a million minus for the retarded government of Israel.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6267928.stm

"BBC correspondent Alan Johnston has been released by kidnappers in Gaza after nearly four months in captivity."


BOYCOTT ISRAEL!

yay! you've stopped beating me!  I LOVE YOU GUYS!

According to his interview on the Beeb this morning

1. He was not beaten
2. The kidnappers had nothing to do with the insurgency against Israel ... more Jihad against Britain.
3. It was Hamas that piled pressure on them, including 'arresting' their family members etc. Apparently he was part of a 'prisoner' swop.

Dan Denman why don't you go visit your Hamas friends...

Maybe they'll throw you from a tall building as they did to their own people just a few weeks ago when they were taking over Gaza.

Shut up Oren, TIA

I'm wondering how long the Hamas 'honeymoon' lasts. 

After all, The Taliban also got Afghanistan to stop growing drugs.

Sometimes the solution is worse than the disease.  I fervently hope that's not the case in Gaza.

Afghanistan was better off under the Communists.

Gaza was better off under Israeli occupation.

>Afghanistan was better off under the Communists

Was it ever under the Communists?

And Iraq was better off under Saddam Hussein?

Yeah, only SOMETIMES is the cure worse than the disease.

>Was it ever under the Communists?

The Soviets invaded back in the 70s (they claimed they were invited in by some pre-existing commies in Afghanistan who needed some help). I guess you could say that they ruled the place insofar as *anybody* has ruled the place.

How quickly they forget.  Yes, Afghanistan was the Russian "Viet-Nam".  In fact, the CIA arming the mujahiddeen is how we got Osama Bin Laden.

Once the Russian's gave up and left, Islamic fundamentalists implemented the rule of the Taliban -- and hatred of the West, not just Russia.  It might have been better if the US had 'allowed' the Soviets to 'win'.

Nobody's really been able to hold Afghanistan.  It's a land of mountains and tribal leaders.  Britain and Russia fought over it in the 1800's in Kipling's "Big Game".

>Nobody's really been able to hold Afghanistan.

I think that's what they meant -- the Russians might have had a base in Kabul, but that doesn't mean it was a communist country.

Yeah, but he has a point.  While the Russians were IN Afghanistan, they had SOME 'puppet government' justifying their presence there.

So even if they didn't "hold it", they were certainly there screwing with them.  Just like the US is not "holding" Iraq, but we're definitely there.

Before 1979 there was a client regime that was heavily funded by the Soviet Union.

They funded the hospitals, schools, university and power plants.

They promoted women's education and emancipation.

They didn't bother about politics, as long as no western power would build a base there.

The government kept the inter-tribal conflicts well checked.

It was reasonably safe there at the time. I know people who travelled there in the 1970's. No problems.

There was nothing of value to get there, apart from opium and hashish. That didn't bother the Soviets much.

>>Nobody's really been able to hold Afghanistan.

My point exactly. I keep reminding people that for a very long time, many a superpower has been having a go at the Afghans.

All they do is grow opium, and fight wars. The only reason they even bother growing opium, is so they can fund their wars. How does anyone beat a nation that has shown incapable of battle weariness?

And, when they are not fighting the foreign invader of the month, they are busy killing each other.

You can't beat them ... seriously

True.  Hopefully we don't have to "beat" them -- merely make it sufficiently inconvenient for them to support the Taliban.  But having done that once, I fervently hope they won't take that route again.