NATO Genocide in Afghanistan

Written By: siljan
Date: 2008-02-01 09:28:14
<a href="/article/183913941-nato-genocide-in-afghanistan">Article Link</a>

Dehumanization

In almost all NATO nations, the Taliban have been completely dehumanized — a historically-tested signal that perpetrators of the crime of genocide carry unmitigated intentions to eradicate the dehumanized group. Politicians, the armed forces, the media, and even the general public associate in the West the Taliban with irrational fanatics, intolerant fundamentalists, brutal assassins, beheaders of women, bearded extremists, and terrorists. This luminescent negativity paves the way for aggression, military operations, and genocide. Promoting the predatory doctrine of collective self-defense, killing the Taliban is celebrated as a legal virtue. To leave the Taliban in control of Afghanistan, says NATO, is to leave a haven for terrorism.

...
<a href="http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19235.htm">http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19235.htm</a>

No Siljan, I didn't post this opinion piece the first time you submitted it (IIRC that you submitted it, but someone did) because it is just that - opinion. Easily crubmles under scrutiny though. 
 
Sitting comfortably? Then we'll begin. 
 
"Sloganeers, propagandists and politicians often use the word "genocide"" 
 
Notice this is followed by: 
 
"killings that NATO troops commit on a weekly basis" 
 
nice, harsh words intended to evoke strong negative emotions. 
 
"in the poor villages and mute mountains of Afghanistan" 
 
Awwww, don't you feel empathy for them? 
 
"to destroy the Taliban, a puritanical Islamic group. " 
 
More strong emotions. "Leave Brittney alone!" The 'puretanical' is a nice touch, like other Muslims see eye-to-eye with the Talib. They just want to be themselves! 
 
bla bla . . "They also murder defenseless Afghan civilians." 
 
Notice, you think this happens weekly, because of the kind, soft words before it. 
 
"label of "Taliban" is used to cloak the nameless victims" 
 
Nope, see, that's what they call themselves. I point all this out, because the essay began "Sloganeers, propagandists " and shows they are using slogans and propaganda they decry on others. In the title, they even like throwing the word 'genocide' around a lot. Like 'terrorist' it's starting to lose it's meaning. 
 
"Politicians, the armed forces, the media, and even the general public associate in the West the Taliban with irrational fanatics, intolerant fundamentalists, brutal assassins, beheaders of women, bearded extremists, and terrorists. " 
 
I like this one, so let's dissect it, shall we? 
 
"Politicians, the armed forces, the media, and even the general public associate in the West the Taliban with" 
 
Now, why would we associate them this way? 
 
"irrational fanatics," 
 
<a href="http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php?story=20080130204848859">http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php?story=20080130204848859</a> 
 
"intolerant fundamentalists," 
 
<a href="http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php?story=20071001104354165">http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php?story=20071001104354165</a> 
<a href="http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0301-04.htm">http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0301-04.htm</a> 
 
"brutal assassins," 
 
<a href="http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jkKFU8CvHoLV5ont_58iLTVBWLVQD8UH1HRG2">http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jkKFU8CvHoLV5ont_58iLTVBWLVQD8UH1HRG2</a> 
(6 people, during afternoon prayers no less!) 
 
"beheaders of women," 
 
<a href="http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/88242ABB-B5AB-43E0-8773-B9A50CFA35E2.htm">http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/88242ABB-B5AB-43E0-8773-B9A50CFA35E2.htm</a> 
 
"bearded extremists," 
 
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6934050,00.html">http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6934050,00.html</a> 
 
"and terrorists. " 
 
<a href="http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/12/17/hillier-invu.html">http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/12/17/hillier-invu.html</a> 
<a href="http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php?story=20071205090702805">http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php?story=20071205090702805</a> 
 
 
Now, I picked one or two examples for each label. there are many more. 
 
We see them that way, because they act that way. 
 
If the Taliban don't want to die; don't shoot at NATO soldiers, and they won't shoot back and kill you. Calling that 'genocide' is like calling a bank robbery a 'withdrawl'. 
 
The rest of the essay is remarkably similar in emotive language and factual evidence that I actually lost IQ points reading it. To publish it was the real crime.--- The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.

"If the Taliban don't want to die; don't shoot at NATO soldiers, and they won't shoot back and kill you." 
 
Except they weren't bothering us in the first place. Why is NATO there already? 
 
 
 
9/11? 
 
<a href="http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20080103111726541">http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20080103111726541</a> 
 
"9/11 commissionners speak of obstruction on the NY Times" 
 
Government agencies are doing everything they can to obstruct justice and we're still waiting for conclusive evidence. 
 
 
 
Osama bin Laden? 
 
<a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/bush-rejects-taliban-offer-to-surrender-bin-laden-631436.html">http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/bush-rejects-taliban-offer-to-surrender-bin-laden-631436.html</a> 
 
He was offered on a silver platter, on condition that evidence of his guilt is produced. Bush refused then proceeded to bomb the country because "We know he's guilty. [...] There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt.". 
 
What are they hiding? If they had such proof, why did they refuse to show it? It would have been simple, you know, proove he's guilty, then get him in an international trial for mass murder or something. But no, they just "knew" it was him and didn't have to respect presumption of guilt, as justice should dictates. Who's the rogue state now? 
 
 
 
Humanitarian aid? 
 
<a href="http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=11168">http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=11168</a> 
 
"According to World Bank estimates, Afghanistan needs $27.5 billion to rebuild its shattered social and physical infrastructure. But according to Senlis, Afghanistan received only $7.3 billion between 2002 and 2006, while NATO military spending was $82.5 billion during that time." 
 
Riiiiiight. So we spend about 10 times more to bomb them than to help them improve their conditions of life. "We bomb you because we love you." With friends like that... 
 
 
 
Democracy? 
 
<a href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E4DF1F39F935A1575AC0A9629C8B63">http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E4DF1F39F935A1575AC0A9629C8B63</a> 
 
Where is democracy when an occupying invasion force declares its support for one candidate over the others? 
 
 
 
The Talibans are evil religious fanatics? 
 
<a href="http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq2.html#3">http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq2.html#3</a> 
 
"has been noted by Central Asia specialist Ahmed Rashid, the Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia correspondent for the Far Eastern Economic Review and the Daily Telegraph (London), from 1994-96 at least the United States “did support the Taliban, and [the Americans] cannot deny that fact.” In an important study of the issue, Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia, Rashid showed that “between 1994-96 the US supported the Taliban politically through its allies Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, essentially because Washington viewed the Taliban as anti-Iranian, anti-Shia and pro-western... [B]etween 1995-97, US support was driven by the UNOCAL oil/gas pipeline project.”[58]" 
 
They weren't fifteen years ago, nor during the Cold War. Why now, all of a sudden? 
 
 
 
Why? 
 
 
 
It doesn't have anything to do with world domination, right? 
 
"We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership." 
 
<a href="http://www.newamericancentury.org/">http://www.newamericancentury.org/</a> 
 
 
 
It's not about energy control, right? 
 
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2017044.stm">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2017044.stm</a> 
 
"The leaders of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Turkmenistan have agreed to construct a $2bn pipeline to bring gas from Central Asia to the sub-continent." 
 
 
 
It's not about mind-control and quelling dissent at home either, right? 
 
<a href="http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html">http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html</a> 
 
"Sec. 201. Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to terrorism." 
 
 
 
And it's not about money, no siree. 
 
<a href="http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-01.htm">http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-01.htm</a> 
 
"In addition to its Iraq contracts, Brown and Root has also earned $183 million from Operation Enduring Freedom, the military name for the war on terrorism and combat operations in Afghanistan, according to the Army's numbers." 
 
 
 
 
Right. We make war to help people and ignorance is strength and freedom is slavery. 
 
 
Welcome to Oceania. 
 
 
The Sharp Wolf 
 
"The primary aim of modem warfare [...] is to use up the products of the machine without raising the general standard of living [...] The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labour. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking into the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable [...]" 
- George Orwell

"In almost all NATO nations, the Taliban have been completely dehumanized — a historically-tested signal that perpetrators of the crime of genocide carry unmitigated intentions to eradicate the dehumanized group." 
 
In every war that was ever fought, the "enemy" is always dehumanized. This is done to make killing your fellow man, woman, and child, morally sound if not desirable. 
 
The way I see it, the people involved in this war are most certainly no better or worse than the "enemy" they say must be irradiated. 
 
It is an historical fact that in all wars, especially modern day wars, by far the most victimized are the innocent. The people in charge of NATO and the brainwashed minions that follow whatever command is barked at them are all responsible for the murder of thousands of Afghan civilians. You can blame the "enemy" all you want for what's happening to them, however you cannot justify the deaths, maimings, and various forms of abuse brought upon the innocent by NATO no matter how much of the Taliban propaganda may be true. 
 
Besides, this war has nothing what-so-ever to do with the 9/11 attacks, Osama Bin Laden, the "evil" Taliban, or the liberation of women. The war has everything to do with the post-invasion Afghan government refusing to role over and play puppet to the US government, who is seeking control over the country's resources and strategic location for its own selfish gain. 
 
In fact, the US government had pre-9/11 invasion plans ready to go before 9/11 even happened. Peter Dale Scott writes about it here: 
<a href="http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/qf911.html">http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/qf911.html</a> 
 
All that was needed were the 9/11 attacks to justify their war plans. As has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the 9/11 series of attacks were an inside job, most likely perpetrated and abetted by elements inside the US government itself. 
 
To this date, and in addition to the massive amounts of evidence that was intentionally destroyed, the US government continues to bury critical evidence that could resolve the "who-dunnit" mystery surrounding 9/11, it refuses to investigate the crimes in any meaningful way, and has offered nothing substantial or credible to back up its version of events and why it thinks Osama bin Laden was behind it. 
 
So, NATO is killing people in Afghanistan based on reasoning that is highly questionable with no proof to back it up *and* with massive amounts of credible proof that strongly indicates that the justification for an invasion is based on a lie and the self-inflicted 1st degree murder of US and other nationals on 9/11.

"Except they weren't bothering us in the first place. Why is NATO there already?"

Apparently to perform genocide on innocent women and children and not to keep them from being sold into sex slavery and killed on soccer pitches.

"9/11?"

Correct.

"He was offered on a silver platter, on condition that evidence of his guilt is produced. Bush refused then proceeded to bomb the country because "We know he's guilty"

You've got that backwards. They offered him on a silver platter - after the bombing started. They offered to try him in an Islamic court, before the bombing started.

"If they had such proof, why did they refuse to show it?"

Trouble is, even if they had a video of him before 9/11 saying 'Praise Allah, I'm gonna do it' people would say it was fake. oh . . .wait . . .

"Riiiiiight. So we spend about 10 times more to bomb them than to help them improve their conditions of life. "

We spend money to protect the people delivering aid. Goes back to 'don't shoot at NATO, and we won't shoot you'.

"Where is democracy when an occupying invasion force declares its support for one candidate over the others?"

Where is the occupation if members of the opposing force are allowed in that government?

---
The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.

Just a couple points ('cause we both know where each other stands on this):

"All that was needed were the 9/11 attacks to justify their war plans."

Every military plans for just about every eventuality. The US has plans to invade Canada. It doesn't means they will invade Canada.

"As has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the 9/11 series of attacks were an inside job, most likely perpetrated and abetted by elements inside the US government itself."

Beyond a reasonable doubt? Ha! Far from it! Nothing whatsoever has been proven. Hence your own words, 'most likely'.

---
The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.

Dr.C, I'm just trying to point out western hypocricy and lies. Taliban was just fine when it served our purposes. After all they got their funding from the West, to fight the Soviets. Now they refuse to cooperate and they are terrorists who have to be demonized so it's easier to kill them. This is a very common thread in the history of US empire.

As long as they do what they are told and submit to the dictates of great power you are a freedom fighter, not a terrorist. Saddam, Noriega and now the Taliban are some recent examples. Ronald Reagan told us the Taliban were like the founding fathers of America, as long as they were fighting the 'evil empire.'

You believe the Canadian soldiers are in Afghanistan to serve the Afghani people and to rebuild their country. That's fine. You have some reasons for this point of view which I also understand. As a former soldier you defend your brothers in arms. As a beliver in the official 9/11 story, you can justify what is now happening in Afghanistan.

I disagree with you on these points, that's all. The United States of America and their supporters have no moral high ground to tell the Afghans or anybody else how to live. And like I have said before, I have seen no credible evidence whatsoever, that the Taliban cave dwellers outwitted the $40 Billion security apparatus of the US on 9/11.

The article in question is 'just someones opinion' you say.
Sure, but so in the end are the news clips we see on TV and the imbedded journalist's reports we read about in our print media. "CIA 'own' practically all American media of any importance", former director William Colby once was quoted as saying.

One opinion serves great power the other one the people of Afghanistan. One is closer to the truth.

Just a couple counter-points:

"Every military plans for just about every eventuality. The US has plans to invade Canada. It doesn't means they will invade Canada."

Well there's planning for, and then there's planning to. In the case at hand it looked like the US had been planning to invade Afghanistan and was in the process of preparing to invade just before 9/11 gave them exactly what they needed.

"Beyond a reasonable doubt? Ha! Far from it! Nothing whatsoever has been proven. Hence your own words, 'most likely'."

Read what I wrote again more carefully. I said the attacks have been proven beyond any reasonable doubt to have been an inside job, the only unanswered question is who inside the US government were knowingly involved. We can certainly speculate who these people are, for example some of the people involved have exposed themselves by being involved in the cover up, but prosecutions cannot ever be achieved simply because the people involved are also in control of the security forces and legal apparatus, and they have been successful at ensuring that most of the available incriminating evidence has been destroyed, and that no meaningful criminal investigation will ever take place. They even manage to silence the non criminal investigations done by the NIST.

Dr.C was evidently upset after reading the above article. He says publishing it was the real crime. There are many other articles that I now understand upsets the good Dr.C as well. 
 
Articles that are crtitical of Israel for example does not go over to well. Neither did this important article about a Canadian General who has taken a senior command role in Iraq. This is one of the more important articles I have come across this week. It didn't 'make the cut'; 
<a href="http://mostlywater.org/canadian_general_takes_senior_command_role_iraq">http://mostlywater.org/canadian_general_takes_senior_command_role_iraq</a> 
 
It troubles me how Canada under Harper is more and more getting tangled up in the illegal and immoral wars of the United States and Israel and how this is supported by government officials of all stripes, our media and various gate keepers. 
<a href="http://mostlywater.org/canadian_foreign_policy_most_proisraeli_world">http://mostlywater.org/canadian_foreign_policy_most_proisraeli_world</a>

"Apparently to perform genocide on innocent women and children and not to keep them from being sold into sex slavery and killed on soccer pitches."

It's obviously better to see them get tortured in US prisons and bombed to death at weddings. If *we* do it, then it's done with a good heart, but if *they* do it, then it's pure evil.

"You've got that backwards. They offered him on a silver platter - after the bombing started. They offered to try him in an Islamic court, before the bombing started."

So what's wrong with an Islamic court? Had Bin Laden been convicted, he would have got the soccer field treatment, and I'm sure you would have approved. Right? Never-the-less, the point is that US refused to see Bin Laden taken to court and bombed anyway which shows that the US was lying and used 9/11 as an excuse to invade.

"Trouble is, even if they had a video of him before 9/11 saying 'Praise Allah, I'm gonna do it' people would say it was fake. oh . . .wait . . ."

Yeah sure if you say so, but the real issue at hand is that they had no proof, i.e., they were lying. Stop playing dodge ball DC and face the harsh reality, you've been suckered.

"We spend money to protect the people delivering aid."

Helping to destroy a country and trying to bribe the population into submission by giving back what was taken away is now called "aid". How Israeli of you.

"Where is the occupation if members of the opposing force are allowed in that government?"

That's like saying if China took over our country, it's still a democracy if they allowed Harper to join the opposition. The reality is that the Taliban rejected the offer of clemency in exchange for their surrender.

"Taliban was just fine when it served our purposes. "

On the contrary, they never were. People confuse the Mujahadeen who fought the Soviets with the Taliban. Very different groups. The Mujahadeedn are now the Northern Warlords, not the Taliban who migrated in from Pakistan. The only country to recognize the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan after their coup was Chechnya. And no one recognized Chechnya ether.

"Articles that are crtitical of Israel for example does not go over to well. "

On the contrary. Articles that are critical of Israel, but praise Palestinians don't go over well with me. Nether side deserves praise in that bru-ha-ha.

"Neither did this important article about a Canadian General who has taken a senior command role in Iraq. "

It's not that big a deal, but I don't recall that story. Post it again.

---
The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.

"Read what I wrote again more carefully."

I did. Most carefully.

"I said the attacks have been proven beyond any reasonable doubt to have been an inside job, the only unanswered question is who inside the US government were knowingly involved."

I said there is no proof whatsoever. There are a theories, backed up by speculation. There is what people believe, and what they can substantiate. Under scrutiny, the only theory that holds water is the 'official' story, but it has holes in it. The reason people believe it was an inside job is because of those holes, but they try to drive a truck through a rabbit hole.

---
The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.

"It's obviously better to see them get tortured in US prisons and bombed to death at weddings. If *we* do it, then it's done with a good heart, but if *they* do it, then it's pure evil."

If *we* do it, it's by accident, not by design. What the US does is also not in out sphere of influence. Just as the mythical man who reaches into his pocket reaching for his 'I am deaf' card gets shot by police for not obeying their commands, Canadian Soldiers don't intend to kill civilians. If we had any aircraft with bombs, we'd at least wait till after prayers to bomb a Mosque. Unlike the Taliban.

"So what's wrong with an Islamic court? "

Other than pre-determined outcomes, not much. Remember the woman on the soccer field? She was killed because her daughter killed her husband. Then her children were sold into sex slavery. I see nothing wrong with Islamic courts in Afghanistan. They work exactally as designed, much like the show trials the British used to give to people in Canada and the US.

"Had Bin Laden been convicted, he would have got the soccer field treatment, and I'm sure you would have approved. Right?"

Absolutely. After all, before 9/11 there was the US Embassy bombings, the USS Cole, the 1993 attack on the WTC . . . but killing Infidels isn't against Taliban doctrine now, is it?

"Never-the-less, the point is that US refused to see Bin Laden taken to court and bombed anyway which shows that the US was lying and used 9/11 as an excuse to invade."

Or, Bin Laden really did pull it off, and invasion was indeed the only way to protect our citizens from a terror organization. (As authorized by the UN).

"Yeah sure if you say so, but the real issue at hand is that they had no proof, i.e., they were lying."

Do you have proof they were lying? Otherwise, there is no difference. Whereas, there is a video of Bin Laden with the 19 Saudi Hijackers before the 9/11 attacks. The guy who financed the Tokyo plane bombing and both WTC attacks took his orders from Bin Laden, and Bin laden wrote the cheques. Probable cause enough for me to see the guy face a jury of his peers.

"Stop playing dodge ball DC and face the harsh reality, you've been suckered."

When someone comes foreward and says 'I have proof WTC 1&2 were demolished' then I'll believe that. Until then, I'll believe the demolitions experts who say it was not.

"Helping to destroy a country and trying to bribe the population into submission by giving back what was taken away is now called "aid". How Israeli of you."

ooo! Zing! Trouble is, we didn't destroy the country. The British and Soviets did that. Should we stay, and help them fix it, or leave it a little better than the way we found it? Thats the question.

"That's like saying if China took over our country, it's still a democracy if they allowed Harper to join the opposition. The reality is that the Taliban rejected the offer of clemency in exchange for their surrender."

Canada, still a democracy? That'll be the day. But the Taliban are indeed the problem of the Afghan government. They are also part of the government. That pretty much negates any inference of occupation.

I've said this before; Our soldiers are good, but 2500 of them cannot occupy a country of 40 million.

---
The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.

"9/11? Correct." 
 
Correct? Don't make me laugh. You seem to have ignored what I said: we *don't* have proof. 
 
Yup. Take a deep breath. Take some time and read it again, slowly: 
 
WE - *DON'T* - HAVE - PROOF. 
 
I won't go as far as to say that 9/11 was an inside job, we don't have solid evidence on that either. What I'm saying is that, frankly, we've got no idea what happened. 
 
*BUT*. The problem here is that the US government "official theory" has way too many holes in it to be considered acceptable, which is a problem since they've killed thousands of people based on this "theory". Just a few points: 
 
-WTC 7. 
-How did they recover the passports of the exact terrorists from the wreckage, when it was a *fire* that supposedly brought down a *whole skyscraper*? Shouldn't they have burned or something? 
-These videos: <a href="http://www.voltairenet.org/article139125.html?var_recherche=11%20septembre%20pentagone?var_recherche=11%20septembre%20pentagone">http://www.voltairenet.org/article139125.html?var_recherche=11%20septembre%20pentagone?var_recherche=11%20septembre%20pentagone</a> This is official footage from the supposed Boeing crash in the Pentagon. The crash occurs around 1:25 and 0:25. Seriously, if you can find a Boeing in that, you're in serious needs of glasses. 
 
There is more, but that will be enough for now. Seriously, one would think that they would have bothered to clear up these points before, you know, lauching a war or two? 
 
And now officials from the investigation are accusing government agencies from obstruction. It's hard to get any more suspicious than that. 
 
 
 
"You've got that backwards. They offered him on a silver platter - after the bombing started. They offered to try him in an Islamic court, before the bombing started." 
 
Yeah. It would have been *soooooo* hard for the one superpower in the world to show the damn proof, then put some pressure so that bin Laden gets an independant trial. I agree with you that an Islamic court wouldn't have been a good idea, but bombing a whole country to get one guy amounts to collective punishment, which is, in case you have conveniently forgotten that, a crime against humanity. 
 
Also, when I say "innocent until proven guilty", does that ring any bell to you? Sure, they had a video. Alright. Fair enough! But we all know how easy to create fake videos, so let's see if there would be some other, stronger evidence too to support that! 
 
Oh wait, for that we would need an investigation from an independant third party, followed by an independant international court of justice to try the suspect. Excuse me, but I don't see where government agencies obstructing the investigation and bombing a few countries back to the stone age fit into this picture. 
 
Woopsie. 
 
 
 
"We spend money to protect the people delivering aid. Goes back to 'don't shoot at NATO, and we won't shoot you'." 
 
NATO isn't there for a peace mission or a humanitarian mission. It's a *combat* mission. You know, the kind where you shoot other people until they agree with you. Also, I fail to see how bombing people ten times more than helping them rebuild is going to help them in the end. That's like saying: "Fear not! For each city we destroy, we'll rebuild 50 houses!". 
 
 
 
"Where is the occupation if members of the opposing force are allowed in that government?" 
 
Nice try, but I'm not letting you dodge this one so easily. Wow, they're allowed in the government. Big deal. Being in the government or not is not the point here. The point is that the US government have interfered in the elections and supported one particular party over the others in the first place, both things which are against international law, as far as I know. Which means the elections and the current government were and are illegitimate. 
 
 
 
 
 
I would say more, but it seems you have conveniently decided to ignore my other points. I can't blame you, it's not that easy to defend propaganda and mass murder, after all. 
 
 
 
 
The Sharp Wolf 
 
"You do not wipe out 'bad' killing with 'good' killing, you echo it."

"Correct? Don't make me laugh. You seem to have ignored what I said: we *don't* have proof. 
Yup. Take a deep breath. Take some time and read it again, slowly: 
WE - *DON'T* - HAVE - PROOF. 
 
I won't go as far as to say that 9/11 was an inside job, we don't have solid evidence on that either. What I'm saying is that, frankly, we've got no idea what happened. 
" 
 
You are looking at things from 6 years of hindsight. We went to Afghanistan because the perpetrators of 9/11 were trained and supported from there. End of story, that was all we knew at the time. The UN authorized it, and we went. That is why we are there. All the conspiracy stuff came after the fact. 
 
"This is official footage from the supposed Boeing crash in the Pentagon. The crash occurs around 1:25 and 0:25. Seriously, if you can find a Boeing in that, you're in serious needs of glasses." 
 
While I agree the 'hole' I mention is WTC7, do the math. How much ground is shown in that video? (the distance across the lawn). Now, how fast will a jet at stall speed be going, and how much time would that be in the field of view of that camera. 
 
The math says less than 1/40 of a second. If the camera were a standard 30 FPS one, it would miss the plane by 10 frames. If it were a regular security camera (15 FPS) it would miss the plane by over half of it's frames. 
 
No surprise that there is no plane on tape. 
 
"I would say more, but it seems you have conveniently decided to ignore my other points. I can't blame you, it's not that easy to defend propaganda and mass murder, after all." 
 
Alas, I don't have the time right now to explore all your points, which I and others have gone over in great detail in the past. Usually I'd stay longer, but I have many things to do and just can't ignore. Feel free to look up conversations with Rearguard, Milton and myself on this. 
 
For a full debunking, try here: 
<a href="http://www.canadaka.net/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=21142&highlight">http://www.canadaka.net/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=21142&highlight</a>= 
--- The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.