That would only be the case if I believed in "retaliation" like you. I am opposed to killing innocent people and I don't care if it's "retaliation" for past injustices. 9-11 was immoral because it killed large numbers of innocent people and because it was a gift to apologists for imperialism like you. The same is true of the attack on Afghanistan. If you accept the principle of retaliation used to justify the attack on Afghanistan then logically one should end up supporting 9-11. This is one of the hypocrisies the pro-war crowd - for them it's okay for the US to retaliate for Arab atrocities but it's not okay for Arabs (or others) to retaliate against US atrocities. It's a racist double standard.
> > > Millions were saved from starvation.
> >
> > Not by the bombings. The food aid could have gotten in much easier
> without worrying about bombs
> > flying everywhere.
>
> Not true. The intervention staved off a famine. Had the Taliban been in
> power over the winter, countless more lives would have been lost to
> starvation than have been to US bombs.
False. You need to stop watching CNN. Had the US never threatened to attack Afghanistan the borders would not have been closed and the bombs not disrupted food supplies. It was the US intervention which brought this situation about. Once the Taliban fell the situation improved considerably. Had US attacks not brought down the Taliban so quickly a worse famine would have come about due to the continued war.
> > 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?
>
> Read Rashid's book. Afghanistan was a staging area for the theocratic terror
> you diminish. Saudi Arabia, while repellent, was not. If you're going to
> push this angle, try Pakistan.
I read Rashid's book in February. Saudi Arabia is also a staging area for terror, they fund Whabbi terrorists and most of the highjackers were saudis. The United States is a staging area for far more terror, should it be bombed? Should Georgia be bombed for harboring the SOA? SOA graduates have killed, and continue to kill, far more then Al-Qaeda.
> The Taliban provided cover for Islamic fascists who are openly committed to
> kill as many people, Muslim and non, as it can in pursuit of its twisted
> goals. Bin Laden is on the record saying as much. Your Hitler/Stalin analogy
> doesn't hold up.
Both Hitler, Stalin and Bush are also totalitarians willing to kill however many they need they need to implement their twisted goals.
> So now you're going by numbers historically killed than by immediate
> political reality?
This isn't history, the US continues to butcher people today. The sanctions and bombings of Iraq, sponsoring mass murder in Turkey against the Kurds, support for Israeli ethnic cleansing, sponsoring a coup in Venezuala, funding the IMF (which causes mass starvation and death by "structural adjustment"), Plan Colombia and death squad training are some examples.