ORLY? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! http://indymedia.us/en/2008/07/32606.shtml Thats Carters aide speaking, the ones who did it. Mayhaps you need to bone up on US foreign policy some. Contras? PKK? Mujahideen? All I need to see is that before American funding of extremists in Afghanistan, there was no Taliban. Not that this has stopped them from doing it in Iraq, Iran or Pakistan. Apparently, American definition of logic is, if it doesn't work, so what? Just keep doing it till it maybe could be probably eventually does.
Based on what muslims do with their own societies outside of the Iraqi and Afghan war. Yes, lets kill apostates and authors of books we don't like... and while we're at it, lets string up the queers. They also have many other imaginitive punishments for trivial matters. THATS what I base it on. They are nothing but dark age christians in the 21st century. Afghanistan harboured Al-qaeda and refused to cooperate with the US after 9/11. The US had no other option but to invade. Kuwait? Well it can't get any worse than leaving them to fuck it up on their own. Although I disagree with invading the Middle East (except for Afghanistan), I just say let them fester in their own shit and hope they join the civilized world one day.
Its their society. Colonialism is passe The Taliban refused to cooperate? Really? http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=582916 http://www.hinduonnet.com/2001/09/13/stories/0313000b.htm http://www.slate.com/id/117156/ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/17/afghanistan.terrorism11 So in your opinion, anyone should be handed over to be tortured without evidence? Kuwait is a part of Iraq, divided by the British. Those guys sure spread happiness wherever they went. Fester in their own shit? Heh, maybe once the US stops crapping on the rest of the world.
You like cherry picking sources, don't you, S.A.M? Personally, I like this one: http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/index.php?sid=391727 So, apparently 128 civilians were killed by NATO or US forces in the first seven months of 2008. That hardly supports your claim that the U.S is 'pounding' Afghani civilians. What it does suggest is that when the U.S and NATO target the insurgents, some collateral damage occurs. And that's hardly a surprise, since the tactics of the insurgents include hiding amongst civilians. Also note how the majority of Afghani civilian deaths are due to suicide bombing. Yet I never hear you complaining about the insurgents 'pounding' on the Afghani civilians. Why not? Wait, let me guess. Because they aren't Westerners! You racist bitch. Are you some sort of retard, S.A.M? Ever heard of Kuwait?
You're assuming that the troops are telling the truth, or even counting the civilian deaths. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/world/asia/07afghan.html How do they differentiate between civilians and militants from the air?
Because the British said so?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! http://members.aol.com/XPUS/Iraq.html Its a better claim than that of Israel http://www.csun.edu/~vcmth00m/iraqkuwait.html
S.A.M: So when a source of information contradicts your conjecture, you discard it out of hand as biased. No doubt your cherry picked sources are infallable, right? I also notice that you failed to address the observation that your beloved freedom fighters have killed civilians in suicide bombings. In fact, evidence suggests that they have killed more civilians than NATO and the U.S combined, who you claim 'pound' the Afghani civilians. Feel free to prove me wrong by posting documentation published by the, ummm, 'freedom fighters'. Surely they must count civilian deaths that occur as a result of their insurgency.
Don't be silly. There are no insurgents. Only people who are being bombed by the US and its puppet government and getting very tired of it.
S.A.M: Initially, yes. But once each Arab country has established its own autonomous nation-state as a result of British fragmentation, one Arab nation can't justify the invasion of that nation-state based on the fact that it was once a portion of a larger country. Otherwise the Middle-East would be in a perpetual state of war (well, more so than it is at the moment).
S.A.M: Sure there are, S.A.M. Unless those suicide bombers aren't actually insurgents, but agents of Emmanuel Goldstein. What about the people who are being bombed by the insurgents? Oh wait, I forgot, the insurgents don't exist, and neither do the suicide bombings. Nor do the radical Islamic terrorists who raid villages and harass and murder the locals.
Its none of America's business, in any case. The people of Iraq were not consulted by the British when their land was fragmented. [now where have we heard that before?]
There were no suicide attacks in Afghanistan before the US invasion and occupation. I assume being bombed on a daily basis for seven years can have consequences.
S.A.M: Relevance? I was simply disputing your claim that: "The Afghanis have not invaded any countries and neither have the Iraqis.". Do you admit that the Iraqis have indeed invaded another country? Um, probably not. Do you have some sort of point here? Are you arguing that being under occupation justifies the killing of your own civilians in suicide attacks? More to the point. Explain to me why America/NATO's killing of Afghani civilians is evil, whereas the Afghani insurgents killing of Afghani civilians is morally justified.
Kuwait is a part of Iraq.:shrug: Thats a strawman. Suicide attacks are a result of the US occupation. The US is occupying their country.
S.A.M: Continuously repeating a falsehood does not make said falsehood true, S.A.M. At present, Kuwait and Iraq are two distinct and clearly demarcated countries. So no, Kuwait is not a part of Iraq. You could try making the argument that many decades ago, Kuwait WAS a part of Iraq. But that's not technically true. More accurately, Kuwait and Iraq were landmasses which belonged to one country. So your attempt to justify Iraq's aggression towards Kuwait is still shit. How on Earth is that a strawman, S.A.M? Simply because suicide attacks are a result of U.S occupation does in no way justify them. Again, explain to us why it's OK to kill your own civilians if you're under occupation.
Didn't even Iraq recognise and acknowledge Kuwait's independence by recognising said independence and its boundaries in 1963?
Its not my theory, its that of the Iraqis. They consider it a part of their country. Because under occupation, only the occupiers decide what the "news" will be? http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/03/06/afghan15446.htm
