Comments by "Awesome Avenger" (@awesomeavenger2810) on "Channel 4 News"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+Mustafa Ibrahim This is the last time I will give you a history lesson. In future I will simply type 'bollocks' when you attempt to rewrite historical events. As regards to Afghanistan, when the Russians invaded, the Mujahideen formed to drive them out of the country. In its cold war against communism, the US supported the Mujahideen (it did not create the Mujahideen). The Taliban (and if I'm not mistaken Osama bin Laden) were one of many groups within the Mujahideen. After the Russians were driven out, aided by Pakistan, the Taliban waged a war against their previous allies and took power. And yes. Many Afghans fled the country. As for western governments not listening to Gaddafi, it seems to me that the real problem was the Libyan people had stopped listening to him. Or have you also bought into the idea that the uprising against him was simply a wicked plot by the evil democratic nations of west (aided by those pesky Jews). Obviously, being a reactionary, we know who's side you would have taken. But western governments were faced with a choice. Do they support Gaddafi (a vicious and perverted despot that had armed and supported terrorism against the west)? Close their boarders and look the other way? Or actively support an uprising against him. In the event they chose the third option. And unless you can make the argument that the war against Gaddafi would have ended on the very day he died anyway, the West's actions shortened the war. In fact, if the west hadn't have gotten involved, one of three things would have happened. 1) The rebels would have eventually won out. 2) Gaddafi would have eventually won out. Or 3) Like Syria, the war would still be going on. Either way, Libya would be in a worse state than it is today.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2