If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Erm well actually yes they are. You drop a bomb on someone and they disappear..We are dropping many many bombs and many many taliban are disappearing. They only have so many tanks, rpgs, soldiers etc.
No they tried him in a court of law and executed him in front of a bunch of people. You cant get much more final than that. Why on earth would they need to bomb anything when they had him in custody. The Taliban wont hand of Bin Laden so they force us to take him by force.
You really should think out your comments before posting.
The Taliban are not going to disappear just because Georgie and Georgie drop a couple of bombs on them. This is because the Taliban are more than just a group of tossers sitting round a pool table drinking lager. They are a politic belief, just like communism or Conservatism. If we killed all the Tories in Britain would the Tories have disappeared? No, I don't think so. We killed a shitload of Nazis but they still exist, except nowadays Hitler calls himself Dubya, and instead of yellow stars we have laser sights.
"Hello Mr Taliban, would you please hand over Mr Bin Laden? No? How rude!"
If we killed all the tories in the UK then the conservative party would disappear..They are just groups not ideas. Conservative views would still exist but not the party.
The UN has been trying to get Bin Laden handed over since '98 and the taliban just flatly refuse.
PS, im a mail reader <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/smile.gif">
Do you think that every single Taliban member is going to die in these bombings?
Yes war is sometimes a necessity: the necessities being when another country invades yours or attacks your foreign interests. I accept that by destroying the WTC & Pentagon & that feild in Pittsburgh, bin Laden has declared war on the USA, and that by refusing to give up Osama, the Taliban are harbouring a known terrorist. I know there are political and economic and personal pressures that demand the bombing of Afghanistan and destruction of the Taliban. But I stand by my initial thoughts that we have no God-given right to go into another country and demand that they change their culture to suit ours. Osama bin Laden took 6000 lives. 6000 people who would still be alive today. I bet they have great families etc.
Help me. (I will not listen to thugs or nationalists who demand military action no matter what the outcome). I struggle to understand the need to do what we are doing. Presumably we think those 6000 or so lives lost at the WTC were worth something, right? OK, so why is an Afghanistani life worth less? Just because the people who worked at the WTC had similar lives to us, doesn't mean their lives were worth more than an Afghanistani's.
If one of my parents worked at the WTC and they were killed on 11/09/01 then maybe I'd feel differently but, ceteris parabus, I will not support the destruction of life in Afghanistan.
If a terrorist wants to destroy America then America must defend itself, and I agree to that. But that doesn't mean they should destroy every country in the world that may present a threat to their way of life, just in case. That seems fundamentally wrong to me.
no. of course not. but typically, u've missed the point.
the Taliban is a group. It encompasses extremist fundamentalist islamic beliefs. The Taliban can be destroyed, and without a voice to propagate those beliefs, the ideas of the taliban will die with it. there will always be people who believe in islamic fundamentalism, in nazism, in socialism, but as we've seen, it is possible to reduce these people to a relatively harmless minority. just look at socialists like urself. <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/wink.gif">
well hey, that's ok. i believe most of us here are godless infidels (according ot bin laden).
on a more seriously and valid point, we may be changing our culture to suit ours, but our culture embraces far broader beliefs. we allow for the practice of islam, christianity, buddhism etc. i fail to see how liberalising (no, not liberating) afghanistan is a bad thing. a country that has reasonably liberal beliefs, that allows for the peaceful co-existance of all sorts of religions and beliefs - would that not be a good thing? it still allows the muslims to practice islam in any way shape or form they wish, but in no way does it force beliefs upon other people.
If there's anything more important than my ego around here, i want it caught and shot now
maybe you're right, we can't kill every single Taliban member, that isn't what our goal is.
Our goal is to eliminate their ability to wage war, to remove their ability to defend themselves and then watch as they slowly dissolve, like so many military juntas before them.
Without the hardware to back it up, the Taliban regime will not have any influence, and people in Afghanistan will seize the oppotunity to overthrow them. If they don't then we bomb them some more until they are weak enough.
Turtle, don't you see?: we believe in a 'free' society where all religions are allowed because our history and culture has led us down a certain path. Many many years ago, Christianity was the only religion in this country (or certainly the most dominant). And we used to treat women as second class citizens (suffrage has only come over the past 100 years). We have developed our society through many years of power struggles. What we see in Afghanistan is the same. They're a lot less developed, further behind on the evolutionary scale. They have one dominant religion etc. We shouldn't be allowed to dictate their future.
All we have the right to do here is defend our home country, and what we are doing to Afghanistan is not that. I'm not too clued up about int'l terrorism but surely the normal way of going about is to extradite the suspect and try them in the country of the crime. In this case the Taliban have refused to give him up so it gets messy.
A case in point: that great train robber Ronnie Biggs who fled to Brazil and only came back because he wanted to. I know the crimes aren't comparable. But we didn't send the SAS in to capture him or try to alter their gov't. Why? I don't know: maybe because they are more 'civilised' or closer allies etc. But don't you see?: the principle is the same and THAT is why I don't understand our actions in Afghanistan.
A just war is better than an unjust peace
We could kill every single member of the Taliban if we were so inclined. No question about that.
As for being ashamed to read the Mail..Well I also read the Guardian, Telegraph and several other papers daily and several online news sources. Some of us dont stick to one biased source of news such as the Guardian.
Angel babe,
Two wrongs dont make a right, youve got that right but we arent attacking afghanistan out of spite or revenge. We are doing it to get Bin Laden and make sure he doesnt kill another 6000 next month and another 6000 the month after that. If we hadnt gone into Afghanistan you think he would have just retired and given up his crusade against the US?
Kentish,
Sorry but when someone brings their screwed up belief system into our countries and then using those beliefs as a justification, flies passenger planes into buildings then we have EVERY right to dictate their future. If they had kept evolving their society within their own borders then this wouldnt have happened. They try to influence the world and they give up any right they had against external influence.
I think I need to put in a caveat though: this does not allow them to attack or otherwise have a negative effect on another country.
You always seem to quote my worst points!
If we look at the bigger picture for a moment: the really big picture. We are a smallish planet in a solar system in a galaxy in a universe. We all have an identity as residents on earth. From that view, not one of us has any birthright to expect a better life than any other. We are pathetic dots moving about our business. Why do we think we are so bloody important all the time? Maybe it's just human nature.
because as humans we are unable to see the bigger picture. Global events, to us are far more important than celestial events at this moment in time.
RULE BRITTANIA
<IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/flags/uk.gif">
If there's anything more important than my ego around here, i want it caught and shot now
yes, British people were in there.
Of course..It was a horrific loss of life that should never have happened. Not quite sure why youre asking the question. I thought it was beyond doubt.
Maybe I phrased my point wrong, of course I care what happened in NYC, I care about that far more than I do the people in Afghanistan. What's happening to them under the Taliban is bad, I accept that, but my concerns at the moment are with my personal safety, and whether or not the next catastrophe will be a little closer to home.
Well, I'll start with the short and simple answer first. Yes, I do care that Afghan lives are being lost, but not as much as I would over other lives. Reason: the Afghans are a brainwashed people infected to the core with Islam (a faith) and are worth less per capita than those with free minds. Not that you get huge numbers of those in the West, either, but you get more.
Now on to other points and issues:
There's a big difference between accepting collateral damage and calling it 'necessary.' One is saying, "Oh, well, we'd rather it didn't happen, but hey." The other is, "We don't give a fuck, and the more of them that die, the better."
Those who decry violence under any and all circumstances, are quite frankly, pathetic. It's like saying one should never make an offensive play in football. There is a time for everything, and violence, too, has its place. I hate to resort to cliche, but how the hell would Hitler have been stopped if not through force of arms?
So, perhaps Bush is acting from a poor motivation i.e. revenge. So what? Most of the US public is bying for revenge. I thought it was a tenet of democratic freedom that a government should obey the wishes of the people, right? Who are we to tell the citizens of the USA what to think and feel? Perhaps that argument is unpalatable, yes? If so, start reconsidering what you think 'freedom' is.
To return to my first point, it makes me sick when I hear the whole 'God-given' thing. For crying out loud, most gods have the morals of petulant children! 'Worship me or I shall have a tantrum!' Yes, very mature. I have no problem with a war on Islam; at least, no more than a war on Christianity (esp. Catholicism) (anyone who can worship a Trinity and claim his religon is a monotheism needs his head examining), Judaism, Hinduism...
I hope this has stirred the hornets... <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/smile.gif">
You're damn right we need a rational code of morality and ethics. But not much progress can be made in that direction while we've still got a majority ranting about gods, devils, souls, and absolute morality, and using an ancient book written by ignorant nomads as a guide.
There's debate going on over this because not everyone is as selfish and racist as you are.
That would make for an interesting thought: If Ebeneezer was PM for the day, what would he do?
When haven't we being looking out for number one? You make it sound like we (by we I mean countries such as America and Britain) are selfless people who merely do things for the good of mankind.
Thats exactly why I was asking it. I was trying to get people to re examine the question.