The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Cheers mate.
I'll slap him for you if you like, *SLAP*.
Now, the intelligent discussions can begin again............
Now, the intelligent discussions can begin again............
Ben Hodgetts wrote:
> strange could have sworn milosevic has been caught and being punished
> anyway.....
Before you step up with the sarcasm Ben, find out how Milosevic came to be at The Hague and exactly who "caught" him.
*hint* It wasn't the UN
> strange could have sworn milosevic has been caught and being punished
> anyway.....
Before you step up with the sarcasm Ben, find out how Milosevic came to be at The Hague and exactly who "caught" him.
*hint* It wasn't the UN
jesus christ, this is like arguing a point with children.
Bonus, you have valid points mate and I'm always willing to discuss stuff with you.
Quite a few others, however, need to spend a bit more time reading up on the history of the middle east before they start "Yeah but what should America do in retaliation."
There is no point, because as soon as someone raises an objection or strays slightly from the accepted line? Shouting and demanding that person sees the situation "correctly". I have my views, you have yours.
However, I do not attempt to say that you are wrong for your take on a situation so extend me the same courtesy.
Otherwise we are back in the trees and we can all call ourselves "Bush Jr" and fight.
Your homework for tonight kids, is to go out and research the Iran-Contra scandal, Arms for Oil and the circumstances surrounding Clinton's impeachment, Democrat involvement in the "Whitewater Scandal" and the confusion surrounding W Bush's election in Florida.
And whilst you're at it, report back on the Kyoto Summit, USA's involvement and the main player behind the action America took.
Hodgetts, read my posts and then we'll talk.
Bonus, you have valid points mate and I'm always willing to discuss stuff with you.
Quite a few others, however, need to spend a bit more time reading up on the history of the middle east before they start "Yeah but what should America do in retaliation."
There is no point, because as soon as someone raises an objection or strays slightly from the accepted line? Shouting and demanding that person sees the situation "correctly". I have my views, you have yours.
However, I do not attempt to say that you are wrong for your take on a situation so extend me the same courtesy.
Otherwise we are back in the trees and we can all call ourselves "Bush Jr" and fight.
Your homework for tonight kids, is to go out and research the Iran-Contra scandal, Arms for Oil and the circumstances surrounding Clinton's impeachment, Democrat involvement in the "Whitewater Scandal" and the confusion surrounding W Bush's election in Florida.
And whilst you're at it, report back on the Kyoto Summit, USA's involvement and the main player behind the action America took.
Hodgetts, read my posts and then we'll talk.
I see I may have missed your point Goaty, and it is true that they may now turn their backs on this muppet once more.....
But, is the bombing of villages our fault for aiming their, or the Taleban's fault for using human shield tactics??
Either way, they shouldn't have to die, and killing innocents makes us no better than Bin Laden, but that still doesn't give a solution to what should actually be done in this situation. Diplomacy certainly wouldn't get you anywhere........
But, is the bombing of villages our fault for aiming their, or the Taleban's fault for using human shield tactics??
Either way, they shouldn't have to die, and killing innocents makes us no better than Bin Laden, but that still doesn't give a solution to what should actually be done in this situation. Diplomacy certainly wouldn't get you anywhere........
strange could have sworn milosevic has been caught and being punished anyway.....
as far as this being a war just so the west can save itself some oil can i just say i think that is the most stupidest reason i've ever read and it isn't even from that crappy newspaper The Mirror.
i guess those 3 big old piles of rubble in New York, an attack on a area of very high military intelligence and if the other wasn't brought down an attack on the whitehouse as was reported and about 7,000 deaths has absolutely no reason to do with this war. if the attack on the towers wasn't horrendous enough they attack the pentagon. now if you think ANY country would sit back and watch their military headquarters be attacked liked that then you really are stupid. this ain't got squat to do with oil if it did then there wouldn't be any action taken at all as we'd try to keep the middle east people sweet and happy with us. but no instead we are taking action against them thus endangering future transactions with those countries who may see america as this big bad guy and stop trading with us as we're pally pally with them so that means no oil for us. so please see some damn sense stop trying to find hidden objectives for war when there clearly isn't any (and anyway don't you think if it was to do with oil the americans would have already been in and snatched all of it?) and just recognise the fact America will not stand idly by and be attacked without taking action as any country would do so stop with all this anti-american attitude and instead stand behind them like they done for us in times gone
as far as this being a war just so the west can save itself some oil can i just say i think that is the most stupidest reason i've ever read and it isn't even from that crappy newspaper The Mirror.
i guess those 3 big old piles of rubble in New York, an attack on a area of very high military intelligence and if the other wasn't brought down an attack on the whitehouse as was reported and about 7,000 deaths has absolutely no reason to do with this war. if the attack on the towers wasn't horrendous enough they attack the pentagon. now if you think ANY country would sit back and watch their military headquarters be attacked liked that then you really are stupid. this ain't got squat to do with oil if it did then there wouldn't be any action taken at all as we'd try to keep the middle east people sweet and happy with us. but no instead we are taking action against them thus endangering future transactions with those countries who may see america as this big bad guy and stop trading with us as we're pally pally with them so that means no oil for us. so please see some damn sense stop trying to find hidden objectives for war when there clearly isn't any (and anyway don't you think if it was to do with oil the americans would have already been in and snatched all of it?) and just recognise the fact America will not stand idly by and be attacked without taking action as any country would do so stop with all this anti-american attitude and instead stand behind them like they done for us in times gone
Bonus wrote:
I'll let you
> explain to everyone who dies in the next Bin Laden terrorism effort why you
> would have left this man alone to kill them, and tell their families why you
> were content to let them die........
You missed my point Bonus.
I agree that troops should be in there. I have done from the start. I objected to the indiscriminate bombing of townships where the Taliban are mixed in with civilians.
I believe I said, at the time, "Get in there so you can see who you are killing instead of dropping ordanance from 20,000ft like it's a video-game"
And what I was saying is, despite rhetoric and chest-thumping from Bush and his little war-*****s, they will not make any effort to get Bin Laden.
They should do, but they won't.
History has proven, time and time again, that The West makes no concerted effort to capture the instigator of the crimes.
Hussein, Milosevic, Bin Laden, Noreiga, Pinochet - we just let them carry on once we've demonstrated our military might.
It's utter rubbish.
I said over a month ago that we would not send troops in until the Northern Alliance had done 99% of the work.
Bush will not risk another Vietnam, with American troops dying thousands of miles away - no army in the history of Afghanistan has ever been victorious in that region against tribal armies.
So, just so I am perfectly understood on this point, because it would appear that passion and emotion cloud someone who says "Hang on a minute":
I agree Bin Laden should be hunted down.
But he won't be, never will be brought to any kind of account on the actions of The West.
I'll let you
> explain to everyone who dies in the next Bin Laden terrorism effort why you
> would have left this man alone to kill them, and tell their families why you
> were content to let them die........
You missed my point Bonus.
I agree that troops should be in there. I have done from the start. I objected to the indiscriminate bombing of townships where the Taliban are mixed in with civilians.
I believe I said, at the time, "Get in there so you can see who you are killing instead of dropping ordanance from 20,000ft like it's a video-game"
And what I was saying is, despite rhetoric and chest-thumping from Bush and his little war-*****s, they will not make any effort to get Bin Laden.
They should do, but they won't.
History has proven, time and time again, that The West makes no concerted effort to capture the instigator of the crimes.
Hussein, Milosevic, Bin Laden, Noreiga, Pinochet - we just let them carry on once we've demonstrated our military might.
It's utter rubbish.
I said over a month ago that we would not send troops in until the Northern Alliance had done 99% of the work.
Bush will not risk another Vietnam, with American troops dying thousands of miles away - no army in the history of Afghanistan has ever been victorious in that region against tribal armies.
So, just so I am perfectly understood on this point, because it would appear that passion and emotion cloud someone who says "Hang on a minute":
I agree Bin Laden should be hunted down.
But he won't be, never will be brought to any kind of account on the actions of The West.
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> FYI - Goatboy did actually lose an Uncle at the Pentagon.
And before you start on me, I also agree with Bonus. I am all for the current action, and believe that despite the unfortunate civilian losses, the reaction of the people in the liberated cities justifies the action taken.
> FYI - Goatboy did actually lose an Uncle at the Pentagon.
And before you start on me, I also agree with Bonus. I am all for the current action, and believe that despite the unfortunate civilian losses, the reaction of the people in the liberated cities justifies the action taken.
Totoro wrote:
> How would you feel if one of your close relatives was killed in that way??
> People need to support our government for a change.
FYI - Goatboy did actually lose an Uncle at the Pentagon.
> How would you feel if one of your close relatives was killed in that way??
> People need to support our government for a change.
FYI - Goatboy did actually lose an Uncle at the Pentagon.
Page: