US troops posing with body parts.

[ferno 10]

Ok.

ANY invading force.

 

I doubt the seventeen men and women and children murdered by the US staff sergeant felt they were being protected by a benign invader.

[Agent Orange 11]

They are all invaders in a foreign land. How would you feel if the taliban invaded the UK?

Would you be happy or would you want to get them out any way you can?

 

They were invited. I believe there was a UN resolution.

 

Haven't the Taliban invaded Afghanistan? I believe most of the Taliban come from the Pakistan tribal lands.

 

As for getting rid of the so-called occupying force, why do the Taliban murder the people they claim to be liberating?

[spooky3 10]

I doubt the seventeen men and women and children murdered by the US staff sergeant felt they were being protected by a benign invader.

 

Very anti West as usual and pro terrorist as usual!

[Halibut 12]

Hang on a minute. Aren't the Taliban a guerrilla group, similar to all the other terror groups in the world? Working against the best interests of their own people and Government.

 

So the analogy doesn't hold.

 

Ok, leave the Taliban out of it. If an occupying force was occupying the UK and had caused the deaths of thousands of men women and children (many innocent of anything other than going about their lives peacefully) would you acquiesce and accept accept it or would you support an armed resistance?

[Agent Orange 11]

Ok, leave the Taliban out of it. If an occupying force was occupying the UK and had caused the deaths of thousands of men women and children (many innocent of anything other than going about their lives peacefully) would you acquiesce and accept accept it or would you support an armed resistance?

 

Would you seek to rid this force by murdering your own people?

[AbdullaJones 10]

I doubt the seventeen men and women and children murdered by the US staff sergeant felt they were being protected by a benign invader.

 

Exactly.

But i supose those horrific murders will be looked on as an "unfortunate side effect of war". Just like all the civilians that the drones keep wasting.

[spooky3 10]

Ok, leave the Taliban out of it. If an occupying force was occupying the UK and had caused the deaths of thousands of men women and children (many innocent of anything other than going about their lives peacefully) would you acquiesce and accept accept it or would you support an armed resistance?

 

Start a new thread... and describe it properly!!!

[rubydazzler 11]

Ok. ANY invading force.

But the normal Afghan people and their Government don't want the Taliban running their country either, only the other religious extremists want them. Actually, the Taliban were the invading force in the country, if you look back.

 

And consider all the atrocities they've been responsible for and/or complicit in. And the cultural vandalism they've participated in, although that pales into insignificance against the outrages against women and children they've instigated.

Edited April 19, 2012 by rubydazzler
children typo

[Frank Sidney 11]

I doubt the seventeen men and women and children murdered by the US staff sergeant felt they were being protected by a benign invader.

 

Blaming all US service people for that is like blaming all Norwegians for what happened recently..

 

He was a mentally ill man with a gun and not representive of the whole army...

[spooky3 10]

Exactly.

But i supose those horrific murders will be looked on as an "unfortunate side effect of war". Just like all the civilians that the drones keep wasting.

 

And all the civilians murdered by the Taliban, or even the school full of little girls purposefully poisoned!

[Halibut 12]

Very anti West as usual and pro terrorist as usual!

 

You're being silly. It's a valid point. Doubtless there are those in Afghanistan who welcome the presence of the allied forces, but there are many many people who have been killed by them. By no means all of them are in any way combatants and many have been women and children.

 

To point this out is not anti-west, nor is it pro-terrorist. It's simply acknowledging that there is a great deal of grief and suffering on both sides of the conflict.

 

Our bombs and bullets destroy lives and create widows and orphans as surely as theirs do. That's the truth, that's the reality.

[ferno 10]

But the normal Afghan people and their Government don't want the Taliban running their country either.

 

Categorically untrue, for many Afghans the taliban offer a better deal than that offered by the narco-despot Karzai.

 

Lt Col Jimmie Cummings, a spokesman for Nato's International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) in Afghanistan, said the document was "a classified internal document that is not meant to be released to the public".

 

"It is a matter of policy that documents that are classified are not discussed under any circumstances," he said.

 

The report also depicts the depth of continuing support among the Afghan population for the Taliban, our correspondent says.

 

It paints a picture of al-Qaeda's influence diminishing but the Taliban's influence increasing, he adds.

 

 

Taliban influence

In a damning conclusion, the document says that in the last year there has been unprecedented interest, even from members of the Afghan government, in joining the Taliban cause.

 

It adds: "Afghan civilians frequently prefer Taliban governance over the Afghan government, usually as a result of government corruption."

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16821218

 

You live in a feudal, lawless regime then the taliban offer stabilty. The report adds that Taliban members "do not receive salaries or other financial incentives for their work", but their operations are funded by the narcotics trade and they frequently take a cut from the trade.