I seem to recall Wesley Snipes doing his fair share of damage.

oops

NATO Airstrike Accidentally Kills Afghan Troops

KABUL, Afghanistan — A botched NATO airstrike killed five Afghan soldiers after they were mistaken for insurgents early Wednesday, highlighting continued weak coordination between international troops and the local security forces they are striving to build.

An Afghan defense official condemned the "friendly fire" deaths in the eastern province of Ghazni. They came as three more American troops were reported killed in the south and Britain announced it would turn over control of a violence-plagued southern district to U.S. forces.

U.S. Gen. David Petraeus, the newly arrived commander of international forces in Afghanistan, issued personal condolences to the families of the dead Afghan soldiers, a spokesman said.

A joint Afghan-international investigation was continuing into how the mistake happened, NATO spokesman Brig. Gen. Josef Blotz said.

"We were obviously not absolutely clear whether there were Afghan national security forces in the area," Blotz said, suggesting there was a failure in communication.

cont

In discussing the Afghan situation, I recall a quote from "The Art Of War"; Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.”.

It strikes me that the US has gone in to fight and is now seeking (struggling) to gain victory. Just like Viet Nam.

There are 400,000 books, 1.7 million photos and 12.5 million manuscripts available at the US Army military history institute that will surly lead you to the conclusion that Vietnam is not like Afghanistan at all.

Even from my skewed point of view the wars are completely dissimilar.

How many Afghanistan veterans do you think will go back to retire there in 30 years?

How many Afghanistan women are American GI’s bringing home as brides?

There were about 40 to 50 million civilian causalities during WW II.

Why are you people even discussing civilian causalities?

War is about killing people. Usually the side that kills the most people wins.

How many people is Afghanistan willing to lose before they say uncle? Now that would be an interesting discussion. Find out what that number is and go out and kill them. Bingo the war is over.

But this simple fact must be news to some people.

War is about killing people. Usually the side that kills the most people wins.

How many people is Afghanistan willing to lose before they say uncle? Now that would be an interesting discussion. Find out what that number is and go out and kill them. Bingo the war is over.

But this simple fact must be news to some people.

I agree. Whatever happened to getting beat so badly that one side sued for peace? That they called it quits after enduring too much death and destruction?

The Israeli-Palestinian issue never goes away because they aren't killing enough of each other. When Israelis and Palestinians start dying on a daily basis in large enough numbers that's when you'll see a peace agreement.

War is not really an urgent problem if daily casualties aren't high enough. That works for both sides. One reason the Afghanistan war has now lasted longer than Vietnam is we aren't losing enough lives to motivate protests. The most US soldiers to die in one year in Afghanistan has been 317 in 2009. In Vietnam in 1969 we lost nearly 16, 600. The NVA lost a lot more but we weren't going for total destruction even back then and kept their casualties acceptable enough by their standards. What do the Afghans consider acceptable casualties? I have no idea but I'm sure it's a much higher number than Western countries consider acceptable.

Why are you people even discussing civilian causalities?

War is about killing people. Usually the side that kills the most people wins.

How many people is Afghanistan willing to lose before they say uncle? Now that would be an interesting discussion. Find out what that number is and go out and kill them. Bingo the war is over.

But this simple fact must be news to some people.

Sadly your mistake is the same as many who came before.

Afghanistan has no central govt to control nor surrender... now or before which is pretty much the main reason no invasion can succeed there ...now or before unless they want to occupy & control at insurmountable expense the whole of it for ever.

And that simple fact although proven again & gain through out history must still be news to some.

Afghanistan has no central govt to control nor surrender... now or before which is pretty much the main reason no invasion can succeed there ...now or before unless they want to occupy & control at insurmountable expense the whole of it for ever.

And that simple fact although proven again & gain through out history must still be news to some.

Never thought about that! Good point. I guess the British Raj occured because it had evolved somewhat, and was able to become centralised. (Not without the obvious imperialistic damage to the respective kingdoms of course). Just ask the Sikhs over in the UK (luckily the ones with the blue turbans are the militant clan - so easy to spot!) , not to mention the millions of Pakistani's and Bangladeshi's there...

Which is partly why I am so against this US folly over there. The UK is packed to the gills with angry muslim youths... We have to distance ourselves from the US war to preserve peace on our small island.

Trust me, it isn't fun working behind bomb proof curtains, or having family members working next to targets in London...or wondering if the train you are on is the unlucky one to get bombed... The fact I'm part Scottish wouldn't have saved me from a random bomb....

Gawd bless the Irish is all I can say (both sides). Let's hope we never see troubles again.

The UK is packed to the gills with angry muslim youths... We have to distance ourselves from the US war to preserve peace on our small island. 

From what British friends tell me, the war has little to do with their anger. 

Afghanistan has no central govt to control nor surrender... now or before which is pretty much the main reason no invasion can succeed there ...now or before unless they want to occupy & control at insurmountable expense the whole of it for ever.

And that simple fact although proven again & gain through out history must still be news to some.

Never thought about that! Good point. I guess the British Raj occured because it had evolved somewhat, and was able to become centralised. (Not without the obvious imperialistic damage to the respective kingdoms of course). Just ask the Sikhs over in the UK (luckily the ones with the blue turbans are the militant clan - so easy to spot!) , not to mention the millions of Pakistani's and Bangladeshi's there...

Which is partly why I am so against this US folly over there. The UK is packed to the gills with angry muslim youths... We have to distance ourselves from the US war to preserve peace on our small island.

Trust me, it isn't fun working behind bomb proof curtains, or having family members working next to targets in London...or wondering if the train you are on is the unlucky one to get bombed... The fact I'm part Scottish wouldn't have saved me from a random bomb....

Gawd bless the Irish is all I can say (both sides). Let's hope we never see troubles again.

Let me get this straight. You want the UK to distance itself from the US because some militant Sikhs might harm you in the UK and you are arguing about this with Americans on a forum in Thailand for expats?

I guess by the same token the problems the Russians had with Chechnya were due to their involvement in Afghanistan.

The fact that Mohammed is the most common new first name in Briton probably has nothing to do with the problem.

That your immigration policy is whacko has nothing to do with your fear right?

I certainly don’t disagree with you that the US has no business in Afghanistan but the US leaving will hardly improve the state of affairs in the UK.

Let me give you some sage advice. The UK is not going to distance itself from the US. So you may well forget about that hypothesis. And even if they did the fanatics that you are talking about wouldn’t even notice. We all look the same to them. Nasty white people who want their women out of burlap bags so we can leer at them.

Why aren’t you railing against the French? Look at the turmoil they are causing against their minority populations. Why aren’t you railing against NATO?

Hey, I’m just trying to help here. I don’t like war. I don’t like armies. I don’t like any of those things. I don’t want to see anyone killed.

But you have to look at the world objectively. Once you do it is obvious why so many old men come to live in Thailand. It is the only alternative that makes any sense.

Odds are that your wife will divorce you and your kids will forget about you. So you might as well move now.

Afghanistan has no central govt to control nor surrender... now or before which is pretty much the main reason no invasion can succeed there ...now or before unless they want to occupy & control at insurmountable expense the whole of it for ever.

And that simple fact although proven again & gain through out history must still be news to some.

Never thought about that! Good point. I guess the British Raj occured because it had evolved somewhat, and was able to become centralised. (Not without the obvious imperialistic damage to the respective kingdoms of course). Just ask the Sikhs over in the UK (luckily the ones with the blue turbans are the militant clan - so easy to spot!) , not to mention the millions of Pakistani's and Bangladeshi's there...

Which is partly why I am so against this US folly over there. The UK is packed to the gills with angry muslim youths... We have to distance ourselves from the US war to preserve peace on our small island.

Trust me, it isn't fun working behind bomb proof curtains, or having family members working next to targets in London...or wondering if the train you are on is the unlucky one to get bombed... The fact I'm part Scottish wouldn't have saved me from a random bomb....

Gawd bless the Irish is all I can say (both sides). Let's hope we never see troubles again.

Sorry mate, there are many different divisions within Sikh militant circles, the Blue Turban has nothing to do with it.

Goodness no.... Sikhs are great.. the fight I believe is within the Seikh community, or within the 'Indian' community. I lived with the blue turban guys in Africa for a while. (3 months) Nice guys. Drink a bit too much though.

No. The UK has the highest population of PAKISTANIS. (after Pak, and SAUDI). These guys are confined largely to ghetto areas in the north.

If the US invades Pakistan, which I'm sure it would love to if the war momentum would only keep going... if the US attacked Pak more (fuzzy border with Afghanistan)... AND the UK still had troops under US control... then I'm afraid the radical youth of UK and Europe%2

** edit** very odd. Post has been edited magically....

can't be bothered to write it again.. but in a nutshell... europe is full of radical muslim youth... UK has about as many muslims as the whole of the US.. France more so.

George Bush has asked me to pass on to "the nuts at Thai Visa" that the U.S. is not going to invade any countries with functional nuclear bombs. I don't think that he is lying this time. 

Great to hear it! Still too bloody close for comfort! I remember a lovely time when I was young, we had a gap of a few years when London wasn't under threat of bombs! Ah happy days!

God forbid the China towns of the world united for a common cause!

can't be bothered to write it again.. but in a nutshell... europe is full of radical muslim youth... UK has about as many muslims as the whole of the US.. France more so.

One big difference is that the US gets the better ones. The ones who want to work hard and succeed come to America. Socialist Europe gets the lazy ones who are there for the free flat, car and gov't handouts/salary. Arabs in the USA have an above average education and income compared to the entire country. Can any European country claim that?

Never thought about that! Good point. I guess the British Raj occured because it had evolved somewhat, and was able to become centralised. (Not without the obvious imperialistic damage to the respective kingdoms of course). Just ask the Sikhs over in the UK (luckily the ones with the blue turbans are the militant clan - so easy to spot!) , not to mention the millions of Pakistani's and Bangladeshi's there...

At the last census there were 747,285 Pakistanis in the UK and 283,063 Bangladeshis - a total of 1.8% of the UK population.

can't be bothered to write it again.. but in a nutshell... europe is full of radical muslim youth... UK has about as many muslims as the whole of the US.. France more so.

One big difference is that the US gets the better ones. The ones who want to work hard and succeed come to America. Socialist Europe gets the lazy ones who are there for the free flat, car and gov't handouts/salary. Arabs in the USA have an above average education and income compared to the entire country. Can any European country claim that?

I recently posted a topic on a chain email I received from a friend claiming that the average illegal refugee arriving in Australia receives around $57.000 a year in benefits. I pointed out to a few people that this just wasn't true.

Would you like to show proof of the free flats, cars and handouts? Or is it, as I said to the friend who forwarded the email, just "something everybody knows".

I agree that the US may get a better class of immigrant, for a start it's harder to get there. You can't walk or drive and the type of boats they use could have a few problems on the Pacific or Atlantic Oceans.

Do you know that Australia gets some Mexican immigrants?

Dare I suggest that on the average they are a better class than the Rio Grande swimmers?

Never thought about that! Good point. I guess the British Raj occured because it had evolved somewhat, and was able to become centralised. (Not without the obvious imperialistic damage to the respective kingdoms of course). Just ask the Sikhs over in the UK (luckily the ones with the blue turbans are the militant clan - so easy to spot!) , not to mention the millions of Pakistani's and Bangladeshi's there...

At the last census there were 747,285 Pakistanis in the UK and 283,063 Bangladeshis - a total of 1.8% of the UK population.

These are the " Legal ' figures. The truth is a tad more alarming.

Is that an "ethnic" figure? If so they must be counting third and fourth generation.

What's their crime/youth crime rate like? Compared to the rest of the population? You don't here much about the African/Caribbean immigrants and their descendants these days.

A lot of the complaints I hear lately are more about the Eastern Europeans, Bulgarians, Albanians etc.

can't be bothered to write it again.. but in a nutshell... europe is full of radical muslim youth... UK has about as many muslims as the whole of the US.. France more so.

One big difference is that the US gets the better ones. The ones who want to work hard and succeed come to America. Socialist Europe gets the lazy ones who are there for the free flat, car and gov't handouts/salary. Arabs in the USA have an above average education and income compared to the entire country. Can any European country claim that?

I recently posted a topic on a chain email I received from a friend claiming that the average illegal refugee arriving in Australia receives around $57.000 a year in benefits. I pointed out to a few people that this just wasn't true.

Would you like to show proof of the free flats, cars and handouts? Or is it, as I said to the friend who forwarded the email, just "something everybody knows".

I agree that the US may get a better class of immigrant, for a start it's harder to get there. You can't walk or drive and the type of boats they use could have a few problems on the Pacific or Atlantic Oceans.

Do you know that Australia gets some Mexican immigrants?

Dare I suggest that on the average they are a better class than the Rio Grande swimmers?

Nope, I never got that chain mail. I'm not on the Aussie-chain-mail mailing list. I get my info from English and Swedish friends. They probably get the type of chain mails you are talking about. I do know you don't get American muslims protesting in the streets for the right to follow Sharia Law like you do in Europe.

I work with American muslims who have come from 3rd world countries. They have family and friends in Europe and I am constantly told that America is where the opportunities are, NOT in Europe. So if you want to make it in the business world, go to America. You want a gov't handout, stay in Europe. One of my colleagues is Morroccan. He has lived in Germany and France and now in Virgina. He was going on last week how everything is free in France and Germany (university & health care). He has just gotten his French citizenship but will use it to go there if anyone in the family needs expensive health care. He'll still live in America.

I don't follow Australia's immigration issues just as you apparently don't follow American's. It's really easy to get into the USA via Mexico. Kind of like our own moonlight Schengan deal. I'm certain your Mexicans are better than ours. The problem we have is they just want to work and send dollars home. I think that accounts for 11% of of Mexico's economy. If they go to the trouble and expense to fly all the way to Australia (although they are good swimmers - not called wetbacks for nothing) they are probably looking for something more permanent.

can't be bothered to write it again.. but in a nutshell... europe is full of radical muslim youth... UK has about as many muslims as the whole of the US.. France more so.

One big difference is that the US gets the better ones. The ones who want to work hard and succeed come to America. Socialist Europe gets the lazy ones who are there for the free flat, car and gov't handouts/salary. Arabs in the USA have an above average education and income compared to the entire country. Can any European country claim that?

I recently posted a topic on a chain email I received from a friend claiming that the average illegal refugee arriving in Australia receives around $57.000 a year in benefits. I pointed out to a few people that this just wasn't true.

Would you like to show proof of the free flats, cars and handouts? Or is it, as I said to the friend who forwarded the email, just "something everybody knows".

I agree that the US may get a better class of immigrant, for a start it's harder to get there. You can't walk or drive and the type of boats they use could have a few problems on the Pacific or Atlantic Oceans.

Do you know that Australia gets some Mexican immigrants?

Dare I suggest that on the average they are a better class than the Rio Grande swimmers?

Nope, I never got that chain mail. I'm not on the Aussie-chain-mail mailing list. I get my info from English and Swedish friends. They probably get the type of chain mails you are talking about. I do know you don't get American muslims protesting in the streets for the right to follow Sharia Law like you do in Europe.

I work with American muslims who have come from 3rd world countries. They have family and friends in Europe and I am constantly told that America is where the opportunities are, NOT in Europe. So if you want to make it in the business world, go to America. You want a gov't handout, stay in Europe. One of my colleagues is Morroccan. He has lived in Germany and France and now in Virgina. He was going on last week how everything is free in France and Germany (university & health care). He has just gotten his French citizenship but will use it to go there if anyone in the family needs expensive health care. He'll still live in America.

I don't follow Australia's immigration issues just as you apparently don't follow American's. It's really easy to get into the USA via Mexico. Kind of like our own moonlight Schengan deal. I'm certain your Mexicans are better than ours. The problem we have is they just want to work and send dollars home. I think that accounts for 11% of of Mexico's economy. If they go to the trouble and expense to fly all the way to Australia (although they are good swimmers - not called wetbacks for nothing) they are probably looking for something more permanent.

Never thought about that! Good point. I guess the British Raj occured because it had evolved somewhat, and was able to become centralised. (Not without the obvious imperialistic damage to the respective kingdoms of course). Just ask the Sikhs over in the UK (luckily the ones with the blue turbans are the militant clan - so easy to spot!) , not to mention the millions of Pakistani's and Bangladeshi's there...

At the last census there were 747,285 Pakistanis in the UK and 283,063 Bangladeshis - a total of 1.8% of the UK population.

These are the " Legal ' figures. The truth is a tad more alarming.

What is 'the truth'?

I find it unbelievable that educated people actually believe the people of Afghan are happy that US and British troops occupy their country. The Afghans are doing what most proud people would do: fight the invader.

A nation such as the US, that refuses by its sycophantic agreements with pharmaceutical companies universal medical cover to its own population preventing over 50% of its population from receiving even basic medical care, would care enough about foreign teenage girls' educations that they would start a war that would lead to the deaths of 1,000s of allied soldiers and 10,000s of Afghans is beyond my capability to appreciate stupid.

Under the Taleban opium production was nearly eradicated. Under British and US control of the major opium growing regions production reached record levels. There is something fundamentally wrong with the reasoning behind the war. <deleted> those terrorists on 9/11 were trained to fly those planes by Americans in American flying schools.

The dumb should start thinking IMO

I find it unbelievable that educated people actually believe the people of Afghan are happy that US and British troops occupy their country. The Afghans are doing what most proud people would do: fight the invader.

A nation such as the US, that refuses by its sycophantic agreements with pharmaceutical companies universal medical cover to its own population preventing over 50% of its population from receiving even basic medical care, would care enough about foreign teenage girls' educations that they would start a war that would lead to the deaths of 1,000s of allied soldiers and 10,000s of Afghans is beyond my capability to appreciate stupid.

Under the Taleban opium production was nearly eradicated. Under British and US control of the major opium growing regions production reached record levels. There is something fundamentally wrong with the reasoning behind the war. <deleted> those terrorists on 9/11 were trained to fly those planes by Americans in American flying schools.

The dumb should start thinking IMO

ANYTHING is better than having the Taliban nut cases in charge and controlling the Afghan people with an iron fist. Do a little thinking about that.

Ah yes, I'ts a humanitarian mission!!

... revenge for the blown up Buddha's, 911, and er... oh well that's enough reason to crash the US/Global economy in the process!

The insanity of it all... A U.S/Western empire...at what cost!! "Shhh.. we are spreading western democracy" ... haha! The same democracy that has now been hijacked by the corporate titans! I shouldn't worry so much, the British empire collapsed not so long ago... it did it with a whimper... trouble is the Yanks look set to go out with a bang.

Don't forget throwing acid into little girls faces for attending school.

Never thought about that! Good point. I guess the British Raj occured because it had evolved somewhat, and was able to become centralised. (Not without the obvious imperialistic damage to the respective kingdoms of course). Just ask the Sikhs over in the UK (luckily the ones with the blue turbans are the militant clan - so easy to spot!) , not to mention the millions of Pakistani's and Bangladeshi's there...

At the last census there were 747,285 Pakistanis in the UK and 283,063 Bangladeshis - a total of 1.8% of the UK population.

These are the " Legal ' figures. The truth is a tad more alarming.

What is 'the truth'?

Depends on your politics. But just about every party agrees there are a great number of illegal immigrants in the UK. The Immigration service is swamped.

Don't forget throwing acid into little girls faces for attending school.

I completely agree that the 'Taliban' as it was (is?), should be combated. However, the US/West will in my opinion never be able to control the region (as the British did in India). While it is tragic that the Afghan people should suffer under such a primitive regime, surely the priority for the 'west' is to look after our own... Racheting up 'global wars' will not bring back prosperity as it did to the British empire and it's subjects (some of them). For a start, now that we are undergoing 'globalisation' - the jobs that came with industrialisation (England) and subsequent profit from our colonies... will not manifest itself in a 'modern' empire. (unless much of your nations industrial output are armaments --?? "The United States accounts for 47 percent of the world's total military spending")

- Agriculture - American farmers will suffer if the American 'empire' prospers. - which is why Africa is kept in slavery via debt bondage.

- Manufacturing - outsourced. Outpaced by Germany, Japan.... C h i n a

- Science & Tech - maybe the US will survive. I suspect a 'brain drain' will become a reality sooner or later. Hey, Brazil looks fun

- Finance - Again, outpaced, and outfoxed by the BRIC pack. The casino has been busted. Imagine if everyone in the USA's income was pegged to oil & auto industry shares..maybe it is already - even if we dont know it... are we all slaves now? must we support war to maintain peace?

- Politics - The mass awakening of the world to the corruption of our current world leaders with these invasions and steps towards the brink have generated a unique situation. Global rebellion.

The solution? Leave it to the big dogs. China. Oh... and why not 'invade' Africa! Be great to actually bring stability to that region.. of course the west will rape it senseless as usual... but .... I can't help thinking that one day, with the massive amount of 'African Americans' they might actually help one day. But of course the big corps need a taste of revolution first.

ramble ramble (I like America really - I just use the word to describe the unchecked business interests that run us all now)

p.s: My family used to be in the arms trade back in the last century. Battleships, heavy guns and the like....

I find it unbelievable that educated people actually believe the people of Afghan are happy that US and British troops occupy their country. The Afghans are doing what most proud people would do: fight the invader.

A nation such as the US, that refuses by its sycophantic agreements with pharmaceutical companies universal medical cover to its own population preventing over 50% of its population from receiving even basic medical care, would care enough about foreign teenage girls' educations that they would start a war that would lead to the deaths of 1,000s of allied soldiers and 10,000s of Afghans is beyond my capability to appreciate stupid.

Under the Taleban opium production was nearly eradicated. Under British and US control of the major opium growing regions production reached record levels. There is something fundamentally wrong with the reasoning behind the war. <deleted> those terrorists on 9/11 were trained to fly those planes by Americans in American flying schools.

The dumb should start thinking IMO

ANYTHING is better than having the Taliban nut cases in charge and controlling the Afghan people with an iron fist. Do a little thinking about that.

If you look back in history you'll find that no-one controls the Afghan people if they decide otherwise. Everyone from Alexander the Great to the USA via Genghis Khan, the Brits and the USSR have tried. They all failed.

I completely agree that the 'Taliban' as it was (is?), should be combated. However, the US/West will in my opinion never be able to control the region (as the British did in India). While it is tragic that the Afghan people should suffer under such a primitive regime, surely the priority for the 'west' is to look after our own... Racheting up 'global wars' will not bring back prosperity as it did to the British empire and it's subjects (some of them).

The British Empire wanted to conquer peoples and their lands and rob them of their resources. The US has never had any interest in staying long term and actually pay top dollar for the resources.

I find it unbelievable that educated people actually believe the people of Afghan are happy that US and British troops occupy their country. The Afghans are doing what most proud people would do: fight the invader.

A nation such as the US, that refuses by its sycophantic agreements with pharmaceutical companies universal medical cover to its own population preventing over 50% of its population from receiving even basic medical care, would care enough about foreign teenage girls' educations that they would start a war that would lead to the deaths of 1,000s of allied soldiers and 10,000s of Afghans is beyond my capability to appreciate stupid.

Under the Taleban opium production was nearly eradicated. Under British and US control of the major opium growing regions production reached record levels. There is something fundamentally wrong with the reasoning behind the war. <deleted> those terrorists on 9/11 were trained to fly those planes by Americans in American flying schools.

The dumb should start thinking IMO

ANYTHING is better than having the Taliban nut cases in charge and controlling the Afghan people with an iron fist. Do a little thinking about that.

If you look back in history you'll find that no-one controls the Afghan people if they decide otherwise. Everyone from Alexander the Great to the USA via Genghis Khan, the Brits and the USSR have tried. They all failed.

The Taliban seem to have bucked the odds for a few years.

I find it unbelievable that educated people actually believe the people of Afghan are happy that US and British troops occupy their country. The Afghans are doing what most proud people would do: fight the invader.

A nation such as the US, that refuses by its sycophantic agreements with pharmaceutical companies universal medical cover to its own population preventing over 50% of its population from receiving even basic medical care, would care enough about foreign teenage girls' educations that they would start a war that would lead to the deaths of 1,000s of allied soldiers and 10,000s of Afghans is beyond my capability to appreciate stupid.

Under the Taleban opium production was nearly eradicated. Under British and US control of the major opium growing regions production reached record levels. There is something fundamentally wrong with the reasoning behind the war. <deleted> those terrorists on 9/11 were trained to fly those planes by Americans in American flying schools.

The dumb should start thinking IMO

ANYTHING is better than having the Taliban nut cases in charge and controlling the Afghan people with an iron fist. Do a little thinking about that.

If you look back in history you'll find that no-one controls the Afghan people if they decide otherwise. Everyone from Alexander the Great to the USA via Genghis Khan, the Brits and the USSR have tried. They all failed.

The Taliban seem to have bucked the odds for a few years.

Describing the Taliban as a terrorist organization is similar to the Thai government describing red and yellow shirts as terrorists - it's all spin. The Taliban have only hurt people who invaded their country. If the rationale for the invasion is to prevent AlQueda operating terrorist training camps, then let's invade Saudi Arabia because that's where the 9/11 terrorists came from and that's where they received their indoctrination, but we won't do that because they continue to buy oil in US dollars. While we are at it, let's invade parts of America where the 9/11 terrorists received their training to fly those planes. And hey while we are cleaning out terrorist training camps, let's start with the organization that trained the guy (Timothy McVeigh) behind the second worst terrorist event in the history of the States - The US army.

Do you really think the Us and British governments gives a monkey's uncle about young women who have acid thrown in their faces? Spin, spin, spin that plays on an emotional level to the patriotically blind.