Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Boston Globe)   American Taliban fighter says bio-attacks could begin after Sunday   (boston.com) divider line 604
    More: PSA  
•       •       •

7995 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Dec 2001 at 8:45 AM (13 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



604 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
Rei
2001-12-12 03:53:12 PM  
Because as I said before, it is the job of America to protect American citizens FIRST AND FOREMOST. It is not appropriate for America to risk the lives of her citizens over a "guest."

So, by that, you're saying that if Falwell wasn't a US citizen, the US would not only extradite him and the Christian Coalition, but allow the Taliban to go anywhere they want in the US, shoot whoever they want and do whatever they want here, and release all Afghans from US prisons.

mmhmm....

Are you actually going to sit there and pretend that it's not an established fact that OBL is the head of a terrorist network?

The Palestineans see the Jews as Terrorists. The Jews see the Palestineans as terrorists. Each side sees themselves as fighting off oppression.

Both can hold these contradictory points of view because of a lack of information flow.

A lack of information flow is exactly what we've given the Taliban, to an extreme.

Again, if they refused after being presented evidence, *then* they're obstructing justice, and should be attacked whenever they try to interfere. By refusing before presenting evidence, they're obstructing vigilanteeism.

FlBa:

Ok, get me a map of downtown Kabul and I'll use that for weapon miss radii instead of a city which is approximately the same size. Until then, quit complaining.
 
2001-12-12 03:54:54 PM  
SantaClaus : It's "Oh hear the angel's voices."
Way to go. =D

Benjamin : Wait, you mean I can't call for Mr. Falwell's bloody head to be delivered to my front door anymore??? feh.
 
2001-12-12 03:55:16 PM  
Rei--

I don't know why I even bother, but, anyone who thinks that the United States is responsible and should be held accountable (as YOU do) for the atrocity that the Northern Allaince idiots committed against those Taliban POWs has rocks, nay, huge boulders in her head.

You're a sick, twisted woman, Karen.

[and I'm trying to be kind here]
 
2001-12-12 03:55:47 PM  
Jesus Christ, I can't argue with that kind of moral relativism.
 
2001-12-12 03:58:32 PM  
Fact: Humanitarian organizations saved more lives in 1998 after 2 Afghani earthquakes than have been lost in civilian casualties recently. Also, close to 9000 were killed during the quakes.

On the upside, the Taliban ordered a 3-day cease fire for one of the disasters. Such "love" from religious totalitarians.
 
2001-12-12 03:59:42 PM  
baloosh, ask your friends
 
nez
2001-12-12 04:01:12 PM  
Warren - The logic is that we have not only given the NA the means to be in control of prisoners of war, but also the freedom to run around doing whatever they want with a load of sweet weapons. Yes the Taliban is nasty, and yes we're glad they're gone. But replacing one horrible group with another horrible group is no way to win the battle.

How would you feel if a group of American prisoners were suffocated? Probably wouldn't be too cheery then, eh? It's like the rules only apply to our people and everyone else can sod off. And if that's your attitude, things like the WTC will happen again and again.

Poo.
 
2001-12-12 04:08:07 PM  
So, by that, you're saying that if Falwell wasn't a US citizen, the US would not only extradite him and the Christian Coalition, but allow the Taliban to go anywhere they want in the US, shoot whoever they want and do whatever they want here, and release all Afghans from US prisons.

Let's just back up and unravel you piece by piece (as usual, cause you're fvcking BEGGING for it).

These were not qualifications of Bush's original request. His original request was simple: Hand over Bin Laden, dismantle the terrorist camps.

Once military action had begun, the Taliban seized humanitarian workers on the ground-- TO HOLD AS HOSTAGES. Yes, that's right, folks, these are the "prisoners" Rei is using in her flawed analogy. Reasonable folks call them "hostages."

So let's just get this straight:

In Rei's flawed analogy, the US is harboring a known terrorist, who is not even a US citizen; the US has no hope of stopping the terrifying Afghan bombing campaign; and we have seized Afghan aid volunteers and imprisoned them.

If we do not comply with Afghanistan's requests, bombing will begin, and lots of innocent American civilians are going to suffer.

And yet, it would be PREPOSTEROUS for the US to hand over Falwell, and his criminal followers, AND to return their hostages to safety.
 
2001-12-12 04:08:45 PM  
Doh!

Bloody cold up here Emk1520, give me some slack.

Donner has been humping my leg all afternoon, and I was too busy making your farking toy to look it up on google :-)

Merry Christmas to all.
 
Rei
2001-12-12 04:13:06 PM  
Cheeseburger:

Please quote what you're responding to when you respond to it, it makes it easier to reply back. :)

"our blood"/"more blood" - what's the difference? There's already been a little shed. There would be a somewhat increased cost to military lives if we took the effort not to kill more confirmed civilians deaths than the WTC towers crash at the very least. Both terms are interchangable here.

Killing civilians at a whim

Probably too harsh of a term. A better term would have been "attaching a near-zero value to the lives of enemy civilians". Kind of bulky wording, though.

BTW, if anyone wishes to challenge that, please present evidence that we're doing anything to try and avoid hitting civilians.

"Hundreds of thousands" dying while fleeing

Please reread what I wrote. Thousands/tens of thousands/hundreds of thousands. I.e., an unknown quantity, ranging from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands. Kabul's population alone decreased by about 400,000 during the raids, and Afghanistan is hardly a guerella nation. The size of the exodus from Afghan cities is huge - and:

1) the US targetted jeeps carrying people - we've hit a lot of civilians that way
2) The US hit people walking on foot in remote areas often. Lots of bodies of families found that way.
3) The areas being fled through are often heavily land-mined
4) Most people fleeing had little money or food to take with them. The countryside is pretty ravaged, and in a heavy drought, so there's not much out there to provide for them
5) It's winter
6) The passes freeze over during winter
7) Even in perfect conditions, travelling across Afghanistan is incredibly dangerous due to the terrain alone.

It's virtually impossible to estimate how many refugees died of the elements. But, a reasonable estimate ranges from the thousands to possibly even more than a hundred thousand.

Do you object to laser, or GPS guided weapons?

And...

Do I ask you; do you object to the use of bombs dropped from airplanes?

In densely populated areas, from aerial-only targetting? Strongly.

I'd say there were ground troops(ours) doing the targetting long before it was announced on the news.

In the cities? I'd believe that if I saw even one remote piece of evidence being indicative of that. There's been a good bit of evidence for US troops on the front lines, but virtually none for them being in cities.

Attempting to negotiate: Again, how do you negotiate with people who are aware of, and support, the actions of OBL/Al Qaida?

To date, there hasn't been a single piece of evidence even remotely suggesting that the Taliban had any advanced knowledge whatsoever of the WTC. They would have probably tried to stop Osama if they did; like most warlords, Omar has shown ample evidence that he simply wanted power. Osama was helping him with that quite well.

You admitted that you thought Taliban was aware that terrorists were being trained in Afghanistan for actions in other countries.

I said that Omar was probably aware that Osama had dealings with terrorists. In reality, though, "terrorists" generally meant car-bombings or shooting a club up, before the WTC attacks. I seriously doubt he ever would have dreamed of anything of this scale was being plotted.

They (Taliban) said he was innocent.

Duh. And I'm sure they *really* hoped he was. And probably strongly suspected he wasn't. But, if they said they thought he was guilty, they'd pretty much have to give into *all* of the ridiculous US demands.

"Put a brutal warring set of regimes in charge of the country" Who's doing that? The U.S.? The UN?

Oh, give me a break!!! Are you honestly going to pretend that by giving the NA weapons and taking out their targets, that they wouldn't take power?? And, given their quite clear history of doublespeak, wouldn't break their promises about waiting for a coalition/working together, etc?

"Civil war was limited to the Northern fronts, and kept completely out of the cities." So now it's an international war. Who's fault is that?

Al-Qaeda's.

The Falwell/Govt thing doesn't hold up. Unless the gov't was complicit in his actions, see: Taliban.

Again - present *any* evidence that they had *any* participation in the WTC attacks, please.
 
2001-12-12 04:13:18 PM  
Nez--

Hi there, toots! You're the one who thinks that the U.S. was the villain and conspiring agent behind the plot to take down the WTC and the Pentagon, huh. I have nothing to say to you except that you should stop sniffing solvents to get high. Very dangerous stuff.

Mr.Sinister--

N.B.: Rei is NOT merely a DC, but rather a high-level DFC.
 
2001-12-12 04:13:25 PM  
The analogy only works in Rei's mind because she can't see the difference, morally and ethically, between America-- land of the free-- and the Taliban's Afghanistan.

SICK, TWISTED FVCK is the description that comes to mind.
 
nez
2001-12-12 04:18:57 PM  
Warren:

I guess I'll just mark your answer for that one as "doesn't have a clue".
 
2001-12-12 04:19:17 PM  
Here comes that headache. Listen! It's very simple...all we're trying to do is kill them before they kill us. Seems pretty simple to me; it's worked throughout time. All this argumentation gives Glenny a big pain. Kill or be killed.

After 9/11, most of us saw the road we were going to travel. Some of us, still wonder what it's all about. Keep wondering.
 
2001-12-12 04:19:20 PM  
Attempting to negotiate: Again, how do you negotiate with people who are aware of, and support, the actions of OBL/Al Qaida?

To date, there hasn't been a single piece of evidence even remotely suggesting that the Taliban had any advanced knowledge whatsoever of the WTC.


Nice dodge of the question. He didn't ask about the WTC. The Taliban openly supported OBL and his terrorist network. That's ok to you, in and of itself, as long as they didn't know specifically about the WTC?

SICK and TWISTED, folks.
 
2001-12-12 04:21:32 PM  
Sinister: My friends keep referring me back to you.

Again, what is DC? And now, what is a DFC?

Defense Contractor?
 
2001-12-12 04:26:03 PM  
What about the ultimatum was ridiculous? That we expected the leaders of a country to be capable of turning over someone living within its borders? That we gave them only 3 weeks? For all we knew, they helped to plan and execute the attack. It wasn't as if America didn't share its evidence with the rest of the international community....
Relativism. There wouldn't be any points to observe if there were no observers... and most observers saw the WTC/Pentagon attacks as an act of war perpetrated against the US. These observers outnumbered those who believed that the US really had only herself to blame for the attacks, or who considered it an abortion clinic bombing writ large.
Morality is fiction... the value of any particular facet of morality is equal to the number of people who honor it. There is not a single particle of justice to be found in the entire universe, though there be millions of people who agree that it should exist, and what its form should be. The civilized world saw the attacks, the evidence, and saw fit to punish the leadership of a country which failed to hand over those responsible.
 
2001-12-12 04:28:01 PM  
THATS IT.

I say we just nuke the world and let god sort us out. We, the world as a whole, has fark this place up pretty good. so lets do the honorable thing and finish everything off.

sound good?
 
2001-12-12 04:28:34 PM  
Everyone please try to view the world through Rei's goggles of peace and love for all. Makes believing her tripe much more tolerable.
 
Rei
2001-12-12 04:30:45 PM  
I don't know why I even bother, but, anyone who thinks that the United States is responsible and should be held accountable (as YOU do) for the atrocity that the Northern Allaince idiots committed against those Taliban POWs has rocks, nay, huge boulders in her head.

You're a sick, twisted woman, Karen.


So, once again: would you likewise claim that a prison guard who gives a prisoner a gun and opens up the jail cell is not responsible when the prisoner shoots someone?

If not, please explain why this is somehow a different situation.

Malinois:

Fact: Humanitarian organizations saved more lives in 1998 after 2 Afghani earthquakes than have been lost in civilian casualties recently. Also, close to 9000 were killed during the quakes.

Fact: As usual, the Taliban was fully cooperative with aid shipments, not robbing them like the NA often did.

Benjamin:

These were not qualifications of Bush's original request. His original request was simple: Hand over Bin Laden, dismantle the terrorist camps.

Source, please. I watched his initial speeches. I heard what he said. Here's his first major speech on the subject:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/631906.asp

Are you still going to support your false claim? Here are the relevant parts:

Deliver to United States authorities all the leaders of
al-Qaeda who hide in your land.


Fair enough, all though it should be to an international court, since it's an international matter.

Release all foreign nationals, including American
citizens you have unjustly imprisoned, and protect foreign
journalists, diplomats, and aid workers in your country.


"unjustly imprisoned" means "people who willingly, and knowingly broke their laws", in this case. However ridiculous the laws were, they willingly and knowingly broke them.

Close immediately and permanently every terrorist
training camp in Afghanistan and hand over every terrorist,
and every person in their support structure, to appropriate
authorities.


By the later actions, this meant "To the United States only. International bodies not acceptable."

Give the United States full access to terrorist training
camps, so we can make sure they are no longer operating.


This translates to free reign of the US military.

These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion. The Taliban must act and act immediately. They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate.

And the rest, as they say, is history.

Once military action had begun, the Taliban seized humanitarian workers on the ground-- TO HOLD AS HOSTAGES. Yes, that's right, folks, these are the "prisoners" Rei is using in her flawed analogy. Reasonable folks call them "hostages."

Oh, I'm sorry, they were *hostages*. So, hostages are people who *by their own admissions when they were back in the US* broke local laws by preaching Christianity, and are are in custody awaiting trial? Um, yeah, that's my definition of a hostage, suuuuure.....

Um, *try again*, benji :)
 
2001-12-12 04:31:10 PM  
The Marines said Walker, the sole detainee at the base, was recovering from dehydration and a gunshot wound in the leg. It is believed he is being held in a heavily guarded green metal shipping container, about 10 feet high, 20 feet wide and 10 feet deep.

Alright... who's the wise-ass that poked air holes in HIS container???
 
2001-12-12 04:33:11 PM  
Not exactly, Baloosh.

She's quite hawkish about protecting terrorists who may be living inside America and taking advantage of her sovereignty.

(qv, Stupid Analogy)
 
2001-12-12 04:34:47 PM  
Nez--

One simple question for your overly simplistic (supposedly "logical") mind:

Question: Before, during and after the actual internment of those Taliban POWs that suffocated while being transported, were there any American observers, supervisors, military or any other personnel with overseeing capabilities/responsibilities on sight? Hmmmmmmm?

Tell you what, you and your kind want the U.S. to shoulder the responsibility of any and all things that could possibly go wrong in this "war." Don't you?! If a camel tips over and drops dead there -- blame the U.S.!
 
2001-12-12 04:35:01 PM  
You will comply with Borg, or you will be assimilated.

Taliban did not comply. Hence assimilation is underway. They have no one to blame but themselves.
 
2001-12-12 04:35:37 PM  
Re: you're right, 270 million, I don't know where my head was. Muffin.
 
2001-12-12 04:36:39 PM  
Benjamin: My bad... a minor oversight.

She's still a terrorist embracer.
 
2001-12-12 04:36:52 PM  
Hey, has anybody seen my car keys? I leave for a trip to boston tomorrow morning and I seem to have misplaced them...
 
Rei
2001-12-12 04:40:22 PM  
she can't see the difference, morally and ethically, between America-- land of the free-- and the Taliban's Afghanistan.

Um, what *I* am looking at is the difference between the Taliban's Afghanistan and the Northern Alliance's Afghanistan. Ask RAWA what it was like.

Nice dodge of the question. He didn't ask about the WTC. The Taliban openly supported OBL and his terrorist network. That's ok to you, in and of itself, as long as they didn't know specifically about the WTC?

Well, gee, what other attack could he have been alluding to???

The Taliban only "supported" them minorly. Most of it was simply turning their backs. Occasionally, when they'd have a fundamentalist in their country from outside, they'd tell him to join bin Laden's forces. They talked, had an amicable alliance (generally - at times it broke down, and the two would fight) (they used to fight pretty heavily before bin Laden left Qadir to ally with them). But, overall, the agreement was, "pay us, and we'll turn our backs". Typical warlord philosophy.

Now, compare that to the US arming the NA. Not only did we completely turn our backs on their attrocious human rights record, we actually *gave these criminals weapons* and *took out their obstructions to power*. There's a hideous difference in complicity.
 
2001-12-12 04:40:40 PM  
You people need to think. Do you really think that bin laden told this Walker guy who was merely a footsoldier???? He's just talking shiat... think about it
 
2001-12-12 04:47:10 PM  
The Taliban only "supported" them minorly. Most of it was simply turning their backs... [O]verall, the agreement was, "pay us, and we'll turn our backs". Typical warlord philosophy.

Now, compare that to the US arming the NA. Not only did we completely turn our backs on their attrocious human rights record, we actually *gave these criminals weapons* and *took out their obstructions to power*. There's a hideous difference in complicity.


Yes, there is a huge difference in complicity.

In the one case, terrorists flew planes full of innocent people into buildings full of innocent people.

In the other case, Warlord A shoots Warlord B.
 
Rei
2001-12-12 04:47:15 PM  
Question: Before, during and after the actual internment of those Taliban POWs that suffocated while being transported, were there any American observers, supervisors, military or any other personnel with overseeing capabilities/responsibilities on sight? Hmmmmmmm?

Of course not. The US wants them all dead - not just al Qaeda, not just Taliban leadership, but every last farm-boy who joined the Taliban military so he wouldn't have to starve in their drought. Did any of you read the time magazine article where they mentioned who we were trying to hit with that daisy cutter that killed 3 US troops, btw? Some taliban commanders, who were attempting to surrender their troops to Karzai. Can't have that, nope...
 
2001-12-12 04:48:13 PM  
Rei--

You make up these idiotic analogies ... "would you likewise claim that a prison guard who gives a prisoner a gun and opens up the jail cell is not responsible when the prisoner shoots someone?" ... that somehow your detractors, in your opinion, have to disprove. It's all just gamesmanship and mental masturbation on your part, Karen.

We're currently USING the damned Northern Alliance in lieu of having our own troops do the dirty work on the ground there. In my book, that's quite preferable, and, considering the time constraints and logistics involved, an "enlightened" approach in pursuing our goals and objectives over there!

But you'd be FIRST to biatch if we did pursue al Qaeda on our own without the NA even IF it meant losing thousands of U.S. lives there ala the U.S.S.R. in it's endeavors in Afghanistan.

You want it BOTH ways and you just can't have it. Sorry.
 
nez
2001-12-12 04:49:14 PM  
Warren:

You still haven't answered my question from earlier.
 
Rei
2001-12-12 04:50:53 PM  
Benjamin:

Wow, you completely skipped over an entire post, which contradicted your claims that Bush didn't make those demands, and that the prisoners were hostages. Impressive ;)

Yes, there is a huge difference in complicity.

In the one case, terrorists flew planes full of innocent people into buildings full of innocent people.

In the other case, Warlord A shoots Warlord B.


Actually, nooo... in the second case, Warlord A shells section of Kabul owned by Warlord B, gang-rapes then kills the women in that section; tortures then kills the men. Warlord B retakes it, shells a section of Kabul owned by Warlord A, gang-rapes then kills the women, tortures then kills the men. Repeat X 100.

Afghanistan, from 1992 to 1996. And they're in charge again.
 
2001-12-12 04:51:51 PM  
You know, I'm extremely disappointed. Here it is about time for me to leave work and go out to dinner, and not one of the Righties has bashed me today. I even had some agreement. I need at least one good "WC is an uber-commie bastard", or I just don't feel that my day is complete.
 
Rei
2001-12-12 04:53:28 PM  
We're currently USING the damned Northern Alliance in lieu of having our own troops do the dirty work on the ground there. In my book, that's quite preferable, and, considering the time constraints and logistics involved, an "enlightened" approach in pursuing our goals and objectives over there!

And....... how does that change the fact that we gave money, weapons, and took out the obstructions in the way for these brutes to get to power?

A) will you deny that we gave them money?
B) will you deny that we gave them weapons?
C) will you deny that we took out their obstructions?
D) will you deny that they're in power?
E) will you deny that they're using this to commit atrocities?

It's open and shut. *We* did this. *We* put them where they could do this. It is *No* different from giving a prisoner a gun. These are people that we *knew* were horrible examples of human beings, and we put them in charge of a country.
 
2001-12-12 04:54:04 PM  
What I think is so ironic about this whole mess is that it's based on religion. Everybody has their own god... It's crazy... Heaven, if it even exists, will be like a shopping mall foodcourt. There will be a little place for every god and religion... It will be like high school again with cliques. I'm sure if there even was a place for us in the afterlife, we'd nuke that too! Oy... religion is a biatch, but it's necessary to keep humans from killing themselves. It just sucks that it causes so many wars. Blegh. What we really need to do is get Bob Sagget, clone him, and start overpopulating the world with Sagget clones. The only downside to that would be that there we so many Bob Saggets.
 
2001-12-12 04:54:34 PM  
*applauds Rei*
thats all I have to say
 
2001-12-12 04:55:35 PM  
Waiting....
 
2001-12-12 04:55:51 PM  
sorry my keyboard was hijacked by a Sagget clone... That last sentence should be, "The only downside to that would be that there would be so many Bob Saggets."
 
2001-12-12 04:56:37 PM  
sorry worldcitizen I'd bash you to make you feel better....but i'm a lefty not a righty
 
2001-12-12 04:56:56 PM  
Baloosh, e-mail me
 
2001-12-12 04:59:00 PM  
*sighs*
Thanks for the thought, Rosalea.
 
2001-12-12 04:59:27 PM  
What about one of those crazy electromagnetic pulse things from the movies... Couldn't that wipe out all chip based devices, like cell phones, computers and animatronic Bea Arthurs? I think we should pull that shiat on them... Send them back to the candlelight days. Plus, maybe they're robots or something and we don't know it yet. If they are, we'll be happy we did that. And even if they aren't, at least we know nobody can make robots that realistic yet.
 
2001-12-12 05:00:47 PM  
I have to go now. I'll just have you all know that I'm very disappointed in you. ;)
 
2001-12-12 05:01:05 PM  
Actually, nooo... in the second case, Warlord A shells section of Kabul owned by Warlord B, gang-rapes then kills the women in that section; tortures then kills the men. Warlord B retakes it, shells a section of Kabul owned by Warlord A, gang-rapes then kills the women, tortures then kills the men. Repeat X 100.

Great.

If it keeps them distracted from training terrorists to kill American citizens, then by all means let's back off and "quit sticking our noses in world affairs."

Afghanistan, from 1992 to 1996. And they're in charge again.

No, baby, WE'RE in charge.

"Unjustly imprisoned" means "people who willingly, and knowingly broke their laws," in this case. However ridiculous the laws were, they willingly and knowingly broke them.

I'll keep that in mind next time you and your lap-licking liberal friends are engaging in a little civil disobedience.

By the later actions, this meant "To the United States only. International bodies not acceptable."

Your (erroneous) assessment.

This translates to free reign of the US military.

That explains why there are still armed US soldiers stalking the streets of Baghdad, shooting whomever they want, going wherever they want.

Of course I heard somewhere it was just diplomatic inspection teams, but I could be wrong.

shbenjamin
 
nez
2001-12-12 05:02:28 PM  
Before, during and after the actual internment of those Taliban POWs that suffocated while being transported, were there any American observers, supervisors, military or any other personnel with overseeing capabilities/responsibilities on sight?

Honestly, I don't know. But when shiat like this happens, it's obvious something is seriously wrong.

If there was US military around the NA & prisoners, they obviously did a shiatty job by letting prisoners in custody die and should be tried for their crime upon return to the states.

If there wasn't any US personnel around, someone is responsible for letting the NA run around with prisoners without supervision - someone from the American military should have been there to prevent exactly this type of thing from occuring.

We're currently USING the damned Northern Alliance in lieu of having our own troops do the dirty work on the ground there.

Exactly. We're letting them do whatever they want. Here's a simple summation for you: That is not good. What's going to happen when this supposed new government gets into power in Afghanistan? You think all these warlords are just going to drop their weapons and start playing nice because we tell them to? Oh that's right - we'll bomb them too if they don't listen.

Our military needs to have some direction with this war. So far it's just kill all terrorists in sight - which is fine for catching the Taliban and Osama, but not when you have a nation of pissed off people getting whacked in the process.

You think regular 'ol Joe Q. Afghanistan is thinking - "Geez, thanks America! I know you dropped those bombs to save my life and get rid of the Taliban!! Now I have no home, my daughter is dead, and the NA rules my city! Woohoo!" No dude. They are angry refugees who have been hurt, homeless, hungry, shooed from their own country, and most of them don't even understand why.

Taking advantage of the NA for our benefit is only going to bite us in the ass later on.
 
2001-12-12 05:03:54 PM  
No, baby, WE'RE in charge

really? I thought they had their broadbased government made up of afghans from diffrent tribes?
 
2001-12-12 05:04:40 PM  
Benjamin - the terrosit infrastructure resides here in the US, it is called the CIA, they trained and armed Osama and his cohorts. If a little research is done you'll find that the CIA has trained and armed nearly 50% of all the so-called terrorist groups in the world today. Of course when we armed them they were freedom fighters, now that they'd like to run their own countries and are upset at the corporate manipulation by the WMF, they become terrorists.
That said, the animals responsible for the WTC need to be found and removed from the gene-pool. I am not saying Bush or the US had anything to do with the WTC attack, but we have been trying ANY means to force an oil piplein through Afghanistan for several years and been opposed by the government in place. Oddly GW stands to make Billions if they can provide a source of oil to India, one of the fastest growing economies around.
 
2001-12-12 05:04:54 PM  
Hahahahahaha! Rei--

"Of course not. The US wants them all dead - not just al Qaeda, not just Taliban leadership, but every last farm-boy who joined the Taliban military so he wouldn't have to starve in their drought."

God Almighty, Karen! Are you ever showing your "true colors" today! You actually KNOW the reasoning behind there NOT being any U.S. personnel onsight ... So that they WOULD be killed! In YOUR eyes, therefore, the U.S. is damned if we do, and damned if we don't.



"Did any of you read the time magazine article where they mentioned who we were trying to hit with that daisy cutter that killed 3 US troops, btw? Some taliban commanders, who were attempting to surrender their troops to Karzai."

Yeah. I read that article in TIME. And from what I could gleen from that article, it was the writer's interjected opinion and point of view that what we were trying to do was kill the Taliban duo. I thought that was very shoddy journalism. Report the story, please, and refrain from putting in your own SPIN on the story, oh, whoever wrote that piece!

But you FELL FOR THE SPIN, didn't you, Karen. And why? Because it conformed to your anti-American/Bush administration mindset, huh.
 
Displayed 50 of 604 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report