Child Loses Leg, No One Cares

Perhaps after the cruel "American terrorists'" work is complete, no more Afghan's will have to suffer as the ones below did.


-- Eight boys, killed because they laughed at soldiers. An entire family burned alive. And 100 Afghans, slain and hung from lamp posts to warn would-be defectors.

--Taliban captured Afghanistan's capital city of Kabul, castrated the country's president, and killed and tortured his brother, according to the U.S. Department of Defense.

-- The 1998 massacre of 600 Uzbek villagers.

-- The 1998 capture of Mazar-e Sharif, which included, according to Human Rights watch, the execution of scores of men and boys and the rape of women and girls. The Defense Department also said shop owners, cart pullers, and women and children shoppers were killed.

-- A 2001 massacre in Yakaolang, which included, according to Human Rights Watch, the executions of at least 170 men.

Please accept my appology for not being "down with your scene."

is not the same as being the aggressor. The Taliban will continue to intrimidate anyone in Afghanistan who does not adhere to their warped way of life through violence. Osama's followers will also continue to carry out terrorist acts that will only escalate in magnitude, unless they are stopped. Unfortunately, there exists no method of entering a country and killing only those who are committing the evil. Nor is there a way to stop them without violence. Sometimes, to overcome an enemy, you must beat him at his own game.

If you have a more effective solution, other than "give peace and love a chance," I would love to hear it.

::Perhaps after the cruel "American terrorists'" work is complete, no more Afghan's will have to suffer as the ones below did.::

right. because the northern alliance never did shit like that.

why is it that whenever it comes time to intervene in another country, the u.s. ignores (or fights against) people's movements to replace their own government (like rawa), and instead favors military regimes? if we have even the remotest interest in "freedom and democracy" for the people that we from time to time deem it necessary to "liberate," why do we repeatedly enlist military dictatorships to rule them?

(it's a rhetorical question-- we all know why)

Is there a situation where defending yourself with the use of physical force is appropriate ?

to the person who posted the taliban atrocities. these cannot compare to the atrocities committed by weeks-long air raids. your attempt at rationalization and justification is weak at best. you are a terrorist apologist and you are just as bad as the taliban. happy fucking thanksgiving, pig.

hello

That is why the U.N. is going to replace the Taliban with a more liberal government. Do you actually think the Afghans asked to be ruled by the Taliban? Half of the Taliban are not even from Afghanistan.

This is one of the most heavily mined countries in the world - many of them placed and supplied by the Soviet Union (heroes to many on this board)... People have been crippled and killed by these for 20 years - and suddenly a child being injured is an atrocity? I'm not saying this isn't a horrible thing - no child deserves this - but keep your outrage consistent, not just when the US does it (in error by the way)...

So then if a killer can be brought to justice without injuring anyone including the killer, you would agree to such a response ?

Kiz, you forget one thing. The war you are talking about was perpetuated intentionally by the United States, decided in 1979 under President Carter to give the USSR "its own Vietnam" ... and so this is not the first time the US has intentionally created death and destruction in this area. It is only the latest atrocity.

if the US military didn't care about civilian casualities its rather interesting that they are using expensive guided missiles (up to 1 million a piece) to hit targets as opposed to far cheapter gravity bombs.

interesting too that they bombs they are using have all been downgraded to 500 pounders as opposed to the more potent 2000 pounders, mainly because they want to avoid collateral damage.

oh well.
facts shmacts right?

Funny how all the war hawks are suddenly concerned with the plight of poor Afghanies, in defending the attacks on Afghanistan. What happened to the hunt for bin Laden? And since when do you care about civil rights in Afghanistan, when this shit has been going on for decades, you self-righteous fucks! We've been TELLING YOU about it for almost as long, and you never cared!

What was originally sold to us in the packaging of "self defense", has now become an YET ANOTHER open military overthrow of a foreign power in their own backyard. Why? How does plotting the course of Afghanistan's political future for decades to come, help to catch a single man who isn't even a citizen of Afghanistan, much less a member of its government?

Washington never cared about bin Laden. 9.11 was just an EXCUSE to invade yet another sovereign nation, and forcibly replace the Taliban with yet another one of America's puppet regimes so that the oil corps can build that pipeline from the Caspian Sea down to southern Asia and get richer.

The whole direction of this attack has magically shifted from "man hunt" to "invasion and overthrow", and the public is sucking it down like a $20 crack whore without so much as a peep.

*Sj

"oh wait, but if the west stepped in to get rid of the taliban they would be guilty of western imperialism and colonialism, right"

Jon! You are starting to figure something out! Toppling foreign governments, sending in ground troops to someone else's country, or even dropping bombs on someone else's country ... these are *all* acts of imperialism!

"after all, we've fed 20% of their population for years."

Oh, Jon. Now does this include the millions of people we have put on the brink of starvation? In fact, the people who are "feeding Afghans" are international relief organizations like Red Cross, Red Crescent and the United Nations. The US Government is a world-reknowned enemy of aid organizations, which is why they made such a stir earlier this year denouncing this war and denouncing the US Government. This action by the US has probably caused the single largest one-time starvation crisis that Afghanistan has ever seen. Are you suggesting the US Government has a right to do this, simply because we contributed to foreign aid in the past (and no, stinger missiles to the taiban don't count).

geez, that's interesting.

the intervention the left demanded in rwanda would have been precisely that, an armed intervention that would have resulted in the toppling of the hutu-dominated government.

but, the US didn't intervene so instead its labelled as racist and uncaring.

had hte US not intervened in kosovo it would have been accused of being callous and uncaring, since it did it is now called imperial.

damned if you do, damned if you don't. so again, i ask you to perhaps think why leftist politics carry so little weight in foreign policy, mainly because it is not real policy per se but rather a host of unending criticisms with little action and even less prescription


as for the issue of aid: the world food program helps many of the various internationa relief NGO's and furthermore is by far the largest contributer of aid to afghanistan.

i suggest you go to the library (GASP!) and look at the WFP 1995, 96, 97, etc. annual reports and find out just how much the US is contributing to WFP's total budget compared to the rest of the world, and then how much the US is contributing in afghanistan alone, compared to the rest of the world.

you'll be in for quite a surprise.

. . .
hmm, nah, you probably wouldn't actually do any research that requires anything other then checking out noam chomsky from your local library.

so, long story short, the US contributes something like 50% to the WFP's total budget, and 80% for afghanistan.

on sept 1, 2001, or a few days around there i believe, bush announced the donation of enough grain to afghanistan to feed an additional one million people for a year. so, as i said earlier, the claim that hte US feeds roughly 20% of afghanistan's population is in fact true, and should be considered when one begins to say that the US "abandoned" afghanistan or only started caring about afghanistan on sept 12.

Jon, your comment is rife with strawmen arguments. Who the fuck mentioned anything about Rwanda here? Quit trying to say what the "leftist" position is and then going on to argue it. If you cannot argue what is being said here, then maybe it is because you have an ever-shifting position which is solely contrarian.

We were talking about the United States' tendency to invade other countries and topple their governments. You replied by saying that this is a form of "food aid"?? haha

While you can go to budgetary figures and show how "committed" the United States is to fighting hunger, the reality is a lot different and more complex than a chart of figures. For instance, most "aid" is sent in forms of bribes to U.S. client states. This is the entire critique against the WB/IMF, which is extremely well documented and you can find that information if you look for it. The food doesn't get to the people who need it. It is spent on "security" and "state-strengthening" so that the United States can influence even more hegemonic power in a particular region. These decisions are made by the US and the client state government equally.

The amount of food sent to Afghanistan is nothing compared to the Stinger missiles sent to Afghanistan (especially if you consider relative prices).

This is why on October 22, the United Nations made an unprecedented call for the US to halt bombing so that food aid could be delivered. The US denied, and there is an enormous refugee crisis on-going because of it.

Jon, it is getting really boring educating you about everything. It doesn't take that much research to learn about starvation politics, and had you done any research whatsoever, you wouldn't be using WFP budget numbers as your basis for analysis.

rwanda was mentioned merely to explain the double bind the US is put in by the left, essentially a damned if you do damned if you don't position.

as for strawmen its interesting that you bring up the WB/IMF.

the aid i was referring to comes entirely from the world food programe, a point you conveniently neglected to mention

-----------
The amount of food sent to Afghanistan is nothing compared to the Stinger missiles sent to Afghanistan (especially if you consider relative prices).
----------------

duh.
that's why i was talking about humanitarian aid as opposed to the broader term foreign aid.




----------------
This is why on October 22, the United Nations made an unprecedented call for the US to halt bombing so that food aid could be delivered. The US denied, and there is an enormous refugee crisis on-going because of it.
--------------------

perhaps that was also why the UN later said that the taliban were primarily responsible for blocking food aid.


---------------
it is getting really boring educating you about everything
-----------------

rofl. too funny



--------------------
It doesn't take that much research to learn about starvation politics, and had you done any research whatsoever, you wouldn't be using WFP budget numbers as your basis for analysis
----------------------------

oh, yes yes yes. the world food programme is really an agent of US imperialism when it hands out grain to starving children.

good gawd.

Jon, can you respond to argument? Oh can you just write "oh gawd rofl duh"

Your mention of Rwanda continues to be a strawman argument. Who on here will defend ... "The Left"? Who is "The Left"? Democrats? Greens? Most people are on here are not the "Left" ... they are anarchists, anti-authoritarians, libertarians, revolutionaries, Maoists, socialists, etc. If you want to talk about "The Left" go somewhere else, you sound like an idiot trying to put their words in our mouth on here.

The World Bank and IMF are mentioned because these are the primary ways that the US delivers aid to other countries. As I argued, and as you ignored, aid is used as a mechanism of control over other nation's sovereignty. Starvation politics, as I mentioned. The same goes for the World Food Programme.

"perhaps that was also why the UN later said that the taliban were primarily responsible for blocking food aid"

Both are true. You seem to think, as Danny does, that arguing against the Taliban is somehow arguing against our position. You are wrong (again).

"the world food programme is really an agent of US imperialism when it hands out grain to starving children"

No, it is an agent of US imperialism when it with-holds food, or applies conditions to food, etc. This UN-style agency is a little bit better than US unilateral aid. That's why all the right-wingers are always calling for the US to pull out of the United Nations. It really is a more internationalist institution than anything the US has got going. Unfortunately, there are *still people starving to death* in the thousands all over the world every day. The US Government goes out of its way to make sure this situation stays the way it is, or gets worse. When people are starving, it is a lot easier to get them to do what you want. It is just the fact of international politics. Which you apparently have never heard of, but I expect the requisite "rofl oh my gawd the taliban did it!"

fine, i guess its necessary to now spell out explicitly everything i said as you are a bit too dense for normal arguments

the US did nothing in rwanda for a variety of reasons. the US was roundly condemned in left-leaning newspapers like the Guardian for example for being racist, uncaring, etc. etc.

the US intervenes in kosovo, the same newspapers now condemn the US for being imperialist etc. etc.

in other words, in two cases of genocide and ethnic cleansing, the US is roundly criticised by the same newspaper for both doing something and doing nothing.

-------------------------
The World Bank and IMF are mentioned because these are the primary ways that the US delivers aid to other countries. As I argued, and as you ignored, aid is used as a mechanism of control over other nation's sovereignty.
-------------------------


no, i didn't ignore it. i explicitly said i'm only considering humanitarian assistance, not the more general foreign assistance which can include military arms, IMF loans, etc.


-----------------
Both are true. You seem to think, as Danny does, that arguing against the Taliban is somehow arguing against our position. You are wrong (again).
-----------------

to explicitly spell out my position.
it is wrong, either through ignorance or dishonesty, to blame the US for afghan starvation if as the UN claims it is the taliban who are impeding aid convoys and the distribution of humanitarian aid.



--------------------------------
No, it is an agent of US imperialism when it with-holds food, or applies conditions to food, etc.
-------------------------------------

please give examples of where the UN run World Food Program has withheld food or aid from countries. please explain why its afghan program has been running for years and continues to run, and had even given aid to people in taliban controlled territories as opposed to NA controlled. doesn't seem like starvation politics to me.



-------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, there are *still people starving to death* in the thousands all over the world every day. The US Government goes out of its way to make sure this situation stays the way it is, or gets worse. -------------------------------------

really?
please give multiple examples of how the US, through the WFP, pursues this starvation policy. oh, and listing two examples doesn't count as that will not prove that it is an actual policy per se. please show how the WFP and other international aid agencies have been constructed and manipulated by the US for precisely these aims.

and yes, people are starving throughout the world.
who's fault is this?

if you believe it is the US's fault then you sorely need to become more educated on food systems and world hunger.

perhaps you should go and look at what is happening in zimbabwe right now before you go blaming the US for the horrors of world hunger.

Jon, rephrasing what you already said doesnt answer arguments. You are aware of that, right?

"the US was roundly condemned in left-leaning newspapers like the Guardian "

AGAIN. This is a strawman. No one on here has said anything about Rwanda, except for you. Should we begin creating right-wing arguments and then suggesting that you must support them? As I have said, "The Left" is a pretty vague concept and for you to post on here as if everyone must defend everything that, for isntance, the UK Guardian prints is absurd.

"if you believe it is the US's fault then you sorely need to become more educated on food systems and world hunger."

Oh yeah. The US really wants to feed the world, right after we get a new SUV, fund a dot-com company or two, etc:

We often hear about the world running out of enough food to feed our growing population. For various reasons, however, that is not likely. The overwhelming evidence is that people are not hungry because of a lack of food; they are hungry because they don't have the money to pay for it. The following readings address the issue of the world food supply.

To understand why people go hungry you must stop thinking about food as something farmers grow for others to eat, and begin thinking about it as something companies produce for other people to buy. Food is a commodity. Furthermore, agricultural producers choose to grow, not only what people will and can buy, but they grow things for which they will get the best price. This has various implications. For example, much of the best agricultural land in the world is used to grow commodities such as cotton, sisal, tea, tobacco, sugar cane, and cocoa, items which are non-food products or are maginally nutritious, but for which there is a large market. Millions of acres of potentially productive farmland is used to pasture cattle, an extremely inefficient use of land, water and energy, but one for which there is a market in wealthy countries. More than half the grain grown in the United States (requiring half the water used in the U.S.) is fed to livestock, grain that would feed far more people than would the livestock to which it is fed. Furthermore, growers must be careful not to "overproduce"; that is they must not grow or raise more food than people can pay for. In many countries agricultural producers are discouraged from producing; furthermore, as food producing corporations grow larger, they are able to control production to ensure they don't "overproduce." The problem, of course, is that people who don't have enough money to buy food (and more than one billion people earn less than $1.00 a day), simply don't count in the food equation. In other words, if you don't have the money to buy food, no one is going to grow it for you. Put yet another way, you would not expect The Gap to manufacture clothes, Adidas to manufacture sneakers, or IBM to provide computers for those people earning $1.00 a day or less; likewise, you would not expect ADM ("Supermarket to the World") to produce food for them. Aid programs or governments may take up some of the slack by purchasing food from producers, and distributing it; but, as we discuss in Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism, this may do more harm than good. What this means is that ending hunger requires doing away with poverty, or, at the very least, ensuring that people have enough money or the means to acquire it, to buy, and hence create a market demand for food.

Nobel Prize winning economist, Amartya Sen is one of the foremost spokespersons on global hunger and poverty. His book, written with Jean Dreze, Hunger and Public Action, is one of the most comprehensive studies of hunger yet written. In this address, Sen summarizes the major points of the book. There are, he says, two types of hunger: famine and endemic depravation-- the daily lack of sufficient food. Famine, while receiving the most attention, is less prevalent that the largely hidden endemic hunger from which some one billion people suffer. While the problem of hunger is widespread, Sen warns about being pessimistic. People are hungry, says Sen, because they lose their entitlement to food--they lack either the land to grow food, the money to buy it, or access to state programs of food or wage distribution. With the will, he says, no one needs to go hungry. Among the most important features necessary to prevent hunger, he says, is a democratic (and thereby accountable) government and a free press that publicizes the threat of hunger.

Vandana Shiva, founder Director of the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology in New Delhi comprised one of the BBC's Reith Lecture series. She argues that, contrary to popular opinion, it is the small farmer that feeds the world. But, she says, the small farmer is being destroyed, driven into poverty by the spread of corporate agriculture and the introduction of genetically engineered crops. What is also being destroyed, she says, is an agricultural method that is sustainable and more efficient. She also points out that it is women who are at the center of this sustainable agriculture and who are being systematically driven into poverty.

Ignacio Ramonet argues that world hunger is a political problem that arises from the uneven distribution of wealth. Citing a UN report, Ramonet points out that "the whole of the world population's basic needs for food, drinking water, education and medical care could be covered by a levy of less than 4 % on the accumulated wealth of the 225 largest fortunes. To satisfy all the world's sanitation and food requirements would cost only $13 billion, hardly as much as the people of the United States and the European Union spend each year on perfume."

Starting to get it yet, Jon? Want to tell me again what the "causes of global hunger" are?

Of course not Nessie but will they ever listen?
WE no better. Only time and the illumination of the truth will reveal the mistakes for what they are.

Self defense is when you put up your dukes, watch for the jab and then block it and after finding out where the jab came from striking back with a swift uppercut.

Self defense is not flying half way around the world bombing a people wh had no representatives on the planse that were flown into the buildings on 9/11.
Self defense is scanning bags for bombs and actually implementing or properly using smart means of observing and gathering intelligence.

Read:
http://www.notbored.org/change.html




I didn't see any afghani names on the lists did you?

For all we know Bin Laden is hanging out in Italy.



Odds

- Of dying in an auto accident: 1 in 7,000
- Of dying of heart disease: 1 in 400
- Of dying from cancer: 1 in 600
- Of dying in a terrorist-caused shopping mall disaster if you shopped two hours each week and terrorists destroyed one mall per week: 1 in 1,500,000
- Of dying in a terrorist caused plane disaster if you flew once a month and terrorists hijacked one plane a week: 1 in 135,000
- Chance of dying of as a result of the current anthrax attacks: 1 in 55,000,000

[Michael L. Rothschild, professor emeritus, University of Wisconsin]

http://prorev.com/indexa.htm#top