<<I am not sure how you came to the conclusion that I am pro-war. Maybe you got it from that analysis you did of my posts? I never thought that the war in Iraq was necessary. As to Afghanistan I am glad that the US went after BinLaden and Al-Qaeda. >>
I'm gathering from this that you are against the war in Iraq, but for the war in Afghanistan. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Doesn't that make you pro war? (By my definition, supporting any war/violence makes someone pro-war, you can't just pick and choose). I'm not having a go at you any more (honestly), I'm genuinely interested in knowing. Are you pro-war or anti-war?
<<Rachel seems to think I'm a conservative. I don't know where she gets that from.>> It was your dismissal of the media sources Kirsten came up with. In my experience it is usually more conservatively-minded people who dismiss and ridicule the excellent work of John Pilger, or who refuse to take "alternative" media sources seriously. As I said above I was still pissed off with you last night so I went a bit overboard with the personal comments. Apologies. I'd just spent hours talking to a really interesting friend of a friend whose been working with the UN in north Pakistan trying to help Afghan refugees and women. Some of the stories he had to tell were unbelievable - so I was more than a little frustrated when I came back to this thread again.
As regards the extradition thing, it was perfectly normal and legitimate for the Taliban to demand evidence before extraditing Bin Laden (I'm not defending them, I'm just pointing out that you couldn't really expect them to act otherwise - why should there be one law for the west and another for everyone else?). The point is, the US could have had Bin Laden on trial and brought some kind of justice and closure to the victims and survivors of 9/11. Instead they killed thousands of impoverished, oppressed, helpless people - adding thousands more innocent deaths to the 3000 of 9/11.
<<Naturally this effects my outlook on the Afghan war. You feel a lot different about people after they have tried to wipe out your whole family.>> I can understand and sympathise with that Brendan, although I wasn't affected personally by it - in a small way I witnessed first hand the grief that crime caused, at the funeral of a young man from my mother's home parish in Donegal. I'd never even met him, and I only knew him by reputation as being a really nice guy - the whole community was so devastated by his death. The thing it made me realise most was that it was so important that our reaction in the west wasn't to commit another awful crime on top of this one - that no more mothers and fathers should bury their murdered children, that no more innocent life should be taken, that no one else deserved to die such a violent, pointless death. So saying << I felt sorry for the Afghani people when they were attacked.>> is something I find a little casual and cold to say the least. I didn't feel <<sorry>> for the people of New York when 9/11 happened - I felt devastated, shocked, grief-stricken and outraged as the whole thing happened, and afterwards. I felt the same grief, pain and anger when the bombing of Afghanistan started - and the bombing of Iraq. I feel it for Israeli children blown up in buses and restaurants by suicide bombers and for Palestinian children shot by Israeli soldiers while playing in the street. For every innocent life taken in conflict anywhere. But it saddens me that other people don't seem to feel the deaths of all innocent people equally.
Created By: Rachel Hicks