceptance of the error. Then you come along an hour and a half later and try to act like the correction was not there and your pointing it out to make me look foolish? People simply need to look at the timestamp of the edit and your followup post to see that I had already corrected myself - well before your "foolish" comment.

Classy - real classy there Steelhead. Lets deal with another mischaracterization you have made.....
To quote wikipedia....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_...the_mujahideen

Maybe you want another source?


http://www.shadowspear.com/united-st...ions/1169.html

Kind of hard to lead a raid against someone without crossing a border, isn't it? Or are you going to claim that the Russians invaded Pakistan at the same time?

Also recall that your original comment was:

Quote:

You directly contradict yourself by agreeing with the need to combat Islamic radicals(They are a long way from being on the verge of controlling half of the world though)

Again you exaggerate my statement - I said "25%", you somehow doubled the number and tried to pass it off as my words. Oh, and I stated repeatedly that the Syria "situation" was a hypothetical that did not take into account current conditions there - yet you started jabbering about how it would kill all the anti-Assad people.

So you want to make comments about me looking foolish? Really? I've now pointed out how you have blatently ignored my correction, tried to pass my error off as some big pie on my face when I have shown I corrected the error before you even noted it - you simply ignored that little fact. I've demonstrated (with sources) that your wrong about US personnel in Afghanistan, and I have shown how you can't even seperate a hypothetical example from the current situation in an area of the world. Oh, and lets not forget you can't figure out the difference between 25% and 50%.....

Simply put, you want to make this about personal insults - how "I look foolish" - over an error that I had already corrected, when you can't even handle simple math percentages? Really?

What you have done is misrepresented my statements, tried to point out an error that was already corrected, fail to comprehend the difference between hypothetical and reality, and make historical claims that are incorrect.

Errors happen. Those of us who are intellectually honest admit them and take responsibility for them. That is what I did. But for you to then come up and start acting as if I didn't - when its clear that I had edited my post well before you decided to point out the error - shows me that your more interested in playing the "gotcha" game than having a debate. Given the misrepresenting of my statements, the refusal to deal with the "pretend" scenario as was being discussed, just goes to demonstrate that really, your doing little more than tribesman would do - twist what is said and never actually provide a single source to back up your view or statements. That provides nothing to the converstion, and isn't worth my time.......

Don't be a silly sausage.
But hey if you want to be like that.
How bad is your memory?
If there is a really huge story which echos round the world and has a huge impact which goes on and on for decades ....which then comes right back to page 1 headlines for weeks on end with arguements about Britain appeasing libyan terrorism by releasing Al-Megrahi...which then gets prime time coverage when daffy gets buggered with a bayonet and the lockerbie bomber is on TV from tripoli...


so even though the "bombing stopped daffy" has been thoroughly trashed god knows how many times before, how on earth did you still manage to get the wrong country?

Seriously its like invading a crazy secular nationalist dictators country and saying its about his islamic fundamentalism.

I mean it might be understandable,if you didn't participate in the topics on Libya or the bombing or the release...but bloody hell you even started topics on the subject:doh:

We did not have troops on the ground in Afghanistan at the time and the vast majority of the activities performed by the CIA paramilitary where performed in Pakistan leading does not necessarily mean that they are on the front line of the action .It would have been very foolish to risk such a CIA asset on a routine basis a SAD team can be comprised of anyone trained by the member of the CIAs SAD they trained others and commanded some raids from within Pakistan.

You are ignoring a very important factor about the CIAs activity in Afghanistan this little rid bit from a Wikipedia article about Operation Cyclone(the name of the CIA action):

"The program relied heavily on using the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) as an intermediary for funds distribution, passing of weapons, military training and financial support to Afghan resistance groups.[29] Along with funding from similar programs from Britain's MI6 and SAS, Saudi Arabia, and the People's Republic of China,[30] the ISI armed and trained over 100,000 insurgents between 1978 and 1992. They encouraged the volunteers from the Arab states to join the Afghan resistance in its struggle against the Soviet troops based in Afghanistan.[29]"

In other words the CIA was macro managing and allowing the ISI to do most of the dirty work and even the ISI usually did not go into Afghanistan.The CIA was given money and arms the CIA then said to the ISI "here is some money and firepower have fun" the ISI used the money and distributed the arms as they saw fit of course favoring their interests.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone


It is very hard to find reliable information about the actions of the CIA during Operation Cyclone because there are loads of internet
conspiracies surrounding it.But it is a fact that The CIA basically left most of the details up to the ISI.






It makes much more sense if you have found your self to have been incorrect to either remove the statement or make your edited correction right below or above it.Why hide it way down at the bottom honestly I did not notice somewhat hidden edit at the bottom of that post.I edit posts so many times for typos(I do not get them all) that I pay little attention to the time staps.

My format is very different from Tribesman in fact yours is much closer to his style.

I would argue that you firmly believed what you posted about Libya and then edited it to save face once you discovered that you where wrong.It does make your argument look weak (that showing force will put others in line) when in fact it clearly did not and you do now admit it did not have an effect on Libya/Qaddafi.

I really should not have used the term foolish either and I apologize for that.

The "Beginners Guide to Non-internationalism and minimal internationalism". was meant to be a harmless jest. Which actually is a typo it should have said interventionism you did originally use the term non-interventionist non means negation of a word or group of words I was meaning to point out your change of meaning from being non-interventionist to minimal.

Furthermore because I chose to exaggerate the supposed percentage of the world on the verge of being taken over by Islamic extremists does not mean that I have no understanding of math half of the world is 75%:D and you claim that I make things personal which I really did not intend to perhaps I should use the smiley emotion tags a bit more often to avoid future misunderstanding.

I did not refuse to accept your scenario I said that such a thing is very unlikely to occur and if it did would be very unlikely to require intervention by the US.If you dislike if others choose to disagree with your opinion then you should be wary of posting in the GTs then for people tend to get carried away on here and far beyond my one statement about "looking foolish"I honestly thought I should have gone back and removed that but at the time I was away from my PC and had other things to do.You then turn it make it personal after you felt that I had which is the pot calling kettle black.A person who truly had the desire not to make something personal would not re-act by then doing the same.

Honestly I sometimes throw a little "jab" into a post these jabs might be an exaggeration or something like my book title and are not intended to be personally insulting they are meant more to express my disagreement with a point of view as I said the foolish statement crossed the line by it was honestly not my intent I posted that and then headed out the door.This is a forum after it is a place to discuss things threads in which people express differing views are the most interesting.