• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Dozens killed in Kabul Bombing

MadRat

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
11,665
46
91
The Taliban did not beat the Soviets by themselves, they were a splinter group that consolidated power afterwards.
 

The Green Bean

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2003
6,506
7
81
Originally posted by: MadRat
The Taliban did not beat the Soviets by themselves, they were a splinter group that consolidated power afterwards.
That was said by a British conscript serving in Afghanistan. Pretty scary aint it?
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
Originally posted by: Nebor
Any Americans killed?

They don't say . . .

Provincial governor Mohammad Alam Ishaaqzai said 50 civilians had been killed in the blast and five parliamentarians, including opposition spokesman Mostafa Kazemi, were among the dead. Many schoolchildren had also been killed, he said.

A deputy agriculture minister and prominent woman parliamentarian Shukria Barakzai were among the wounded.

Baghlan's intelligence chief, Abdurrahman Sayedkhail, said the number of casualties was so high it was impossible to give an accurate number for now.

"I saw bodies lying in the streets and some of the people were stealing the weapons of the dead soldiers. Children are screaming for help. It's like a nightmare," said local resident Mohammad Rahim who said the blast had killed his two cousins, both schoolgirls.
From Reuters
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
Afghanistan has not had any stable government since about 1937. And Kabul is about the only place where there is any semblance of a government. The rest of the country is basically divided into a set of private fiefdoms only partly under control. And those in control of private fiefdoms perpetuate their power by resisting any central government.

I tend to think of Afghanistan as Iraq without oil and hence has a lower priority. As long as the problems don't threaten the USA, its a who cares about building an Afghani nation.

Sad to say, what taliban rule brought say circa 1/2001, was far closer to a nation than we have now.
 

The Green Bean

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2003
6,506
7
81
Originally posted by: Lemon law

Sad to say, what taliban rule brought say circa 1/2001, was far closer to a nation than we have now.
Yes it is very sad. NATO needs far more troops in Afghanistan. Isn't it ridiculous that Afghan cities have been falling into taliban hands and Bush is considering attacks on Pakistani Taliban and full scale war with Iran. Needless to say that they will never be able to hold even half of Iran at any given time unless they increase their military presence to close to 3-4 million+ and be prepared for American casualties in the hundreds of thousands.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
30,262
3,799
126
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Originally posted by: Lemon law

Sad to say, what taliban rule brought say circa 1/2001, was far closer to a nation than we have now.
Yes it is very sad. NATO needs far more troops in Afghanistan. Isn't it ridiculous that Afghan cities have been falling into taliban hands and Bush is considering attacks on Pakistani Taliban and full scale war with Iran. Needless to say that they will never be able to hold even half of Iran at any given time unless they increase their military presence to close to 3-4 million+ and be prepared for American casualties in the hundreds of thousands.
The more unstable your government is in Pakistan, the more likely it is that we act.
 

The Green Bean

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2003
6,506
7
81
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Originally posted by: Lemon law

Sad to say, what taliban rule brought say circa 1/2001, was far closer to a nation than we have now.
Yes it is very sad. NATO needs far more troops in Afghanistan. Isn't it ridiculous that Afghan cities have been falling into taliban hands and Bush is considering attacks on Pakistani Taliban and full scale war with Iran. Needless to say that they will never be able to hold even half of Iran at any given time unless they increase their military presence to close to 3-4 million+ and be prepared for American casualties in the hundreds of thousands.
The more unstable your government is in Pakistan, the more likely it is that we act.
The more that likely that you act the more likely we are to tell you that you can not use our airspace anymore and can not use supply routes through Pakistan.
 

Andyb23

Senior member
Oct 27, 2006
501
0
0
What is Pakistan doing to help this situation? Nothing. They are in fact funding these fundies who are bombing everyone.

Don't feign concern for the Afghans, Pakistan has treated Afghans like a punching bag for years.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Friggin jihadi wackos.
Sound like you are talking about GWB&co who have weapons of mass destruction and will use them to create conditions of anarchy that destabilize neighboring nations and create terrorism. Which in turn motivates more GWB jihadism.

Its just GWB does not like the word Jihad to be applied to his necon religion, and instead calls his created anarchy democracy and his own paid terrorists freedom fighters.

Labeling words are funny things that carry flavorful initial assumptions.

What the deed amounts to is far more telling.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Friggin jihadi wackos.
Sound like you are talking about GWB&co who have weapons of mass destruction and will use them to create conditions of anarchy that destabilize neighboring nations and create terrorism. Which in turn motivates more GWB jihadism.

Its just GWB does not like the word Jihad to be applied to his necon religion, and instead calls his created anarchy democracy and his own paid terrorists freedom fighters.

Labeling words are funny things that carry flavorful initial assumptions.

What the deed amounts to is far more telling.
So you're trying to claim that the jihadis had nothing to do with this? Or are you just making another pathetic apologetic attempt at deflection?
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
TLC asks-------So you're trying to claim that the jihadis had nothing to do with this? Or are you just making another pathetic apologetic attempt at deflection?

Many look with scorn at Muslim extremists as a horrible aggressive force running a muck and destroying the civilized world. And try to attach the work Jihad to a force of radical Muslims who use force to impose their will on neighboring countries in the name of their own religion and culture.

But when you look at the broader 400 year past history, its been the Europeans and now the United States, that better fit the definitions of a Christian Jihad.

And now we see somewhat rightists elements of the Islamic faith seeking to expel Western interests and reimpose their own original cultures. And by in large, the Muslim stops at the borders of their own countries.

Meanwhile the Christian jihadists fight like hell to keep imposing their wills on foreign countries.

Now which jihadi type is more wacko aggressive TLC? The Christian or Muslin type? I submit its Christians like GWB&co.
 

Andyb23

Senior member
Oct 27, 2006
501
0
0
Originally posted by: Lemon law
TLC asks-------So you're trying to claim that the jihadis had nothing to do with this? Or are you just making another pathetic apologetic attempt at deflection?

Many look with scorn at Muslim extremists as a horrible aggressive force running a muck and destroying the civilized world. And try to attach the work Jihad to a force of radical Muslims who use force to impose their will on neighboring countries in the name of their own religion and culture.

But when you look at the broader 400 year past history, its been the Europeans and now the United States, that better fit the definitions of a Christian Jihad.

And now we see somewhat rightists elements of the Islamic faith seeking to expel Western interests and reimpose their own original cultures. And by in large, the Muslim stops at the borders of their own countries.

Meanwhile the Christian jihadists fight like hell to keep imposing their wills on foreign countries.

Now which jihadi type is more wacko aggressive TLC? The Christian or Muslin type? I submit its Christians like GWB&co.
The West isn't trying to impose their wills, they are trying to impose democracy. Democracy is an ancient concept that has been used in some form or manner in South Asia in the past. So it isn't all that foreign.

Democracy is better for everyone. The situation in Pakistan would not be nearly as bad if there was democracy.

 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,522
3,628
126
Originally posted by: Andyb23
Originally posted by: Lemon law
TLC asks-------So you're trying to claim that the jihadis had nothing to do with this? Or are you just making another pathetic apologetic attempt at deflection?

Many look with scorn at Muslim extremists as a horrible aggressive force running a muck and destroying the civilized world. And try to attach the work Jihad to a force of radical Muslims who use force to impose their will on neighboring countries in the name of their own religion and culture.

But when you look at the broader 400 year past history, its been the Europeans and now the United States, that better fit the definitions of a Christian Jihad.

And now we see somewhat rightists elements of the Islamic faith seeking to expel Western interests and reimpose their own original cultures. And by in large, the Muslim stops at the borders of their own countries.

Meanwhile the Christian jihadists fight like hell to keep imposing their wills on foreign countries.

Now which jihadi type is more wacko aggressive TLC? The Christian or Muslin type? I submit its Christians like GWB&co.
The West isn't trying to impose their wills, they are trying to impose democracy. Democracy is an ancient concept that has been used in some form or manner in South Asia in the past. So it isn't all that foreign.

Democracy is better for everyone. The situation in Pakistan would not be nearly as bad if there was democracy.
I'm a big fan of Democracy, but have a hard time making sense of the bolded section. Imposing Democracy, in this case, is the same as imposing Will. It is not the What that's being imposed, it is the Who.
 

The Green Bean

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2003
6,506
7
81
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Andyb23
Originally posted by: Lemon law
TLC asks-------So you're trying to claim that the jihadis had nothing to do with this? Or are you just making another pathetic apologetic attempt at deflection?

Many look with scorn at Muslim extremists as a horrible aggressive force running a muck and destroying the civilized world. And try to attach the work Jihad to a force of radical Muslims who use force to impose their will on neighboring countries in the name of their own religion and culture.

But when you look at the broader 400 year past history, its been the Europeans and now the United States, that better fit the definitions of a Christian Jihad.

And now we see somewhat rightists elements of the Islamic faith seeking to expel Western interests and reimpose their own original cultures. And by in large, the Muslim stops at the borders of their own countries.

Meanwhile the Christian jihadists fight like hell to keep imposing their wills on foreign countries.

Now which jihadi type is more wacko aggressive TLC? The Christian or Muslin type? I submit its Christians like GWB&co.
The West isn't trying to impose their wills, they are trying to impose democracy. Democracy is an ancient concept that has been used in some form or manner in South Asia in the past. So it isn't all that foreign.

Democracy is better for everyone. The situation in Pakistan would not be nearly as bad if there was democracy.
I'm a big fan of Democracy, but have a hard time making sense of the bolded section. Imposing Democracy, in this case, is the same as imposing Will. It is not the What that's being imposed, it is the Who.
:thumbsup:
 

The Green Bean

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2003
6,506
7
81
Originally posted by: Andyb23
What is Pakistan doing to help this situation? Nothing. They are in fact funding these fundies who are bombing everyone.

Don't feign concern for the Afghans, Pakistan has treated Afghans like a punching bag for years.
That's not quite true. We've taken a huge hit because of Afghanistan over the years with so much instability there. There are probably still more than a million Afghan refugees in Pakistan. We treat them better than America treats illegal Mexicans.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY