U.S. Kills Afghan Refugees

I mean, what is your solution? Do we wait for Al Queda and their fanatics to nuke the USA and other infidel countries?

At that point, do we fight, or do we keep trying to negotiate?

There was enough evidence in 1998-99 that the U.N. Security Council voted, 15 to zero, on a demand that the Taliban they turn over bin Laden.

They refused then, and they refuse now.

Unfortunately, the people of Afghanistan are paying the price. Hopefully the bombing will end soon so we can get the aid and food in to those that need it.

You are blinded by photos of Afghan injured and wounded civilians.

the taliban have agreed that bin laden could be turned over, to an international court, but are requesting evidence be given.

so far, the us govt. has refused.
and drops bombs instead.

Um, U.S. aid has never gone to those who need it. Just this year, the U.S. gave millions to the Taliban government ... when they could have given money to UN aid agencies who are providing relief. So don't give me your shit. Just because you say Donald Rumsfeld on tv telling you how generous he is, doesnt mean you have to buy it.

In addition, your assertion that we must "kill afghanis or be nuked" is ridiculous. You are showing your own stupidity and brainwashing. If the U.S. wants peace in the world, it could start be stopping rampant economic exploitation everywhere.

Actually, they volunteered to try him in either their own legal system, or that of one of their allies. Get the facts straight, a court that crosses international borders is not quite the same as the World Court.

Just to make sure it is understood, the Taliban government has repeatedly said that it will turn over Osama bin Laden to an international court if the U.S. will present evidence that bin Laden is responsible for September 11th. *Any* evidence. The evidence that tony blair has supposedly seen.

And the U.S. response? "Make no mistake -- enduring freedom!" In other words, words don't matter. Bombs matter.

I said it before. I'll say it again. Americans are stupid.

umm, what?
the US hasn't given any aid to afghanistan.

hey moron, its called "research", try to do some. you'll find that 80% of all humanitarian aid given to afghanistan (and distributed through INGO's and the WFP) come from what country. . .any guesses?

yep, the USA
in other words, for hte past several years we've been feeding and sustaining OVER 20 PERCENT OF THE COUNTRY.

as for trying bin-ladin in an int'l court.
shit, you people are naive. do you honestly believe that the taliban will hand over bin-ladin? osama is both a high ranking minister within their gov't (minister of defense) he is also mullah omar's son-in-law. bin-ladin married omar's daughter, and omar married one of bin-ladin's daughters.

i cannot believe that you people are so naive as to fall for that simple PR ruse.

secondly, this is NOT JUST ABOUT BIN-LADIN.

the US warned afghanistan ON TEN SEPARATE OCCASIONS that they will be held responsible for whatever bin-ladin does so long as they were harboring him. they chose to ignore that and now are paying the consequences.

secondly, what int'l court shall we try bin-ladin in, if we were to capture him?

the rome treaty of the ICC has no provisions regarding terrorism. furthermore, the attack occured on US sovereign soil against predominatly US citizens. it is w/i our legal right to try him in the first federal district of new york.

nessie: i find your analysis quite wrong. yes, we were vulnerable to the soviet nuclear threat. however, we did not just accept that as fate. rather, we built and maintained our own forces in order to maintain a credible deterrent against their use.

likewise, we are doing the same thing with the al-queda network. we are building a credible deterrent so that other states will know that harboring al-queda terrorists or in any way aiding them will quickly lead to their timely demise.

will this strategy cause more terrorist attacks? yes.

but, doing nothing also encourages subsequent attacks, and furthermore advances bin-ladin's goals of building a pan-islamic middle-east founded upon perceived american vulnerability.

bombs away.
its our only way out.

Jon, I didn't say the US didn't give money to Afghanistan. In fact, they didn't. They gave money to the Taliban, who are a dictatorship set up by the US government. Please try to follow what is being said.

If you would like a critique of aid money and aid loan packages, please see the overwhelming volume of evidence and data about the failure of US-led World Bank and IMF "aid" ... which, by any objective standard, is a front for imperialist foreign policy goals.

Why aren't the Taliban giving up Osama bin Laden? They know they don't have to. The U.S. cannot win a war in Afghanistan. The U.S. doesn't want to "win". They "win" by spending billions (trillions?) on security and military hardware.

Jon, if you want respect on this site, you have to come up with something a little smarter than "do you honestly believe the taliban?? how naive"

-----------------------
Jon, I didn't say the US didn't give money to Afghanistan. In fact, they didn't. They gave money to the Taliban, who are a dictatorship set up by the US government. Please try to follow what is being said.
--------------------------

omfg
first off, how is the taliban a product of the US? its widely known that it was produced by pakistan and that most of the world's powers condoned its initial creation as it was hoped they'd bring stability to the region.

perhaps if you want this "respect" you refer to in the real world you won't resort to simple reductionist explanations of "america bad" when it comes to int'l affairs.


-----------
If you would like a critique of aid money and aid loan packages, please see the overwhelming volume of evidence and data about the failure of US-led World Bank and IMF "aid" ... which, by any objective standard, is a front for imperialist foreign policy goals.
---------------

ug.
i don't want to get into one of those imf/wb debates right now. however, if you had followed your own advice and read what i posted you'd see that the aid i was referring to was through the world food program, not exactly an imperial front.

the fact of the matter is that US aids sustained 20% of the afghani population for years. US aid as in big bags of grain shipped to afghanistan under the auspices of the WFP. don't believe me? then just go into a research library, pull some WFP annual reports, and look it over yourself. or, browse their websites, they might have funding there.


--------------------
Why aren't the Taliban giving up Osama bin Laden? They know they don't have to. The U.S. cannot win a war in Afghanistan. The U.S. doesn't want to "win". They "win" by spending billions (trillions?) on security and military hardware.
-----------------


riiightht.
this is all about the military-industrial complex. the US is taking one of the biggest gambits it has ever undertaken in its history b/c a few people want to get richer. the US is literally gambling with its future role in the world and with its strategic interests in the middle-east b/c the carlyle group wants some additional funding.

again, this sort of simple reductionist thinking might win you accolades among the ignorant left, however out in the real world they won't get you very far.

yeah, we let all the "rich people" make decisions for us...what country are you from?

Since no one answered by question, and kept referring to "no proof" when in fact there is a **standing order to arrest Bin Laden since 1998** for the Africa bombings against the US I'll repeat my post again:

What is your solution? Do we wait for Al Queda and their fanatics to nuke the USA and other infidel countries?

At that point, do we fight, or do we keep trying to negotiate?

There was enough evidence in 1998-99 that the U.N. Security Council voted, 15 to zero, on a demand that the Taliban they turn over bin Laden.

They refused then, and they refuse now. The fact that they belatedly "offered to look" at new proof of his participation in the WTC bombing to "determine" whether they should hand him over is moot. The international community has decided for them because they've proven incapable of complying in the past-- and too damn bad if they don't like it.

Unfortunately, the people of Afghanistan are paying the price. Hopefully the bombing will end soon so we can get the aid and food in to those that need it.

You are blinded by photos of Afghan injured and wounded civilians.

First off all, ask Bush why they plan to topple the TAliban back in MAY? What did the Taliban do to them? Is it because they refuse to allow Bush and his cronies to built an oil pipeline instead giving it to some one else!

Well, Colin Powell said there will be a white paper regarding the evidence....where is it? If the US have any evidence why don't they go through the International courts?

The CIA have admitt that Atta is the leader in that group? Why do they have to bomb Afghan? So they can control the oil and gas!!

Give me a break...no one wants to nuke the US, it's our own paranoia or is it since we have done these atrocities to others we expect them to retialiate against us!

The Talibanians are a religion driven terrorist organization. The militarys of the world will crush them to dust. No trial needed. Whatever your view, 80% of Americans think this should be so it shall be. Argue smargue blither squeek. From inside or outside you mess with our sense of security we will find you and blanket you. It will be written. It will be done. A military of exceptional capability is essential for a quiet loving stroll with a loved one without fear of the sky falling. We have that, They hate we have it. Screw them. We're keeping it. shish

This angers me. They call us the bad guys. They kill over 4,000+ people!!! You are the stupid ones. Bin Ladin will bring the world down on you. Who is the Idiots?

If we don't fight, this will keep happing over and over. They are like little kids. They will push you until you make them stop.

Randee, why do you act like you know? Do you know *anything* about Afghani culture or what is going on over there? Had you ever heard of Afghanistan before September 11th? And even more, do you have *any* proof that they are the ones who really did it? Or are you just going on what *they* tell you? Think about it.

please substantiate your claims that the bush administration wanted to overthrow hte taliban back in may, and that more importantly were intending to do so.

and yes, atta was the ringleader. however, where did he get the money, who directed him, where was he trained, etc. etc.

are you really so dense that you don't believe that bin-ladin's organization played a major role in this?

nessie: i find it incredible that your knee-jerk anti-americanism would have you blame the US gov't for the sept. 11 disaster, as if the CIA somehow orchestrated this. please.

oh, and WHAT INTERNATIOAL COURT!
how many times do i have to say, there is no terrorism provision within the Rome Treaty for the establishment of an ICC. furthermore, it is well within our legal right to try bin-ladin and hte taliban leadership within the american legal system as the crime happened on US soil.

Nessie once again demonstrates that like the kid who sits at the front of the class with the loudest voice, holding record speed-typing skills doesn’t denote intelligence. Since as usual you have provided me with a cornucopia of targets to attack, and I don’t speak in soundbytes, I’ll focus on just one here.

If the government wanted to stage a ‘fake’ terrorist act it would most likely resemble those infamous acts you and so many other paranoid delusional miscreants on this cite have so often cited as precedents for this (sigh) ‘conspiracy.’ The Reichstag fire, the Polish ‘attacks’ on Germany in 1939, even the Gulf of Tonkin Incident all had one thing in common: Few if any people were killed. You don’t need nor want to kill your own people in any number to gain the desired result. In fact, the more people you kill, the more it hurts your cause, as any government’s first and foremost source of legitimacy is the ability to provide security for its citizens. When many people are killed, legitimacy is compromised. All one needs to do is attack a symbolic target: e.g. . . . a ship in the Gulf of Tonkin, the Reichstag, etc . . .

Thus, if those in government are such experienced practitioners in the conspiratorial arts, they would surely have followed this simple guideline and blown up something more symbolic and less harmful to the population, not to mention the robust economy that provides it with the power it needs.

And finally, while there may be plenty of other reasons to do so, perhaps you all should take a moment to ponder the veracity of the information posed on the website that calls itself “whatreallyhappened.com” that Nessie is so found of citing as a ‘source’ (next to her own interminable articles).

Speaking of weakness, besides having to scramble for your dictionary every time I post, hiding in the minutia in my argument is the most obvious sign of yours. Your soundbyte-ridden style and inability to stay on topic for more than a sentence or two doesn’t indicate higher thought patterns either.

Another apparently preferred tactic of yours is tossing in points that have no bearing on the argument in order to avoid the pith of my argument entirely.

Which brings me to the following: Why in the hell would you bring up Pearl Harbor when besides you there are possibly one or two SANE people that believe it was a conspiracy? GET OVER IT.

And then this dull rambling about the IMF/WTO. Whatever BS conspiracy you have dreamed up there has nothing to do with the simple point that I made explicitly which is that the government’s power comes from the huge resource that is the US economy. Shall I reiterate the thesis again or did you get it this time:

THE US GOVERNMENT’S POWER EMANATES FROM AND IS INHERENTLY TIED TO THE ENORMOUS RESOURCE THAT IS THE AMERICAN ECONOMY.

Is there such a thing as a powerful POOR nation?

No. Of course not, but this was my point (that you missed again.) The economy is the source all the taxes; it’s where the corporations (that even you claim is an fundamentally crucial extension of the govt) operate, and of course we can’t forget that it’s where the enormous military comes from. In other words, the reason the US government is able to do the ‘evil’ things is does is because the huge economy gives them that ability.

So going off on your ridiculous tangent about the “house of cards’ nature of the economy besides being overblown is circumlocution pure and simple. If you want to demonstrate your “knowledge” stick to the point and stop cutting and pasting a few irrelevant phrases here and there. I suppose that if a clever lad were in your shoes and he were trying to make sense out the incomprehensible, and trying to defend the indefensible, he would have to resort to such tactics. BUT STOP IT ANYWAY.

Moving finally away from your tedious ambages and getting back to the REAL point is the simple fact that any government; including all the factions that make it up are dependent on the economy. Doing something like orchestrating the Sept 11 attacks is simply not in the cards. Why do you think the REAL governmental conspiracies in history involved so few deaths, Pearl Harbor aside. Polish attacks on Germany 1939, the Reichstag fire, Gulf of Tonkin, the Kennedy Assassination and on and on and on. The simple fact is that killing your own people undermines the credibility of the government. Even in your fantastic anarchist vision of peace and love and flowers, you too would have to deal with this as it is a simple fact of life. If citizens in your utopian anarchist fantasy Island felt insecure, they would either simply revolt and form a more secure organization or they would move to a more secure state. Either way your existence is threatened. The same rules apply to all social organizations, even evil capitalist states.