Utopia Talk / Politics / Obama goes to norway to pick up peace pr

Sam Adams Member	Wed Dec 09 18:23:19 prize. just after ordering the US military to increase its airstrikes in pakistan and just after sending 35,000 more troops to the region. LOL fucking hippies=owned
mexicantornado Member	Wed Dec 09 18:24:21 To be fair the Commander on the ground wanted 60,000 more troops.
Hot Rod Member	Wed Dec 09 18:55:37 I thought he only wanted 40,000 more troops.
mexicantornado Member	Wed Dec 09 18:58:09 nope.
Jeddediah Wilklns Member	Wed Dec 09 19:27:10 Good job Obama.
McKobb Member	Wed Dec 09 19:34:51 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uph37qQdZu4
Hot Rod Member	Wed Dec 09 19:43:58 I hope he drops it on his toe. :)
Pierre Member	Thu Dec 10 07:41:57 obama is a bad president... clinton should have been nominated then we would have seen real change... this cartoon is so obama... http://www...e=1§ionName=PhotoGalleries
earthpig GTFO HOer	Thu Dec 10 07:44:15 I certainly think obama is doing a better job than we are used to, as americans. but a nobel peace prize? fuck no. we may as well give Kid Rock a Pulitzer, and Quentin Terintino a NAACP Distinguished Honkey award...
FIrestorm Phoenix Member	Thu Dec 10 07:45:46 Pierre Member Thu Dec 10 07:41:57 obama is a bad president... clinton should have been nominated then we would have seen real change... ^ Only saying that cause she has a vag.
Pierre Member	Thu Dec 10 07:50:04 so tell me why is your peace prize hero killing people and at the same time collecting peace prizes firestorm....? he broke every promise he ever made i said he would from the start... he looked like a liar and never wanted peace... but you all voted for him like chickens anyway... how deep does this cut... http://www...e=1§ionName=PhotoGalleries
Firestorm Phoenix Member	Thu Dec 10 08:11:43 It doesn't. Unlike you, I don't get twisted up so easily. As for his promises: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/ And no, you didn't say anything of the sort. Instead, you waxed poetic about Palin and Hillary because they were women. Then again, you've proven time and time again that you are an emasculated child with no comprehension of any subject presented in this forum, on either side of the fence. You are also probably a Poison alt. Which makes the "emasculated" comment still accurate.
Goreth Member	Thu Dec 10 08:11:48 "so tell me why is your peace prize hero killing people and at the same time collecting peace prizes firestorm....?" Because he inherited two wars and neither of them leave him a choice that does not include killing people? And the Nobel Peace Price for Obama was another retarded case of "We give you a peace price and you try to make us some peace, mkay?" Didn't happen the first time... "he broke every promise he ever made i said he would from the start..." No, he actually so far kept more promises than he has broken (a degree of honesty that is pretty damn amazing for a politician). Especially in Afghanistan he's doing exactly what he promised to. And Hillary promised exactly the same in regards to Afghanistan IIRC, and would certainly have ordered a troop increase if elected just the same. "he looked like a liar and never wanted peace..." This is the real world and you can't just declare peace and have it (unless you consider pulling out and letting the locals slaughter each other peace).
Pierre Member	Thu Dec 10 08:20:59 "This is the real world and you can't just declare peace and have it (unless you consider pulling out and letting the locals slaughter each other peace). " thats just a propaganda excuse... it would be fine if he pulled out like he promised.... they wouldnt go around killing each other for no reason... it was fine before you got there and it would be fine if you left... stop pretending they need to be killed by soldiers...
xyz1 Member	Thu Dec 10 08:22:39 "thats just a propaganda excuse... it would be fine if he pulled out like he promised.... they wouldnt go around killing each other for no reason... it was fine before you got there and it would be fine if you left..." Wasn't Afghanistan in the middle of a civil war that had been ongoing since 1978 when we invaded?
Firestorm Phoenix Member	Thu Dec 10 08:39:58 Pierre's naivete is blinding.
Goreth Member	Thu Dec 10 09:28:38 "thats just a propaganda excuse... it would be fine if he pulled out like he promised.... they wouldnt go around killing each other for no reason... it was fine before you got there and it would be fine if you left... stop pretending they need to be killed by soldiers..." PAIN! The degree of naivete/stupidity/reality denial in this post makes me want to throw up. 1. It wouldn't be fine. The taliban want to get back in power and the Karzai govt isn't going to give it up peacefully if the west pulls out. The war would go on. 2. As I already said, Obama did not promise an immediate pullout. He promised to 'focus ressources' on Afghanistan and now he does. 3. It wasn't fine before we got there. As xyz1 said, Afghanistan was in a civil war that had already lasted 33 years. Not to mention that the Taliban had established a violent medieval tyranny, and repressed women to a degree that makes Saudi Arabia or medieval Europe look like a Feminist paradise. (How people who are usually big advocates of woman's rights can so consistenly ignore opression of females outside the western culture [usually concerning muslims] is totally beyond me. Why the double standards?)
purvis Member	Thu Dec 10 09:32:41 "it would be fine if he pulled out like he promised.... they wouldnt go around killing each other for no reason" And as the Taliban return to the villages to exact revenge for the "traitors" the fathers last words to his son would be: "You see son, the west has always made promises and when we commit, they leave us to die. Dont EVER trust them again."
Milton Bradley Member	Thu Dec 10 09:37:08 "I certainly think obama is doing a better job than we are used to, as americans. " I disagree. His fiscal policies are the worst in the history of the United States. He has also FUBARed the healthcare reform into this bloated do nothing bill that will cost a trillion dollars.
Pierre Member	Thu Dec 10 09:38:54 "3. It wasn't fine before we got there. " so you can invade anyone you want if you dont like the status of the country....? if there was unrest in usa by your logic anyone could invade you in the name of 'peace'... can russia invade you next time there are riots in usa...? you have no business there... stop pretending you are helping... you are not... you are making the civil war...
Goreth Member	Thu Dec 10 10:10:17 Pierre, can't you just admit you were posting ridiculous bullshit instead of trying to change topic? I did not say anything about wether war was justified, just that an immediate western withdrawal would just make the civil war worse until one side prevails. (Which would likely take years) Do you have a more convincing argument against that than "Wah! Wah! Lies! All lies!!!"? And as to the legitimacy of the Afghan war: The UN gave its OK, so legally it's fine, the Northern Alliance was all for a NATO intervention too IIRC and I generally don't see a moral problem with deposing a tyranny of such epic brutality. (And that would include the US [except for the fact that invading a nuclear power is bound to go horribly wrong], or any other country. I'm from Austria and I'm fucking glad the Allies invaded us and deposed the nazis.) But of course an armed intervention to replace a regime is a grave matter. You have to have a good excuse for your involvement and an even better plan how to pull the show off. Of course the execution of the Afghan war was horribly botched, to no small degree to the outrageous stupidity that is the Iraq war. But I see no basic problem with the intervention.
purvis Member	Thu Dec 10 11:42:47 "Obama goes to norway to pick up peace prize" Bush doesn't.
purvis Member	Thu Dec 10 11:45:19 Pierre Member Thu Dec 10 09:38:54 "3. It wasn't fine before we got there. " so you can invade anyone you want if you dont like the status of the country....?" The invasion was wrong. Trying to end it without leaving the place to implode because of your predecessor is the right thing to do.
xyz1 Member	Thu Dec 10 11:46:03 "The invasion was wrong." Says who?
Milton Bradley Member	Thu Dec 10 11:51:49 The Taliban? I mean they were only aiding and harboring mass murderers... Not to mention illegally overthrowing the rightful government and imposing a fascist totalitarian theocracy on the population. I believe the Taliban also actively practiced assassinations of the leadership of the Northern Alliance, which would be a war crime.
CrownRoyal Member	Thu Dec 10 11:53:36 Compared to the Northern Alliance leaders and their war crimes, Taliban are angels. Dostum and Fahim, specifically.
xyz1 Member	Thu Dec 10 11:55:44 Atrocities happen in war. The real thing that turned people against the Taliban was their style of governance.
Milton Bradley Member	Thu Dec 10 11:56:17 I disagree. Some northern alliance leaders were pretty bad dudes, but the Taliban was much worse.
Milton Bradley Member	Thu Dec 10 11:56:34 last post directed at CR
CrownRoyal Member	Thu Dec 10 12:13:02 "While the deaths have been previously reported, the back story of the frustrated efforts to investigate them has not been fully told. The killings occurred in late November 2001, just days after the American-led invasion forced the ouster of the Taliban government in Kabul. Thousands of Taliban fighters surrendered to General Dostum’s forces, which were part of the American-backed Northern Alliance, in the city of Kunduz. They were then transported to a prison run by the general’s forces near the town of Shibarghan. Survivors and witnesses told The New York Times and Newsweek in 2002 that over a three-day period, Taliban prisoners were stuffed into closed metal shipping containers and given no food or water; many suffocated while being trucked to the prison. Other prisoners were killed when guards shot into the containers. The bodies were said to have been buried in a mass grave in Dasht-i-Leili, a stretch of desert just outside Shibarghan. A recently declassified 2002 State Department intelligence report states that one source, whose identity is redacted, concluded that about 1,500 Taliban prisoners died. Estimates from other witnesses or human rights groups range from several hundred to several thousand. The report also says that several Afghan witnesses were later tortured or killed. http://www...fghan.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all
Pierre Member	Thu Dec 10 12:25:30 "A tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny"
CrownRoyal Member	Thu Dec 10 12:32:45 That was for General Dostum. And this is Fahim. "Mohammad Qasim Fahim, one of two vice-presidential candidates put forward yesterday by Mr Karzai, is notorious for his role in Afghanistanâ??s civil war of the 1990s. As a commander of the Jamiat-e-Islami militia, he was named by Human Rights Watch in its 2005 report Blood Stained Hands as a key commander in the Afshar Massacre. About 800 members of the Shia Muslim Hazara minority were killed in a bout of murder, rape and looting in a civilian area of Kabul in September 1992. As the report shows, in the lead-up to the attack, hundreds of people were killed in indiscriminate or intentional attacks on civilian homes, and thousands more were displaced. As documented here, militias murdered scores of civilians in front of their homes during the attack. Hundreds more were abducted and never seen again." http://www...orld_agenda/article6222617.ece
CrownRoyal Member	Thu Dec 10 12:38:47 That why Taliban was created and why they were able to take control of Afghanistan - because the warlords were even worse.
purvis Member	Thu Dec 10 12:46:00 xyz1 Member Thu Dec 10 11:46:03 "The invasion was wrong." Says who? Actually, Im completely stoned and dont know what the fuck I posted that for lol. Automatic troll mode, I think.
river of blood Member	Thu Dec 10 13:00:08 Didn't the US used to support the taliban? Oh wait, that's before the magic fairy came down waved his wawn and made them "evil".
Pierre Member	Thu Dec 10 13:01:48 so Goreth.... how was what i posted wrong when you made the taliban yourself......
Milton Bradley Member	Thu Dec 10 13:07:34 US never supported the Taliban. The US did support the mujahideen in their battle against the Soviets, however, the mujahideen was a broad group composed of many different nationalities and ethnicities
MrPresident07 Member	Thu Dec 10 13:56:20 MB is correct. Stupid people like RoB don't know history, and thus all of their arguments are based off of faulty foundations.
Nekran Member	Thu Dec 10 14:19:42 "US never supported the Taliban." The US did give the Taliban several million dollars for their excellent (and naturally brutal) fight against the opium farmers in light of the War on Drugs only some months before 9/11. That while the US was also seeking sanctions against the very same regime with the UN for not handing over Bin Laden. Maybe it doesn't constitute "support", but a smart foreign policy it definitely was not.
Milton Bradley Member	Thu Dec 10 14:43:21 link?
Milton Bradley Member	Thu Dec 10 14:43:48 'Cause we have been over this before. It was *not* given to the taliban.
Milton Bradley Member	Thu Dec 10 14:44:36 Sometimes the gullibility of people astounds me.
Nekran Member	Thu Dec 10 14:59:20 May 2001 article from the Los Angeles Times called "Bush's faustian deal with the Taliban", written by Robert Scheer. Can be found still on many a site. The LAtimes itself does not seem to have an archive though... pretty lame in this day and age. Bush's Faustian Deal With the Taliban By Robert Scheer May 22, 2001 Enslave your girls and women, harbor anti-US terrorists, destroy every vestige of civilization in your homeland, and the Bush Administration will embrace you. All that matters is that you line up as an ally in the drug war, the only international cause that this nation still takes seriously. That's the message sent with the recent gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American violators of human rights in the world today. The gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the United States the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that "rogue regime" for declaring that opium growing is against the will of God. So, too, by the Taliban's estimation, are most human activities, but it's the ban on drugs that catches this administration's attention. Never mind that Osama bin Laden still operates the leading anti-American terror operation from his base in Afghanistan, from which, among other crimes, he launched two bloody attacks on American embassies in Africa in 1998. Sadly, the Bush Administration is cozying up to the Taliban regime at a time when the United Nations, at US insistence, imposes sanctions on Afghanistan because the Kabul government will not turn over Bin Laden. The war on drugs has become our own fanatics' obsession and easily trumps all other concerns. How else could we come to reward the Taliban, who has subjected the female half of the Afghan population to a continual reign of terror in a country once considered enlightened in its treatment of women? At no point in modern history have women and girls been more systematically abused than in Afghanistan where, in the name of madness masquerading as Islam, the government in Kabul obliterates their fundamental human rights. Women may not appear in public without being covered from head to toe with the oppressive shroud called the burkha , and they may not leave the house without being accompanied by a male family member. They've not been permitted to attend school or be treated by male doctors, yet women have been banned from practicing medicine or any profession for that matter. The lot of males is better if they blindly accept the laws of an extreme religious theocracy that prescribes strict rules governing all behavior, from a ban on shaving to what crops may be grown. It is this last power that has captured the enthusiasm of the Bush White House. The Taliban fanatics, economically and diplomatically isolated, are at the breaking point, and so, in return for a pittance of legitimacy and cash from the Bush Administration, they have been willing to appear to reverse themselves on the growing of opium. That a totalitarian country can effectively crack down on its farmers is not surprising. But it is grotesque for a US official, James P. Callahan, director of the State Department's Asian anti-drug program, to describe the Taliban's special methods in the language of representative democracy: "The Taliban used a system of consensus-building," Callahan said after a visit with the Taliban, adding that the Taliban justified the ban on drugs "in very religious terms." Of course, Callahan also reported, those who didn't obey the theocratic edict would be sent to prison. In a country where those who break minor rules are simply beaten on the spot by religious police and others are stoned to death, it's understandable that the government's "religious" argument might be compelling. Even if it means, as Callahan concedes, that most of the farmers who grew the poppies will now confront starvation. That's because the Afghan economy has been ruined by the religious extremism of the Taliban, making the attraction of opium as a previously tolerated quick cash crop overwhelming. For that reason, the opium ban will not last unless the United States is willing to pour far larger amounts of money into underwriting the Afghan economy. As the Drug Enforcement Administration's Steven Casteel admitted, "The bad side of the ban is that it's bringing their country--or certain regions of their country--to economic ruin." Nor did he hold out much hope for Afghan farmers growing other crops such as wheat, which require a vast infrastructure to supply water and fertilizer that no longer exists in that devastated country. There's little doubt that the Taliban will turn once again to the easily taxed cash crop of opium in order to stay in power. The Taliban may suddenly be the dream regime of our own war drug war zealots, but in the end this alliance will prove a costly failure. Our long sad history of signing up dictators in the war on drugs demonstrates the futility of building a foreign policy on a domestic obsession.
Milton Bradley Member	Thu Dec 10 15:15:24 Like I said, we have been over this before. http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/05/17/us.afghanistan.aid/ WASHINGTON -- Warning that Afghanistan is "on the verge of a widespread famine," Secretary of State Colin Powell Thursday announced a $43 million package in humanitarian assistance for the Afghan people. Powell also called on other nations to send aid to the Central Asian nation. "If the international community does not take immediate action, countless deaths and terrible tragedy are certain to follow," Powell said. The package includes $28 million worth of wheat from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, $5 million in food commodities and $10 million in "livelihood and food security" programs, both from the U.S. Agency for International Development. Powell called the crisis a "looming catastrophe," and said that he was working with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan to press upon potential donors the need to respond to the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan "with energy and dispatch." Almost 4 million at risk A nation of 26 million, Afghanistan has been hit by three consecutive years of drought. The nation has also endured more than 20 years of civil strife. The Taliban religious militia, which imposes a harsh brand of Islam, captured Afghanistan's capital, Kabul, in 1996 and now controls an estimated 95 percent of the country. The Thursday aid announcement follows the return of a U.S. delegation last month from a visit to Afghanistan, where it found the population on the verge of a famine due to a devastating drought. Leonard Rogers, the deputy assistant administrator of USAID's Bureau for Humanitarian Response, estimated that Afghanistan is nearly 2 million tons short of what the country needs to feed its people, a deficit two times more than last year. According to U.N. figures, 3.8 million people in the country are at risk of famine. Powell said the United States expects to announce additional assistance to Afghan refugees, and would continue to look for ways to provide more aid to Afghanistan, especially for farmers feeling the crunch from a ban on poppy cultivation, a decision by the ruling Taliban that the U.S. welcomes. The United Nations estimates that the drought has forced more than 700,000 people to flee their homes, landing at camps for internally displaced citizens. The team visiting Afghanistan found the conditions of the camps woefully inadequate, and said that the shelter facilities, water and sanitation was very poor. Officials were especially concerned about refugees leaving Afghanistan for bordering countries, such as Pakistan and Iran, and expressed concern that those countries might send the refugees back to Afghanistan. One "holding facility" on the Pakistani side of the border in Jalozai was described as inappropriate for holding refugees. Alan Kreczko, acting assistant secretary of state for the Bureau of Population, Refugee and Migration Affairs, said that while the United States "understands the frustration" felt by the border countries who have acted as "generous hosts," he cautioned "this is not the time" to send the refugees back. U.N. to distribute aid While U.S. officials cited the drought as the major factor for the deepening humanitarian crisis, the members of the delegation said that Afghanistan's ruling Taliban's regime and the security problems it presents, hinders access and contributed to the situation. The U.N. Security Council imposed sanctions against the Taliban in an effort to pressure the militia to hand over Saudi exile Osama bin Laden, who is accused of bombing two U.S. embassies in Africa. Humanitarian aid is allowed. Powell said the U.S. aid is administered by the United Nations and non-governmental organizations, and bypasses the Taliban, "who have done little to alleviate the suffering of the Afghan people, and indeed have done much to exacerbate it." The sum brings U.S. assistance to $124.2 million for this year, making the United States the largest Afghan donor for the second year in a row http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2003_11_16_archive.html The $43 million myth persists (11/18) By Bryan Keefer Recent repetitions of the discredited claim that the United States gave $43 million in aid to the Taliban government of Afghanistan illustrate just how difficult it is to quash these sorts of myths once they become part of the media's collective memory. The myth, spawned by Robert Scheer in May 2001 and widely repeated since, suggests that the United States gave $43 million in aid directly to the Taliban in 2001 as a reward for the government's ban on opium poppy cultivation. In fact, the $43 million was given to food aid and food security programs administered through non-governmental organizations and the United Nations to help relieve famine in Afghanistan. The myth was debunked at the time by Leftwatch.com and later by us. However, the Taliban's relevance after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks sparked a surge of repetitions, which we and others have continued to debunk. Despite these efforts, the story lives on. The most prominent recent repetition came from Fox News commentator Alan Colmes, co-host of "Hannity and Comes." In his new book Red, White and Liberal, Colmes states that "the Bush administration gave $43 million to the Taliban in May 2001 as a reward for its ban on growing opium poppies. Can you show me a conservative who has made this point? Meanwhile, Bill Clinton, who is still accused of doing nothing to fight terrorism, signed an executive order that froze $254 million in Taliban assets in the United States." [page 144] A number of lower-profile repetitions also reveal how the myth survives as a part of public consciousness. Mostly recently, Glenn Scherer asked in a column on the liberal website Commondreams.org, "Why, Mr. President, did you give $43 million in foreign aid to the Taliban in Afghanistan less than six months before 9/11, when you knew they were the most virulent anti-American violators of human rights in the world, and also knew that they harbored the training camps of terrorist Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda?" The myth also popped up in a November 8 letter to the editor in the Sacramento Bee, a November 3 feature in Variety magazine (which suggested the aid made "the U.S. the largest supporter of Bin Laden's cause"), and a letter to the editor of the Philadelphia Daily News on September 22. The continued repetition of this well-debunked myth illustrates how difficult it is to put a stop to these fictions once they make their way into the public record. Some commentators, most recently Michael Moore, have finally started getting their facts right. Others should do the same.
Milton Bradley Member	Thu Dec 10 15:16:38 I mean... goddamn those evil American bastards giving away $28 million worth of wheat and $15 million of other food aid to the UN NGOs in Afghanistan.
Nekran Member	Thu Dec 10 15:27:37 Interesting... must be like the 7th time I brought that article up and never gotten a refutation to it. Don't think it was all that gullible though... the US has been utterly irrational when it comes to their war on drugs and the article was written pre 9/11 when the world pretty much didn't know nor care about the taliban. Apart from that the Taliban never allowed the UN to work independently in Afghanistan during their reign, so I have some issues buying that the UN and other organisations bypassed the Taliban handing out the aid. But interesting nonetheless.
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Thu Dec 10 15:29:55 "Interesting... must be like the 7th time I brought that article up and never gotten a refutation to it." the cato institute doesn't refute it. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3556
Milton Bradley Member	Thu Dec 10 15:30:07 You can have whatever issues you want, but that is at least the third time I have debunked that particular rumor on UP. Also, hard to do much repression and fighting with 2 tons of wheat. The taliban made it difficult, but not impossible for NGOs to administer aid.
Milton Bradley Member	Thu Dec 10 15:32:30 "the cato institute doesn't refute it. " So? We have irrefutable proof. The US annoucement of the $43 million prior to Sheer's article even being written. So the cato institute lacks integrity and is basically full of shit.
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Thu Dec 10 15:35:00 "So the cato institute lacks integrity and is basically full of shit." that very well masy be,but your government lacks even more integrity and is basically full of even more shit.
and justice 4 all Member	Thu Dec 10 15:39:34 If only Obama would bomb Jerusalem also. Only then can it be peace in the world.
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Thu Dec 10 15:46:25 "US never supported the Taliban. The US did support the mujahideen in their battle against the Soviets, however, the mujahideen was a broad group composed of many different nationalities and ethnicities " from WIKI Relations with the United States Foreign powers, including the United States, were at first supportive of the Taliban in hopes it would serve as a force to restore order in Afghanistan after years of division into corrupt, lawless warlord fiefdoms. The U.S. government, for example, made no comment when the Taliban captured Herat in 1995 and expelled thousands of girls from schools.[76] These hopes faded as it began to be engaged in warlord practices of rocketing unarmed civilians, targeting ethnic groups (primarily Hazaras) and restricting the rights of women.[38] In late 1997, American Secretary of State Madeleine Albright began to distance the U.S. from the Taliban and the next year the American-based Unocal, previously having implicitly supported the Taliban in order to build a pipeline south from Central Asia, the oil company withdrew from a major deal with the Taliban regime concerning an oil pipeline. In early August 1998 the Taliban's difficulties in relations with foreign groups became much more serious. After attacking the city of Mazar, Taliban forces killed several thousand civilians and 10 Iranian diplomats and intelligence officers in the Iranian consulate. Alleged radio intercepts indicate Mullah Omar personally approved the killings.[77] The Iranian government was incensed and a "full-blown regional crisis" ensued with Iran mobilizing 200,000 regular troops,[78] though war was averted. A day before the capture of Mazar, affiliates of Taliban guest Osama bin Laden bombed two U.S. embassies in Africa killing 224 and wounding 4500 mostly African victims. The United States responded by launching cruise missiles attacks on suspected terrorists camps in Afghanistan killing over 20 though failing to kill bin Laden or even many Al-Qaeda. Mullah Omar condemned the missile attack and American President Bill Clinton.[79] Saudi Arabia expelled the Taliban envoy in Saudi Arabia in protest over the Taliban's refusal to turn over bin Laden and after Mullah Omar allegedly insulted the Saudi royal family.[80] In mid-October the UN Security Council voted unanimously to ban commercial aircraft flights to and from Afghanistan and freeze its bank accounts world wide.[81] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban
river of blood Member	Thu Dec 10 15:58:00 Ok. So then we DID support the Taliban.
Milton Bradley Member	Thu Dec 10 16:04:37 wiki is a notoriously unreliable source. The non-retarded would not link to it as support.
xyz1 Member	Thu Dec 10 16:10:06 "wiki is a notoriously unreliable source. The non-retarded would not link to it as support." Rather than rejecting everything posted just because the direct source was wikipedia, most of us would have checked [76-81] to see if they were reliable before passing judgement on its accuracy.
Y2A Member	Thu Dec 10 16:16:44 why do people that don't know shit about wikipedia try and talk about it?
river of blood Member	Thu Dec 10 16:17:10 I don't think Milton is interested in that, xyz. Stop taking away his excuse to support the murder of people with darker skin than his. What a buzz kill.
Y2A Member	Thu Dec 10 16:17:25 xyz1, yep.
Pierre Member	Thu Dec 10 16:18:38 because people like goreth..milton..cant stand being wrong... so they dismiss facts with lame excuses...
Firestorm Phoenix Member	Thu Dec 10 16:51:25 As opposed to you, who gives knee-jerk responses about how the world will be a magical cake-filled wonderland if we put women in charge of everything. Here's a link that you probably need to look at, Poiso..I mean "Pierre". http://heartcorps.com/journeys/everything/introduction.htm
charper Member	Thu Dec 10 16:53:49 being the only male in an all bisexual female world would be cool.
Nekran Member	Thu Dec 10 17:44:24 Not if you're as gay as Pierre.
charper Member	Thu Dec 10 18:44:55 Thats true. I guess it would be hell to him.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: