Savagery in Afghanistan

Almost ten years after United States boots hit Afghan soil, substituting a kleptocracy for a theocracy, and this type of violence hardly surprises:

Stirred up by a trio of angry mullahs who urged them to avenge the burning of a Koran at Florida church, thousands of protesters overran the compound of the United Nations in this northern Afghan city, killing at least 12 people, Afghan and United Nations officials said.

The dead included at least seven United Nations workers — five Nepalese guards and two Europeans, one of them a woman. None were Americans. Early reports, later denied by Afghan officials, said at least two of the dead had been beheaded.

The lesson here, it seems, is that if the United States allows cult leaders in Florida to burn Islam’s holy book, a gaggle of bloodthirsty knuckle draggers, acting on God's behalf, will brutally murder the nearest Nepalese. Unfortunately, this sort of thing isn’t new in Afghanistan, as the Times points out: “When a Danish cartoonist lampooned the Prophet Mohammed, four people were killed in riots in Afghanistan within days in 2006. The year before, a one-paragraph item in Newsweek alleging that guards in Guantanamo had flushed a Koran down the toilet sparked three days of riots that cost 14 lives in Afghanistan.”

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Obviously a Kochtapus conspiracy trying to destroy Obama. Can we get Lessig on this?

  • Brett L||

    I say we let the Gurkhas loose for 24 hours to avenge their countrymen and see if the Afghanis still want to riot around the UN offices.

  • ||

    You mean the same guy who were just disarmed and killed?

    How many Taliban do you plan on arming, Brett

  • Jason||

    Umm, you are aware the Gurkhas are not Taliban?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tman,

    How many Taliban do you plan on arming, Brett


    "Gurkhas" is the name given to the Nepalese warriors that, for many years, have been employed by the British Army as scouts and front line troops in colonial action. They are know for their loyalty and extreme dedication and ferocity. The Taliban would not want to mess with those guys.

  • Kolohe||

    And the Brits still use Gurkhas in Afghanistan.

  • ||

    I thought they were from Gurkagurkastan.

  • ||

    You are thinking of Durkadurkasthan...

  • Gray Ghost||

    Not all Nepalese soldiers are Gurkhas. As silly as it sounds, I doubt the Nepalese UN guards had readily available ammunition for their weapons.

    That said, I wonder when a Gurkha rampage "solution" to the problem will start to be used? What a mess.

  • cynical||

    I believe the use of Gurkhas in warfare is a violation of the Geneva conventions.

  • ||

    First round: Burkhas 5, Gurkhas 0.

  • Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN)||

    RELIGION OF PEACE, DAMN IT!

  • ||

    says the guy whose country is occupying theirs and shooting their civilians

  • BushPig Obama||

    We're pursuing peace through selective violence.

  • dead & beheaded||

    RELIGION OF 2 pieces, DAMN IT!

  • ||

    Assuming those Nepalese were bona fide Gurkhas, I would expect the barbarians took a few casualties, too.

    Will the Gurkhas work for the blue helmets? I thought they stuck with the Brits.

  • ||

    April Fool's, right?

    Theocracy, kleptocracy, whatever . . . they're all cracy.

  • rather||

    The lesson here, it seems, is that they will engage in violence, and murder because they want to engage in violence and murder

  • The Gobbler||

    It is because they do not own televisions.

  • ||

    Right, they rent.

  • Jim||

    *ahem* They would correct you and saying they are "renting to own".

  • ||

    Right, they are a different species of people, apparently.

    Did you miss the fact that the Taliban claimed responsibility for the attacks? look up the word "pretext," before you posit that some humans are different than others

  • rather||

    hmm, is that reply to me?

  • Trooper Jones||

    Wrong.

    I am at Camp Marmal and the Taliban did not claim responsibility.

  • ||

    You should tell the folks at the Guardian.

  • Trooper Jones||

    I would if they came to, oh, I don't know, Mazar-e fucking Sharif and actually talked to people.

    I saw the Swedish and Norwegian media here but not anyone from the Guardian. Doesn't mean they weren't here, just that I didn't see them.

  • SIV||

    How many Korans do I have to burn to exterminate the entire United Nations?

    And where can I buy them bulk wholesale?

  • Jeffersonian||

    My thought exactly. How can we get a flock of these jihad-crazed maniacs to Turtle Bay?

  • SIV||

    Build a Mosque?

  • CaptainSmartass||

    Well, you could always just destroy PDFs of the Koran. I have a program that prints out a new copy of the Koran as a PDF at the rate of 10 per second, then destroys them just as quickly. So in the time it took to write this post, I've destroyed 220 Korans.

  • ||

    This makes me wonder. If a mullah downloads a copy of the Koran on his computer and it crashes, would he be subject to a stoning or would it be the geek squad guy who couldn't retrieve the file?

  • Krazy Kartoon Muhamet||

    We need more kartoons of bloody, zany ME!

  • Syd Henderson ||

    If you delete a virtual Koran, they can have a virtual riot.

  • Trooper Jones||

    I am sure the fallen Norwegian and Swedish officers' families would find your comment hilarious.

    Especially the Swedish officer's as they're not even in NATO and don't have to be here with us.

  • Jersey Patriot||

    The lesson here, it seems, is that...

    ...you shouldn't try to build a nation where there is none.

  • ||

    Afghanistan or Florida?

  • hmm||

    Either.

  • blah||

    Samething

  • ||

    its a secular atheist society dominated by islamic radicals!

  • Gingrich||

    Next they'll be storming Victoria's Secret!

  • hmm||

    Never, ever, under any circumstances, take a UN assignment unless you have a star on your shoulder. Get a blue helmet target on your head and no way to defend yourself, fuck that.

  • ||

    These people are actually unarmed, right? Ive read of "UN peacekeeping" troops in various shitholes (Darfur, Rwanda, etc) who are actually unarmed, or carry guns but no ammo. Who in their right mind would put themselves in such a situation?

  • Cyto||

    Carrying a gun with no ammo has to be the dumbest thing conceivable. You make yourself a legitimate target, but to no gain for yourself.

    Well, I guess there are dumber things. Like putting your pecker in a meat grinder. But Lord knows, carrying a gun with no ammo in a war zone ain't smart....

  • ||

    +1

    I remember just after 9/11 when the newspapers were printing photos of military personnel patrolling various airports here in the US. If you looked closely you could see the mag wells of their M4's were empty and they had no mag pouches on their person.

  • ||

    My theory is that by doing so, and you get shot, the feds can claim it was a federal incident and different rules would apply than if a NYPD officer was shot.

    On a side note, Last week for the first time I saw the TSA in Penn Station doing the random bag checks with the NYPD.

  • ||

    ""Who in their right mind would put themselves in such a situation?""

    These guys?

    http://pamibe.com/2010/07/unar.....to-border/

  • T||

    Here's a clue, from somebody with active duty and reserve time: bullets are cheap. Just because the Army didn't issue us any ammo doesn't mean we didn't have any ammo.

  • ||

    ^^this^^ is wasted on a pack a drooling REMF's

  • ||

    8========> .:,

    ^^this^^ is not wasted on Urine's mouth.

  • Hugh Akston||

    I hope you die soon.

  • ||

  • ||

    ""Just because the Army didn't issue us any ammo doesn't mean we didn't have any ammo.""

    And what did you think you would do with it? They have a reason when they don't issue ammo. If you shot someone you would have an opprotunity to explain where the ammo came from at your court martial.

  • Cyto||

    Yes, being "not dead" helps one make it to court martial.

  • ||

    That it does.

    But sometimes you're not dead, you're just pissed they hit you with a rock.

  • Cyto||

    Excellent point. This is a very good argument for not deploying armies in situations where you don't wish to kill people.

  • ||

    "Better to be judged by twelve than buried by six."
    Some of the last words my Dad told me before I signed the dotted line years ago.
    Fuck ROE.

  • ||

    """Better to be judged by twelve than buried by six."""

    In some cases, when you're judged by 12, they decide you will be buried by six.

  • ¢||

    If I weren't incredibly lazy, every time a non-Muslim publication used "Prophet" outside a quotation, I'd murder one of its readers.

    /solicitation

  • Kochtopus||

    What about profit?

    /monocle

  • Krazy Kartoon Muhamet||

    Prophet

  • Cytotoxic||

    I actually hope for these people to die in great numbers. We are far too kind to them.

  • Cyto||

    UN peacekeepers?

  • Robert Welch||

    Works for me!

  • ||

    No one here wants to comment on the nice Florida pastors with blood on their hands? How many times did smart people warn the dumb people that their actions would lead to innocent people being killed?

    Religion is so stupid

  • Hugh Akston||

    The people in Florida were going to burn a book. They didn't kill anybody.

  • ||

    And unless they stole the book, it is their property and they can do whatever the hell they want with it as long as they dont physically harm anyone.

  • ||

    So true! And for that matter, some Islamic scholars maintain that if it's not in Arabic, it's not a genuine Koran at all. In this sense, there's a parallel to the supposed prohibition of images of Muhammed--that's a made-for-stupid-infidels red herring.

    But as we all know, the goal is to make Muslim or quasi-Muslim sensibilities the standard for all people. And alas it seems to be working.

  • Cyto||

    That's an interesting take. "Religion is so stupid". I'm assuming that this is directed at the nutty fundamentalist christian minister who decided to get a little publicity by burning a book.

    The religion of the pastor is completely irrelevant to the story. It could have just as easily been a group of atheist women's rights advocates from NOW that took the same action. The appellation (religion is so stupid) would still apply, but perhaps the direction of your derision might be slightly altered?

  • ||

    Let's not kid ourselves. The burners got exactly what they wanted. Mayhem and murder. Did they "cause" the killing? Probably not under a legal test. Though I'd like to amend Palsgraff just for this instance. But the burners should be denounced by all decent persons.

  • ||

    You say "let's not kid ourselves" and proceed to kid yourself.

    Did the burners 'cause' the killing?

    No.

  • ||

    I guess reading is one of your shortcomings. I said they did not couse the killings. But the people who burned the Koran wanted to incite the kind of mayhem they in fact incited. They are assholes. And yes Hugh (below), if you can't being yourself to denounce a bunch of retards, whose mission in life is to incite another group of retards, you do fail. Some test anyway.

  • sailor||

    How do you know what the pastor's intentions were?

  • ||

    Because I've met motherfuckers just like them. And so have you. Killing is worse than burning books, of course. And in this country people have the right to burn books. I'm OK with that. But I'm not going to shut up about it, because calling them fuckheads and and denouncing that behaviour is the right thing to do. Nazis can march in Skokie, and we can, and should, stand against that.

  • ||

    I guess remembering what you wrote less than an hour before isn't your strong suit. You said the burners "probably" didn't cause the violence "under a legal test."

    I'm more definite: the burners in Florida did not cause the deaths of unrelated parties at the hands of rampaging Islamist "retards" (my what a wonderfully decent fellow you must be) in Afghanistan.

  • Hugh Akston||

    I can't bring myself to denounce them, so I guess I fail the decency test.

  • ||

    Me too. Are we supposed to genuflect to the lowest common denominator? Conform our behavior to please the dregs of this world? These Islamists take offense at just about anything. I'm tired of their whining and bitching. As far as Im concerned they can all fuck off.

  • ||

    Hey, it worked after the Gabby Giffords shooting, didn't it?

  • ||

    I'm not asking that we genuflect to Islamists. Man, if you only knew. But, I still detest morons who go about burning books. Especially those who do it with the obvious intent of pissing people off. It is childish behaviour to say the least. Don't conform your behavious to them. Conform it to your more enlightened fellow humans. They don't burn books.

  • Cyto||

    Right. Your more enlightened fellow humans don't read books either. They wank to internet porn and post about it on twitter.

  • ||

    Right. Your more enlightened fellow humans don't read books either. They wank to internet porn and post about it on twitter.

    You know, I resent this. I would never have a twitter account.

  • ||

    ""It is childish behaviour to say the least. ""

    Too bad the other side feels obligated to one-up the childish behavior.

  • ||

    The book burning was an act of political speech and not directly connected to the killings, so any legal punishment for it would violate the first amendment.

    But yes, they should be roundly criticized.

  • sailor||

    You think they should be criticized. Others would disagree. Ain't liberty grand.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Screw you, rac. I don't feel any need whatsoever to "denounce" them? Is it in bad taste? Well, I think so, similar to burning a flag, or doing nasty stuff to a Bible as "art." But if a bunch of Americans went apeshit and killed a bunch of people over a flag burning, I'm not going to be that concerned about the flag burners, even if that was their intent. They, obviously, are not the problem.

  • ||

    You're kidding right? They LOVE the rioting and beheading.

  • ||

    So you're seriously more pissed off at the book burners than the Islamic murderers? I suppose you're right...Muslims can't possibly control their own actions. The soft bigotry of low expectations...it's only harmful to the group you try to protect!

    "But, but, if we keep blaming ourselves for their savage actions they'll change and learn to live in peace and harmony with us!"

  • Knutsack||

    So they killed UN workers that are related to Americans in what sense? A couple of them might have been white?

    Since I saw a bunch of American flags being burned, I guess we can presume that those crazy Afghans will have blood on their hands when we shoot a bunch of their civilians, right?

  • ||

    Okay. I'm warning you right now that if you look at your cat and it sneezes, I'll view that as an insult. So, in the name of retribution, I will rape your wife and daughter over and over with a couple dozen of my friends while you watch.
    Completely justifiable outrage on my part, no?

  • ||

    They obviously don't receive re-runs of Gilligan's Island in Afganolandia.

  • Cyto||

    On a war-related tangent, fact checkers are generally full of shit. In this case I'm talking about the Washington Post. They claim Rand Paul is a lair because he said:

    “Well, you know, it's never that easy to remove people from power -- even, you know, in Serbia and in Iraq we found that bombing alone didn't do it. Actually, ground troops had to go in and do it. There are many here in Washington now advocating ground troops. I think it's a slippery slope and it could it engage us in a third war.”

    Their complaint? Nobody claimed they were going to change regimes using only bombs in those cases. Really? I mean it is a two sentence summation that is generally accurate, particularly as relates to his point (bombing dictators did not result in regime change). Is it really fact checking to point out that in the case of Kosovo "there was little discussion of regime change" and in the case of Iraq "If he was suggesting that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was originally intended as an air campaign, and then only became effective once ground troops were deployed, that’s wrong. "

    Their "fact check" article is much less accurate about Paul's comments than any inaccuracy that may be found in his comments themselves. In fact, the fact-check article is quite intentionally dishonest in its portrayal of the Paul comments and obviously intended as a political hatchet job dressed up as a "fact check" article. Effing douche-bags.

    So I'm going to "fact check" the fact checker at the WP. Their mission statement says that they will


    · We will focus our attention and resources on the issues that are most important to voters. We cannot nitpick every detail of every speech.

    And their definition of "two Pinochios" - the rating they gave Paul's statement is:

    Significant omissions and/or exaggerations. Some factual error may be involved but not necessarily. A politician can create a false, misleading impression by playing with words and using legalistic language that means little to ordinary people.

    So, to your mission statement: Your criticism of Paul's statement fails on both sentences in this bullet. The assertion that "bombing alone didn't do it" for removing a dictator from power in Serbia or Iraq is hardly an issue that is most important to the voters. And your analysis clearly is a "nitpick every detail of every speech" moment.

    To your rating: You claim he makes significant omissions and/or exaggerations, creating a false, misleading impression by playing with words ... OK, this is just a flat out lie. He claims that bombing alone didn't remove either dictator from power. It didn't. He claims that this is instructive as to the likelihood of bombing alone changing the regime in Libya. This is a matter of opinion (something you claim is beyond the scope of your column), but I don't think you can really argue that the two most recent air campaigns against dictatorships by the US are illegitimate as examples of the effectiveness of air campaigns in effecting regime change.

    In summation - your column does not follow its own charter, and your conclusions do not follow from your stated interpretation of the facts. Calling your column "fact check" is high irony.

    Ok. Rant off. Sorry guys...

  • Old Mexican||

    It will not be the last time the besieged media and their Big Business/Big Government puppet masters will try to smear the two Pauls, Cyto.

  • Cyto||

    And it won't be the last time that I go off on a long-winded tirade that nobody cares about either. So I guess we're even...

  • Kochitation||

    Rand Paul is the only credible anti-war voice on the Republican side of the Senate isle right now. Unfortunately he's surrounded by team red / team blue flip-floppers so he'll never get any traction for his stand. If there were any men of principle up there he'd be attracting a significant following on the left.

  • Cyto||

    Perhaps more surprisingly, Kucinich is just about the only principled voice on the left. Don't get me wrong, he's a kook, but he does seem to stand on principle.

  • ||

    > Kucinich is just about the only principled voice on the left.

    ..but he folded up like a paper bag on impeaching Obama for attacking Libya without a declaration of war.

    -jcr

  • ||

    I think we would have had a better chance of success in Halfgoneistan if we would have stuck to a strictly air-based campaign, where we dropped cargo plane-loads of porn, liquor and weed over there. The "boots on the ground" could have been used in a close support role of administering condoms, rolling papers and ice for the heathens who drink scotch that way.

    I swear, that "war" would have lasted under a year and we'd have a new ally and trading partner.

  • Cyto||

    I like the way you think. And for only 10% of the cost. Just imagine how much porn and liquor 100 billion dollars buys! According to Forbes, citations of a porn industry raking in 4-10 billion dollars a year are wildly exaggerated. Still, even using this measure you could dump the entire US porn industry on them every year for 10 years for that $100 billion figure.

  • Sudden||

    Bukkake bombing?

    Busting-in-your-bunker bombs?

    The cumshot heard round the world?

  • Cyto||

    Another dollar figure based rant - for the trillion dollars spent so far, we could have given every man, woman and child in Iraq and Afghanistan about $17k. That is 17 years of "per capita GDP" for Afghanistan and a little over 4 for Iraq. Average that out and you could easily have paid every man, woman and child more than their entire annual income for 10 years in exchange for being nice to the US.

  • ||

    Assuming they wouldn't renege immediately upon receiving payment.

  • ||

    cargo plane-loads of porn, liquor and weed

    Porn and liquor, they need. Weed, they got. Oh my, yes.

  • Geddy Lee||

    Wreathed in smoke in Lebanon
    We burn the midnight oil
    The fragrance of Afghanistan
    Rewards a long day's toil

  • ||

    If I lived in an area of the world with some of the best weed and opium on the planet, I could easily forgo alcohol.

  • ||

    I have alway thought the defense department would be millions of dollars ahead if they would just produce a concentrated THC bomb and twinkies with sedatives, bomb an area, do a twinkie air drop, then send troops in to find the bad guys passed out in their mud huts.

  • No Name Guy||

    Blue helmets - UN Dead Meat on an "away mission"

    Red Shirts - Trek Dead Meat on an "away mission"

    Hmmm...perhaps the UN folks in the 'stans should have red shirts to go with their blue helmets.

  • ||

    Let me guess this is the fault of the guy burning the Koran, just like it is the womans fault for wearing that short skirt for getting raped.

  • Krazy Kartoon Muhamet||

    That little slut!

  • Old Mexican||

    The lesson here, it seems, is that if the United States allows cult leaders in Florida to burn Islam's holy book, a gaggle of bloodthirsty knuckle[-]draggers, acting on God's behalf, will brutally murder the nearest Nepalese.


    Well, we can't know that they'er eacting on God's behalf. Maybe they simply like killing and beheading people at the slightest (and convenient) provocation.

  • Sudden||

    I thought the whole Koran burning was awhile ago. Maybe this was actually in response to, you know, the whole images of teenage civies shredded into pieces with plant weapons dropped next to their mutilated corpses?

  • Cyto||

    I think he backed off on the thing and decided not to follow through too. But the claim is that 3 Mullahs provoked the attack with this as motivation.

  • ||

    They followed through with the burning a few days ago. It didn't make much news (at the time).

  • ray||

    Can't we turn it into Lake Middle East?

  • J_L_B||

    Soon enough, Tony will remind us again how radical Christianity, and its scarce book burning, is more of a threat to us than radical Muslim mobs, and their rampant people beheadings.

  • Cyto||

    Well, yeah... but they did threaten to reduce funding to a government agency. Not that they actually did it - but the threat was there!

  • ||

    It would be silly to blame the Koran-burners for the deaths (even though their actions are stupid and immoral for other reasons). But I'm not seeing the justification for condemning Islam. Plenty of horrific crimes have been committed in the name of Christianity, and every other religion and ideology that has ever been popular.

  • Gregory Smith||

    So, if it's "stupid" to burn the Koran is it also stupid to do a play about a gay Jesus, to paint the Virgin Mary with elephant shit, to put a crucifix in urine, to ridicule Mormons on Broadway and on TV?

    If you can defend "artistic" attacks against Christianity, you should defend symbolic attacks against Islam.

  • ||

    GREEGGGGOOOOOOO

    Hey Grego, do you still listen to Prussian Blue?

  • ||

    They're not as cute as they used to be. I wonder if that hitler smileyface t-shirt is still around?

  • ||

    I bet Grego has one!

  • ||

    As annoying as I find Greg at times, what did he say that was untrue?

  • Gregory Smith||

    Thank you! Finally someone who doesn't disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing.

  • ||

    Just don't mistake me for an ally. Chony could make a true statement, and I would say the same thing.

  • ||

    I should mention that I think the sacrileges against Christianity that you mention were also worthy of condemnation. Offending people for the sole purpose of offending them is childish and immoral, regardless of what religion or ideology they hold.

  • Cyto||

    Maybe there's money from the NEA for my Libertarian exploration of the "Piss Christ" theme - titled "Sweaty Reason"...

  • Not always, Tulpa||

    Sometimes offending and mocking is necessary to bring people to their senses. You make some good points, but please stop being an apologist for a deadly bunch of fanatics.

  • ||

    Mocking almost never changes the attitude of the mocked. But, it can do wonders for snapping their apologists from their stupor.

  • sailor||

    go fuck yourself. There is not point to this statement beyond offending you. How immoral of me.

  • Hugh Akston||

    So, can we now stop apologizing for Islam and start condemning it?

    As soon as we can investigate the alibis of the 1.57 billion other Muslims who claimed they were "out with friends" when this happened.

  • Adonisus||

    Just to clarify a bit...

    The guy who used elephant dung to paint the virgin mary was not intending to offend anyone. The use of elephant dung for painting and art is a traditional nigerian method.

    Then again....I'm not to sure I can explain all of the porno magazine cutouts he glued on there. That one still has my head scratching.....but then most modern art leaves me confused.

  • Kolohe||

    Just to clear something up, the security guys that were killed were likely not 'UN Troops' in the sense of blue helmets and all that, they were more likely employees of the various private security companies employed by the UN (and NGOs and some govt orgs) to guard the compound. These employees very often third country nationals from Nepal and the Philippines, among other places.

  • Trooper Jones||

    Exactly.

  • ||

    As opposed to us Americans who kill Iraqi civilians for the misdeeds of Saudis.

  • Jim||

    The Saudis are extremely grateful that we refuse to hold them accountable for their actions.

  • Hugh Akston||

    I don't remember killing anyone.

  • ||

    So I guess the interwebs really do connect us all--one big f'ing brotherhood of mankind.

    If they think what some idiot in Florida does for press is bad, wait 'til they find out about the furries.

  • Cyto||

    Furries... always good for a laugh. I recently learned about something that makes an even better punch line. Eeyore Porn. I found it in a list of common search terms. Go ahead and wrap your brain around that one... not only does it exist, but it is among "common search terms"!?!

  • ||

    One thing the interwebs has taught us, if nothing else. No matter how dark, twisted, and shameful you think your own peccadillos are, there is a whole community devoted to it on the net.

  • ||

    So why are we defending them from themselves again?

  • Au H20||

    Really? I get no credit for the link? I linked this like, 3-4 hours ago.

  • Au H20||

    Wow, some of the comments are pissed off at Jones, and not the Afghans

    Also, I'm going to wear my historian, real politik hat here: The only power to sucessfully occupy Afghanistan was the Mongols. Wanna know how they did it? By being crazier motherfuckers than the Afghans.

    That means that, say, when they kill 12 of yours, you not only shoot those that incited the riot, you also line up the whole city, grab out 120 people, and shoot them. For every one you lose, you kill 10. Then, you kill 20. If they still haven' gotten the message, you burn their city to the ground, you salt the earth, you poison the wells, and you burn every crop to the ground.

    It isn't nice, and it isn't what we morally would feel okay undertaking, but it is how an effective occupying army treats rebels.

    On the other hand, for those that do cooperate, you offer food, and medicine, and all that nice humanitarian aid shit. But any person who rebels? Any Stone Age Afghan who wants to start shit? You don't just kill them; you kill their family, their friends, their loved ones. You rip their life asunder, and let it be known that that is what happens to those that defy you.

    Yes, I'll turn in my libertarian card at the end of the month, but shit like this infuriates me.

  • ||

    That means that, say, when they kill 12 of yours, you not only shoot those that incited the riot, you also line up the whole city, grab out 120 people, and shoot them. For every one you lose, you kill 10. Then, you kill 20. If they still haven' gotten the message, you burn their city to the ground, you salt the earth, you poison the wells, and you burn every crop to the ground.

    From what I've been reading in the NYT and Chicago papers, Scott Walker is trying this out in Wisconsin.

  • ||

    "Scorched Earth" policy, Madison-style.

  • Trespassers W||

    Ah, the Keyser Soze method.

  • Au H20||

    Well, did any of those guys want to mess with Soze? No, no they did not. They were all scared shitless of him, and rightly so.

  • Sudden||

    Damn, those comments to the NYT article just unleashed a whole new wave of stupid. I especially liked the one where the commentator said he thought the pastor should be tried with 10 counts of murder, yes, a man in florida, who has probably never been to Afghanistan in his life, should be tried for ten counts of murder in a foreign jurisdiction for doing something that they didn't like over there and decided to take out on some nepalese.

    holy shit, we might as well just nuke ourselves ferchissakez

  • Au H20||

    Yeah, I'm pretty sure that if the Nazis had rolled into New York in the 40s, half those commentators would have lain down and spread their legs.

  • ||

    Can we please get back to the important issue here? Why do the Afghani's hate the Nepalese so much? I mean, come on, they're small, so they don't eat much. They could definitely be a major benefit in Tora Bora (have you seen how steep those mountains are?). I think there needs to be some investigative reporting on this. How do we know there's not some underground plot to purge the world of Gurkha's and Sher pa's?

  • ||

    The Ku Klux Klan of our lifetime, and progressives are more worried about "Islamophobia".

  • ||

    There is a reasonable solution to this,in fact, an absolutely brilliant solution, but no administration seems to have the guts to do it. The solution is to pull out of Afghanistan and central asia, but do so in such a cleverly arranged way that both the Chinese and the Russians get sucked in. Then sit back with your coke and popcorn and watch the "rising superpower" burn through its vast reserves of currency and manpower in the most infuriatingly slick "infidel-milking" operation in the world. I am willing to bet that the ISI alone will take the Chinese to the cleaners. All those Cantonese businessmen who think they know when to hold and when to fold won't know what hit them. The frog will be boiled with such precise timing that the SOBs wont even know they are in trouble until a good 20-30 billion dollars has disappeared.
    It can be done. But nobody will do it.
    of course, the ordinary people of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, India and Central Asia will suffer for generations, but history is like that...not fair.
    I know, I know, the cynics here will say they deserve their fate. But everyone deserves their fate. Thats neither here nor there. As Clint said "we ALL have it coming"...

  • one of those||

    Yeah, but some of us seem to receive a whole hell of a lot more than just what we have coming.

  • ||

    It appears that we now need a burn a quran a week plan. The only way to get rid of this kind of intimidation (mohammad cartoons, koran burning etc) is to mock it and ratchet it up a notch. There is nothing to be gained by limiting free speech and expression for a bunch of radicals who use it as a political ploy as much as anything.

  • Rock Action||

    NYT headline: Afghans Avenge Koran Burning; Protest Kills 12

    Really? Avenge? The protest killed twelve? Another reason I love people who read the Times and wear the honor badge of erudition and impartiality.

  • Scott66||

    This would be the perfect time for the president to note he has no control over political speech here in the States and obviously the values of afghans and americans are so far apart that it is counterproductive for us to be nation building over there. Therefore he is ending the pointless conflict and bringing our troops home.

    Ofcourse that won't happen.

  • ||

    Burn this stupid preacher alive, one match at a time! This guy wants attention, I say give it to him! Let him see an old fashioned church burning, his own with him in it! Second year in a row he has started something, damn well knowing what would happen! Dove World Outreach Center and him need to pay hard! If they don't want to lock him up for life, then ends his, very slowly and very painfully! Lets not mention how many of our troops could suffer from this!

  • ||

    I give it an 85, as a work of trollitude!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement