The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Taken from AOL News thingy. Quite interesting. Well, I think so....
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
WAR IS TERRORISM, BENN TELLS PROTESTERS
VETERAN Labour left-winger Tony Benn has told thousands of peace protesters at a London rally that the war in Afghanistan is "terrorism".
Police estimated that around 15,000 demonstrators had gathered although organisers of the protest claimed the figure was 50,000.
Mr Benn received a huge cheer as he told the demonstrators they were present at the birth of a new world peace movement.
Among the demonstrators were a number of British Muslims, who held prayers for peace on mats placed on the grass.
A Scotland Yard spokesman said the demonstration was peaceful and that there had been no arrests.
The crowd stood beneath a sea of multi-coloured banners in Trafalgar Square as it heard speeches from prominent anti-war campaigners.
Mr Benn told the crowd: "What is happening now in Afghanistan is terrorism. Everybody knows that. We know very well that this is a war for resources, for oil.
"We recognise that, after British imperialism ended, American imperialism is coming to take its place."
He said parliament was "passive" and Tony Blair's cabinet was "cringing" in its failure to question the UK's role in the bombing campaign.
Rebel Labour MP Paul Marsden accused Tony Blair of being "drunk with power" in his handling of the war on terrorism.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
WAR IS TERRORISM, BENN TELLS PROTESTERS
VETERAN Labour left-winger Tony Benn has told thousands of peace protesters at a London rally that the war in Afghanistan is "terrorism".
Police estimated that around 15,000 demonstrators had gathered although organisers of the protest claimed the figure was 50,000.
Mr Benn received a huge cheer as he told the demonstrators they were present at the birth of a new world peace movement.
Among the demonstrators were a number of British Muslims, who held prayers for peace on mats placed on the grass.
A Scotland Yard spokesman said the demonstration was peaceful and that there had been no arrests.
The crowd stood beneath a sea of multi-coloured banners in Trafalgar Square as it heard speeches from prominent anti-war campaigners.
Mr Benn told the crowd: "What is happening now in Afghanistan is terrorism. Everybody knows that. We know very well that this is a war for resources, for oil.
"We recognise that, after British imperialism ended, American imperialism is coming to take its place."
He said parliament was "passive" and Tony Blair's cabinet was "cringing" in its failure to question the UK's role in the bombing campaign.
Rebel Labour MP Paul Marsden accused Tony Blair of being "drunk with power" in his handling of the war on terrorism.
Page:
Sibs wrote:
> I must disagree about the Taleban thing. They didn't attack the US I know, but
> they are still wrong. They have a reign of terror where they rule, where books,
> TV, music, etc. is banned and I'm sure you all have heard the other stuff.
Did we invade them because of this?? No.
Did we bomb them because of this?? No.
Did we care about this before September 11th?? No.
All I can see that it is a good excuse for our governments to take a higher moral ground for doing no more than invading one of the poorest coutries in the world. Yes, we should have gotten hold of Osama bin Ladne, but I feel as though people are justifying their actions because of the Taleban's attrocious human rights record. If that was such an issue, why aren't we bombing the prisons of China where political prisoners are tortured, maimed and killed every single day?
> I must disagree about the Taleban thing. They didn't attack the US I know, but
> they are still wrong. They have a reign of terror where they rule, where books,
> TV, music, etc. is banned and I'm sure you all have heard the other stuff.
Did we invade them because of this?? No.
Did we bomb them because of this?? No.
Did we care about this before September 11th?? No.
All I can see that it is a good excuse for our governments to take a higher moral ground for doing no more than invading one of the poorest coutries in the world. Yes, we should have gotten hold of Osama bin Ladne, but I feel as though people are justifying their actions because of the Taleban's attrocious human rights record. If that was such an issue, why aren't we bombing the prisons of China where political prisoners are tortured, maimed and killed every single day?
the taliban had a get out clause of all this though they had 3 weeks to hand laden over but they didn't. Bush repeated time and time again hand him over and then we won't come and get him ourselves violently it wasn't an attack out of the blue Bush gave them warning upon warning of what they were to do but they didn't listen. if anyone is responsible for any innocent deaths (which is not the allies aim, bombs do malfunction and i'd like to see anyone who laughs at the allies mistakes to fly an aircraft at ultra fast speed and then drop a bomb on a pinpoint target with deadly accuracy) then it's the taliban. blame them not the allies
(reasoned arguments welcome)
(reasoned arguments welcome)
I must disagree about the Taleban thing. They didn't attack the US I know, but they are still wrong. They have a reign of terror where they rule, where books, TV, music, etc. is banned and I'm sure you all have heard the other stuff.
My point is we shouldn't be allowing people to rule like this. Only now are we saying how bad the Taleban is. They were there way before Bin Laden attacked the US. Bin Ladens terrorist network was there way before he attacked the US and they knew it. But they didn't want to start a conflict 'unprovoked' even though they know this group are terrorists. We can't sit back and say, oh they haven't done anything bad to our country or any other major power so theres no point in being against them. If someone does something wrong in the world justice SHOULD be done, however far away from our 'civilised' societies it is.
End of rant. Feel free to argue, hurl abuse at me, or point out anything wrong about the above post. (but if you hurl abuse then don't expect to make too many friends)
My point is we shouldn't be allowing people to rule like this. Only now are we saying how bad the Taleban is. They were there way before Bin Laden attacked the US. Bin Ladens terrorist network was there way before he attacked the US and they knew it. But they didn't want to start a conflict 'unprovoked' even though they know this group are terrorists. We can't sit back and say, oh they haven't done anything bad to our country or any other major power so theres no point in being against them. If someone does something wrong in the world justice SHOULD be done, however far away from our 'civilised' societies it is.
End of rant. Feel free to argue, hurl abuse at me, or point out anything wrong about the above post. (but if you hurl abuse then don't expect to make too many friends)
Goatboy wrote:
I understand that
> "there will always be casualties", but imagine someone saying that to
> you when you had lost your home/family/posessions.
"Yeah that sux mate,
> but what can you do?"
This is a point which I ultimately believe in. The actions of the US and Britain were a reaction the the thousands of innocent civilians killed by an unwarranted terrorist attack, but does that give any nation the liberty and the right to kill the innocent civilians of another nation? Especially when these civilians are living under the terror and in hatred of the oppressive regime who governs them?
I think not.
What people do seem to be forgetting here is that it wasn't Afghanistan who attacked the United States of America, i was simply a man who lives there. This was an act of terrorism unparalleled in history, but we invaded Afghanistan without provokation from the Taleban, or Afghan civilians. Osama Bin Laden may be harboured, and even supported by the Taleban regime, but they didn't attack, the Taleban are defending themselves.
I am not saying that they were right, or wrong, to stick up for this man, or the al-Quadea network. I don't even intend with this point to look at the practicalities of arresting or bringing to justice Osama Bin Laden without military force, all I want to to is to remind people, that we invaded Afghanistan, without provokation from that nation, but from a terrorist group active in the region.
I understand that
> "there will always be casualties", but imagine someone saying that to
> you when you had lost your home/family/posessions.
"Yeah that sux mate,
> but what can you do?"
This is a point which I ultimately believe in. The actions of the US and Britain were a reaction the the thousands of innocent civilians killed by an unwarranted terrorist attack, but does that give any nation the liberty and the right to kill the innocent civilians of another nation? Especially when these civilians are living under the terror and in hatred of the oppressive regime who governs them?
I think not.
What people do seem to be forgetting here is that it wasn't Afghanistan who attacked the United States of America, i was simply a man who lives there. This was an act of terrorism unparalleled in history, but we invaded Afghanistan without provokation from the Taleban, or Afghan civilians. Osama Bin Laden may be harboured, and even supported by the Taleban regime, but they didn't attack, the Taleban are defending themselves.
I am not saying that they were right, or wrong, to stick up for this man, or the al-Quadea network. I don't even intend with this point to look at the practicalities of arresting or bringing to justice Osama Bin Laden without military force, all I want to to is to remind people, that we invaded Afghanistan, without provokation from that nation, but from a terrorist group active in the region.
Dr. Duck wrote:
> One thing that always puzzles me is how nobody seems horrified/disgusted at
> america's use of nuclear weapons against japan in WW2.
I sometimes think that i
> must be missing something...
Or is it just the 'you lose, you were terrorists
> - you win, you're the good guys' thing in practice.
Or maybe i am missing
> something.
One, the use of nuclear weapons is wrong, whenever or where-ever they are used.
Two, it has nothing to do with this discussion, and should not have been brought to change the subject.
> One thing that always puzzles me is how nobody seems horrified/disgusted at
> america's use of nuclear weapons against japan in WW2.
I sometimes think that i
> must be missing something...
Or is it just the 'you lose, you were terrorists
> - you win, you're the good guys' thing in practice.
Or maybe i am missing
> something.
One, the use of nuclear weapons is wrong, whenever or where-ever they are used.
Two, it has nothing to do with this discussion, and should not have been brought to change the subject.
One thing that always puzzles me is how nobody seems horrified/disgusted at america's use of nuclear weapons against japan in WW2.
I sometimes think that i must be missing something...
Or is it just the 'you lose, you were terrorists - you win, you're the good guys' thing in practice.
Or maybe i am missing something.
I sometimes think that i must be missing something...
Or is it just the 'you lose, you were terrorists - you win, you're the good guys' thing in practice.
Or maybe i am missing something.
I agree with 99% of Wookiee's post here.
Shocking, I know, but I don't take an opposite stance just for the sake of it.
What Bin Laden orchestrated was an absolute wrong. There is no justification for what took place on Sept 11th under any circumstances whatsoever.
My arguments and raised voices were the methods used.
Carpet-Bombing is notoriously bad, and the Daisycutter bombs they used make the usual clusterbombs look like firecrackers.
Yes, the Taliban needs punishing, yes Bin Laden should be hunted and killed for what he did.
But not at the expense of however many Afghans caught up in the bombings, simply because it allows more anti-western feeling to build.
It should have been troops from the get-go.
But that's me, I get my butt kicked at RTS games so I'm useless at that sort of tactical thinking.
My only standpoint was that I lost an uncle through the actions of a person declaring "war" and I didn't want to know that one single person in Afghanistan would go through the same emotions, when they are equally innocent of any wrong-doings.
I understand that "there will always be casualties", but imagine someone saying that to you when you had lost your home/family/posessions.
"Yeah that sux mate, but what can you do?"
You can take every precaution possible before you start to drop ordenance on towns is what you can do.
We all agree that Bin Laden/Al Queda etc have to be stopped, but I deplore the methods used, simply because (for me only) even 1 civilian casualty is too many.
And this "war" shouldn't stop now the Taliban have been driven out.
Kandahar is under seige by the Northern Alliance, and they want to negotiate surrender for the Taliban inside the area, but the United States will not allow this and are bombing still.
This is the action I condemn, needless bloodshed.
Taliban want to surrender and want to come out, America says "Uh-uh" and kills them.
Murderous thug rampage, whichever religion is behind it.
Shocking, I know, but I don't take an opposite stance just for the sake of it.
What Bin Laden orchestrated was an absolute wrong. There is no justification for what took place on Sept 11th under any circumstances whatsoever.
My arguments and raised voices were the methods used.
Carpet-Bombing is notoriously bad, and the Daisycutter bombs they used make the usual clusterbombs look like firecrackers.
Yes, the Taliban needs punishing, yes Bin Laden should be hunted and killed for what he did.
But not at the expense of however many Afghans caught up in the bombings, simply because it allows more anti-western feeling to build.
It should have been troops from the get-go.
But that's me, I get my butt kicked at RTS games so I'm useless at that sort of tactical thinking.
My only standpoint was that I lost an uncle through the actions of a person declaring "war" and I didn't want to know that one single person in Afghanistan would go through the same emotions, when they are equally innocent of any wrong-doings.
I understand that "there will always be casualties", but imagine someone saying that to you when you had lost your home/family/posessions.
"Yeah that sux mate, but what can you do?"
You can take every precaution possible before you start to drop ordenance on towns is what you can do.
We all agree that Bin Laden/Al Queda etc have to be stopped, but I deplore the methods used, simply because (for me only) even 1 civilian casualty is too many.
And this "war" shouldn't stop now the Taliban have been driven out.
Kandahar is under seige by the Northern Alliance, and they want to negotiate surrender for the Taliban inside the area, but the United States will not allow this and are bombing still.
This is the action I condemn, needless bloodshed.
Taliban want to surrender and want to come out, America says "Uh-uh" and kills them.
Murderous thug rampage, whichever religion is behind it.
I'm no historian, as I've said before, so any corrections to this post are both expected and welcome; this is just how I see things with what knowledge I have of the situation.
Regardless of whether individuals consider the bombing right or wrong, my personal opinion is that it was the only avenue open at the start of the conflict.
With the techniques used (both guided and unguided bombs/missiles), it's fair to say that there are always going to be accidents where innocent people are injured or killed.
As I've said before, I'm no great fan of the US, and I think we are mugs for sucking up to them time after time, but in this particular instance, I was - and still am - in agreement with the actions taken, regardless of the history of the situation.
I know that both Britain and the US have trained and supplied people like Bin Laden in the past, and probably will again in the future. But as far as I know, this training has been in order to use these people against 'enemies' of the West - such as the USSR during the Cold War. This training has been for use against military and government personnel and installations - 'legitimate' targets in times of conflict.
The events of September 11th were for the most part directed at civilians. If only the Pentagon had been attacked, then my opinion on the response would most likely have been different. Although civilians work at the Pentagon, it is a military - and therefore legitimate - target for anyone having a grudge against the US and their governments policies.
Had they wanted to attack the US on financial grounds, they could have hit the towers at a time when there would have been far fewer occupants. This would still have had a massive impact on the US economy, but without killing anywhere near as many civilians.
The only conclusion is that the attack was deliberately planned to maximise civilian casualties.
The Russians spent ten years trying to conquer Afghanistan and lost thousands of troops in the process. The US was hardly likely to risk losing more citizens in this conflict, so they too the safe option - massive bombing to break the resistance of the Taliban regime, who have been dug in in Afghanistan for many years.
The strikes have been designed to avoid civilan targets and casualties as much as possible, but as we all know, several strikes have gone astray. This is more due to human error than faulty technology, and it is indeed a very, very great shame. However, it was always likely to happen at some point.
While I do feel sorry for the innocent Afghans who have lost their lives or their loved ones, I am... 'amused' for want of a better word... when Bin Laden and various Taliban fighters appear on news reports claiming how monstrous the US are for killing civilians. I'm sorry, but they should have thought of that before flying airliners into the World Trade Centre.
The bombing has generally acheived its aim, though, with the Taliban vacating cities and either surrendering or running for the hills with their tails between their legs.
My personal opinion is that the reaction that Western journalists and troops have received as they've moved into the cities is itself justification for the action taken so far, and the results it has achieved.
Now that ground troops can be deployed in comparative safety, they have been - with both British and US troops on the ground inside Afghanistan, seeking out those Taliban that remain and either capturing or killing them.
The rest of the hard-line Muslims in the region now need to realise that this is not a war against their religion, and that - basically - it has nothing to do with them. The Taliban are mostly not Afghan people, but Arabs and Pakistanis who are occupying another country - they are really no better than the occupying troops of the USSR that they fought off years ago. If they were to stop and think for just a moment, they may realise that if the Taliban were allowed to maintian power and grow, then their countries may be next.
Will the ultimate aim of capturing/killing Bin Laden be acheived? We will only know that if and when it happens. As Goatboy has said, the West has a poor record of following through on these aims - but I have a feeling that it is different this time. We already have reports that they believe he is trapped in a 30sq. km area, and that it's only a matter of time until he's found. Let's hope that this time that really is the case.
Regardless of whether individuals consider the bombing right or wrong, my personal opinion is that it was the only avenue open at the start of the conflict.
With the techniques used (both guided and unguided bombs/missiles), it's fair to say that there are always going to be accidents where innocent people are injured or killed.
As I've said before, I'm no great fan of the US, and I think we are mugs for sucking up to them time after time, but in this particular instance, I was - and still am - in agreement with the actions taken, regardless of the history of the situation.
I know that both Britain and the US have trained and supplied people like Bin Laden in the past, and probably will again in the future. But as far as I know, this training has been in order to use these people against 'enemies' of the West - such as the USSR during the Cold War. This training has been for use against military and government personnel and installations - 'legitimate' targets in times of conflict.
The events of September 11th were for the most part directed at civilians. If only the Pentagon had been attacked, then my opinion on the response would most likely have been different. Although civilians work at the Pentagon, it is a military - and therefore legitimate - target for anyone having a grudge against the US and their governments policies.
Had they wanted to attack the US on financial grounds, they could have hit the towers at a time when there would have been far fewer occupants. This would still have had a massive impact on the US economy, but without killing anywhere near as many civilians.
The only conclusion is that the attack was deliberately planned to maximise civilian casualties.
The Russians spent ten years trying to conquer Afghanistan and lost thousands of troops in the process. The US was hardly likely to risk losing more citizens in this conflict, so they too the safe option - massive bombing to break the resistance of the Taliban regime, who have been dug in in Afghanistan for many years.
The strikes have been designed to avoid civilan targets and casualties as much as possible, but as we all know, several strikes have gone astray. This is more due to human error than faulty technology, and it is indeed a very, very great shame. However, it was always likely to happen at some point.
While I do feel sorry for the innocent Afghans who have lost their lives or their loved ones, I am... 'amused' for want of a better word... when Bin Laden and various Taliban fighters appear on news reports claiming how monstrous the US are for killing civilians. I'm sorry, but they should have thought of that before flying airliners into the World Trade Centre.
The bombing has generally acheived its aim, though, with the Taliban vacating cities and either surrendering or running for the hills with their tails between their legs.
My personal opinion is that the reaction that Western journalists and troops have received as they've moved into the cities is itself justification for the action taken so far, and the results it has achieved.
Now that ground troops can be deployed in comparative safety, they have been - with both British and US troops on the ground inside Afghanistan, seeking out those Taliban that remain and either capturing or killing them.
The rest of the hard-line Muslims in the region now need to realise that this is not a war against their religion, and that - basically - it has nothing to do with them. The Taliban are mostly not Afghan people, but Arabs and Pakistanis who are occupying another country - they are really no better than the occupying troops of the USSR that they fought off years ago. If they were to stop and think for just a moment, they may realise that if the Taliban were allowed to maintian power and grow, then their countries may be next.
Will the ultimate aim of capturing/killing Bin Laden be acheived? We will only know that if and when it happens. As Goatboy has said, the West has a poor record of following through on these aims - but I have a feeling that it is different this time. We already have reports that they believe he is trapped in a 30sq. km area, and that it's only a matter of time until he's found. Let's hope that this time that really is the case.
I agree 100%.
Just bombing may remove the immediate threat, but it does nothing to change the situation that caused terrorism.
Aid, assistance, education and humanitarian relief is needed at ground level.
Provide these people with basic amenities and the right to live without fear of murder and then maybe, just maybe someone might not want to be a terrorist.
Just bombing may remove the immediate threat, but it does nothing to change the situation that caused terrorism.
Aid, assistance, education and humanitarian relief is needed at ground level.
Provide these people with basic amenities and the right to live without fear of murder and then maybe, just maybe someone might not want to be a terrorist.
I can't say I know all the history, etc. but all I am gonna do is make a simple statement (that's allowed on here right?)
Violence breeds more violence.
Violence can be justified, in some circumstances, but violence ALONE will never solve anything.
That's it. Feel free to yell rant and rave at this statement all you want. I think it is pretty true. And if you agree, great if not then form your own intelligent opinion.
Violence breeds more violence.
Violence can be justified, in some circumstances, but violence ALONE will never solve anything.
That's it. Feel free to yell rant and rave at this statement all you want. I think it is pretty true. And if you agree, great if not then form your own intelligent opinion.
Page: