Well, there was at least one casualty.
Or, better yet, “You know, before Afghanistan, I couldn’t give a toss about Americans. Then they came with their Predator drones and their indifference to collateral damage, and now like it or lump it I’m inclined to go with Osama bin Laden.”
It’s interesting what you can justify when you think like a savage.
[QUOTE=Sophistry and Illusion]
Or, better yet, “You know, before Afghanistan, I couldn’t give a toss about Americans. Then they came with their Predator drones and their indifference to collateral damage, and now like it or lump it I’m inclined to go with Osama bin Laden.”
Well colour me confused but I fail to see WTF you are on about.
FYI, and in case you forgot, Afghanistan was the resulting mess due to to Old Bin Liners fuck-ups of 9/11.
Like it or lump it
It’s very simple:
Members of group X do something evil.
Savages take that as permission to go about randomly slaughtering members of group X, regardless of their responsibility for evil act.
Basically, there’s no difference between people who think like you and **tagos ** and people who think it’s okay that Al Qaeda took down the twin towers. It’s the same atavistic, primitive revenge instinct which ignores responsibility or blame.
Let me know if I used too many big words for you.
Kill 'em all, let God sort them out.
Doofus.
Nope, I can handle big words sonny.
Group X was Al Q and OBL
Group Y was American response.
Primitive revenge my arse, “What ye sow, so shall ye reap”
Bit like Pearl Harbor doncha think?
What’s more I resent the implication that I think it was OK to take down the Twin Towers and I insist on an apology from you
Did you actually read the OP? X is Afghans. Some Afghans act like assholes. **tagos ** advocates indiscriminate killing of Afghans, regardless of their connection to said assholish behavior. Killing innocent people for what other guilty people did, merely because they belong to the same group (nation, ethnicity, religion), is the mark of a savage and a piece of shit. You second **tagos’s ** suggestion. Therefore, you are also a savage and a piece of shit.
You won’t get one. If you employ the same twisted, monstrous reasoning (Afghani X did something bad; therefore, it is okay to kill Afghanis Y, Z, P, Q and R), then expect to get called on it.
This piece of shit declines further conversation with a tunnel visioned twat of little or no significance
Oh, no! I was learning so much from you. Like how collateral damage doesn’t matter as long as it’s sand niggers.
It sounds better in the original medieval french:
“tuez les tous,dieu reconnaîtra les siens”. (Kill them all, God knows his own)
------Arnaud Amaury, Abbot of Cîteaux
You may not agree with what he said, but he never said anything like the above. So if you’re going to to engage in drive-by racism, at least have the balls to own it as your own instead of trying to tar your opponent with it.
Whatever. **tagos ** and **chowder ** come in here, saying Afghans are savages and we should just kill a bunch of them and not give a shit. It’s not a matter of not agreeing with what they said. It’s a matter of thinking their moral compasses are fundamentally fucked up. We’re talking about board members who apparently don’t think Afghan lives are worth much, that killing them doesn’t really matter. What do *you * call that?
Hey, ten points for trying to paint the other guy as a rascist. Why don’t you calm down and stop being so fucking annoying? Or what Jodi said.
Thanks for the invite! That is in fact the case; and the “‘cultural’ shit” can be specified, if you want. (Sorry that you perceive statements reflecting a complex reality as being whining.)
Oh, gosh, you guys are right. I guess we shouldn’t really worry about collateral damage, as long as it’s Afghans who are getting killed. I mean, it’s not like they really matter, right? Who gives two shits if an Afghan family gets blown up? Certainly not me! They’re the wrong religion, for starters!
BTW, I apologize for calling **chowder ** a racist. Nothing in his post suggested he was a racist. But thinking that collateral damage against Afghans doesn’t matter is still the view of an immoral savage. I won’t change my view on that.
Back to the OP. This is just good old fashioned hard knuckle politics. His brother pissed of some connected warlords. This was never about women’s rights.
It’s kind of hard to take the moral high ground when you’re advocating the same behavior you’re condemning–namely, indiscriminate killing.
Whatevs to you too. If you think that their moral compases are fundamentally fucked up, say that. But posting racist epithets and trying to assign it to them (him) is bullshit, and you know it. And I don’t have to call it anything in order to point that out.