The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
I need to consider my words and feelings as I write this, as my usual style of ranting would lead to strong language and possibly offend some people.
I am absolutely opposed to the ìwarî being waged against Terrorism by ìThe Coalitionî (basically USA & UK).
This can end up being a long and involved post, so Iíll try to keep it short.
The USA is outraged at the actions of the terrorists on Sept 11th, and rightly so. It was an horrific attack that cost the lives of thousands of innocent people that had no involvement with the USAís foreign policy in the Middle East. These were people minding their business that died.
The same is true of the people in Afghanistan in the cities that are being carpet-bombed right now in the name of ìEnduring Freedomî.
The Taliban does not live in those cities, they reside in the mountains and hills that outlay these towns.
Same as Bin Laden, he is well-hidden in the desert.
So why bomb towns?
ìBecause we are fighting back against the evil of terrorismî says Bush, sounding like a bad actor in a B-movie.
I agree that terrorism is bad, in every form.
Does this mean then, that the USA will stop funding and supporting the IRA through NORAID? Does this mean that the IRA are no longer allowed to publicly raise funds in the USA?
I would hope so if the USA are dedicated to ìfighting the forces of evilî.
The same goes with the UK ñ do we stop selling arms to East Timor? And Jakarta?
These are brutal and oppressive regimes that operate snatch squads and murder dissenters, in acts of terrorism?
What about the French Secret Service?
They bombed a ship belonging to Greenpeace, ìThe Rainbow Warriorî back in 1985. The agents were arrested and held by New Zealand police, and were to be put on trial for ìterrorist activitiesî, but under threat of sanctions by the USA, UK and France, the NZ government had to release these operatives.
Or the USA using CIA operatives in El Salvador to train and operate squads that murdered the opposition to the ruling government, installed and assisted by the USA?
It would appear that terrorism is a bad thing only when committed against ourselves. When we do it, itís right and correct. Nobody has asked what business the USA has in the Middle East, it takes it upon itself to act as a world-police, barging into areas it is not welcomed and using itís might to tell other countries how they should and shouldnít operate.
I am not saying the USA ìdeservedî the attack on Sept 11th, nobody does.
I am saying that America, in many areas, is just as guilty as people like Bin Laden for acting in ways considered ìterroristî.
Did you know that the USA and UK are being investigated in the European Court of Civil Rights and The Hague for War Crimes? (relating to the Bosnian situation).
Afghanistan is a country already on itís knees from years of abuse by Russia, The USA and The French. They have little to no communication abilities and are facing the worst drought since Ethiopia and the situation that prompted Live Aid.
The Taliban is the ruling party, but they came to power through force and are considered by many Afghans to be thugs and murderers. Any aid that reaches Afghanistan is siphoned by the Taliban, 95% of cars are owned by them, most to all property belongs to them.
It has been highlighted that many Afghans would not even know who Bin Laden is, they are concerned with survival and food/water.
Bin Laden is a (formerly trained by the CIA) terrorist.
What people seem to forget is that he has done nothing to the USA until the broadcast yesterday.
(The USA has yet to provide any evidence he is behind the plane attacks on the WTC).
After the Oklahoma bombing, the USA launched several air-strikes against Bin Ladenís camps in retaliation for ìthe evil of terrorismî.
Except Timothy McVeigh stood up and admitted he did it, not a Middle Eastern man at all but an American.
Bin Laden then vented his fury by declaring a Jihad against the States, only after being bombed for things he denied any involvement in (sounding familiar to anyone?).
The Taliban offered, as did Afghanistan, to hand over Bin Laden once the USA had shown them the evidence it had to link him to the crimes.
The USA refused to do so, declaring ìthat is not good enough anymoreî.
And the speak of the ìCoalitionî, of all the world support Bush Jr has, it is only the USA and UK involved in the ìwarî.
To quote Bill Hicks, ìA war is when two armies are fighting, so you can see, isnít really a warÖmore of a distraction.î
America gets attacked by terrorists (in retaliation for decades of dubious foreign policy and covert military action against nations that do not agree with the USA), and 3 weeks later the USA and UK are ìat warî.
Except we are bombing towns and cities, carpet bombing areas with high civilian populations and what we are told are ìMilitary targetsî.
How is bombing towns in the dead of night any different to flying two planes into buildings?
The main difference, it would appear, is that this time weíre the ones dancing and celebrating in the streets, waving our flags and cheering.
God Bless Freedom, God Bless America and God Bless Untold Civilian Casualties on both sides, caught up in political penis-measuring.
The people in the WTC didnít ask to be killed, and had nothing to do with USA foreign policy.
The Afghans killed in the bombings, and those to be killed in further action, didnít ask to be killed, had nothing to do with the terrorist attack on Sept 11th.
We all sat and watched in horror as the planes hit the WTC, how many of us sat and watched in horror last night as bombs smacked into towns in Afghanistan?
During the Gulf War, how many of us sat and watched the bomb-mounted cameras hitting targets?
To me, the only difference between us and the people that committed the acts on Sept 11th is that we get to watch it on TV as we eat dinner and get a tear in our eye because weíre ìfighting the evil of terrorismî.
I am not condoning the awful, terrible attacks on Sept 11th in which thousands of civilians died because of a belief that America was evil.
But nor can I condone the awful, terrible attacks on Oct 5th (to ?) in which thousands of civilians will die because of a belief that Afghanistan is evil.
The billions awarded to Bush for this campaign could easily be used instead, to provide basic human necessities like food, water, housing and hygiene for the entire world.
That would do more to remove the threat of terrorism, by giving every single person the basic human comforts that would prevent people like Bin Laden saying ìYou see how badly the West treat you?î.
But that will never happen, because war is good business and the people that decide to go to war never get their hands dirty, they, like we, sit and watch the bombs on the news after another day at work.
I am absolutely opposed to the ìwarî being waged against Terrorism by ìThe Coalitionî (basically USA & UK).
This can end up being a long and involved post, so Iíll try to keep it short.
The USA is outraged at the actions of the terrorists on Sept 11th, and rightly so. It was an horrific attack that cost the lives of thousands of innocent people that had no involvement with the USAís foreign policy in the Middle East. These were people minding their business that died.
The same is true of the people in Afghanistan in the cities that are being carpet-bombed right now in the name of ìEnduring Freedomî.
The Taliban does not live in those cities, they reside in the mountains and hills that outlay these towns.
Same as Bin Laden, he is well-hidden in the desert.
So why bomb towns?
ìBecause we are fighting back against the evil of terrorismî says Bush, sounding like a bad actor in a B-movie.
I agree that terrorism is bad, in every form.
Does this mean then, that the USA will stop funding and supporting the IRA through NORAID? Does this mean that the IRA are no longer allowed to publicly raise funds in the USA?
I would hope so if the USA are dedicated to ìfighting the forces of evilî.
The same goes with the UK ñ do we stop selling arms to East Timor? And Jakarta?
These are brutal and oppressive regimes that operate snatch squads and murder dissenters, in acts of terrorism?
What about the French Secret Service?
They bombed a ship belonging to Greenpeace, ìThe Rainbow Warriorî back in 1985. The agents were arrested and held by New Zealand police, and were to be put on trial for ìterrorist activitiesî, but under threat of sanctions by the USA, UK and France, the NZ government had to release these operatives.
Or the USA using CIA operatives in El Salvador to train and operate squads that murdered the opposition to the ruling government, installed and assisted by the USA?
It would appear that terrorism is a bad thing only when committed against ourselves. When we do it, itís right and correct. Nobody has asked what business the USA has in the Middle East, it takes it upon itself to act as a world-police, barging into areas it is not welcomed and using itís might to tell other countries how they should and shouldnít operate.
I am not saying the USA ìdeservedî the attack on Sept 11th, nobody does.
I am saying that America, in many areas, is just as guilty as people like Bin Laden for acting in ways considered ìterroristî.
Did you know that the USA and UK are being investigated in the European Court of Civil Rights and The Hague for War Crimes? (relating to the Bosnian situation).
Afghanistan is a country already on itís knees from years of abuse by Russia, The USA and The French. They have little to no communication abilities and are facing the worst drought since Ethiopia and the situation that prompted Live Aid.
The Taliban is the ruling party, but they came to power through force and are considered by many Afghans to be thugs and murderers. Any aid that reaches Afghanistan is siphoned by the Taliban, 95% of cars are owned by them, most to all property belongs to them.
It has been highlighted that many Afghans would not even know who Bin Laden is, they are concerned with survival and food/water.
Bin Laden is a (formerly trained by the CIA) terrorist.
What people seem to forget is that he has done nothing to the USA until the broadcast yesterday.
(The USA has yet to provide any evidence he is behind the plane attacks on the WTC).
After the Oklahoma bombing, the USA launched several air-strikes against Bin Ladenís camps in retaliation for ìthe evil of terrorismî.
Except Timothy McVeigh stood up and admitted he did it, not a Middle Eastern man at all but an American.
Bin Laden then vented his fury by declaring a Jihad against the States, only after being bombed for things he denied any involvement in (sounding familiar to anyone?).
The Taliban offered, as did Afghanistan, to hand over Bin Laden once the USA had shown them the evidence it had to link him to the crimes.
The USA refused to do so, declaring ìthat is not good enough anymoreî.
And the speak of the ìCoalitionî, of all the world support Bush Jr has, it is only the USA and UK involved in the ìwarî.
To quote Bill Hicks, ìA war is when two armies are fighting, so you can see, isnít really a warÖmore of a distraction.î
America gets attacked by terrorists (in retaliation for decades of dubious foreign policy and covert military action against nations that do not agree with the USA), and 3 weeks later the USA and UK are ìat warî.
Except we are bombing towns and cities, carpet bombing areas with high civilian populations and what we are told are ìMilitary targetsî.
How is bombing towns in the dead of night any different to flying two planes into buildings?
The main difference, it would appear, is that this time weíre the ones dancing and celebrating in the streets, waving our flags and cheering.
God Bless Freedom, God Bless America and God Bless Untold Civilian Casualties on both sides, caught up in political penis-measuring.
The people in the WTC didnít ask to be killed, and had nothing to do with USA foreign policy.
The Afghans killed in the bombings, and those to be killed in further action, didnít ask to be killed, had nothing to do with the terrorist attack on Sept 11th.
We all sat and watched in horror as the planes hit the WTC, how many of us sat and watched in horror last night as bombs smacked into towns in Afghanistan?
During the Gulf War, how many of us sat and watched the bomb-mounted cameras hitting targets?
To me, the only difference between us and the people that committed the acts on Sept 11th is that we get to watch it on TV as we eat dinner and get a tear in our eye because weíre ìfighting the evil of terrorismî.
I am not condoning the awful, terrible attacks on Sept 11th in which thousands of civilians died because of a belief that America was evil.
But nor can I condone the awful, terrible attacks on Oct 5th (to ?) in which thousands of civilians will die because of a belief that Afghanistan is evil.
The billions awarded to Bush for this campaign could easily be used instead, to provide basic human necessities like food, water, housing and hygiene for the entire world.
That would do more to remove the threat of terrorism, by giving every single person the basic human comforts that would prevent people like Bin Laden saying ìYou see how badly the West treat you?î.
But that will never happen, because war is good business and the people that decide to go to war never get their hands dirty, they, like we, sit and watch the bombs on the news after another day at work.
Page:
Except we're not carpet-bombing cities - there are no cities there.
Air defences etc. - outdated as they are - are being targeted, and hit, with little collateral damage.
Innocent people always die in a war. We are not deliberately targetting civilians, unlike terrorists the world over, which for me is the major difference.
If the terrorists had targetted only the Pentagon and other military installations only, then I could understand. But you can't fly two airliners into densely populated civilian targets and then whine about a few innocents killed around military 'bases' when the retaliation comes.
I know that the US is far from 'clean' in matters concerning the middle-east, but they do not generally target civilians.
The fanatics are always looking for someone to fight; they took aid and training from the US to overcome the Soviets, and then turn on the US when it suits them. If the US disappeared tomorrow, they'd then turn on someone else. If you don't believe as they do, you are the enemy. Even the true Moslems don't agree with what the fanatics are doing in the name of Islam, and support the action.
Eliminate their current grievances, and they'll find more.
It's all very well using political means and asking the government of a country to hand over the terrorists, but when the government ARE the terrorists, your options are very limited.
Civilian lives should be spared as far as possible, but sometimes you have little choice. Regardless of the cause (or lack of, depending on your opinion) of the Gulf War,l what do you do in a situation like that in Iraq, when Saddam took civilians into military targets to prevent them being attacked. "Human Shields" as they call them. What should be done in such a situation? "Oh damn, they've got civilians in there... we'll have to let them off this time." I don't think so.
I don't pretend to be politically aware of the entire history of the region; I know just the basics. But as far as I'm concerned, there is no justification for terrorists killing civilians no matter what the grievances.
The attacks on the Pentagon and WTC cannot go unanswered, and with the lack of a respectable, stable and decent government, military action is the only way, in my opinion.
We cannot say that there is no evidence linking the attack to Bin Laden and the Taliban because specifics haven't been released to the public. Everyone who has seen it agrees that it's fairly conclusive, otherwise there's no way Pakistan etc. would agree to the attacks.
Revealing specifics publicly may put more people, and intelligence networks, at risk. You may say 'question authority', but if you don't trust governments at some point, there's no point having them - and if you don't have them, you end up in a situation like Afghanistan, where no-one answers to anyone else, and anything can happen.
So, in complete contrast to everyone else here... I am 100% behind the campaign in its current form, and I wish all the best to our troops involved, particularly the SAS and SBS who are 'behind the lines' identifying targets. May they all return safely.
Air defences etc. - outdated as they are - are being targeted, and hit, with little collateral damage.
Innocent people always die in a war. We are not deliberately targetting civilians, unlike terrorists the world over, which for me is the major difference.
If the terrorists had targetted only the Pentagon and other military installations only, then I could understand. But you can't fly two airliners into densely populated civilian targets and then whine about a few innocents killed around military 'bases' when the retaliation comes.
I know that the US is far from 'clean' in matters concerning the middle-east, but they do not generally target civilians.
The fanatics are always looking for someone to fight; they took aid and training from the US to overcome the Soviets, and then turn on the US when it suits them. If the US disappeared tomorrow, they'd then turn on someone else. If you don't believe as they do, you are the enemy. Even the true Moslems don't agree with what the fanatics are doing in the name of Islam, and support the action.
Eliminate their current grievances, and they'll find more.
It's all very well using political means and asking the government of a country to hand over the terrorists, but when the government ARE the terrorists, your options are very limited.
Civilian lives should be spared as far as possible, but sometimes you have little choice. Regardless of the cause (or lack of, depending on your opinion) of the Gulf War,l what do you do in a situation like that in Iraq, when Saddam took civilians into military targets to prevent them being attacked. "Human Shields" as they call them. What should be done in such a situation? "Oh damn, they've got civilians in there... we'll have to let them off this time." I don't think so.
I don't pretend to be politically aware of the entire history of the region; I know just the basics. But as far as I'm concerned, there is no justification for terrorists killing civilians no matter what the grievances.
The attacks on the Pentagon and WTC cannot go unanswered, and with the lack of a respectable, stable and decent government, military action is the only way, in my opinion.
We cannot say that there is no evidence linking the attack to Bin Laden and the Taliban because specifics haven't been released to the public. Everyone who has seen it agrees that it's fairly conclusive, otherwise there's no way Pakistan etc. would agree to the attacks.
Revealing specifics publicly may put more people, and intelligence networks, at risk. You may say 'question authority', but if you don't trust governments at some point, there's no point having them - and if you don't have them, you end up in a situation like Afghanistan, where no-one answers to anyone else, and anything can happen.
So, in complete contrast to everyone else here... I am 100% behind the campaign in its current form, and I wish all the best to our troops involved, particularly the SAS and SBS who are 'behind the lines' identifying targets. May they all return safely.
Noam Chomsky's view on the "Coalition against Terrorism":
We should look very carefully at this anti-terrorism coalition and who is joining it and why.
Russia is happily joining the international coalition because it is delighted to have U.S. support for the horrendous atrocities it is carrying out in its war against Chechnya.
It describes that as an anti-terrorist war. In fact it is a murderous terrorist war itself. They'd love to have the United States support it.
China is very happy to join because it wants U.S. support for its wars in western China against Muslim groups who, in fact, were part of the coalition in Afghanistan 20 years ago and are now fighting for their rights in China, and China wants to suppress them brutally and would love to have the United States supporting that. I
ndonesia is very happy to join because it wants continued U.S. support in crushing internal uprisings as in for example Aceh, as it has been doing very brutally for many years. Unfortunately they already have U.S. support, but they would like to have much more support.
Algeria, which is one of the most murderous states in the world, would love to have U.S. support for it's torture and massacres for people in Algeria.
And if you look around the world, those who are happily joining the coalition are doing it for reasons that should send shivers up their spine. There's a lot of applause for the coalition, but it will disappear very quickly if you look at the reasons why countries are joining. If that's the new internationalism, we should not want to be part of it, we should be strongly opposed to it.
We should look very carefully at this anti-terrorism coalition and who is joining it and why.
Russia is happily joining the international coalition because it is delighted to have U.S. support for the horrendous atrocities it is carrying out in its war against Chechnya.
It describes that as an anti-terrorist war. In fact it is a murderous terrorist war itself. They'd love to have the United States support it.
China is very happy to join because it wants U.S. support for its wars in western China against Muslim groups who, in fact, were part of the coalition in Afghanistan 20 years ago and are now fighting for their rights in China, and China wants to suppress them brutally and would love to have the United States supporting that. I
ndonesia is very happy to join because it wants continued U.S. support in crushing internal uprisings as in for example Aceh, as it has been doing very brutally for many years. Unfortunately they already have U.S. support, but they would like to have much more support.
Algeria, which is one of the most murderous states in the world, would love to have U.S. support for it's torture and massacres for people in Algeria.
And if you look around the world, those who are happily joining the coalition are doing it for reasons that should send shivers up their spine. There's a lot of applause for the coalition, but it will disappear very quickly if you look at the reasons why countries are joining. If that's the new internationalism, we should not want to be part of it, we should be strongly opposed to it.
Exactly.
Each side is as bad as each other.
As a supposedly intelligent and rational, democracy-based nation, the USA had the option of sanctions etc open to them.
The Taliban and Afghanistan were more than willing to surrened Bin Laden, on the condition that the USA provided the proof they had for his involvement.
"Not Good Enough" and now we can all sit indoors and watch cities being razed in the name of Democracy, "Eternal Freedom" and mom 'n apple pie.
Do me a favour, watch the news tonight and see how many times they will show the bombs hitting their targets and the aftermath.
We've seen the planes hitting from every single angle and aerial photographs of New York, so I take it we'll see the devestation and absolute carnage left by our bombs?
We got to see people running down 53rd Street covered in blood and people holding photographs of loved ones that are missing, I trust we will see similar scenes of Afghans caught up in this.
Or at least I hope we will be shown the refugee camps where hundreds of thousands of innocent people have fled to,with winter approaching and zero food and water.
They approximate that almost 5 million Afghans could die from starvation and disease in these camps by next February if nothing is done.
Are we sending in aid? Yes, last week. Right before we noble few blew the living christ out of some cities.
I am not saying the USA deserved what they got, I am saying that Afghanistan does not deserve what they are getting.
This is not war, this is a one-sided attempt at destroying one person (hiding in the mountains) by levelling cities containing thousands of innocent people.
Difference between these guys and the Sept 11th?
These ones look funny and speak strange, so it's ok.
*shakes head*
This is not a world I want to raise a kid in.
Each side is as bad as each other.
As a supposedly intelligent and rational, democracy-based nation, the USA had the option of sanctions etc open to them.
The Taliban and Afghanistan were more than willing to surrened Bin Laden, on the condition that the USA provided the proof they had for his involvement.
"Not Good Enough" and now we can all sit indoors and watch cities being razed in the name of Democracy, "Eternal Freedom" and mom 'n apple pie.
Do me a favour, watch the news tonight and see how many times they will show the bombs hitting their targets and the aftermath.
We've seen the planes hitting from every single angle and aerial photographs of New York, so I take it we'll see the devestation and absolute carnage left by our bombs?
We got to see people running down 53rd Street covered in blood and people holding photographs of loved ones that are missing, I trust we will see similar scenes of Afghans caught up in this.
Or at least I hope we will be shown the refugee camps where hundreds of thousands of innocent people have fled to,with winter approaching and zero food and water.
They approximate that almost 5 million Afghans could die from starvation and disease in these camps by next February if nothing is done.
Are we sending in aid? Yes, last week. Right before we noble few blew the living christ out of some cities.
I am not saying the USA deserved what they got, I am saying that Afghanistan does not deserve what they are getting.
This is not war, this is a one-sided attempt at destroying one person (hiding in the mountains) by levelling cities containing thousands of innocent people.
Difference between these guys and the Sept 11th?
These ones look funny and speak strange, so it's ok.
*shakes head*
This is not a world I want to raise a kid in.
The way I see it is thus:
Both sides ALWAYS think that they are right.
Simple as that.
Whoever flew the planes into the building thought they were right, that they were "doing it for the cause, for the betterment of mankind" etc etc.
We (as in Blair, Bush etc) are now thinking "Yes, we're removing terrorists, we're doing the right thing."
I wonder how many innocent Afghans will be killed in this bombing. More than the 6,000-ish in the Sept 11th attacks? Almost definately.
Both sides ALWAYS think that they are right.
Simple as that.
Whoever flew the planes into the building thought they were right, that they were "doing it for the cause, for the betterment of mankind" etc etc.
We (as in Blair, Bush etc) are now thinking "Yes, we're removing terrorists, we're doing the right thing."
I wonder how many innocent Afghans will be killed in this bombing. More than the 6,000-ish in the Sept 11th attacks? Almost definately.
It's a bit like the scenarios in which only people on the losing side in a war are ever tried for 'War crimes'.
We've seen many, many Germans, now in their 80's dragged up before a court because they followed orders during WW2, but how many Brits were charged with War Crimes?
The last time the UK were involved in a bombing campaign (well, the last public one) the Super Furry Animals said "Tony Blair is now a war criminal".
The thing is, a couple of weeks ago the US seemed to be going about it in the right way. They said they would go in and wipe out those responsible, and not use this sort of tactic, as it doesn't get those responsible - now they've gone back on it.
Also the IRA (and other Irish terrorist groups) point, I guess that's not the same as they're not 'dirty Arabs'.
There seems to be a feeling that ALL Arabs are terrorists, and out to do us harm, are all of the Irish? No, just a very small minority - why should all of the Afgans suffer?
We've seen many, many Germans, now in their 80's dragged up before a court because they followed orders during WW2, but how many Brits were charged with War Crimes?
The last time the UK were involved in a bombing campaign (well, the last public one) the Super Furry Animals said "Tony Blair is now a war criminal".
The thing is, a couple of weeks ago the US seemed to be going about it in the right way. They said they would go in and wipe out those responsible, and not use this sort of tactic, as it doesn't get those responsible - now they've gone back on it.
Also the IRA (and other Irish terrorist groups) point, I guess that's not the same as they're not 'dirty Arabs'.
There seems to be a feeling that ALL Arabs are terrorists, and out to do us harm, are all of the Irish? No, just a very small minority - why should all of the Afgans suffer?
Compare and contrast:
Footage of "Afghans dancing and celebrating the plane attacks"
Footage of Americans "Cheering and celebrating the news that the USA is hitting back" (CNN "War on Terror Begins).
There is no difference, but now we're on the side of the right and the just.
So, they hit two towers with planes and they are evil.
We carpet bomb cities with planes and we are noble and good.
I'm confused here, which side is which again?
Footage of "Afghans dancing and celebrating the plane attacks"
Footage of Americans "Cheering and celebrating the news that the USA is hitting back" (CNN "War on Terror Begins).
There is no difference, but now we're on the side of the right and the just.
So, they hit two towers with planes and they are evil.
We carpet bomb cities with planes and we are noble and good.
I'm confused here, which side is which again?
Agreed. This bombing is out of order.
I've maintained since the start that the USA should be more concerned with proving a culprit before taking revenge, but as they have plainly been unable to get any hard evidence linking Bin Laden, or anyone else, to the crime, and now they're reataliating so an not to look like they've been caught with their pants down. Regardless of whether he did it, they don't really know.
Rather like someone throwing a tomato at your back, and not knowing who it was, you decide to thump the guy who was looking at you funny.
Reminds me of that dialogue from Jack the Ripper...
"I want someone arrested for this without delay! Do you understand?"
"Do you want the killer sir, or will anyone do?"
Now, what was it Bush said?
"This war will be unlike a conventional war. Much of what happens will go unseen. It cannot be fought just with military force"
So he bombs them.
It keeps the redneck American public happy I suppose, and gets him a few more brownie points for his next election campaign.
So what does he bomb?
Military training camps? Airstrips? Ammo dumps?
Nope. Cities. After all, they can't fight back so well, can they?
And of course Tony Blair will do anything he can to cement the idea that Britian is America's strongest ally, particularly after Bush declared he saw no 'special relationship' between the two when he came into office.
On a related note, the new arabic and islamic studies building at my Uni (Exeter) was fenced of with police barricades earlier this morning. I'm not sure what happened, and I don't know if the barricades are still there, but no doubt some idiot has flown off the handle.
And there was me thinking only the Americans were the quick tempered oafs.
I've maintained since the start that the USA should be more concerned with proving a culprit before taking revenge, but as they have plainly been unable to get any hard evidence linking Bin Laden, or anyone else, to the crime, and now they're reataliating so an not to look like they've been caught with their pants down. Regardless of whether he did it, they don't really know.
Rather like someone throwing a tomato at your back, and not knowing who it was, you decide to thump the guy who was looking at you funny.
Reminds me of that dialogue from Jack the Ripper...
"I want someone arrested for this without delay! Do you understand?"
"Do you want the killer sir, or will anyone do?"
Now, what was it Bush said?
"This war will be unlike a conventional war. Much of what happens will go unseen. It cannot be fought just with military force"
So he bombs them.
It keeps the redneck American public happy I suppose, and gets him a few more brownie points for his next election campaign.
So what does he bomb?
Military training camps? Airstrips? Ammo dumps?
Nope. Cities. After all, they can't fight back so well, can they?
And of course Tony Blair will do anything he can to cement the idea that Britian is America's strongest ally, particularly after Bush declared he saw no 'special relationship' between the two when he came into office.
On a related note, the new arabic and islamic studies building at my Uni (Exeter) was fenced of with police barricades earlier this morning. I'm not sure what happened, and I don't know if the barricades are still there, but no doubt some idiot has flown off the handle.
And there was me thinking only the Americans were the quick tempered oafs.
I need to consider my words and feelings as I write this, as my usual style of ranting would lead to strong language and possibly offend some people.
I am absolutely opposed to the ìwarî being waged against Terrorism by ìThe Coalitionî (basically USA & UK).
This can end up being a long and involved post, so Iíll try to keep it short.
The USA is outraged at the actions of the terrorists on Sept 11th, and rightly so. It was an horrific attack that cost the lives of thousands of innocent people that had no involvement with the USAís foreign policy in the Middle East. These were people minding their business that died.
The same is true of the people in Afghanistan in the cities that are being carpet-bombed right now in the name of ìEnduring Freedomî.
The Taliban does not live in those cities, they reside in the mountains and hills that outlay these towns.
Same as Bin Laden, he is well-hidden in the desert.
So why bomb towns?
ìBecause we are fighting back against the evil of terrorismî says Bush, sounding like a bad actor in a B-movie.
I agree that terrorism is bad, in every form.
Does this mean then, that the USA will stop funding and supporting the IRA through NORAID? Does this mean that the IRA are no longer allowed to publicly raise funds in the USA?
I would hope so if the USA are dedicated to ìfighting the forces of evilî.
The same goes with the UK ñ do we stop selling arms to East Timor? And Jakarta?
These are brutal and oppressive regimes that operate snatch squads and murder dissenters, in acts of terrorism?
What about the French Secret Service?
They bombed a ship belonging to Greenpeace, ìThe Rainbow Warriorî back in 1985. The agents were arrested and held by New Zealand police, and were to be put on trial for ìterrorist activitiesî, but under threat of sanctions by the USA, UK and France, the NZ government had to release these operatives.
Or the USA using CIA operatives in El Salvador to train and operate squads that murdered the opposition to the ruling government, installed and assisted by the USA?
It would appear that terrorism is a bad thing only when committed against ourselves. When we do it, itís right and correct. Nobody has asked what business the USA has in the Middle East, it takes it upon itself to act as a world-police, barging into areas it is not welcomed and using itís might to tell other countries how they should and shouldnít operate.
I am not saying the USA ìdeservedî the attack on Sept 11th, nobody does.
I am saying that America, in many areas, is just as guilty as people like Bin Laden for acting in ways considered ìterroristî.
Did you know that the USA and UK are being investigated in the European Court of Civil Rights and The Hague for War Crimes? (relating to the Bosnian situation).
Afghanistan is a country already on itís knees from years of abuse by Russia, The USA and The French. They have little to no communication abilities and are facing the worst drought since Ethiopia and the situation that prompted Live Aid.
The Taliban is the ruling party, but they came to power through force and are considered by many Afghans to be thugs and murderers. Any aid that reaches Afghanistan is siphoned by the Taliban, 95% of cars are owned by them, most to all property belongs to them.
It has been highlighted that many Afghans would not even know who Bin Laden is, they are concerned with survival and food/water.
Bin Laden is a (formerly trained by the CIA) terrorist.
What people seem to forget is that he has done nothing to the USA until the broadcast yesterday.
(The USA has yet to provide any evidence he is behind the plane attacks on the WTC).
After the Oklahoma bombing, the USA launched several air-strikes against Bin Ladenís camps in retaliation for ìthe evil of terrorismî.
Except Timothy McVeigh stood up and admitted he did it, not a Middle Eastern man at all but an American.
Bin Laden then vented his fury by declaring a Jihad against the States, only after being bombed for things he denied any involvement in (sounding familiar to anyone?).
The Taliban offered, as did Afghanistan, to hand over Bin Laden once the USA had shown them the evidence it had to link him to the crimes.
The USA refused to do so, declaring ìthat is not good enough anymoreî.
And the speak of the ìCoalitionî, of all the world support Bush Jr has, it is only the USA and UK involved in the ìwarî.
To quote Bill Hicks, ìA war is when two armies are fighting, so you can see, isnít really a warÖmore of a distraction.î
America gets attacked by terrorists (in retaliation for decades of dubious foreign policy and covert military action against nations that do not agree with the USA), and 3 weeks later the USA and UK are ìat warî.
Except we are bombing towns and cities, carpet bombing areas with high civilian populations and what we are told are ìMilitary targetsî.
How is bombing towns in the dead of night any different to flying two planes into buildings?
The main difference, it would appear, is that this time weíre the ones dancing and celebrating in the streets, waving our flags and cheering.
God Bless Freedom, God Bless America and God Bless Untold Civilian Casualties on both sides, caught up in political penis-measuring.
The people in the WTC didnít ask to be killed, and had nothing to do with USA foreign policy.
The Afghans killed in the bombings, and those to be killed in further action, didnít ask to be killed, had nothing to do with the terrorist attack on Sept 11th.
We all sat and watched in horror as the planes hit the WTC, how many of us sat and watched in horror last night as bombs smacked into towns in Afghanistan?
During the Gulf War, how many of us sat and watched the bomb-mounted cameras hitting targets?
To me, the only difference between us and the people that committed the acts on Sept 11th is that we get to watch it on TV as we eat dinner and get a tear in our eye because weíre ìfighting the evil of terrorismî.
I am not condoning the awful, terrible attacks on Sept 11th in which thousands of civilians died because of a belief that America was evil.
But nor can I condone the awful, terrible attacks on Oct 5th (to ?) in which thousands of civilians will die because of a belief that Afghanistan is evil.
The billions awarded to Bush for this campaign could easily be used instead, to provide basic human necessities like food, water, housing and hygiene for the entire world.
That would do more to remove the threat of terrorism, by giving every single person the basic human comforts that would prevent people like Bin Laden saying ìYou see how badly the West treat you?î.
But that will never happen, because war is good business and the people that decide to go to war never get their hands dirty, they, like we, sit and watch the bombs on the news after another day at work.
I am absolutely opposed to the ìwarî being waged against Terrorism by ìThe Coalitionî (basically USA & UK).
This can end up being a long and involved post, so Iíll try to keep it short.
The USA is outraged at the actions of the terrorists on Sept 11th, and rightly so. It was an horrific attack that cost the lives of thousands of innocent people that had no involvement with the USAís foreign policy in the Middle East. These were people minding their business that died.
The same is true of the people in Afghanistan in the cities that are being carpet-bombed right now in the name of ìEnduring Freedomî.
The Taliban does not live in those cities, they reside in the mountains and hills that outlay these towns.
Same as Bin Laden, he is well-hidden in the desert.
So why bomb towns?
ìBecause we are fighting back against the evil of terrorismî says Bush, sounding like a bad actor in a B-movie.
I agree that terrorism is bad, in every form.
Does this mean then, that the USA will stop funding and supporting the IRA through NORAID? Does this mean that the IRA are no longer allowed to publicly raise funds in the USA?
I would hope so if the USA are dedicated to ìfighting the forces of evilî.
The same goes with the UK ñ do we stop selling arms to East Timor? And Jakarta?
These are brutal and oppressive regimes that operate snatch squads and murder dissenters, in acts of terrorism?
What about the French Secret Service?
They bombed a ship belonging to Greenpeace, ìThe Rainbow Warriorî back in 1985. The agents were arrested and held by New Zealand police, and were to be put on trial for ìterrorist activitiesî, but under threat of sanctions by the USA, UK and France, the NZ government had to release these operatives.
Or the USA using CIA operatives in El Salvador to train and operate squads that murdered the opposition to the ruling government, installed and assisted by the USA?
It would appear that terrorism is a bad thing only when committed against ourselves. When we do it, itís right and correct. Nobody has asked what business the USA has in the Middle East, it takes it upon itself to act as a world-police, barging into areas it is not welcomed and using itís might to tell other countries how they should and shouldnít operate.
I am not saying the USA ìdeservedî the attack on Sept 11th, nobody does.
I am saying that America, in many areas, is just as guilty as people like Bin Laden for acting in ways considered ìterroristî.
Did you know that the USA and UK are being investigated in the European Court of Civil Rights and The Hague for War Crimes? (relating to the Bosnian situation).
Afghanistan is a country already on itís knees from years of abuse by Russia, The USA and The French. They have little to no communication abilities and are facing the worst drought since Ethiopia and the situation that prompted Live Aid.
The Taliban is the ruling party, but they came to power through force and are considered by many Afghans to be thugs and murderers. Any aid that reaches Afghanistan is siphoned by the Taliban, 95% of cars are owned by them, most to all property belongs to them.
It has been highlighted that many Afghans would not even know who Bin Laden is, they are concerned with survival and food/water.
Bin Laden is a (formerly trained by the CIA) terrorist.
What people seem to forget is that he has done nothing to the USA until the broadcast yesterday.
(The USA has yet to provide any evidence he is behind the plane attacks on the WTC).
After the Oklahoma bombing, the USA launched several air-strikes against Bin Ladenís camps in retaliation for ìthe evil of terrorismî.
Except Timothy McVeigh stood up and admitted he did it, not a Middle Eastern man at all but an American.
Bin Laden then vented his fury by declaring a Jihad against the States, only after being bombed for things he denied any involvement in (sounding familiar to anyone?).
The Taliban offered, as did Afghanistan, to hand over Bin Laden once the USA had shown them the evidence it had to link him to the crimes.
The USA refused to do so, declaring ìthat is not good enough anymoreî.
And the speak of the ìCoalitionî, of all the world support Bush Jr has, it is only the USA and UK involved in the ìwarî.
To quote Bill Hicks, ìA war is when two armies are fighting, so you can see, isnít really a warÖmore of a distraction.î
America gets attacked by terrorists (in retaliation for decades of dubious foreign policy and covert military action against nations that do not agree with the USA), and 3 weeks later the USA and UK are ìat warî.
Except we are bombing towns and cities, carpet bombing areas with high civilian populations and what we are told are ìMilitary targetsî.
How is bombing towns in the dead of night any different to flying two planes into buildings?
The main difference, it would appear, is that this time weíre the ones dancing and celebrating in the streets, waving our flags and cheering.
God Bless Freedom, God Bless America and God Bless Untold Civilian Casualties on both sides, caught up in political penis-measuring.
The people in the WTC didnít ask to be killed, and had nothing to do with USA foreign policy.
The Afghans killed in the bombings, and those to be killed in further action, didnít ask to be killed, had nothing to do with the terrorist attack on Sept 11th.
We all sat and watched in horror as the planes hit the WTC, how many of us sat and watched in horror last night as bombs smacked into towns in Afghanistan?
During the Gulf War, how many of us sat and watched the bomb-mounted cameras hitting targets?
To me, the only difference between us and the people that committed the acts on Sept 11th is that we get to watch it on TV as we eat dinner and get a tear in our eye because weíre ìfighting the evil of terrorismî.
I am not condoning the awful, terrible attacks on Sept 11th in which thousands of civilians died because of a belief that America was evil.
But nor can I condone the awful, terrible attacks on Oct 5th (to ?) in which thousands of civilians will die because of a belief that Afghanistan is evil.
The billions awarded to Bush for this campaign could easily be used instead, to provide basic human necessities like food, water, housing and hygiene for the entire world.
That would do more to remove the threat of terrorism, by giving every single person the basic human comforts that would prevent people like Bin Laden saying ìYou see how badly the West treat you?î.
But that will never happen, because war is good business and the people that decide to go to war never get their hands dirty, they, like we, sit and watch the bombs on the news after another day at work.
Page: