🚀 go-pugleaf

"trebor@sirius.com.no.more" <user@example.com>

> The "improvements" we see are entirely in the big cities where there is
> an American presence, and don't include the uncomfortable unimprovements
> such as the assassination of government officials in broad daylight,
> something which wouldn't have happened under the Taliban.

Better to have the public execution of women, eh?

> But of course, the question isn't who's nicer, the Taliban or the
> Northern Alliance. Remember that the Taliban came to be thanks to the
> cruelty of the Northern Alliance (whom we have just put back into
> power).
>
> The question is whether or not our actions in Afghanistan were an
> effective response to 9/11. Well, you tell me: we killed more Afghan
> civilians (who had no dog in this fight) than Al Qaeda killed ours, and
> we never did catch any of the bad guys.

Guantanamo Bay is full of them.  What are the civilian casualty figures
caused by the US in Afghanistan since September 11 anyway?

> It's sad in a shake-your-head kind of way when our biggest
> accomplishment so far is parading around some stupid rich kid from Marin
> and a French Moroccan who doesn't know what pleading guilty means.

Yeah 'cause we all know that all REAL terrorists are ragheads, right?

The US killed a shitload of German citizens in WWII.  Certainly more German
civilians were killed than American civilians, eh?

I'm not trying to insult you personally, but I think guys like you were the
type in the northern states that protested the civil war after the first
battle of Bull Run or even Gettysburg.  The target was the Taliban and
terrorist networks it harbored who undeniably got their asses kicked.  There
will surely be more targets.  To say that's a sad shake of the head would be
like saying "Well, we landed the troops at Normandy and liberated France,
but the war is STILL GOING ON, isn't it?  I TOLD YOU IT WAS A BAD IDEA!..."

-gatt