And I condemn all of them - Taliban, Northern Alliance, Al-Qaeda, USA, etc. A pox on all their houses.
> > The US is also ruled by a bunch of right-wing fanatics bent on dominating
> the world. Should America
> > be bombed?
>
> The US government is the same as the Taliban?
No, they're not identical. But if you go by numbers killed, the US is far worse. The US is largely responsible for the rise of the Taliban. Had they not funded Islamic extremists during the Afghan war (and instead funded more democratic forces or stayed out of the war completely) the Taliban would never have come around. The root cause is US Imperialism. If any country deserves to be bombed it's the United States.
> Millions were saved from starvation.
Not by the bombings. The food aid could have gotten in much easier without worrying about bombs flying everywhere.
> Half the Afghan population were virtual slaves under the Taliban.
And are in Saudi Arabia and a number of other countries as well. Should Saudi Arabia be bombed?
> Even RAWA admits that there are more openings now.
And I agree with them. They also opposed the bombing, which I also agree with. I welcome the fall of the Taliban and I hope the new government falls as well and is replaced by a better regime. The ends do not justify the means. Arguing that bombing Afghanistan and making allies with the Northern Alliance thugs is a justifiable means to overthrowing the Taliban is like arguing that the Nazi's invasion of the USSR is a justifiable means of overthrowing Stalin.
> Al Qaeda is not a minor problem.
The US is a greater threat because the US created Al-Qaeda and a number of other monsters. The IMF, CIA and a number of other imperialist institutions have murdered far more people then Al-Qaeda. Yes, Al-Qaeda should be on our enemy list along with the CIA, etc. But we have far greater enemies to worry about then a relatively minor group like Al-Qaeda. The number of people they've killed is nothing compared to the CIA (who also happened to play a key role in creating Al-Qaeda).