Paul Crowley

I can see at least one reason to doubt his basic assertions: sour grapes. His father was apparently a government official of some rank in the government and was, from the sounds of it, fleeing Afghanistan just before the arrival of Soviet troops and subsequently the Mujahadeen. He might have had his otherwise pleasant teenage years shattered by war, and is (rightfully) upset. But it does not make his words any more convincing. He resorts to bland allegory to a demonic figure (Hitler) and asserts that there is no popular support for the Taliban. I for one, feel that perhaps the Taliban might have popular support in Afghanistan, and at minimum have a right to operate their country as they please, if they in fact do have popular support. I am vociferously against german and american christian missionaries acting under the guise of aid/relief workers trying to sow christianity there. He also suggests that Bin Laden has "a billion soldiers". If they are talking about the righteous expulsion of western profiteers and puppeteers, yes perhaps- it is akin to the Indian expulsion of British Colonialism. But as a political movement, Islam is not one voice and will never be one voice- to raise the spectre of a united Islam under Bin Laden, and all we have to do is drop a few bombs in the desert, is tantamount to invoking a boogeyman.
Further: if Bin Laden really does think that he can win the war, if he believes he is righteous, then why deny his involvement? He can hasten the war against Islam faster by sowing less doubt, no? And who's to say a united islamic front against the west is a *bad* thing?
You cannot want the removal of Bin Laden and be anti-war at the same time. Being against taking action is tantamount to accepting things as they are, no? And for all the brainpower at bat, why is it that I hear only two voices- pro and anti war? Is there no sensible middle ground? alternative?