Negotiation began Friday to free 21 Korean Humanitarian aid workers held by the Taliban.
There were 23, but the Taliban killed 2 of them. Most of the rest are young women.
A Taliban negotiator said he "...sees no difference between the Korean hostages and Taliban members held in prisons..."
No difference? How he can see no difference between Humanitarian aid workers and *MURDERERS* is beyond me.
But then, I'm not a Raghead...
As it happens, the Taliban has gone from being an oppressive, theocratic regime (think: Pat Robertson in a turban) to being a lawless gang of murderous thugs.
We invaded their country and started in to put them out of business because they aided and abetted the criminal, bin Laden.
Why are they still a problem? Because Bush let them go and then drove alienated Muslims into their arms, giving them fresh strength.
How a ?Good War? in Afghanistan Went Bad
And I'm sure it's a big help that we display our respect and friendship for the peoples of the Middle East by calling them "ragheads."
Gee, you think if we stopped calling them ragheads, they'd be our pals, chums, pardners, friends? Think again. Call them pigs if you like, but it would only insult that noble animal. If you've forgotten, nineteen of these folks from the middle east gave us a wake up call almost six years ago, in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.
We invaded their country? They took the country by force and held the citizens basically as hostages. The government was unable to fend of the attacks and succumbed.
My respect of people in the Middle East is rapidly waning, and I don't call all Muslims "Ragheads".
I only call Ragheads "Ragheads".
Most Liberals have forgotten this fact and want to extend the Olive Branch to them.
Ask 21 Korean hostages, who *did* extend the Olive Branch to the Muslims how they feel about it now.
It would have been 23, but one of them was ill, and was put to death. They still haven't explained why the other one was put to death, but I have a feeling it has something to do with being a Christian minister...
Really? Which liberals are those? You're going to need a pretty long list of examples to satisfy your own use of the word "Most."
They didn't "extend the Olive Branch to the Muslims," they went to Afghanistan to minister to Afghanis. And, most likely, to convert them.
Ahhh... then I'm sure that all the other Afghanis, Pakistanis, Iraqis, Iranians, Syrians, Egyptians, etc, etc, etc, are fully in tune with your fine disctintion and take no offense.
No, the Taliban WAS the government. Its level of popular support and precise legitimacy was probably open to question but the nature of their government was the Afghanis own problem (see: self-determination), until they supported a terrorist who attacked us.
I see no one's addressing why the Taliban is still able to harass the Afghani people.
SOME Afghanis, SOME Iranians, SOME Syrians, etc, etc, ARE our friends. I don't see any point to pissing them off, too, but alienating people does seem to be an important cornerstone of Bush Foreign Policy.
I remember. A mix of Saudis and Egyptians, as I recall, supported by an organization originating in Saudi Arabia, relocated to Afghanistan.
To those unable, or unwilling, to admit the truth; it's called "divided attention".
It's also called "helping the Taliban by causing too many civilian deaths", according to the grownup news sources.
And neither should have, or would have, been a problem if our military resources had been properly and efficiently directed at the sole problem at that time.
More and more each page I read of Nasr, the reality of just how much this administration screwed up becomes clear.
An observation, Joe. Most non-fiction reads have the material become lighter as you go on. His book becomes meatier, and slower to read. Agreed?
Agreed. Now, maybe you can convince dbu to read it. He made a fuss because the author says the book's not meant as a historical study, but since it contains historical info, it's the author's opinion, or some bullshit excuse like that.
As much as I believe, and still do, that many authors have a bias ax to grind, this one has none. The more you read of it, it becomes clear that his sole motive is to inform.
He is almost without peer in writing skills.
That leaves the other excuse, "they're just trying to sell books". Not sure if that one came from dbu or one of the others whose goal in life is ignorance.
The Taliban was NOT the government in 1947.
After years of attacks the Muslim government finally had to give up and surrender to the Ragheads that took the country by force.
Because they are terrorists and make up the rules as they go along.
Especially targeting women and children at things like the Harry Potter book release. Among other 'opportunities'.
So, tell me, who's targeting the women and children?
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.