US Embassy in Kabul Under Attack

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Look who is calling the kettle black. They are freedom fighters like the Libyan rebels, only anti-American.

If they are freedom fighters, which is stretching a point even for you, then their legitimate targets would be the troops that are 'oppressing' them, not the civilian diplomats in a foreign embassy. Your analogy, I am very much afraid, is a pile of wank.

Babies are legitimate targets in Gawd's mind (what there is of it).

[Audley Strange]

Gawd's right in one respect, the Taliban fight freedom wherever they might find it. Besides, they are not the government of Afghanistan which, by his imaginings on Government representation, should make them pro American or something?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Gawd's right in one respect, the Taliban fight freedom wherever they might find it. Besides, they are not the government of Afghanistan which, by his imaginings on Government representation, should make them pro American or something?

They fight for the freedom to live in the 8th Century.

[Audley Strange]

How very Sci-fi of them.

[Gawd]

Look who is calling the kettle black. They are freedom fighters like the Libyan rebels, only anti-American.

If they are freedom fighters, which is stretching a point even for you, then their legitimate targets would be the troops that are 'oppressing' them, not the civilian diplomats in a foreign embassy. Your analogy, I am very much afraid, is a pile of wank.

Babies are legitimate targets in Gawd's mind (what there is of it).

Hitler was a baby.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

And baby Hitler didn't hurt anybody. It was only when he went to your school that he learned enough hate to slaughter millions.

[Seth]

Gawd's right in one respect, the Taliban fight freedom wherever they might find it. Besides, they are not the government of Afghanistan which, by his imaginings on Government representation, should make them pro American or something?

They fight for the freedom to live in the 8th Century.

Which is fine, we should let them. In fact we should INSIST that they do so.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Gawd's right in one respect, the Taliban fight freedom wherever they might find it. Besides, they are not the government of Afghanistan which, by his imaginings on Government representation, should make them pro American or something?

They fight for the freedom to live in the 8th Century.

Which is fine, we should let them. In fact we should INSIST that they do so.

But they want everybody to live there.

[Seth]

Gawd's right in one respect, the Taliban fight freedom wherever they might find it. Besides, they are not the government of Afghanistan which, by his imaginings on Government representation, should make them pro American or something?

They fight for the freedom to live in the 8th Century.

Which is fine, we should let them. In fact we should INSIST that they do so.

But they want everybody to live there.

That we can fix. Just bomb them back to the 8th century and every time they stick their heads up, bomb them right back there again till they get the message. No ground troops, just satellite imagery, JDAMs and Hellfires and napalm applied indiscriminately to any visible evidence of technology beyond the 8th century, without warning.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You should have your testosterone levels checked, or lay off the steroids, you pick'em

[JimC]

Look who is calling the kettle black. They are freedom fighters like the Libyan rebels, only anti-American.

Sure, but they're Taliban rebels. They are our enemy, and they are the enemy of the current, Parliamentary Democratic, government of Afghanistan, and the goal of the Taliban is to install another theocracy, like before 2002. So, in this case, the rebels are the bad guys. In Libya, the rebels are supposedly looking to throw off a 40 year dictator, and install a more representative system of government. To the extent those rebels in Libya want a theocracy too, then they will be opposed by the West.

Agreed with major reservations. The agreement is basically that the Taliban are vicious, fundamentalist arseholes, not "freedom fighters", no doubt whatsover.

The disagreement is this: "the current, Parliamentary Democratic, government of Afghanistan" are a bunch of rabidly corrupt and evil arseholes too. The US has this weird habit of ending up siding with appalling corrupt regimes; various South Vietnam governments, anyone?

Time to go, folks, and leave them stew in their own juices.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[Coito ergo sum]

Agreed with major reservations. The agreement is basically that the Taliban are vicious, fundamentalist arseholes, not "freedom fighters", no doubt whatsover.

The disagreement is this: "the current, Parliamentary Democratic, government of Afghanistan" are a bunch of rabidly corrupt and evil arseholes too. The US has this weird habit of ending up siding with appalling corrupt regimes; various South Vietnam governments, anyone?

Sure, but the U.S. is attempting to fix that, and leave Afghanistan with some semblance of a rational representative government. That is what the Obama Administration is trying to do, isn't it?

The U.S. sided with the South in Vietnam, yes, but plainly, if it was appropriate to pick a side, I'd pick that side too, over the appalling corrupt regime that was in the North at the time.

Time to go, folks, and leave them stew in their own juices.

International law - the Geneva Convention - doesn't allow that -- there's a "you break it, you fix it" rule in the Geneva Conventions, for the protection of civilians in times of war. You can't just bomb the fuck out of countries and let the civilians pick up the pieces. That would be illegal.

[Seth]

Agreed with major reservations. The agreement is basically that the Taliban are vicious, fundamentalist arseholes, not "freedom fighters", no doubt whatsover.

The disagreement is this: "the current, Parliamentary Democratic, government of Afghanistan" are a bunch of rabidly corrupt and evil arseholes too. The US has this weird habit of ending up siding with appalling corrupt regimes; various South Vietnam governments, anyone?

Sure, but the U.S. is attempting to fix that, and leave Afghanistan with some semblance of a rational representative government. That is what the Obama Administration is trying to do, isn't it?

The U.S. sided with the South in Vietnam, yes, but plainly, if it was appropriate to pick a side, I'd pick that side too, over the appalling corrupt regime that was in the North at the time.

Time to go, folks, and leave them stew in their own juices.

International law - the Geneva Convention - doesn't allow that -- there's a "you break it, you fix it" rule in the Geneva Conventions, for the protection of civilians in times of war. You can't just bomb the fuck out of countries and let the civilians pick up the pieces. That would be illegal.

Really? Please cite that provision.

[laklak]

Two words - nuclear fucking weapons.