Now that would be courageous, and even worthy of respect. Do you ever wonder how many errant arrows it would take to accidentally massacre sixty children? Hell, it even takes years for IED's to accidentally run up such an impressive toll of murdered women and children. What pride you must have in your armed forces?

Andrew

__________________
“...corporations and those who run them cannot stop exploiting resources and amassing wealth until they have... .I cannot finish this sentence, because the truth is that can never stop; like cancer, they can only continue to expand until they kill the host.”

-- Derrick Jensen

I do have pride in our armed forces. And, this is a tragedy.

Its funny how some already classed me as a taliban supporter or asking me to join the Taliban and fight with them.... what a reaction.

The sentence "leaning towards them" was too much ey? When I said that the afghanistan under the Taliban was more stable... this is a fact... I did NOT say I will accept them as rulers of the country.... I have criticised their style in so many previous threads. I am all for dealing with them and regime change for a better afghanistan... but dropping bombs everywhere and claiming that the dead children as a result are collateral does not serve anything. On the contrary it makes things worse.

Choco...

Saying that women and children are starving in Afghanistan is not a valid reason because starvation has existed in Afghanistan way before the Taliban did. Tribal battles existed way before the Taliban did. The question is...Is the life of afghanis any better today than before (under the Taliban) ... I dont think so.

Again I repeat, this does not mean I wish the Taliban to get back in power.

The Taliban must be dealt with.... certainly... but when I see alot of "accidents" and alot of "collateral damage" cases.... where scores of afghani women and children die.... that kinda tells me..... the taliban are not being dealt with... its the people who are.

There are toooo many of these "accidents" considering the superiority of the US when it comes to technology. How can this happen? And there is no regret or remorse shown.... as if those who died are animals. What frustrates is the lack of care.

Secondly, and this is a very important point. Just across this side of Afghanistan.... in tajikistan and uzbakistan and that region... there are dictators (who are considered friends because they allowed the US to build bases there)...... who are boiling their people to death. Why arent they being dealt with? They arent democracies so why arent they facing the wrath of the freedom loving US. What is the difference between them and the taliban?

And people starving? I can give you a full list of countries were people are starving at the hands of brutal dictators... in Africa, middle/east, all over the place. Does this mean the US should attack every one of those countries? No...of course not... all it has to do is stop supporting those dictatorships, especially in the Arab World.

WS.

__________________
"You can't separate peace from freedom because no one can be at peace unless he has his freedom"- Malcom X

You dont say Oh my God,... you are right, it is!!!

WS.

__________________
"You can't separate peace from freedom because no one can be at peace unless he has his freedom"- Malcom X

OK, then. It's not a tragedy.

Hang on a sec, I did not mean to lecture, sorry it came across that way. As I said in my previous post, I agree that the Taliban shouldnt be in power, shouldnt rule because of their twisted style.... however, I am interested to know how you can reverse the support of people and turn them against the Taliban.

I have a question.... if free elections were held in Afghanistan, in the presence of opposition candidates etc... and the majority of the people voted for the Taliban, would you accept this as "democracy"? Would attempting to turn people against their "elected leaders" be considered undemocratic?

We will have a Hamas style situation, where the US has shown extreme hatred towards democracy. Or, ... democracy is only valid when you vote for people "we" consider US friendly.

WS.

__________________
"You can't separate peace from freedom because no one can be at peace unless he has his freedom"- Malcom X

Stop confusing me,...is it a tragedy or is it not? Think hard before you answer.

WS.

__________________
"You can't separate peace from freedom because no one can be at peace unless he has his freedom"- Malcom X

Lets suppose another government ruled Afghanistan... prowestern government and one of the laws of the country say that adultery is punishable...(in a less barbaric way).... would you still accept this? Its the law dude? You have capital punishment no? Dont you inject bad people to death?

Few Middle Eastern countries punish adultery also... in different ways.... prison terms..... in couple of countries... they still stone them to death. Some of those middle/eastern countries are considered friends and allies of the US?

My point is... its the law of the country..... if they punish you for adultery...then take your girlfriend and go **** elsewhere. I agree that the ideology the Taliban uses is extreme.... and anti-modern..... however, should a legitimate government (elected) and also say pro-western... decides to have laws punishing adultery .... I have no problem with that. Why should you?

Adultery is acceptable in the west, however, you have to understand that in Muslim countries.... not only the government but the people themselves are against it since their faith prohibits it. So, many M/E governments have laws against it.

I dont have a problem with stoning rapists and paedophiles though.

Oh and for your information.... even after the fall of the Taliban, and under the current Karzai pro US government.... many women still wear burqas.... and tribes still punish the adulterers amongst them. Its the way of life of the people.

WS.

__________________
"You can't separate peace from freedom because no one can be at peace unless he has his freedom"- Malcom X

The Taliban have been coming back because Karzai's people are as bad as they. They're largely a coalition of warlords who still make women wear the Burqha and enforce Sharia everywhere they can. As long as we must be oppressed, figure the Afghanis, at least our own people should oppress us. When we first invaded Afghanistan there was literally dancing in the streets, with music played publicly for the first time in a decade. In Iraq we had a willing homegrown govt that would have helped us if we left their culture alone, so we dismissed them from power and attempted to turn the oldest civilization in the world into the 51st American state. In Afghanistan we had a culture that was fed up and was willing to go along with anything we said as long as the old regime was not brought back, so bringing back the old regime with different people was precisely what we did.

Madness

Agreed. Americans, right wing ones really,cannot take criticism and will lash out, thinking they are clever by painting you as a taliban.



Starvation did exist previously. This was due to tribal fighting and not a result of a national policy. Taliban rule made it far more common as women, who were often left without husbands in Af's harsh environment, were not allowed to work.
I know because of all the outrage from women's groups that reported on their plight long before 9/11.



Its a natural result of taliban tactics of keeping in urban/ village cover and the Coalition desire to not lose men in taking every building. Its going to happen as long as these factors continue.

They arent being dealt with because no one knows or cares, not even the Taliban or the world muslim population. Besides, there's some doubt as to exactly how bad these regimes are. The difference is that at some point they can be reformed, and can provide for their people.
Nations require large clear reasons to invade, these places havent provided them.

Ive no doubt you can give that list. But starvation itself is not enough. One requires a cluster of reasons. Afghanistan provided those reasons in 2001.

Think about it for a minute. Do you really think that the coalition wants to be in Afghanistan? It has nothing we need. Yet we are there, clear proof that this is not a mercenary operation.

Good question.

I think we'd have to, of course. Though some in the America's right wing would demand that we dont. Then we'll have a political struggle for what happens next.

We can however, make the proviso that we dont have to support any elected party that then chooses to end future elections.

This is a good point, its also the reason europeans try to take a different approach to Hamas.

No, lets be clear. The West has never sought to make muslim countries employ the liberal social policies that they do. In fact they have historically been happy to let them run things according to Sharia as much as they like. ie Saudi Arabia.

Are you kidding? KSA is a special case. It cant be touched because they have interests there i.e Oil. Its considered a "friend" and an "ally".

Other nations that applied Sharia Law or a form of extreme islamic policies...are and have always been criticized and action has been taken against them. The US has no interest there of course.... i.e Somalia, Afghanistan (Taliban), and Iran, add Pakistan too.

The West has always sought to employ its way of life on other countries, not only in muslim countries. Perhaps it sees Sharia as a threat,... who knows. But it certainly hated it. I can also link "democracy" to all of this. The West has always hid behind this and turned it into an ideology to spread using force.

Why do you think such terms exist... .fundamentalist, extremist, radicalist, and then it ends it with terrorist. It stereotypes a certain type of people who follow a certain way of life.

Alot of authors wrote plenty of books about this... how the west wants to impose its way of life or its version of how others should live (through political, social and economic means) and labels other ways of life as anti-modern, uncivilised etc. They called it Americanisation, cocalisation, being westernised etc.

Anyway I dont want to talk too much about this as it is a bigger topic and i'll then get into the topic of the clash of civilisations, West Vs East.

WS.

__________________
"You can't separate peace from freedom because no one can be at peace unless he has his freedom"- Malcom X

No im not kidding. For example, those places you mention arent under western interference because of their strict adherence to Islam but due to their other policies and situations.
Meanwhile Islamic law has run untrammeled throughout the middle east for decades.
Re democracy.
The west may wish democracy on the ME, but its only the journalists that have really tried to push that agenda. Western governments have been quite happy to let places like Jordan, for example, continue as monarchies for some time.

The west has in fact been against democracy in the ME for most of the late 20th C in case it disrupted a critical region.



Those terms existed long before and will continue long after. They were all applied readily in 19th Century europe also.

Ill give you that. The west does want to see the world enjoy the same priveledges it itself does. But thats not an official policy of any sort.

Youre right. Its a thread in itself.

I actually got angry just looking at those high-horsing F¤¤cks who just don't seem to be able to read that U.S. forces killed 90 civilians.
No apologies, no regrets, but just bitching towards other posters.
Did you know that although their rule was harsh and based on very strickt religious values, (hello to the U.S. religious people) they were able to calm the Afghan turmoil.
First time since the Soviet invasion.

THanks to the invasion, which was then not seen through.

I wish they would, and be quick about it.

I doubt most of them could care less about anything besides next meal and some clean water.

__________________
En uneksi. I do not dream.