But Csteele, it seems beyond you that their goals are quite
different. One is to kill innocent civilians who happen to disagree
with your religion. The other is trying to take out military
commanders, sometimes surrounded by civilians as camoflauge.

If you don't understand the difference between the two, well then
I can't really help that, but the difference is massive.

No doubt that seeing Lebanon is now under the control of terrorists an increase in rocket fire in to Israel will follow.
No doubt csteele will find no reason to complain about that.
Dreadful to think , but I have no doubt sadly, one day we will see our enemy's as they are not as some wish to say they are.
America, maybe every country over there kills innocents by accident, Taliban and its Friends kill for rewards in heaven.
Surely we know that much?

Are things that simplistic Belly?, are the majority of people in the Muslim world that simplistic. I don't think so. If the Taliban were part of the political process, "how many Pakistani's or Afghani's would actually vote for them in truly free and fair elections?".

I don't think a majority would. And as far as religion goes, I think we should tax religious institutions of any colour like we do the rest of us. Let's see how many people are interested in booking a seat to the afterlife after that. Religion is a pre science concept.

Having expressed my belief, I wouldn't criticise the views of others to believe what they will, as long as that doesn't involve enforcing those views upon the rest of us.

It is a social and civil liberty, "to harbour religious belief". Even if it carries little credibility for most people since the advent of scientific understanding about the world around us.

And Yabby harsh, very harsh.

Dear Yabby,

Let me try and break this down a little for you.

The CIA drone strike on the funeral did not result in the death of any significant Taliban or Al Queada figures. You are correct in saying we do not know who they were targeting but if they were we do know they were not successful as the CIA are normally quick to promote their 'kills'. Would they have known that civilians would be part of the target? Of course they did and 10 children died as a result.

The Taliban strike on the mosque you posted was frequented by a pro-government militia that had been warring with the Taliban in the area. They regularly met at this mosque on Fridays. As with the CIA the suicide bomber missed his target as the group were not there on this particular Friday.

The town of Darra Adam Khel where the attack took place is almost entirely devoted to making and supplying arms to the NWF region. Most of those attending the mosque would have been engaged in this trade. It is off bounds to foreigners.

For the Taliban leadership this would this not have appeared to be a justifiable strategic target? Certainly by the slack you are prepared to cut the CIA you would think so too. Unlike a funeral women and children are separated from the men in these mosques so the blast would mainly have claimed males from a certain age.

Under your rules why is one action more reprehesible than the other?

Dear Belly,

Now come on, you still haven't retracted your “Will it be ok if America uses car bombs?” statement which for someone who claims to know a little history is a touch fraught don't you think?

As we are talking of car bombs and Israel it is worth reflecting that the first car bombs used in Palestine were by the Zionist groups.

And speaking of Lebanon one particularly infamous CIA directed car bombing episode, authorised and farmed out by the then director William Casey, was the attempt on Hezbollah leader Sheikh Fadlallah.

“In March 1984, a large car bomb was detonated about 50 yards from Sheikh Fadlallah's house in Bir El-Abed, a crowded Shiite neighborhood in southern Beirut. The sheikh wasn't harmed, but 80 innocent neighbors and passersby were killed and 200 wounded. Fadlallah immediately had a huge "MADE IN USA" banner hung across the shattered street, “
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/76824/

Casey, with Reagan's endorsement then went on to promote and secure the training of thousands of Mujahideen and foreign fighters in Afghanistan in the black arts of car bomb making.

Steve Coll in his book Ghost Wars writes “"Under ISI direction, the mujahedin received training and malleable explosives to mount car-bomb and even camel-bomb attacks in Soviet-occupied cities, usually designed to kill Soviet soldiers and commanders. Casey endorsed these despite the qualms of some CIA career officers."

Mike Davis writes “As a result, most of the billions of dollars that the Saudis and Washington pumped into Afghanistan ended up in the hands of radical Islamist groups sponsored by the ISI. They were also the chief recipients of huge quantities of CIA-supplied plastic explosives as well as thousands of advanced E-cell delay detonators. It was the greatest technology transfer of terrorist technique in history.”

This is the group you won't hear a bad word spoken about?

You talk of truth but then run a million miles from it. I await your response with interest, more of the same highly blinkered view or will you surprise me?

*Under your rules why is one action more reprehesible than the other?*

To me its quite straight forward, Csteele. I actually support
democracy as the way to establish who should run the Govt,
not those who want to enforce their rule of law by violence.

At the end of the day, they vote in Pakistan and they are trying
to establish democracy in Afgahnistan. Its not easy, but they
need to start somewhere.

If the Taliban want to rule Pakistan and Afgahnistan, let them
stand at elections and convince the majority, that their way
of life is the way to go. If most Pakistanis want to live under
Taliban rule, so be it, as far as I am concerned.

But shooting and bombing their way to the top, is not the way to
do it.

As far as the CIA drone attack goes, you and I don't know all the
details, so we can't really judge. Were the CIA misled for instance?
Were they told that some important Al Queda leader would be there,
when this was not the case? We just don't know, so can't really
judge. Life is these parts is full of intrigue, paybacks, and
double dealings.

What I do know that its not in the CIAs interest to go and bomb
civilians, without an extremely good reason. So why would they?

That same principle does not apply to the Taliban, who do not
have to answer to Western scrutiny. Being Shia instead of a
Taliban supporter, is enough to get your throat slit.