Log in

No account? Create an account
April 2017   01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

plurball, read this

Posted on 2001.09.13 at 22:38


14:40 2001-08-01


Citing high-ranking Afghan sources, the Pakistani newspaper, Nation, has reported that the Taliban have appointed two international terrorists, Osama bin Laden and Juma Namangani, to lead military operations against the Northern Alliance.
According to the paper's information, the Taliban leadership has de facto appointed terrorist no.1, bin Laden, as defence minister. He is currently organising offensives from his secret hide-out.


so. the actions of a few and not a country, huh?


lazysurfer at 2001-09-13 22:55 (UTC) (Link)
dude? no :(
torilove at 2001-09-13 23:14 (UTC) (Link)

lou, andrew, and i decided that if & when war breaks out, we're moving to england. i've got 2 grand and some savings bonds. i'm outta here.
granted, moving to england won't completely solve to problem or keep us alive, especially if it's biological, but the bay area is not exactly my first choice of residence for a world war.

wanna come?
Generation Y's Howard Beale
dk at 2001-09-13 23:48 (UTC) (Link)
fuck yeah. you can get *such* better cars over there.
(Anonymous) at 2001-09-14 07:43 (UTC) (Link)
Generation Y's Howard Beale
dk at 2001-09-14 12:42 (UTC) (Link)
quit overreacting.
back2dafront at 2001-09-13 23:50 (UTC) (Link)


I've been contemplating australia - mebbe i'll stop in and see you guys on the way over or something. good luck!

(Deleted comment)
betternewthings at 2001-09-14 00:58 (UTC) (Link)

not a country

actions of a government.
do you still believe that innocent civilians should be held to pay for a government that has gained power over them through military force?
Generation Y's Howard Beale
dk at 2001-09-14 12:41 (UTC) (Link)
first, it can't be denied that there are many degrees of "payment".

taking down access to a network they don't use anyway would be, as i said, more of a symbolic gesture than anything.

but you're really putting words in my mouth anyway, dude, because i never advocated such an act- i just made (somewhat extensive) note of the fact that it was possible. *grin*

second- i'm tiring of hearing the word "innocent" thrown around so much. the way i hear it used it seems that i can think of about ten to fifteen afghanis who were "innocent" right up to the moment they killed the equivalent of the population of a small city with a couple of passenger airplanes. this society breeds terrorists and then rejoices over their actions. this must not be forgotten.

but apart from all that; new entry, new context-

the purpose of sharing this information was to underline my point that this was not only an act of terrorism, but one of war as well.

it's been made clear that the Afghani government is responsible for what happened in new york and pennsylvaina- so let their government pay the price.

let the people in power there be detained and summarily executed, and let the innocent civilians that remain reap the benefits of the opportunity for a better life that's provided by way of this act.

in short, i have two words for what i think is necessary here: Military Occupation. even a puppet government controlled by the U.S. is *certain* to provide a better standard of living than that of the Taliban- at the very least, innocent civilians who aren't followers of Islam won't have to have their houses and clothes branded anymore; and *everyone* will be able to watch TV and use the Internet (which is apparently pretty important), they'll have a choice of more than one radio station to listen to- my speech here is limited only by my ignorance of what *else* the Taliban does to oppress their people.

what i'm calling for here is not something so simple and banal as revenge, but an act of retribution that will result in greater freedom in the world.
betternewthings at 2001-09-14 01:26 (UTC) (Link)


pravda has a website
try imagining that in '89
then again, the cia has "cia kids" nowadays too
ratgirl at 2001-09-14 02:28 (UTC) (Link)
lou, andrew, and i decided that if & when war breaks out, we're moving to england.

i wouldn't think it was any safer here, could be worse if the war is in the middle east

and if there was a war, i would think borders (heh. not the bookstore) would be resolutely closed, but maybe not.

xeroproject at 2001-09-14 02:33 (UTC) (Link)
Dude, if Afghanistan is behind this, its really not going to matter who the fuck is defense minister, they're going to get their asses handed to them. Who the fuck needs nukes anyway? We didn't use them on Sadam, and we still ripped him a new asshole.
girlunder at 2001-09-14 08:57 (UTC) (Link)
Andrew and I were talking about this in the car last night. War is such a bad idea, because while even if all the middle east joins together to fight us we could kick their asses, all it would take for Saddam to whip out the biological weaponry, and we'd all be fuckityfuckfucked.
subversiveseed at 2001-09-14 14:29 (UTC) (Link)

so, umm...

lookit the news source. It's Pravda, a Russian newspaper of somewhat ill repute, reporting on what a Pakistani newspaper has said. Pravda has obtained no independent verification of this, and no other major news sources are reporting on this. I don't know about you, but I don't feel comfortable launching cruise missiles on the basis of third-hand knowledge. Not that our illustrious leaders and blood-thirsty populace need ANY real verification of complicity before going to war...
Generation Y's Howard Beale
dk at 2001-09-14 15:37 (UTC) (Link)

Re: so, umm...

if you don't stop your rhetoric from extending to putting words in my mouth, i'm gonna remove your ability to post in my journal. it pisses me off when people do that. (arguing with me about whether or not that's what you're doing will also be cause for ban. *smirk*)

the fact that you haven't heard of any other news sources reporting this doesn't mean such reporting isn't happening- it just means you haven't heard about it yet.

& instead of just questioning the validity of the source, i suggest finding evidence to the actual *contrary* if you want your argument to appear at all persuasive.

if you're such a fucking champion of the rights of the people in afghanistan then why don't you tell me why you think it's a good idea for the Taliban to stay in power, when it's *their government* that presents a more clear and present danger to them than anything else?


Lives have been lost and the government that caused this loss continues to violate human rights, on their soil and ours. sometimes a response is called for and flowery idealism just needs to end up in the fucking toilet. sorry.
subversiveseed at 2001-09-14 16:11 (UTC) (Link)

Re: so, umm...

first of all, it's impossible to disprove a negative: if Osama bin Laden has NOT been appointed military leader of the Taliban, then no one is going to report on it, are they? there's no way I can find a report that says "Today, Osama bin Laden has NOT been appointed to lead the Taliban military."

it seems, though, that argument is pointless. you, like so many people in our country, want war, and blood, and vengeance, and our illustrious leadership is going to give it to you. in all likelyhood, this war and vengeance will only make more terrorists, bring on more attacks, and lead to more death. but, it seems that the blow to our collective psyche is such that americans will not be content until they've proven that they can put on a bigger fireworks show, and no argument, no call for restraint or caution, no look at the lessons of history, is going to stem the bloodlust and hatred.
Generation Y's Howard Beale
dk at 2001-09-14 16:20 (UTC) (Link)

Re: so, umm...

jon, your willful ignorance is too much for me to deal with.

again, you're putting words in my mouth when you say i want war. read the post halfway up this page and you'll see that's not what i'm suggesting at *all*.

thanks for playing.
infinitedays at 2001-09-15 13:54 (UTC) (Link)

Re: so, umm...

so do we stand back and watch our cities burn, our buildings tumble, and our citizens cast into bodybags? holy christ jonathan, SOME action should be taken.

for someone who brought the phrase "first against the wall" (however mockingly it is used by us) to an entire group of people, you sure are mealy-mouthed about taking action to defend.
(Deleted comment)
Generation Y's Howard Beale
dk at 2001-09-16 12:23 (UTC) (Link)

Re: so, umm...

jon, i blocked you because you're annoying me by appearing to intentionally twisting my words around and making it seem as if i want things i don't.

in case your reading comprehension has just gone to complete shit, I DO NOT WANT WAR. i want surgical and efficient removal of the Taliban from power, because *theirs* is the evil here.

what you're doing is nowhere near honest and fair debate. all you *ever* do when you argue with someone is attempt to discredit their side of the argument, with nary a fact or even a shred supporting documentation to back you up.

so in short, what you're doing is as far from being "honest and fair" as possible, because you're doing the exact opposite of both of those things; and it's PISSING ME OFF.

if you had any interest in keeping friends, you'd respect their wishes. stop fucking posting here.
girlunder at 2001-09-15 17:43 (UTC) (Link)

Re: so, umm...

Your mom is mealy-mouthed.

infinitedays at 2001-09-15 19:06 (UTC) (Link)

Re: so, umm...

your mom is a crazy british biatch. :P
girlunder at 2001-09-15 22:45 (UTC) (Link)

Re: so, umm...

Your mom is Betty Crocker!
Previous Entry  Next Entry