georgephillip
Diamond Member
I didn't support the Taliban or the way women are currently treated in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia, for that matter, where the 911 hijackers came from:What did the Afghan people do to the US to deserve the designation of "enemy" and the subsequent invasion/occupation? I suppose someone who finds mass murder an acceptable business expense might be confused about who's on the wrong side.You misunderstand me. It doesn't matter whose life is worth more as long as the enemy is dead. How many and under what circumstances is a matter of no concern. If the enemy wants to hide behind civilians, then the civilians are dead. Get it. This is war, not a soiree.
Of course someone who finds some sort of equality of enemy lives and the lives of one's own countrymen, that's a different circumstance. You are just on the wrong side, that's all. It's not like the Afghan enemies are concerned with American casualties. They want as many as possible. That I understand. That's why one side prevails and the other side loses.
so you support the Taliban and how they ruled? You supported their treatment of women?
And I guess you supported their take over of Afghanistan, correct?
"Bruce Riedel, a former U.S. intelligence official and a current adviser on foreign policy to President Obama, isn’t holding out much hope for the future of the Saudi monarchy, and he believes its downfall could profoundly affect U.S. interests in the Middle East, according to report from Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin.
"Riedel, who is with the Washington think-tank Brookings Institution, had penned a memorandum to the president that warns the Saudi regime is vulnerable to overthrow. He argues the monarchy maintains 'complete authority' and the Saudi royal family 'has shown no interest in sharing power or in an elected legislature.'"
Analyst expects collapse of Saudi monarchy
Do you support killing the women and children of Afghanistan for purely humanitarian reasons?