I just reread this, and realized the extreme flaming-ness here. I was pissed off when I wrote this. I'm not saying anything I think is wrong, i'm just saying it in a sarcastic, inflammatory manner. Don't take it entirely seriously. A little bird told me to write all this...
The Taliban is harboring, and supporting a man and an orginization that
holds utter conempt for the life of any non muslim.
I would also add that the Taleban made several offers regarding bin
Laden, some tenable, some not. The untenable ones, most notably the offer to
release aid workers in exchange for no millitary action, were reported on in
the mainstream media. The somewhat more tenable offers -- and remember,
these were initial negotiating positions. Their proposal included
extraditing bin Laden specifically, with the promise that other Al Queda
leaders would be discussed at the negotitating table. Colin Powell is
supposed to be Mr. Diplomacy -- and he won't even consider a diplomatic
option when what the majority of Americans think they are fighting for is
within diplomatic reach?
A group that is known to have at least two suitcase nukes. A group
that will not rest until they have murdered every last American, and every last Jew on the planet (By their own admission
I might add).
A group led by individuals who ought to be tried in America,
sentenced to die, and shot. They will rest in peace then -- and so can the
rest of the world.
As for the suggestion of suitcase nukes... Weekly World News
is not always the most reliable source for international politics and
millitary matters. Although, if you want to read about I WAS BIGFOOT'S LOVE
SLAVE, it's good stuff. Enquirer just hinted about suitcase nukes. I
wonder where WWN got the figure of two from? I should look into this. Do you
have a URL?
As Afganistan has decided to throw thier lot in with Al Queda, we as a people can only assume that they intend the same
As the government of America has decided to hold on to convicted war
criminal Emmanuel Constant, America 'as a people' is guilty of between three
and five thousand counts of murder. Therefore Haiti would be justified in
detonating a nuclear weapon in Miami.
Would you have us just sit back and LET them fly planes, and walk nuclear devices into our
No, but I wouldn't starve unrelated people, either. And I wouldn't
delude myself into thinking that a massive millitary effort will stop
terrorism. There are terrorists, now, TODAY plotting to do terrible things
to the US, who can be found in the US. Cutting off all the food to states
which 'harbour' terrorists -- like Texas -- and saturation bombing the
Appaliachans might 'solve' that particular problem. Rather than 'sitting
back' and having law enforcement arrest individual criminals -- we should
just declare a state of collective guilt in the US and kill as many
Americans as possible. Sound good?
The United States was attacked FIRST.
By terrorists. Not a government.
Al Queda struck the first military blow.
Al Queda is a terrorist organization, not a millitary one. They do
not strike millitary blows. They commit crimes. If a French citizen murders
an Australian in Australia, he is tried in Australia for murder. If France
refuses to extradite him, Australia can try sanctions, the United Nations,
or, as a last resort, targeted millitary operation to bring the individual
It is now the job of my government to
ensure my safety, and the safety of those I love by eliminating this
Here's a novel idea for 'eliminating the threat' -- eliminate the
threat. Don't create more terrorists by killing thousands or millions of
innocents. Unless, of course, your political motives are far beyond
eliminating the threat to your population.
Where does that leave the Afgan people? Between a rock and a hard place.
Too bad, eh? But it's their own damn fault for being born in a
country without a massive millitary machine and no reservations about
imposing its own will on any country that it doesn't like. Dumb choices,
these people make.
No, they are not responsible for the Taliban, and
Al Queda (though they are responsible for allowing such a horrific government to rule over them - rulers ALWAYS rule at
allowance of the people) No, they do not deserve to die from starvation - Yes, there is more we could do to help. But
remember - when you call this a genocide that 5 million of them were starving BEFORE we started - the US did not cause
that, the Taliban did.
7.5 million - 5 million = 2.5 million
As it stands, there is a high liklyhood that the bombings will stop (or slow) for the holy month of Ramadan (I'm sure I
mispelled that). I hold a high degree of confidence that the reason we have not slowed yet is that we are trying to get
all the bombing we can in before the month starts. If that holds true, then the aid workers can get in.
You liken what is happening in afganistan to the jewish holocaust - there is no parallel. Nazi's killed and impounded
people for the 'crime' of being a Jew. That was targeted, with the intention to kill every last Jew on the planet.
For one thing, I never likened anything to the Nazi holocaust in my
article. I did use the holocaust as an EXAMPLE, in a comment on a comment. I
also refuted both the claim that genocide requires the killing of every one
of a race, and that the Nazi holocaust was intended to 'kill every last jew
on the planet'. Funny that they deported so many Jews. Were they expecting
America, Britain, France, and the other countries that (reluctantly) took
them in to kill the Jews in THEIR countries?
The US is assaulting a hostile country, that has made a military attack against it.
There is precious little evidence -- some of it contradictory --
suggesting that Bin Laden was responsible. Call it speculative at best.
Linking bin Laden to a 'green light' from the Taleban regime is speculative
We are making every effort to not hit
Part of the thesis of my article was that our attacks are either
directly intended to kill thousands or millions, or carried out with the
knowledge that they will result in the deaths of thousands or millions. You
have not refuted my claim, which I backed up with evidence. You have just
said 'no, that's not true.' In any case -- firing a howitzer at a jeep from
the side of a jinking and weaving propellor aircraft, from hundreds of
metres away, when the jeep is in front of a civillian building, is not
exactly 'making every effort'. [Look it up. I got it first at CNN.com].
and we are at least dropping SOME food - even if it is not
Not only is it not enough, it's so far from being a fraction of
enough that it cannot be anything but a PR move. Oh, and did you notice that
all but one of the food drops occured around Mazar-e-Sharif -- an important
strategic crossroads surrounded by Northern Alliance troops?
This does not sound like the actions of a
country that is purposefully removing the Puntash people from the face of the planet.
The thing that always bothers me about the type of editorial that this is a response against is this: Whenever the US acts
as a policing force, or steps in to stop dictators from ceasing land that is not theirs, or pushes on china about human
rights issues, or generally uses it's power to do ANYTHING, everyone else in the world points a finger at us, and tells us
that we should not be policing the world, and should stay out of other countries business. They tell us that it is not our
responsibility to try and care for the peoples of other nations.
States are not moral agents.
Let me repeat that: states are not moral agents.
States act in their own interests.
Saddam You-Know-Who was a good guy until he invaded Kuwait and
threatened to drive up the price of oil and serve as an example to other
nations. Then he was a bad guy. When he gassed Iranians, he was a good guy.
Because the Iranians were bad guys. When he invaded Kuwait, he was a bad
guy. Because the US did not want a powerful anti-US regime in the Middle
East. Of course, the people might not accept this notion, so it was
neccessary to invent stories about incubators to push the public into
supporting the 'war'.
But when we start a war against an agressor, all of a sudden, every problem inside that country becomes the US's problem.
Sure, there were 5 million people starving already in Afganistan, but because the US attacked it, now we are to blame for
every problem every person in the country has. 7.5 million people starving? US should take responsibility for every one of
I'm not arguing that America has a responsiblity to every person
without enough food. I'm arguing that if America cuts off someone else's
food aid to a country, resulting in mass starvation, America is culpable for
the deaths which result. When I say this I side with such radical manifestos
as The Geneva Convention or The Nuremburg Principles.
I guess I'm just sick of every country down on it's luck blaming everything it can on the US - wanna have a lifestyle like
us? Then industrialize, and cease tribal warfare.
Ah, tribal warfare! The cause of all evils in the third world! The
'tribal warfare' concept -- a classic bit of propaganda from the Enlightened
Liberals of the media -- deserves its own article. So I won't go into it
here, I will merely ask -- if, say, 500,000 afghanis die for lack of food,
100,000 of which could have been saved by the foreign aid workers kept out
by US bombs -- did tribal warfare kill them?
Afganistan's chief problem is the same one we see over and over again -
the population can't live with itself - Poshtun, Uzbeck, Turkmen - If the people could get past what are really
insiginificant racial differences, they could maybe make something out of their country.
They seemed to get along OK until our pals the muhajedeen decided to
free them from Communist Repression(TM).
Same thing with Palestine/Isreal. Does the situation suck? Yes. But even though the US has managed to keep a rabid Isreal
mostly on a leash (don't think for a minute that if the US changed it's foreign policy to one of non-intervention in the
mideast as requested by Islamic states/terrorists that Isreal wouldn't forcibly remove all the palestinians from it's
borders - or worst.) But what do we get for forcing at least a level restraint on Isreal? We get the largest terrorists
acts in history.
So, you suggest that Isreal would sacrifice its capability to defend
itself from millitary attack -- a capability provided almost solely by US
millitary aid -- that's free equipment, that you pay
for -- just because America told it to stop killing civillians and occupying
If that is so -- what are we doing supporting Isreal in the first
Just tell me this - what do you people want from us?
The cessation of all bombing until the immediate humanitarian crisis can
The cessation of bombing in or near populated areas unless it proves
neccessary, as determined by a resolution of the United Nations General Assembly,
to pursue a legitimate millitary operation in pursuit of legitimate goals,
namely the destruction of the Al Queda network in Afghanistan, and the
capture or assassination of Osama bin Laden.
cause from your post it sounds like you want the US to jsut let Al
Queda go on it's merry way, and pull all it's troops out of any muslim country, and spend any money we have dropping food
on any muslim country that needs it.
Not quite. See above.
Oh, and as for the planes, thank you sir, may I have another.
Yeah. Cause you know, it's not like there is any tighter security
now, or like passengers on a hijacked plane will resist even in the face of
death, or anything. It's certainly not like any sensibly structued terrorist
organization would have carried out all it's attacks simultaneously, or
anything. However, bombing a bunch of innocent people will stop terrorists
from putting fertilizer into barrells, and barrells into trucks, and trucks
into parking garages and streets. It will stop fanatics with a chemistry
textbook from making sarin in a basement and spraying it from a rooftop.
Great logic, you have. 2+2=5, of course.
Maybe if we locked all our women up, and gave them rickets by no sun exposure that would do it?
And now we get to the most important part of the article! The
part that mentions something The Enemy may or may not have done, that has
NO relevance to ANYTHING in the article being responded to -- but it sounds
REALLY AWFUL! I may not have said anything like this -- but because I
disagree with the official line, I MUST BELIEVE IT ANYWAY! Even -- ESPECIALLY
if I deny believing it! Because I'm just such a FANATICAL TERRORIST! I'm a
Muslim fundamentalist, for sure -- which is why I don't even own a Qu'ran! I
HATE DEMOCRACY and FREEDOM, which is why I exercice my DEMOCRATIC FREEDOMS
on K5 by writing responses like this to idiots like you!
Unprintable. Why do I bother?
In short, go die of anthrax. Just think, those spores you inhaled
could have infected a more intelligent animal -- like a cow.
Ugh. Now I've started a flame war. And now everyone will ignore the
logical refutations of your arguments, and focus on my mocking you. Good
job -- you win. 1000 points to you, my friend. I'll go back to being an Evil Terrorist now.
In conclusion, the Powerpuff Girls are a reactionary, pseudo-feminist enterprise.
[ Parent ]