1979 soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
They fought Al-Queda (mujadeen) first

Suck that capitalism.

5594591 1899? This was 1979-1992

5594591 The Moro Rebellion was caused when the US gov't told the Moro's they'd continue the old protectorate relationship which they had with Spain. They basically rejected it and demanded a new treaty negotiation, in which the US signed a new treaty that'd give the Moro's autonomy in its own internal affairs while the US managed foreign relations, so they could keep the Moro's out of the Philippine-American War. Afterwards, the US violated the treaty and invaded Moroland anyways.

That's the cause for the conflict. At which point was it due to terrorism? Sounds more like the US was doing it merely for imperialistic reasons.

Oh, I see. It's because the war was for imperialistic reasons, and they were basically acting AS the terrorists. Okay, but we were talking about anti-terrorism, not the committing of terrorism. Realistically, the first official anti-terrorism would've been in 1883 by the British against Irish Fenian's. Claiming one economic and social system acted for one 'first' is absurd, but they may have different reasons for doing so, which is what we should focus on. If we use 'doing something first' as reason to like a system better, then by this logic, we should just go back to primitive society or feudal/slave-societies...

I.e., US created terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda to fight against the USSR in the middle east. Then afterwards, now they're fighting the terrorists they created mostly for resources such as oil.

Since you'd probably deny the fact it's for oil:

Chuck Hagel, the former United States Secretary of Defense, defended Greenspan's comments: "People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are."[1] General John Abizaid, CENTCOM commander from 2003 until 2007, said of the Iraq war during a round table discussion at Stanford University in 2008, "Of course it's about oil, we can't really deny that."[2][3]

A capitalist society would likely fight terrorism for economic reasons and to protect property rights, much like the polices role within society and their historical role as maintainers of slave-ownership in the US.

A communist society would likely fight terrorism for the goal of protecting people, and most likely in different ways... i.e, observation of the material conditions that caused these terrorists to act out.

Eitherway, in a Communist society, I find it unlikely that terrorism would happen due to the establishment of workers ownership, the removal of state and unjust societal hierarchy, the lack of money, production to fulfill human desires, etc. USSR (not like they established Communism or were even close) most likely did all this for expansionist reasons, when a Communist party took hold in Afghanistan if I recall correctly, and then afterwards, a huge fucking civil war broke out. I don't know too much about the Soviet-Afghan conflict.

It's a shame so many pseudo-intellectuals claim the USSR had socialism or communism, even when Lenin himself wrote about how they didn't but rather established state-capitalism, and how the economic features showed this. Even claiming they would be able to is absurd, like the Stalinist claim of "socialism in one country."

"State capitalism would be a step forward as compared with the present state of affairs in our Soviet Republic. If in approximately six months’ time state capitalism became established in our Republic, this would be a great success and a sure guarantee that within a year socialism will have gained a permanently firm hold and will have become invincible in this country."

- Lenin, The Tax in Kind

"The state capitalism, which is one of the principal aspects of the New Economic Policy, is, under Soviet power, a form of capitalism that is deliberately permitted and restricted by the working class. Our state capitalism differs essentially from the state capitalism in countries that have bourgeois governments in that the state with us is represented not by the bourgeoisie, but by the proletariat, who has succeeded in winning the full confidence of the peasantry. Unfortunately, the introduction of state capitalism with us is not proceeding as quickly as we would like it. For example, so far we have not had a single important concession, and without foreign capital to help develop our economy, the latter’s quick rehabilitation is inconceivable."

- Lenin, To the Russian Colony in North America

5596433 I find it very hard tha you are that blind you put 1979!

5596433 I don't think the Soviet invasion was about terrorism. At all, lol. So nice straw-man you've made in assuming I believed that.

Al-Qaeda was the creation of Pakistan's ISI, not the US. The US part of Operation Cyclone amounted to supplying the weapons, the ISI was the one in charge of the distribution.

https://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2014/09/23/america-created-al-qaeda-and-the-isis-terror-group/
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/04/20/the-cias-founding-of-al-qaeda-documented/
http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-created-al-qaeda-and-the-isis-terror-group/5402881
http://newsone.com/1205745/cia-osama-bin-laden-al-qaeda/
https://willyloman.wordpress.com/2012/05/09/clinton-admits-we-created-al-qaeda-but-lies-about-why-and-when/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/jan/17/yemen.islam
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/11/23/how-the-united-states-helped-create-the-islamic-state/?utm_term=.3121319d5674
http://educateinspirechange.org/alternative-news/created-terrorists-funded-hilary-clinton/
http://www.trueactivist.com/syrian-president-says-us-government-and-saudi-arabia-created-al-qaeda/

The Bin Laden group was an offshoot of an extremist group within the Muslim Brotherhood that was never called Al Qaeda. It was limited to a group of Bin Laden's supporters who followed him to Afghanistan during his falling out with Saudi Arabia's leadership. Nobody ever called it anything specific.

During a particular FBI case, some Islamic Jihadists with links to the Bin Laden group were being prosecuted in relation to the USS Cole bombing under the RICO act. The informant made up a name for the Bin Laden group, calling it Al Qaeda, in order to ease prosecution.

Subsequently the name "Al Qaeda" was embraced by the Bin Laden group as a propaganda move. Thus, Al-Qaeda never really 'existed' but was formed by the US.

"The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al-Qaeda. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the 'devil' only in order to drive the TV watcher to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the US." - Robin Cook. After saying this, he got assassinated.

"Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujaheddin who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians." - Robin Cook.

Except we can, follow the money. Iraq's oil is owned by European and Chinese companies now, not American ones.

Assuming this is true, these companies owning it are still profitable in regards to the world market. I don't know if you understand that or not. The oil was nationalized before, and now it's privatized. This is helpful to the US and other countries in a purely economic stance.

Now do you really think that a capitalist society would would go to war just for the profit of some allies who don't pull their weight and one sworn enemy? Or do you think it really is as simple as one head of state not thinking before rushing to be the one to do in Saddam?

Yes. It's economically viable, and it's profitable not just for those allies but also the US. You seem to think that the oil is now in the hands of the European countries or Chinese ones entirely. You clearly don't understand that the oil is now private, and thus can be bought and sold and moved around the global market rather than kept or sold merely for the profits of the governments that had previously nationalized the oil.

This recognition that the oil is now privatized also does recognize that the war did occur due to the nationalization of the oil, because you recognize that it WAS nationalized but now it was forcefully made to be privatized and in the hands of such private companies. You've kind of proved my point, to be honest, so thank you for arguing for me.

I find it unlikely that a communist society (as outlined in the manifesto) will ever exist.

Not an argument. Disappointing, to be honest. Kind of expected more from you, especially since it's the last "point" you had. Honestly, you were basically arguing for me the entire time though, which I appreciate, since your goal was to argue against me.

5596966 they fought AL-Queda first!(or a part if it) before!

5597010 nope I want $10.05 PayPal to change it
(Now I'm a terroist holding this tread hostage,but my rates are a lot lower)

5597273 it a T-72 we know you want one.

5597690 ah the good ol' Yugoslav stuff!

5597775 what about the ZSU-23-4

5597852 that's not a zsu.

5598144 what the hell is it I've never seen this before in my life.

5598172 oh.

A Yugoslav fan I see.

5598222 I am as well and what country are you from?

5598239 ah. Good all Canada with the army of snowmen wit AKs (XD memes)

(If this offends anyone your problem deal with it I am not responsible)

5598249 I likes my gramma a lot.

...Really? We're having an imperialist dick-measuring contest now? That's what this group has devolved into?