second wave attacks

Joe R. Golowka joeG at ieee.org
Sun May 19 15:34:07 PDT 2002



> Mark Pavlick:
>
> Fact is, the Western intervention not only rid the Afghans of
> their Taliban oppressors,

And replaced them with warlord oppressors. Bush doesn't give a shit about things like human rights, he didn't attack Afghanistan because the Taliban were evil bastards. If he gave a shit about things like that he wouldn't have given them $43 million in March 2001 or support regimes like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. This is a pipeline war.


> it smashed up an open network of fanatics devoted
> to killing as many "infidels" as they could and sent them into Pakistan and
> into hiding (read Ahmed Rashid's "Taliban" and see how Afghanistan became
> the prime staging area for Islamic/Wahabbi terror).

The US is also ruled by a bunch of right-wing fanatics bent on dominating the world. Should America be bombed?


> Do you not think that this staved off more attacks and thus saved lives?

No. It killed far more innocent people then the 9-11 massacre did and probably more then any future attacks from Al-Qaeda. If your'e interested in saving lives then Al-Qaeda is a minor problem at most. More people starve to death every day then have been killed by Al-Qaeda in it's entire existance. If it's okay for America to bomb Afghanistan in retaliation for the atrocities of Al-Qaeda does that mean it's okay for the Middle East or Latin America or Asia to bomb America in retaliation for the numerous atrocities committed by the US?



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list