🚀 go-pugleaf

"gatt" <gatt@hevanet.com> wrote:

>"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?

While I deplore capital punishment, of course lawful execution is not as
bad as assassination.

>> 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.

Guantanamo Bay is full of low ranking foot soldiers who did what they
were told on a day to day basis, with no need to know into next week.
For those who actually ever saw Osama Bin Ladin, it must have been like
an office receptionist getting a glimpse of the CEO as he walks into an
elevator surrounded by VPs.

>What are the civilian casualty figures caused by the US in Afghanistan
>since September 11 anyway?

We're ahead by a few hundred, apparently.

>> 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?

No, but because THOSE TWO certainly aren't the real terrorists.

>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

Of course you're trying to insult me. At least be honest.

For the record, I'm no flower-waving pacifist. I just don't think
America's "war" on terrorism has effective at anything but setting up a
smokescreen for this administration's lack of clue.