krs
|
posted on October 31, 2001 10:46:25 PM new
http://bangpound.org/afghanwirephotos/index.htm
|
rachelcrisscross
|
posted on October 31, 2001 10:49:26 PM new
I feel very sad...
And angry...
|
pwolf
|
posted on October 31, 2001 10:58:55 PM new
What shall we do, krs?
|
autarchic
|
posted on October 31, 2001 11:02:20 PM new
Yes,
What is the answer krs?
We all await.
More propaganda?
|
rachelcrisscross
|
posted on October 31, 2001 11:16:38 PM new
I'm not buying anything...
|
internationalgolf
|
posted on November 1, 2001 02:08:44 AM new
Awwwwwww... they look just like their daddies to me.
|
rarriffle
|
posted on November 1, 2001 02:14:18 AM new
how many children were in those stores at the bottom of the trade center? we don't have pictures of those little bodies though.
JMHO
|
breinhold
|
posted on November 1, 2001 04:53:17 AM new
There was no humanity left at the world trade center to take photographs of. Your propaganda sickens me.
|
carolinas
|
posted on November 1, 2001 04:58:08 AM new
what's even more sickening is the Taliban probably did this and NOT the coalition...
|
scrabblegod
|
posted on November 1, 2001 05:16:57 AM new
I sure will miss KRS with his strictly bi-partisian politics. Nothing like the ability to see and call it right down the center.
|
saabsister
|
posted on November 1, 2001 06:16:57 AM new
Why do you (collective "you" ) think krs has to supply the answer? What's your answer? The photos aren't of the perpetrators of the attacks on the WTC or Pentagon? And they aren't all from Al-Jezeera.
ed. to get rid of errant smilie
[ edited by saabsister on Nov 1, 2001 06:21 AM ]
|
breinhold
|
posted on November 1, 2001 06:32:56 AM new
I never ask for an answer. I just said the propaganda made me sick. its pointless.we were attacked and still are being attacked. we are only weeks into the war. a war that began on our soil killing our people. posting some American children who's parents will never come home from the trade center is more appropriate.
|
krs
|
posted on November 1, 2001 06:37:16 AM new
Not only that but how is it that there is such a widespread collective antagonism toward the Taliban and the Afgani people amongst the people of this country. Neither of them committed the WTC attack. Yet this country wars against Taliban and for this Northern Alliance in a civil and internal matter under the banner of 'get those terrorists!' Has this Alliance promised to turn over Bin Laden? Or has this country forgotten about him--the PROBABLE perpetrator of the WTC attack?
What a fine job of brainwashing propaganda that took to accomplish. Today, in response to the complaint of this 'Alliance' that our bombers have been too weak, US B-52 bombers are laying waste to great areas of Afganistan and it's INNOCENT people.
The taliban have a horrific human rights record, by western standards. No doubt of that. Do we bomb into nirvanha countries whose internal mechanisms do not jibe with ours? Oh, THEY refused to turn over bin laden, so that makes them terrorists too! Impeccable logic, unless they couldn't give up Bin Laden if they wanted to do so. It appears that he runs THEM, not the other way around, he is allowed there because they're afraid of him. Whether that is true or not, how is it that we judge them in this mocked up "war"?
|
antiquary
|
posted on November 1, 2001 07:59:03 AM new
As I've said before, I'm no pacificist, and I believe that bin Laden and his groups should be taken out. But as I've watched the war and the hype surrounding it, I've become more convinced with time that passes that its goal is at least as much political and economic (oil) as it is to seek justice.
I'm also more concerned with shoring up our internal safety than in trying to achieve world domination of terrorism, a quixotic goal.
|
outoftheblue
|
posted on November 1, 2001 08:33:43 AM new
Awwwwwww... they look just like their daddies to me.
Now that's sickening!
|
outoftheblue
|
posted on November 1, 2001 08:55:12 AM new
"What shall we do, krs?"
That's really not the point. If you can't feel compassion for the victims both here and in Afganistan they you have really lost your humanity.
Even though I don't agree with everything he says I have to respect KRS for calling this to our attention.
Go ahead. Flame a way with your own propaganda.
|
NearTheSea
|
posted on November 1, 2001 09:08:18 AM new
And the Taliban do not use any propaganda?
[email protected]
|
internationalgolf
|
posted on November 1, 2001 09:25:32 AM new
"The Taliban Can"
Candyman Redux
(sung to the tune of that great 60s hit "Candy Man" by Sammy Davis Jr.)
Who can ban a necktie,
wrapped around a man
having colored lips and nail polish on his hand,
The Taliban can!
The Taliban can,
cause he mixes it with love
and says they're orders from above.
Who can swipe a chessboard?
Blast all Buddhas from the land?
Ban all movies, human hair and T.V. everywhere,
The Taliban can!
The Taliban can,
cause he mixes it with love
and says they're orders from above.
Who can shoot a Christian?
Explode a Jew or two?
"Pray" eight times a day with a rifle and grenade,
The Taliban can!
The Taliban can,
cause he mixes it with love
and says they're orders from above.
Who knows how to dress a lady,
so she never gets a tan?
Mutilate a woman-who-accident'ly touched a man?
The Taliban can!
The Taliban can,
cause he mixes it with love
and says they're orders from above.
|
krs
|
posted on November 1, 2001 09:26:34 AM new
What difference does that make? When did taliban become the enemy? I THOUGHT he said that this is a war on terrorism, and there's been no evidence presented that these Taliban have committed a single terrorist act against the US or against any other place or people.
But "they will pay a price". What price? Total destruction of the country?
Why is the United States involved in their civil war? What does the United States hope to gain from that? Bin Laden? Isn't he supposed to be the bad guy?
You have been adroitly manipulated into changing your perceived enemy. First Bin Laden. No, the Taliban. Maybe Iraq (surprise!). Now this or that unpronouncable place. Next Pakistan. Who else?
Are all these targets suddenly terrorists? Who makes the selection? Germany harbors terrorists, Canada does, England does, WE do,--what nation does or has not harbored terrorists? Why not bomb them too?
|
uaru
|
posted on November 1, 2001 09:30:55 AM new
krs Germany harbors terrorists, Canada, does, England does...
You should learn the meaning of harbors or find a different news source.
|
chococake
|
posted on November 1, 2001 09:34:26 AM new
How stupid can we get? The dropped food packages are the same color as cluster bombs?
Unbelievable!
|
NearTheSea
|
posted on November 1, 2001 09:57:42 AM new
It is a war on terrorism, and if I remember right, the Taliban were asked to hand over bin Laden, and they refused. Now why would they refuse if they didn't have him in their country, and it is bin Ladens country now, since the Saudis kicked him out.
Personally I think it was Iraq, or Iraq had a big hand in all of it.
[email protected]
|
REAMOND
|
posted on November 1, 2001 10:05:10 AM new
The Taliban is a legitimate target. The Taliban has in the past and still actively supports bin Laden and crew.
Civilians die in war, which will include woman and children.
Afghanistan has lost more civilians due to the Taliban than to US bombing, and the US has lost more civilians than any unintentional civilian losses due to US bombing.
No matter how lame and irrational the conspiracy theory may be that anyone may come up with, the fact is that the terrorists and those that support them have declared war on us and have already killed 5000 civilians.
Our military takes steps beyond what any military force has done in the history of warfare not to intentionally harm non-combatants. Because of this, the U.S. Military has my consent, blessing and full support to prosecute this war with extreme violence and overwhelming force for as long as it takes.
[ edited by REAMOND on Nov 1, 2001 10:07 AM ]
|
hjw
|
posted on November 1, 2001 10:27:43 AM new
The Taliban is not a legitimate target. Bin Laden has supported the Taliban government but not as you indicate. The Taliban government cannot even support itself.
Furthermore, you are wrong to focus solely on bin Laden. Terrorism works as a network. It doesn't have a certain person as it's head.
Helen
|
REAMOND
|
posted on November 1, 2001 10:33:14 AM new
You're in a dream, time to wake up.
It is irrelevant if bin Laden supports or props up the Taliban or the opposite. It is two sides of the same coin regardless and means that both must be destroyed.
But I do agree that bin Laden is just the start of irradicatiing terrorists and not the end, as there are several more countries and groups that will be dealt with.
[ edited by REAMOND on Nov 1, 2001 10:33 AM ]
|
outoftheblue
|
posted on November 1, 2001 10:36:58 AM new
"extreme violence and overwhelming force"
Isn't that the way intelligent people everywere should solve their problems? I believe that's called mob mentality..
[ edited by outoftheblue on Nov 1, 2001 10:39 AM ]
|
REAMOND
|
posted on November 1, 2001 10:38:04 AM new
It is the way intellegent people prosecute a war.
I guess 5000 civilians murdered here in the U.S. is just a "problem" to some.
To intellegent people it is an act of war.
...
[ edited by REAMOND on Nov 1, 2001 10:39 AM ]
|
outoftheblue
|
posted on November 1, 2001 10:42:01 AM new
I believe it's actually called herd mentality. There's nothing intelligent about it!
|
REAMOND
|
posted on November 1, 2001 10:46:31 AM new
The only herd mentality is on the side of your friends the Taliban.
|
krs
|
posted on November 1, 2001 10:52:28 AM new
That's intelligent, I think, Reamond, and how many wars have you prosecuted?
|
