Skip to main content

View Diary: Pat Tillman, GOP hero, OPPOSED the War (234 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  d00d (4.00)
    If you can't see that OBL and Al Quaeda spent a lot of quality time in afghanistan for a reason then I don't know what to tell you.

    well, if you don't know what to tell me, perhaps you should

    a) quit making assumptions
    b) read up on things a little more
    c) think before you type

    of course OBL and crew spent time in afghanistan for many reasons.  probably the same reasons that keep him and the gang in musharaff's back yard today.  why is it that musharaff is one of our erstwhile allies in the GsaveWoteverthefuckinghellitsnameisnowadays, but afghanistan - don't even try to pretend that we aren't razing the entire country under the guise of taking out the taliban - deserved to be invaded?

    Is the point of this argument that because less than 20 men came from Saudi Arabia that we should have then attacked that country?

    please see c) above.

    the fact that the hijackers were identified as saudi should have, if anything, pointed * away * from afghanistan/al qaida.  and yet, we didn't even consider invading saudi arabia because they are our oil fix friends.  see:  "bandar bush"

    and that is my point - our foreign policy, such as it is, is unabashedly biased.  

    It's just a coincidence that the government was Islamic extremist right?  The poor Taliban had no idea what was going on I'm sure.


    there is all the difference in the world between knowing what is going on and being able to do fuck all about it.  to wit:  many members of our government are well aware of shrubCo's nefarious deeds, yet shrubya still calls the white house home, halliburton keeps getting no-bid contracts, delay remains a free man, etc., etc., etfuckingcetera.

    yes, the taliban are a wretched lot.  and sure - they knew what osama was about and probably turned a blind eye.  but that does NOT - in any way, shape, or form - mean that they had the ability to apprehend him.  

    as i said above, we still haven't done so and we're the only goddamn "superpower" on the fucking planet.  yet we expected a bunch of troglodyte sheep herders and opium peddlers to accomplish in two weeks what we haven't been able to do in two years?  do you imagine that osama was just kickin' it in some kabul coffee house after the towers fell or something?  

    To get a better sense of your psyche I'm just curious... do you think military retaliation is ever justified?  and if so what kind of act would it take?  Do terrorists have carte blanche, because they don't all live in the same place?

    the idea that governments are not inherently culpable for everything that originates within their borders is not at all equivalent to giving terrorists carte blanche for being geographically diverse.

    i happen to find "retaliation," military or otherwise, a very juvenile and ineffectual approach to most any situation.  that does not mean there is no such thing as justified force or that it is impossible to wield military power effectively.  


    •  Ok... (4.00)
      1.)so, well, Pakistan is our ally, if marginally, and the ruling government of Afghanistan was not.  2.)Also, Pakistan is run by someone not entirely on the deep end of Islamic extremism like in Afghanistan.  3.)Furthermore, a huge number of al quaeda fighters were in Afghanistan.  4.)Also, Afghanistan did not show any movement to helping us in any way whatsoever and the government was composed of Islamic extremists could not be trusted to go hunt down... Islamic extremists.  5.)Pakistan has NUKES and they agreed to help us and at least kind of did.  6.)  Most importantly, terrorists being in other countries does not change the fact that there were a ton in Afghanistan, including most likely their leader, with the HELP (not gee, golly, we just don't know) of the ideoligically aligned Taliban government.  I'm sorry, but there is scale and context to everything.  Youre trying to make different situations identical.-----Yes them being Saudi does point away from Afghanistan if you look at things in the most base surface way.  Were the hijackers not al quaida somehow?  Even though Al Quaida claimed responsiblity, OBL proclaimed it on tape, and shitloads were in Afghanistan our first impulse should have been to attack the (allied) country that was on the dead guys' birth certificates?  AHHHHH, the Taliban didn't just NOT apprehend him, they helped OBL and more importantly Al Quaida generally.  Terrorism is not about one guy.  Again, if you can't see how a lawless, brutal, extreme Islamic government is not related to a bunch of guys setting up Islamic jihad camps then I truly don't know what to say at this point.  For the love of christ, I don't buy into all the "harbor terra" crap, but the reality is plain as bloody day.  Tell me that war is shite, that too many unrelated civilians were involved fine, that's all true.  Don't tell me that the Taliban was not "inherently culpable for what was going on in their borders".  Did Afghanistan accomplish anything?  who knows, probably not... but we were not unjustified for taking action there.      

      Arrogance and stupidity: it's a winning combination.

      by MatthewBrown on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 04:00:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I have to confess (4.00)
        that with the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddas and the reports of how women were being made to suffer even in Kabul once the Taliban took over, I was for some kind of action being taken against the Taliban before 9-11 occurred. The suffering that that country endured so that we could afflict the U.S.S.R. with their own "Vietnam" made the U.S. I thought, responsible for the welfare of the people of that country. Including infusions of a good part of that money that ended up being squandered in Iraq.

        "We have too many high sounding words, and too few actions that correspond with them." Abigail Adams, 1774

        by greeseyparrot on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 06:08:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And one more thing... (none)
          Who was it WE gave money and arms to so that Russia's Vietnam could take place?  Oh, yes, that's right.  OBL.  The idea of defending the poor, helpless Taliban is completely intellectually bankrupt to me.  The idea that we said, "turn him over or die" is a straw man.  If the Taliban had said, "we will be happy to help you in whatever way we can to find this guy and figure out if he was behind this because what happened to you country was awful and against the teachings of Islam," which, by the way, is essentially what Pakistan said (on a world stage where BushCo couldn't cover it up or reject it to get their war),  I am certain that we could have avoided a lot of civilian casualties.  The fact of the matter is that the Taliban chose to go to protect their buddy OBL.  I agree that there are elements of the invasion that were awful and immoral, and they get brushed aside in public discussion and debate of that conflict, and that, yes, we are the people that ought to raise those points, we lose our credibility if we aren't willing to assign blame, first and foremost, to the Taliban for their litany of atrocities.
      •  for the love of god, man.... (none)
        please use paragraphs.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site