It's almost impossible to parody stuff like this:

"Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance, kindness and integrity. That is why we have told him if he regrets what he did, then we will forgive him..."

Yes, we're tolerant, so as long as he renounces his religious beliefs, we won't kill him.

Is this what we liberated them for, and what American troops continue to die for?

[Update at 4:17 PM EST]

As I said, you can't parody these folks. I was reading this Scott Ott post over at Free Republic, and at first took these first two paragraphs seriously:

(2006-03-24) — A judge in Afghanistan said today that Abdul Rahman, the man charged with converting to Christianity, would face the death penalty, or worse, if convicted of the crime.

“We could behead him and then throw the book at him,” said the judge presiding over the case, raising the specter that the punishment could include intentional abuse and damage to Mr. Rahman’s copy of the Bible.

It's funny 'cuz it could be true.

The fact that it was a Scrappleface spoof didn't quite become apparent until I finished it.

The invasion of Afghanistan was conducted for the purpose of removing the terrorist-sponsoring regime that was in power, not to liberate Afghans. That the Afghans were liberated from this regime and given a chance to form a new government of their choosing is only a byproduct of that primary purpose. What Americans in Afghanistan are fighting and dieing for is to track down and kill as many of the terrorists as possible, not to “free” Afghans.

It is a sad thing that in some ways those who have replaced the Taliban are not much better than that former regime, but that is the government that the Afghani people evidently wanted. Frankly (and I know this sounds bad) as long as they restrict their imposing of religious fanaticism to their own citizens I’m not going to worry too much about it.

The big picture is to remove Afghanistan as a base for the export of Islamic terror. In time I imagine the Afghani people will change their laws if they tire of them.

In principle, I agree. The problem is that it's precisely these kinds of beliefs (the infidels and apostates must die) that provide a breeding ground for the terrorists. I'm not sure that we're going to be able to share a planet with these folks much longer, now that it's so easy for them to travel around it, and get increasingly lethal weapons, unless they change their beliefs.

What I wonder is why we didn't use postwar Japan as a model? Japan had similar beliefs / problems before World War II - before (and during) the war, they thought they were superior to everyone else, and placed very little value on life. Placing a General in charge and slowly building a democracy made them into the peace-loving, efficient society they are today - that's why they both love and hate that General so much.

Letting them govern themselves would not have worked initially, right? We would have had an elected Emporer, just like Muslim elections lead to countries held captive to Islamic law.

I have always believed that the benefit of Democratization, is the removal of all excuses.

If they vote for this, if they think this is okay, there is no longer an evil dictator to blame, the only ones to blame are the people. They no longer have excuses, I feel the same with palestine, and others. Israel can isolate the people of "Palestine" for security reasons, and there is no way to argue around it. The US still has a presence in afghanistan, and if pakistan is willing to help out, we can further isolate afghanistan for the security of the environs (except for Iran.) If they are willing to force everyone to live in a hell, first, let them live in it themselves, then we kill some people and let them start over. Somewhere down the line, they will become civilized.

The problem with using Japan as a model is that in order to make that work, we had to really defeat them (i.e., drop a couple nukes on them). It may yet come to that, but it's the outcome we're trying to avoid.

Another thing about using Japan as a model, is that Hirohito was a living deity in the cult of the Emperror (spelling?) When hirohito surrendered, then those who still lived with the living god as emperor world were forced to immediate live up to the wishes of the now appologetic god. When Hirohito surrendered, and ordered his people to surrender, we had an ally, a substantial one within the peoples of japan.

The main reason the Japan model of installing a government and for the most part writing their constitution for them would not have worked is that the modern day MSM would have branded such as American Imperialism and Bush a power mad dictator.

Oh, wait a minute…. they say that anyway…..

Rand: "I'm not sure that we're going to be able to share a planet with these folks much longer.."

Sad, but true. Can you imagine anyone in the MSM making that statement?

Another reason the Japan model wouldn't work is that when we occupied Japan, there weren't 50 other Japanese countries sitting around threatening us with terrorism as long as we remain occupiers. There are good political reasons for getting out as soon as possible, but unfortunately it leads to a bad end result.