'Afghans killed' in air strikes
By Charles Haviland
BBC News, Kabul
Afghan civilians are suffering unnecessarily, Mr Karzai says
Some 25 civilians have died during aerial bombing by foreign forces in the southern Afghan province of Helmand, local residents and senior police say.
A spokesman for the Nato-led force (Isaf) said he was aware of an incident involving casualties.
President Hamid Karzai told the BBC this week that civilian deaths caused by foreign forces would have to stop.
If not, Mr Karzai warned that Afghans might turn against those countries with a military presence in Afghanistan.
He added, however, that people were still grateful for that involvement.
Speaking to the BBC's correspondent in southern Afghanistan, people from the village of De Adam Khan, near the town of Gereshk in Helmand, said heavy bombings of the area had resulted in the civilian deaths.
They said nine women and three children were among those killed.
The accounts were backed by the district police chief, and the provincial police chief, Mohammed Husain Andiwal.
He told the BBC his team, visiting the site, had confirmed the deaths. Mr Andiwal alleged that foreign forces had launched air strikes on the village without consulting with their Afghan counterparts.
A spokesman in Kabul for the Nato-led peacekeeping force, Isaf, said he was aware of an incident involving casualties in the south.
He said he did not know whether the casualties were civilian, and was awaiting further information.
In the neighbouring province of Uruzgan, Isaf has said that days of fighting appeared to have caused civilian deaths, some of which might have come from air strikes against Taleban insurgents.
Worst year
There are two international missions in Afghanistan: Nato's International Security Assistance Force (Isaf), with 37,000 troops from 37 countries including the US. Its aim is to help the Afghan government bring security, development and better governance.
The US-led coalition - under the banner of Operation Enduring Freedom - is a counter-terrorism mission that involves mainly special forces.
The south of the country has this year seen the worst violence since the Taleban were ousted from power in 2001 by US-led troops.
I think you forget to mention this was a NATO airstrike, not US. regardless, taliban are launching attacks from civilian homes using these infants you BOLDED as human shields. nice huh.
By AMIR SHAH, Associated Press Writer 32 minutes ago
KABUL, Afghanistan - Taliban militants attacked police posts in southern Afghanistan, triggering NATO airstrikes that left 25 civilians dead, including three infants and the local mullah, a senior police officer said Friday.
NATO said its overnight bombardment killed most of a group of 30 insurgents and blamed them for the deaths of any innocents, saying they had launched "irresponsible" attacks from civilian homes.
I bolded it for you since you seem to take as fact the many news articles you post. I dont see how this is any different.
By AMIR SHAH, Associated Press Writer 32 minutes ago
KABUL, Afghanistan - Taliban militants attacked police posts in southern Afghanistan, triggering NATO airstrikes that left 25 civilians dead, including three infants and the local mullah, a senior police officer said Friday.
NATO said its overnight bombardment killed most of a group of 30 insurgents and blamed them for the deaths of any innocents, saying they had launched "irresponsible" attacks from civilian homes.
I bolded it for you since you seem to take as fact the many news articles you post. I dont see how this is any different.
Seems odd that someone can attack a police post from inside a house. It seems even stranger that the Nato forces thought that the best way to deal with a disparate band of insurgents was to carry out an airstrike on a bunch of civilian homes. Still, whatever it takes to get the job done, right?
Seems odd that someone can attack a police post from inside a house. It seems even stranger that the Nato forces thought that the best way to deal with a disparate band of insurgents was to carry out an airstrike on a bunch of civilian homes. Still, whatever it takes to get the job done, right?
war sucks, what do you expect me to say. although I shouldn't be surprised that you feel its ok (maybe their right) to use civilians as human shields.
NATO wasn't trying to kill civilians. they were trying to kill the taliban hiding among them.
Oh look, its Karzai once again denouncing the airstrikes by American and NATO forces. According to him, "Afghan lives are not cheap". Ya, sure they're not. Karzai should just shut the fuck up and stop trying to save face with the Afghan population.....I'm sure the U.S. will let him know when they're done (bombing) in Afghanistan.
Both of these countries were flattened by US military action.
Both were offered reconstruction.
One took that opportunity and what was left of their national pride and rebuilt themselves into a dominant economic force.
The other has not, preferring to destroy any reconstruction efforts, and to continue to bomb and murder their fellow citizens.
Who owns the blame ???
The US?
"We have to change the concept of patriotism to one of “matriotism” — love of humanity that transcends war. A matriarch would never send her own children off to wars that kill other people’s children." Cindy Sheehan --- London, Brixton, 14 July 1993 London, Wembley, 1996 London, Wembley, 18 June 2007 London, O2, 18 August 2009 London, Hammersmith Apollo (Ed solo), 31 July 2012 Milton Keynes Bowl, 11 July 2014
London, Hammersmith Apollo (Ed solo), 06 June 2017
In fact, the iraqis hate the violence and destruction of infrastructure so much that they do it to themselves on a daily basis and on an even greater scale. LMAO...talk about shifting the focus the problem.
I think you're wrong. According to this article, and a similar one in USA Today, the U.S./NATO forces are literally killing more Afghan civilians than are the Taliban !!!
"The casualties listed by Karzai bring the number of civilians killed in NATO or U.S.-led military operations this year to 211, according to an Associated Press tally of figures provided by Afghan and foreign officials and witnesses.
That tops the 172 civilians killed in militant attacks. "
Personally, I like this line by Karzai:
“You do not fight terrorists by firing a field gun 20 miles into a target,” Karzai said. “That is definitely surely bound to cause civilian casualties.
They shoulda just called this article "how to make enemies". WTF ?
It's religion's fault that the Iraqi people don't have a common goal.
It's the fault of the USA/British that we expect 3 religious sects of Islam to all live together in peace and harmony.
I know I mean Jeez, expecting religous sects to get along, I mean come on that is such an unreasonable request! Not like it happens in most of the rest of the world or anything...
"Almost unconsciously he traced with his finger in the dust on the table: 2+2=5" 1984
I think you're wrong. According to this article, and a similar one in USA Today, the U.S./NATO forces are literally killing more Afghan civilians than are the Taliban !!!
"The casualties listed by Karzai bring the number of civilians killed in NATO or U.S.-led military operations this year to 211, according to an Associated Press tally of figures provided by Afghan and foreign officials and witnesses.
That tops the 172 civilians killed in militant attacks. "
Personally, I like this line by Karzai:
“You do not fight terrorists by firing a field gun 20 miles into a target,” Karzai said. “That is definitely surely bound to cause civilian casualties.
Wow, I know some people have trouble using a map, but i would think it obvious by now that Afghanistan and Iraq are two completely different countries. This is a thread about Iraq and Japan, not Afghanistan and Japan.
Also, none of the statistics in your article are confirmed by NATO. They are all "Afghani sources and witnesses." And, of course, the Afghani have no reason to use every angle to play the victim.....no, not at all.
Better yet, why don't we just let the US and NATO pull out so the Taliban and take control of the country again? You'd prefer that? You'd like to see women robbed of educations again? You'd like to see them wearing hoods and being beaten with sticks?
And if the USA Today article is so "similar", then by all means post it.
They shoulda just called this article "how to make enemies". WTF ?
And that's really the problem isn't it? Personally, you couldn't give a rat's ass about the afghani people. You're just afraid to make enemies. At least you're honest about it.
Wow, I know some people have trouble using a map, but i would think it obvious by now that Afghanistan and Iraq are two completely different countries. This is a thread about Iraq and Japan, not Afghanistan and Japan.
Also, none of the statistics in your article are confirmed by NATO. They are all "Afghani sources and witnesses." And, of course, the Afghani have no reason to use every angle to play the victim.....no, not at all.
Better yet, why don't we just let the US and NATO pull out so the Taliban and take control of the country again? You'd prefer that? You'd like to see women robbed of educations again? You'd like to see them wearing hoods and being beaten with sticks?
And if the USA Today article is so "similar", then by all means post it.
And that's really the problem isn't it? Personally, you couldn't give a rat's ass about the afghani people. You're just afraid to make enemies. At least you're honest about it.
good to see someone on the right side for a change. and I dont mean republican or democrat
Better yet, why don't we just let the US and NATO pull out so the Taliban and take control of the country again? You'd prefer that? You'd like to see women robbed of educations again? You'd like to see them wearing hoods and being beaten with sticks?
By whatever means necessary?
honestly that mentality can go fuck itself sideways...
what the US gov't is doctor Phil now?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
honestly that mentality can go fuck itself sideways...
what the US gov't is doctor Phil now?
The point is that there's no point in screaming bloody murder when no one really cares either way. After all, do you really care? It seems that your chief concern is making sure that the US doesn't look righteous in its actions. I'm not saying that it is righteous.
The point is that there's no point in screaming bloody murder when no one really cares either way. After all, do you really care? It seems that your chief concern is making sure that the US doesn't look righteous in its actions. I'm not saying that it is righteous.
I'm just saying the US is not the parents of the world. At some point you gotta let your kids make mistakes and learn and grow up for themselves.
Do I care? Yeah it's sad. Would I cross a vast ocean to blow up a country and kill people over it? No.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I'm just saying the US is not the parents of the world.
If that's all you care about, then it doesn't matter to you whether the US is right or wrong or whether the Afghani people are better or worse off. You just don't want the US to don't anything at all about anything. In that case, you only prove my point which is that no one really gives a fuck. And since no one gives a fuck, they need to stop posting these statistics like they actually give a shit when they really don't.
At some point you gotta let your kids make mistakes and learn and grow up for themselves.
Do I care? Yeah it's sad. Would I cross a vast ocean to blow up a country and kill people over it? No.
But, the premise of your argument dictates that you must be more sad for the aghani people now than you were before the US and NATO showed up.
If that's the case, then please state why.
If it's not the case, then you either believe that the Aghani people are now better off, or you just stopped caring.
If that's all you care about, then it doesn't matter to you whether the US is right or wrong or whether the Afghani people are better or worse off. You just don't want the US to don't anything at all about anything. In that case, you only prove my point which is that no one really gives a fuck. And since no one gives a fuck, they need to stop posting these statistics like they actually give a shit when they really don't.
But, the premise of your argument dictates that you must be more sad for the aghani people now than you were before the US and NATO showed up.
If that's the case, then please state why.
If it's not the case, then you either believe that the Aghani people are now better off, or you just stopped caring.
Whats wrong with letting them be to develop through their periods in time as every other country has been essentially allowed to do internally thus far?
Do you right every wrong you see in your day, and go out of your way no matter what it costs you in time and money to fix everything you see?
A hands off approach is less severe than the tough love approach (obey or die).
I guess what the US gov't is saying is you're in my house now shape up or ship out in a pine box.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Whats wrong with letting them be to develop through their periods in time as every other country has been essentially allowed to do internally thus far?
Do you right every wrong you see in your day, and go out of your way no matter what it costs you in time and money to fix everything you see?
A hands off approach is less severe than the tough love approach (obey or die).
I guess what the US gov't is saying is you're in my house now shape up or ship out in a pine box.
You say the hands off approach is less severe. By that rationale, you're saying that the afghani people are worse off now than they would've been had the US not intervened.
You might recall that you've already confirmed that the actual welfare of the Afghani people is not your concern. Rather your concern is the US thinking that it is big and bad.
So, again, yes the US is a little arrogant, but that's all it really is to you. It's not really a matter of what is better or worse for the afghani people.
In the documentary film about Al-Jazeera a reporter is asked "Who is going to stop America" and he replies "America will".
The same is true for any nation.
"democracy delivered by the bomb and the gun, is terror else where in the world I'm from."
"and I wish that I could afford the ear of Bush the second
I'd ask is it your favorite philosopher who recommended
invading and exterminating all who defy us,
crying out justice but seeking out triumphs?
wasn't your christ unbeloved of empires?
one nailed his ass to a post; he expired!
a terrorist, as roman evidence showed
put down like a retard on the death row
in texas, I guess "tough luck," right George?
ain't that how every war gets scored?"
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
You say the hands off approach is less severe. By that rationale, you're saying that the afghani people are worse off now than they would've been had the US not intervened.
You might recall that you've already confirmed that the actual welfare of the Afghani people is not your concern. Rather your concern is the US thinking that it is big and bad.
So, again, yes the US is a little arrogant, but that's all it really is to you. It's not really a matter of what is better or worse for the afghani people.
Yes the Afghani people are worse off now. Their country is a mess right now, bullets are flying all over the place. Is that supposed to be better? We can;t babysit them forever you know. Do you think parents can and should monitor their kids 24/7? You keep harping on my concern thing like it's a cap feather. Thats not only be mistaken but misguided.
I don't think any country should police and bully another.
And if this does happen between neighboring countries and blows come to blows in a particular region I would not expect another country from thousands of miles away to come racing across the ocean to play big brother ands start killing undesirables over local customs and womens rights issues.
Let the region work out their societal issues as it should be in every county , and has been since the dawn of time. But the US knows best and apparently what people do in their houses (countries) is the US gov't business now, and if they don't like it ...watch out. But there has to be a cash grab incentive apparently. China can do whatever...
Same in America ...what you do behind your own closed doors is not really entirely your own business either...increasingly less as time goes on.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
You say the hands off approach is less severe. By that rationale, you're saying that the afghani people are worse off now than they would've been had the US not intervened.
You might recall that you've already confirmed that the actual welfare of the Afghani people is not your concern. Rather your concern is the US thinking that it is big and bad.
So, again, yes the US is a little arrogant, but that's all it really is to you. It's not really a matter of what is better or worse for the afghani people.
If you could take that passion toward what is good for the American people, that would be a plus. These trinkets we possess, this consumerism mentality that is working against ourselves, is noted: in your trinket-thought of the Afghani people.
Yes the Afghani people are worse off now. Their country is a mess right now, bullets are flying all over the place. Is that supposed to be better? We can;t babysit them forever you know. Do you think parents can and should monitor their kids 24/7? You keep harping on my concern thing like it's a cap feather. Thats not only be mistaken but misguided.
I don't think any country should police and bully another.
And if this does happen between neighboring countries and blows come to blows in a particular region I would not expect another country from thousands of miles away to come racing across the ocean to play big brother ands start killing undesirables over local customs and womens rights issues.
Let the region work out their societal issues as it should be in every county , and has been since the dawn of time. But the US knows best and apparently what people do in their houses (countries) is the US gov't business now, and if they don't like it ...watch out. But there has to be a cash grab incentive apparently. China can do whatever...
Same in America ...what you do behind your own closed doors is not really entirely your own business either...increasingly less as time goes on.
In that case, you could've saved us both some time and simply answered the question below:
Better yet, why don't we just let the US and NATO pull out so the Taliban and take control of the country again? You'd prefer that? You'd like to see women robbed of educations again? You'd like to see them wearing hoods and being beaten with sticks?
Instead, you answered with something a little different. It's nice to know where you stand on this now.
In that case, you could've saved us both some time and simply answered the question below:
Instead, you answered with something a little different. It's nice to know where you stand on this now.
Well at least they are still alive and breathing. And if you think your tough love approach is better (obey the U.S. or die) that speaks also where you stand. Sounds a little worse than wearing hoods and stick beating to me. You think you can solve this through more violence, but it's only making it worse.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Only as a hypothetical to complete the logic of the post I was responding to. More specifically, it was what should be done in that particular country instead.
Comments
I think you forget to mention this was a NATO airstrike, not US. regardless, taliban are launching attacks from civilian homes using these infants you BOLDED as human shields. nice huh.
And you know this to be a fact do you?
Good! Then let's start pumping OUR oil out of OUR new ground!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070622/ap_on_re_as/afghanistan
By AMIR SHAH, Associated Press Writer 32 minutes ago
KABUL, Afghanistan - Taliban militants attacked police posts in southern Afghanistan, triggering NATO airstrikes that left 25 civilians dead, including three infants and the local mullah, a senior police officer said Friday.
NATO said its overnight bombardment killed most of a group of 30 insurgents and blamed them for the deaths of any innocents, saying they had launched "irresponsible" attacks from civilian homes.
I bolded it for you since you seem to take as fact the many news articles you post. I dont see how this is any different.
Seems odd that someone can attack a police post from inside a house. It seems even stranger that the Nato forces thought that the best way to deal with a disparate band of insurgents was to carry out an airstrike on a bunch of civilian homes. Still, whatever it takes to get the job done, right?
NATO wasn't trying to kill civilians. they were trying to kill the taliban hiding among them.
It's religion's fault that the Iraqi people don't have a common goal.
It's the fault of the USA/British that we expect 3 religious sects of Islam to all live together in peace and harmony.
7-6-2006 Las Vegas. 7-20-2006 Portland. 7-22-2006 Gorge. 9-21-2009 Seattle. 9-22-2009 Seattle. 9-26-2009 Ridgefield. 9-25-2011 Vancouver.
11-29-2013 Portland. 10-16-2014 Detroit. 8-8-2018 Seattle. 8-10-2018 Seattle. 8-13-2018 Missoula. 5-10-2024 Portland. 5-30-2024 Seattle.
would be nice if they can put their religious difference aside and work towards peace. but it is what it is I guess.
Because that's what I said, isn't it.
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/228742
The US?
---
London, Brixton, 14 July 1993
London, Wembley, 1996
London, Wembley, 18 June 2007
London, O2, 18 August 2009
London, Hammersmith Apollo (Ed solo), 31 July 2012
Milton Keynes Bowl, 11 July 2014
I think you're wrong. According to this article, and a similar one in USA Today, the U.S./NATO forces are literally killing more Afghan civilians than are the Taliban !!!
"The casualties listed by Karzai bring the number of civilians killed in NATO or U.S.-led military operations this year to 211, according to an Associated Press tally of figures provided by Afghan and foreign officials and witnesses.
That tops the 172 civilians killed in militant attacks. "
Personally, I like this line by Karzai:
“You do not fight terrorists by firing a field gun 20 miles into a target,” Karzai said. “That is definitely surely bound to cause civilian casualties.
They shoulda just called this article "how to make enemies". WTF ?
http://www.thestar.com/article/228742
I know I mean Jeez, expecting religous sects to get along, I mean come on that is such an unreasonable request! Not like it happens in most of the rest of the world or anything...
Wow, I know some people have trouble using a map, but i would think it obvious by now that Afghanistan and Iraq are two completely different countries. This is a thread about Iraq and Japan, not Afghanistan and Japan.
Also, none of the statistics in your article are confirmed by NATO. They are all "Afghani sources and witnesses." And, of course, the Afghani have no reason to use every angle to play the victim.....no, not at all.
Better yet, why don't we just let the US and NATO pull out so the Taliban and take control of the country again? You'd prefer that? You'd like to see women robbed of educations again? You'd like to see them wearing hoods and being beaten with sticks?
And if the USA Today article is so "similar", then by all means post it.
And that's really the problem isn't it? Personally, you couldn't give a rat's ass about the afghani people. You're just afraid to make enemies. At least you're honest about it.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
good to see someone on the right side for a change. and I dont mean republican or democrat
By whatever means necessary?
honestly that mentality can go fuck itself sideways...
what the US gov't is doctor Phil now?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
The point is that there's no point in screaming bloody murder when no one really cares either way. After all, do you really care? It seems that your chief concern is making sure that the US doesn't look righteous in its actions. I'm not saying that it is righteous.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
I'm just saying the US is not the parents of the world. At some point you gotta let your kids make mistakes and learn and grow up for themselves.
Do I care? Yeah it's sad. Would I cross a vast ocean to blow up a country and kill people over it? No.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
If that's all you care about, then it doesn't matter to you whether the US is right or wrong or whether the Afghani people are better or worse off. You just don't want the US to don't anything at all about anything. In that case, you only prove my point which is that no one really gives a fuck. And since no one gives a fuck, they need to stop posting these statistics like they actually give a shit when they really don't.
But, the premise of your argument dictates that you must be more sad for the aghani people now than you were before the US and NATO showed up.
If that's the case, then please state why.
If it's not the case, then you either believe that the Aghani people are now better off, or you just stopped caring.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Whats wrong with letting them be to develop through their periods in time as every other country has been essentially allowed to do internally thus far?
Do you right every wrong you see in your day, and go out of your way no matter what it costs you in time and money to fix everything you see?
A hands off approach is less severe than the tough love approach (obey or die).
I guess what the US gov't is saying is you're in my house now shape up or ship out in a pine box.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
You say the hands off approach is less severe. By that rationale, you're saying that the afghani people are worse off now than they would've been had the US not intervened.
You might recall that you've already confirmed that the actual welfare of the Afghani people is not your concern. Rather your concern is the US thinking that it is big and bad.
So, again, yes the US is a little arrogant, but that's all it really is to you. It's not really a matter of what is better or worse for the afghani people.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
The same is true for any nation.
"democracy delivered by the bomb and the gun, is terror else where in the world I'm from."
"and I wish that I could afford the ear of Bush the second
I'd ask is it your favorite philosopher who recommended
invading and exterminating all who defy us,
crying out justice but seeking out triumphs?
wasn't your christ unbeloved of empires?
one nailed his ass to a post; he expired!
a terrorist, as roman evidence showed
put down like a retard on the death row
in texas, I guess "tough luck," right George?
ain't that how every war gets scored?"
http://frontalot.com/media.php/76/mc_frontalot_-_special_delivery.mp3
Yes the Afghani people are worse off now. Their country is a mess right now, bullets are flying all over the place. Is that supposed to be better? We can;t babysit them forever you know. Do you think parents can and should monitor their kids 24/7? You keep harping on my concern thing like it's a cap feather. Thats not only be mistaken but misguided.
I don't think any country should police and bully another.
And if this does happen between neighboring countries and blows come to blows in a particular region I would not expect another country from thousands of miles away to come racing across the ocean to play big brother ands start killing undesirables over local customs and womens rights issues.
Let the region work out their societal issues as it should be in every county , and has been since the dawn of time. But the US knows best and apparently what people do in their houses (countries) is the US gov't business now, and if they don't like it ...watch out. But there has to be a cash grab incentive apparently. China can do whatever...
Same in America ...what you do behind your own closed doors is not really entirely your own business either...increasingly less as time goes on.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
If you could take that passion toward what is good for the American people, that would be a plus. These trinkets we possess, this consumerism mentality that is working against ourselves, is noted: in your trinket-thought of the Afghani people.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
In that case, you could've saved us both some time and simply answered the question below:
Instead, you answered with something a little different. It's nice to know where you stand on this now.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Why don't we take care of America first?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
The topic of this thread isn't what we should do instead.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Well at least they are still alive and breathing. And if you think your tough love approach is better (obey the U.S. or die) that speaks also where you stand. Sounds a little worse than wearing hoods and stick beating to me. You think you can solve this through more violence, but it's only making it worse.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
The topic of your reply was.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Only as a hypothetical to complete the logic of the post I was responding to. More specifically, it was what should be done in that particular country instead.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825