posted on July 17, 2002 04:53:54 PM new
According to the BBC the total was 3800 and that was stated as a conservative figure.
My response was to nearthesea who asked about a civilian death count. It is not pertinent to the topic of this thread.
posted on July 17, 2002 05:00:01 PM new
Were not the British the U.S. allies in this?
Not one Brit dropped a bomb there?
seriously, I don't know that for a fact, I do know they were there, and with the U.S. But did they do any of the bombings?
If they did, only IF, then could it be possible, even remotely so, that they could have killed some civilians also. And this link, or news story came from the BBC saying the Americans did all this.
posted on July 17, 2002 05:37:13 PM newLISTEN: I'M GOING TO TELL IT TO YOU ONE MORE TIME. THE AFGHANI PEOPLE DID NOT BOMB US NOR DO THEY HATE US OR TEACH THEIR KIDS TO HATE US. ONLY A MONSTER WOULD GLEEFULLY COMPARE THE SLAUGHTER OF INNOCENT CHILDREN AS RETRIBUTION FOR AN ACT AGAINST US THAT THESE CHILDREN NOR THEIR PARENTS EVER COMMITTED. IT IS INHUMANE TO COMPARE THEIR SUFFERING TO A STANDARD OF LIVING SO LOW THAT IT CANNOT BE IMAGINED BY AMERICANS. WE ARE THERE NOW AND WE HAVE BEEN THERE FOR MONTHS. THEREFORE, WHAT GOES ON DOES INVOLVE US AND AS WE CONTINUE TO KILL AND IMPOVERISH ALREADY DECIMATED POPULATIONS IN AFGHANISTAN. WE CAN NOT AVOID OUR RESPONSIBILITY NOW SO LONG AS WE ARE THERE AND HAVE OBLIGATIONS TO THOSE PEOPLE. THEY DID NOT CAUSE THE WAR ON TERRORISM, THEY DID NOT BOMB THE USS COLE, THEY DID NOT BOMB OUR EMBASSIES, THEY DID NOT DECLARE A JIHAD AGAINST US AND THE WEST, THEY ARE INNOCENT OF ALL THAT AND YET YOU DEHUMNIZE THOSE INNOCENT PEOPLE. *SHAME ON YOU!*
posted on July 17, 2002 06:48:13 PM new
Um.. Borillar? The 3000 Americans that died on 9/11 didn't have a damn thing to do with US Foreign policy either. They didn't hate Afghani's and I sure doubt most of them even knew the name Osama. As for teaching kids to hate non-Muslims and specifically Americans, well yes they do. And it is well documented that is precisely what goes on in their so-called schools. They sure as hell aren't learning reading, writing, and arithmetric. There is a reason WHY these Arab countries are living in the dark ages, poverty stricken in third world conditions, and left behind by the rest of the industrialized (and civilized) world. That reason is because they insist on being governed by their Islamic religion. The way they "teach" Islam promotes hate, backwardness, discrimination, and lack of modern inventiveness. There is not one, NOT ONE Arab country that is not mired in chaos and corruption.
Afhanistan suffered the consequences of THEIR own choices. Unfortunate for them, certainly, but that is what happens when a country turns to Islam and tribal feudalism as a form of governance.
They are innocent of nothing. And we have no responsiblity for them other than to show them how to govern themselves successfully democratically. Frankly, I have my doubts because I don't believe there is any such thing as "secular" Islam and they as are the other Arab countries that insist on this form of government are doomed.
posted on July 17, 2002 06:50:58 PM new
Oh I forgot...they deserved every damn bomb dropped on them. They should get down on their knees and thank Allah that we didn't nuke them. Next time we will.
posted on July 17, 2002 07:45:15 PM new
Okay, Helen. So Bush is gearing up to deal with Saddam/Iraq.
Saddam has repeatedly engaged in ethnic cleansing and committed genocide on his own people. He pays families a huge sum to send children on suicide missions aimed at killing Israeli civilians. He is actively developing biological and nuclear weapons of mass destruction.
I ask you seriously. Do you see a problem with Saddam? If so, how do you suggest we deal with him, if at all?
posted on July 17, 2002 08:37:15 PM new
While you're thinking about that, let me discuss a little.
Before the Gulf War, we gave Iraq every chance to remove Saddam from power. They either chose not to, or were unable to do so. It's kind of like what's happening with the Palestinians today. They're being offered the chance to deal with the U.S., but they must renounce Arafat.
Whatever else he may have done (leaving aside the fact that he is himself a bloody murderer), Arafat has failed to reign in terrorism. The Palestinians are presented with a choice. Instead of renouncing terror, Palestinians embrace Arafat as their savior. Notice how every time peace seems to be visible on the horizon, there's another bloody attack on Israeli civilians?
Okay, getting to the point now. In the case of Afghanistan, Iraq, the Palestinians, you're dealing with a corrupt and murderous government. It's like a life-threatening injury. In order to save the body, it may be necessary to amputate the injured organ. Some healthy tissue may be excised as well.
That is sad, but a fact. Nobody here relishes the death of innocent civilians. In a way, our compassion is our weakness. It's the reason Saddam, Arafat and other terrorists hide among women and children. Remember the bunker we "mistakenly" bombed during the Gulf War?
Helen, I believe your opinions are based on compassion and concern. What you seem to fail to realize is that the Taliban, Hussein and the PLO are destroying any hope for the lives of their people.
posted on July 18, 2002 04:33:59 AM new
On one hand It sure seemed like it to me that they (their leaders)
were jacking us around on bin laden.
On the other hand we are being asked to spend billions and now give up rights and give the gov lots of power and yet this pipsqueak with a feifdom to the land does not want free hearings on the event that caused it all,
stinks to high heaven.
If were are being told the truth then yes they got what they deserved.
(if we are being told the truth)
This is not a habit of people who do not want open hearings.
Last there is nothing at all stopping anyone from sending money there if they want.
posted on July 18, 2002 08:02:29 AM new
very interesting thread, mostly I plan to stay out of it, but I really felt KatyD should be corrected about one thing:
KatyD: Afghanistan is not an Arab country. Under the Taliban, it was controlled by Arab foreigners, but it's people, the ones washing the carrots, are not Arab....
posted on July 18, 2002 01:25:40 PM new
More than one thing, prof. You simply have to read KatyD's other comments in other threads to understand why she's so quick to lump everyone in Central Asia into one category of ARAB = ENEMY = KILL THEM ALL. If you stay on here long enough, you'll see what I mean when she posts her own threads.
posted on July 18, 2002 03:59:10 PM new
Nearthesea
I keep wanting to call you peeinthesea. hahaha
Anyway, What do you know about my source, Mother Jones that I don't know?
I learned from Antiquary's post recently,
""Founded in 1976, Mother Jones is an independent, nonprofit magazine whose roots lie in a commitment to social justice implemented through first-rate investigative reporting. Winner of a 2001 National Magazine Award in General Excellence, Mother Jones has been nominated for National Magazine Awards nine times and has won four times. Mother Jones has twice been named "Best in the Business" for investigative reporting by the American Journalism Review, and won the 2000 Alternative Press Award for General Excellence."
Mother Jones is one of the most respected independent magazines in the nation by journalists themselves. It is non-partisan and if one searches the archives, the search will reveal many pieces critical of democratic as well as republican administrations. The credentials of the staff are written in a heavily tongue-in-cheek style which is characteristic of those who are secure in their achievements and feel no need to attempt to elevate themselves through pompous pretensions, much like the nouveau upper-middle class who seek to distinguish themselves through ostentation.
The publisher Jay Harris is from my hometown and I have known him for about 35 years. Both he personally and the publication are ethically superior to most of the corporate-owned rags in the nation."
posted on July 18, 2002 04:44:48 PM new
Don't tell me that the same group of detractors of Mother Jones Magazine is back at it once again. Even though it was earlier this month well-established that the magazine and it's journalists have been rated top-notch and non-partisan everywhere in America from those whose opinions count to these same people, they keep on with their derisive comments against it. It is the strategy of children, who, in the onslaught of the known facts, continue their juvenile attacks on such an exemplary organization in order to tease the magazine's supporters. I urge everyone to not think about the words they use, but rather, to focus on the motive behind such behavior.
Helen: IMO, Mother Jones Magazine does not need us to defend it from people who can't read above the level of Dick and Jane books.
posted on July 18, 2002 05:18:41 PM new
I don't mind a change of topic or a humourous change of tone but this was a vicious takeover and it's not something that I will easily forget. Why would anyone make fun of a little childs problem who is not politically involved. These children are orphans working for 2 carrots a day or five cents an hour. They are without proper clothing or food and many will die of malnutrition and related diseases of poverty.
How can a poster here make fun of their plight. How can anyone be so silly to remark about the radiant color of the carrots or make the observation that maybe they had been bombed by carrots. Even a five year old child would have better sense and more compassion.
I removed the picture because I was embarrassed, not for myself but for the entire auctionwatch roundtable.
posted on July 18, 2002 05:26:21 PM new
Well Helen, you have fun then. I'm going out to dinner with hubby. It's our wedding anniversary. Should I order carrots ya think?
