Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by GLaDOS
Again, I present the same point. The Afghans did NOT ask you to go there! NATO went there with their own choice.
Then they shouldn’t have provided a safe haven and training grounds for terrorists who attacked the US of A.
You can’t cry about collateral damage when you’re knowingly housing the target.
Wasn't it George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld that help put Saddam in power ? Wasn't it the CIA that funded and trained Osama during the Afghan/Russia
conflict ? Didn't 16 of the 19 alleged 'terrorists" from 9/11 come from Saudi Arabia ?
So didn't Bush and Rumsfeld help with a safe haven for what they then class as an "evil dictator", up until the point that Saddam had served his
purpose [USA interests] ?
Why is it Ok for the CIA to fund and train people fighting the Russsians, yet as soon as the Russians leave, those same soldiers are then classed a s
terrorists by the same people that helped train and fund them, once they had served their purpose [USA interests].
Why hasn't Saudi Arabia even been investigated to prove the 16 were not trained in Saudi Arabia, which is also the same country that the so-called
mastermind of 9/11 came from ?
Why are Black ops troops [funded by the US taxpayer] patrolling the CIA run opium fields in Afghanistan, the same Afghanistan that now controls over
95% of the worlds herion supply, will then claiming to be "fighting the war on drugs" back home ?
You can't cry about being the victim, when you are selectively instigating most of the trouble, and just like with evreything in life, there are 2
sides to every story !
And don't you just love how people dismiss the loss of innocent life as "collateral damage". But would that same term be used to describe their own
family members if killed in the same circumstances ?
In that case, the Ambassador's recently killed in places of politcal and civil untrest were just victims of "collateral damage" and can now also be
swept under the rug and no further action required. And if any family members of the killed Ambassadors who complain will now be classed as having a
And wasn't Osama allegedly found HIDING in a SAFE HAVEN in PAKISTAN ? So when does the bombing start in Pakistan for housing Osama ?
But I suppose its just a co-incidence that the countries attacked for providing a safe haven [Iraq/Afghanistan] don't have nuclear bombs, yet the
countries that provided a safe haven but do have nuclear weapons [Pakistan] don't get attacked ?
Just like with the term "collateral damage", there seems to be selective memories being used when the term "safe haven" is applied !