The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
You know it.
Or the M1 Abrahms tank looks nice
Or maybe, from naval-technology.com, the Trident Submarine.
Weapons for all occasions, right from The Net.
However, I emailed Downing Street with some questions before I bought several helicopters and this is my email and the response from the Ministery of Defence:
Hello there.
I have been browsing on the Net, and have discovered an interesting web site called "Army Technologies", the url is :http:www.army-technology.com
And I was wondering what the criteria are for purchasing these weapons?
To say I am slightly alarmed is an understatement, to find a web site offering everything from Anti-Tank missile guidance systems, to attack helicopters is a little worrying.
I would like to ask how much involvement this government has with this sort of web site, and whether you have purchased many of these items. I am aware that a response is doubtful, but would love to know just what my taxes are being spent on.
I hope that Pains Wessex are still trading strongly with Jakarta and other Indonesian groups, and would be pleased to hear of how much they made in export licensing with consent from the DTI this year.
Thank you."
This is the response:
"PLEASE SUPPLY YOUR LAND ADDRESS AND RESEND"
-----
Needless to say, I didn't respond.
Or the M1 Abrahms tank looks nice
Or maybe, from naval-technology.com, the Trident Submarine.
Weapons for all occasions, right from The Net.
However, I emailed Downing Street with some questions before I bought several helicopters and this is my email and the response from the Ministery of Defence:
Hello there.
I have been browsing on the Net, and have discovered an interesting web site called "Army Technologies", the url is :http:www.army-technology.com
And I was wondering what the criteria are for purchasing these weapons?
To say I am slightly alarmed is an understatement, to find a web site offering everything from Anti-Tank missile guidance systems, to attack helicopters is a little worrying.
I would like to ask how much involvement this government has with this sort of web site, and whether you have purchased many of these items. I am aware that a response is doubtful, but would love to know just what my taxes are being spent on.
I hope that Pains Wessex are still trading strongly with Jakarta and other Indonesian groups, and would be pleased to hear of how much they made in export licensing with consent from the DTI this year.
Thank you."
This is the response:
"PLEASE SUPPLY YOUR LAND ADDRESS AND RESEND"
-----
Needless to say, I didn't respond.
Oh how I'd love to arrive at work in one of those.
It would certainly solve our current car parking problems. :-)
It would certainly solve our current car parking problems. :-)
If you like these so much guys, buy your own ones
http://www.army-technology.com
Products and then look for attack helicopters.
http://www.army-technology.com
Products and then look for attack helicopters.
WÚÛkiee M¯nßÜÄR wrote:
The Apache Gunship is a beautiful piece of machinery (if
> you like military hardware) with some of the most advanced navigation systems
> known, making *almost* impossible to crash... and yet they manage to fly one
> into a hillside during peacetime training manouvres.
And now it seems they're at it again... only with a Blackhawk this time...
http://www.thisislondon.com/dynamic/news /reprint.html?in_review_id=467237
The Apache Gunship is a beautiful piece of machinery (if
> you like military hardware) with some of the most advanced navigation systems
> known, making *almost* impossible to crash... and yet they manage to fly one
> into a hillside during peacetime training manouvres.
And now it seems they're at it again... only with a Blackhawk this time...
http://www.thisislondon.com/dynamic/news /reprint.html?in_review_id=467237
Well, i said it before and ill say it again. america sucks. More british soldiers were killed by american soldiers (in quite unfriendly fire) then by iraqies in the gulf war. Both bushes are as thick as pig sosseges.
Tony blair is just milking the tragedy to get more chances to lick out america's butt.
Anyway, the bombs we are dropping are have killed more people than the terroists did.
(and how the hell did the american hit a RED CROSS centre! it had a red cross on it for 'mashed potoato's sake!)
Tony blair is just milking the tragedy to get more chances to lick out america's butt.
Anyway, the bombs we are dropping are have killed more people than the terroists did.
(and how the hell did the american hit a RED CROSS centre! it had a red cross on it for 'mashed potoato's sake!)
Not so amusing story about UK special forces.
Two SAS patrols deploy in Iraq and subsequently get shot up/captured/killed. But some survived.
The point is that even though these guys ( and gals its rumoured ) are special forces, things can go wrong. Goatboys story actually highlights what they do - they got lost and survived. Special forces were never originally envisioned for anti terrorist roles, they've had to adapt over the decades.
And on another note, its beginning to look like hitting the red cross building wasnt so big a deal as Sky is quoting a UN official as saying the Taliban have taken over two warehouses of food. Guess they are going to give that food to the civilians *sarcasm*
Two SAS patrols deploy in Iraq and subsequently get shot up/captured/killed. But some survived.
The point is that even though these guys ( and gals its rumoured ) are special forces, things can go wrong. Goatboys story actually highlights what they do - they got lost and survived. Special forces were never originally envisioned for anti terrorist roles, they've had to adapt over the decades.
And on another note, its beginning to look like hitting the red cross building wasnt so big a deal as Sky is quoting a UN official as saying the Taliban have taken over two warehouses of food. Guess they are going to give that food to the civilians *sarcasm*
Amusing story about US Special Forces:
My cousin is in the Canadian Airborne, what used to be 101 Battallion.
They had an exercise with the US army.
US SEALS came over and played "Fugitive", headed off into the mountains in winter and the 101 had to go find them.
A "Hide and Seek" for grown-ups, to test the effectiveness of each group.
Well, after 3 days the Canadians had to send out search and rescue teams because the SEALS had disappeared.
Turns out they get lost and had to stay with Innuits so they didn't die from artic conditions.
Hehe, "Special Forces" is about right.
My cousin is in the Canadian Airborne, what used to be 101 Battallion.
They had an exercise with the US army.
US SEALS came over and played "Fugitive", headed off into the mountains in winter and the 101 had to go find them.
A "Hide and Seek" for grown-ups, to test the effectiveness of each group.
Well, after 3 days the Canadians had to send out search and rescue teams because the SEALS had disappeared.
Turns out they get lost and had to stay with Innuits so they didn't die from artic conditions.
Hehe, "Special Forces" is about right.
Yup.
Mr Bush has already requested one of our elite artillery units, apparently.
I think that, for all their training, US troops panic under fire.
In the Gulf, it was our pilots at most risk on the low bombing raids, while the US dropped 'smart' bombs from the relative safety of thousands of feet up.
In this campaign, our SAS and SBS were the first ground troops inside Afghanistan, and no doubt when ground troops are deployed, Mr Bush will again be requesting our assistance.
Maybe they see it as payback for "winning WW2 for us".
Mr Bush has already requested one of our elite artillery units, apparently.
I think that, for all their training, US troops panic under fire.
In the Gulf, it was our pilots at most risk on the low bombing raids, while the US dropped 'smart' bombs from the relative safety of thousands of feet up.
In this campaign, our SAS and SBS were the first ground troops inside Afghanistan, and no doubt when ground troops are deployed, Mr Bush will again be requesting our assistance.
Maybe they see it as payback for "winning WW2 for us".
I know, it's ridiculous isn't it.
Our armed forces are just so much better. I had heard that American "Special Forces" were going in on the ground soon.
What's the bet that they fail, the SAS go in a couple of days later and just sort it out, no problems?
Pretty likely I'll think you'll agree.
Our armed forces are just so much better. I had heard that American "Special Forces" were going in on the ground soon.
What's the bet that they fail, the SAS go in a couple of days later and just sort it out, no problems?
Pretty likely I'll think you'll agree.
Your Honour wrote:
> I swear they must just hold the map upside down sometimes.
This is the one thing that scares me with the US. They have all of this clever technology, yet they don't always seem able to use it properly.
They killed more of our troops in the Gulf War than the Iraqi's did.
I know they've fired many, many more missiles than us in the current operations - but none of ours missed the targets.
They've shown us high-resolution recon photos, and they allegedly - for 'security reasons' - aren't the best photos they can get. Hell, I saw on Tomorrows World a while ago that there's even a satellite you can access from the web which will get you a photo of where you live, down to a resolution of a few surrounding streets. So how so they miss?
The Apache Gunship is a beautiful piece of machinery (if you like military hardware) with some of the most advanced navigation systems known, making *almost* impossible to crash... and yet they manage to fly one into a hillside during peacetime training manouvres.
This is why I always laugh when they say that they have the best armed forces in the world.
As I've said, while I may be in favour of the action they're taking, I'm certainly not a fan of the US.
> I swear they must just hold the map upside down sometimes.
This is the one thing that scares me with the US. They have all of this clever technology, yet they don't always seem able to use it properly.
They killed more of our troops in the Gulf War than the Iraqi's did.
I know they've fired many, many more missiles than us in the current operations - but none of ours missed the targets.
They've shown us high-resolution recon photos, and they allegedly - for 'security reasons' - aren't the best photos they can get. Hell, I saw on Tomorrows World a while ago that there's even a satellite you can access from the web which will get you a photo of where you live, down to a resolution of a few surrounding streets. So how so they miss?
The Apache Gunship is a beautiful piece of machinery (if you like military hardware) with some of the most advanced navigation systems known, making *almost* impossible to crash... and yet they manage to fly one into a hillside during peacetime training manouvres.
This is why I always laugh when they say that they have the best armed forces in the world.
As I've said, while I may be in favour of the action they're taking, I'm certainly not a fan of the US.
Page: