The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
etila wrote:
> you know your stuff!
You quoted the whole message just to add that?!
> you know your stuff!
You quoted the whole message just to add that?!
No offence taken at all.
We're just two people discussing our opinions from different sides of the line is all.
No worries, and I tried to not be inflammatory or personal with my statements.
You are entitled to your views, so am I and unfortunately so are people like Bin Laden.
Freedom of speech means we have to listen to those we may not agree with, but at least here everyone is calmly and politely arguing.
We're just two people discussing our opinions from different sides of the line is all.
No worries, and I tried to not be inflammatory or personal with my statements.
You are entitled to your views, so am I and unfortunately so are people like Bin Laden.
Freedom of speech means we have to listen to those we may not agree with, but at least here everyone is calmly and politely arguing.
Goatboy wrote:
>Thank you once more for taking the time to
> reply, but please don't try and point out to my why I >shouldn't think the way I
> do.
My intention was not to point out why you should think differently, I simply wished to correct inaccuracies, such as people being safe when on warships, or weapons being supplied to the Taleban, or there being no war against the IRA. Any point in a discussion is better if backed by real facts. My reply was my opinion based on what you had stated, known facts, and what I feel.
Everyone has the right to think whatsoever they want and as long as they don't harm others because of it then thats okay, because, as I have said before, that is freedom.
I'm sorry if I have offended you Goatboy as that was not my intention. I just believe in Enduring Freedom.
>Thank you once more for taking the time to
> reply, but please don't try and point out to my why I >shouldn't think the way I
> do.
My intention was not to point out why you should think differently, I simply wished to correct inaccuracies, such as people being safe when on warships, or weapons being supplied to the Taleban, or there being no war against the IRA. Any point in a discussion is better if backed by real facts. My reply was my opinion based on what you had stated, known facts, and what I feel.
Everyone has the right to think whatsoever they want and as long as they don't harm others because of it then thats okay, because, as I have said before, that is freedom.
I'm sorry if I have offended you Goatboy as that was not my intention. I just believe in Enduring Freedom.
Whilst I appreciate you replying, that is what I percieve to be the entire problem with this situation and the world in general.
I was expressing my viewpoints, yet someone feels the need to basically say "You are wrong to think that".
What I choose to think is my own business, and whilst you made some valid points, it still boils down to "Look how wrong you are to say/think that".
You may disagree, that is your perogative, but it is also my choice to not agree with you.
Thank you once more for taking the time to reply, but please don't try and point out to my why I shouldn't think the way I do.
I was expressing my viewpoints, yet someone feels the need to basically say "You are wrong to think that".
What I choose to think is my own business, and whilst you made some valid points, it still boils down to "Look how wrong you are to say/think that".
You may disagree, that is your perogative, but it is also my choice to not agree with you.
Thank you once more for taking the time to reply, but please don't try and point out to my why I shouldn't think the way I do.
Goatboy wrote:
>Agreed also.
>But that
> means you also have to pursue terrorists acting on behalf >of our own
> country.
Wrong, we, the coalition, have a UN mandate to pursue those responsible for September 11th attacks using necessary and measured means. Also NATO backing, and unheard of support from Russia and Pakistan and former soviet states. Terrorism is when you carry out illegal acts against a legal government. Afghanistan was in a state of civil war before this, by saying the coalition is committing terrorist acts means you recognise the Taleban as the true government of Afghanistan - which they arent, they just happen to be more powerful than the Northern Alliance.
>And the USA, seeing as they are responsible for training >and arming
> Bin Laden and other extreme terror groups to carry out US >objectives in the
> Middle East.
Nope, the USA and the UK trained and armed Mujahadeen fighters to fight an invading Russian force because it wa of no benefit that Russia should hold that part of the world. And they weren't "US" objctives, they were Western objectives. Not every Mujahadeen supports Bin Laden and his groups, a fact documented by Tom Carew in his book Jihad ( and before I am accused of jumping o the bandwagon I owned this long before September 11th )
>We should, after "eradicating" the Taliban, then pursue
> the French for the sinking of The Rainbow Warrior in New >Zealand and then
> destroy the MI5 delegate that trained and assisted The >Tamal Tigers in
> Indonesia.
Did either of those kill 7000+ civilians and military ? A response to an act must be measured by its effect. Both incidents you give here are very subjective as to the correct interpretation of them in that they can be presented as acts of good or bad. France actually admitted to the UN assembly that they carried out the act you describe. They claimed responsibility and said sorry. You hear Bin Laden apologising ? Nope he's going to hit us again. MI5 and the Tamil Tigers, yeah that was a mess but can you look at any country and honestly say that its history is clean ? And we do not know the full extent of that operation, despite My Shayler's claims.
>And once we've done those, we should go after the IRA.
Well excuse me, but you'll find our soldiers and special forces and our intelligence agencies have been for the past 30 or so years ! We're trying this diplomacy thing at the moment, which presumably is why innocent civilians are still being killed by Irish terrorists on both sides.
>The States
> can pursue the fundamentalist Americans living in the >hills of Virginia that do
> things like the Oklahoma bombing.
Think you'll find the FBI and ATF already do that,and the american constitution allows these groups to exist within certain boundaries. Again the USA gives these groups a freedom of a sort, unless you'd like the constitution ripped up ?
> Weren't no Muslims involved in that
> one.
Only in the minds of conspiracy theorists.
>And then El Salvador and Nicaragua can call on our help to >hunt and bomb
> the CIA for operating snatch squads to help elections in >the late-eighties and
> the murder of Father Romero in San Salvador. (3 American >intelligence officers
> arrested by local police but then forced to release them)
The Cold War was a different time and until the Berlin Wall came down no one knew the outcome. How about Libyan involvement in the PanAm disaster ? The CIA was trying, it believed, to hold back governments dangerous to the world. Yes, we helped the Mujahadeen, but in return we gained valuable Russian equipment and knowledge which would have aided us had the Cold War turned hot. It didn't, we never needed that knowledge in that context, and because we never needed it people for a long time will see great evil in what our governments did to try and help preserve a free world. You know what, if the Cold War had turned hot then we'd probably never even be having this discussion...anyone see the irony.
>What I am trying to
> say is that yes, the attacks on Sept 11th were horrendous.
>But we ignore the
> terrorist acts that benefit us and only pursue those that >we didn't have any
> involvement in.
The classic debate over what terrorism is. Tell me a time when we the civilised world has been involved in targeting thousands of civlians, of telling people we're going to kill everyone on their plane, of issuing tv pictures saying we're going to kill them all. Is this the emotional response from me, yes, and I won't apologise for it because our emotions make us human. If anyone can tell someone they and everyone around them is going to be killed and feel no emotion or sympathy then they deserve everything they and their supporters get.
>And if you think Bin Laden and the Taliban are in any >serious
> danger of being "hunted and destroyed"?
>Go ask Saddam Hussein about
> just how seriously we take these sorts of miltary actions.
Different situation, did Iraq attack the US mainland, kill US, UK, Russian e.t.c men women and children ? No. Last precedent for an attack on the US mainland...Pearl Harbour. Look at what we are seeing on tv, in opinion polls, at the worldwide support and you'll see this is a whole new situation. Id say, baring in mind tonights new heavy attacks, that the Taliban are worried. Why else keep issuing threats. US fighters flew daylight raids and how many got shot down ? None. That is air superiority. Seen the now nicknamed bunker buster ? Well that seems pretty damn scary. Considering any nation harbouring Bin Laden is then open to attack who will have him ? Iraq ? Then the war will continue there. It happened before and it can happen again.
>We bomb long
> enough to satisfy public outrage, then get right back to >supplying arms, aid and
> economic assistance when everyone is looking somewhere >else.
A very Cold War warrior attitude....this isnt the Cold War, and we havent supplied aid to anyone much since the Balkans. As for satisfying outrage.... in excess of 7000 people were murdered and more attacks are being threatened. Its clear now that this is not something we, the peaceful nations of the world, can walk away from. Peace is not the absence of war, and even if we had not gone to war now then the terrorist attacks wouldn't stop. Instead we'd turn the tv on to see a mushroom cloud, or hundreds dead from a biological weapon, or more symbols of what freedom is about destroyed. Just because you ignore something does not mean it leaves you alone, WW2 proved that. "Never Again" is an often used quote that seems poignant now.
Goatboy, without getting too personal, you seem to see imply the "public" as very tempremental, with short attention spans, yet before in other discussions you have said you believe in people. These seem two opposing ideas, I believe no one should think they can predict what the public is going to do, nor should it be assumed there even is a mass opinion, never generalise opinions because the public is made up of individuals.
Finally, and thank you to anyone still reading,I'll address this which I strongly disagree with;
"Can someone explain how our servicemen are in danger floating on big iron islands, launching cruise missiles from 15 miles away?"
They are flying refueling tankers, and on standby in nearby Oman as well as flying supplies to US forces. They are also training constantly, a risk in itself, proved today by the first US casualty of the war, a serviceman injured in an accident whilst unloading supplies. And its not just "our" servicemen, its the Americans and everyone else. The americans are flying air combat missions around the clock exposing themselves to danger every moment, carrier ops are the most dangerous kind there is in war. And SAS forces are almost certainly in country, whom if captured face an enemy to whom the geneva convention is probably a thing of mystery. Those men are the amongst the bravest people in this country and saying they are not at risk is daft. Just by being a member of the military or simply working for the military they become targets....look on SKY news at the role call of the dead from the Pentagon attack and see the numbers of civilians killed. Now if I'd have said "Can someone explain how US/other nations servicemen/women are in danger in a big building in the heartland of America ?" then I wouldnt have known why...but now I do, and so do lots more people. Terrorists have plagued this world for decades and now is the time to stop them, maybe we cannot stop them all, maybe Bin Laden won't be caught, all that matters is we try because if we don't history will judge us for our failings, and our children, and theirs, will be the ones who suffer.
America isn't perfect, but its close, and many countries owe so much to her. We've borrowed their culture, watched their shows, eaten their food, seen their films, shared their laws which allow freedom and America has always helped us and other countries in need in past history. It's about time we helped America back and nows the chance to do it.
>Agreed also.
>But that
> means you also have to pursue terrorists acting on behalf >of our own
> country.
Wrong, we, the coalition, have a UN mandate to pursue those responsible for September 11th attacks using necessary and measured means. Also NATO backing, and unheard of support from Russia and Pakistan and former soviet states. Terrorism is when you carry out illegal acts against a legal government. Afghanistan was in a state of civil war before this, by saying the coalition is committing terrorist acts means you recognise the Taleban as the true government of Afghanistan - which they arent, they just happen to be more powerful than the Northern Alliance.
>And the USA, seeing as they are responsible for training >and arming
> Bin Laden and other extreme terror groups to carry out US >objectives in the
> Middle East.
Nope, the USA and the UK trained and armed Mujahadeen fighters to fight an invading Russian force because it wa of no benefit that Russia should hold that part of the world. And they weren't "US" objctives, they were Western objectives. Not every Mujahadeen supports Bin Laden and his groups, a fact documented by Tom Carew in his book Jihad ( and before I am accused of jumping o the bandwagon I owned this long before September 11th )
>We should, after "eradicating" the Taliban, then pursue
> the French for the sinking of The Rainbow Warrior in New >Zealand and then
> destroy the MI5 delegate that trained and assisted The >Tamal Tigers in
> Indonesia.
Did either of those kill 7000+ civilians and military ? A response to an act must be measured by its effect. Both incidents you give here are very subjective as to the correct interpretation of them in that they can be presented as acts of good or bad. France actually admitted to the UN assembly that they carried out the act you describe. They claimed responsibility and said sorry. You hear Bin Laden apologising ? Nope he's going to hit us again. MI5 and the Tamil Tigers, yeah that was a mess but can you look at any country and honestly say that its history is clean ? And we do not know the full extent of that operation, despite My Shayler's claims.
>And once we've done those, we should go after the IRA.
Well excuse me, but you'll find our soldiers and special forces and our intelligence agencies have been for the past 30 or so years ! We're trying this diplomacy thing at the moment, which presumably is why innocent civilians are still being killed by Irish terrorists on both sides.
>The States
> can pursue the fundamentalist Americans living in the >hills of Virginia that do
> things like the Oklahoma bombing.
Think you'll find the FBI and ATF already do that,and the american constitution allows these groups to exist within certain boundaries. Again the USA gives these groups a freedom of a sort, unless you'd like the constitution ripped up ?
> Weren't no Muslims involved in that
> one.
Only in the minds of conspiracy theorists.
>And then El Salvador and Nicaragua can call on our help to >hunt and bomb
> the CIA for operating snatch squads to help elections in >the late-eighties and
> the murder of Father Romero in San Salvador. (3 American >intelligence officers
> arrested by local police but then forced to release them)
The Cold War was a different time and until the Berlin Wall came down no one knew the outcome. How about Libyan involvement in the PanAm disaster ? The CIA was trying, it believed, to hold back governments dangerous to the world. Yes, we helped the Mujahadeen, but in return we gained valuable Russian equipment and knowledge which would have aided us had the Cold War turned hot. It didn't, we never needed that knowledge in that context, and because we never needed it people for a long time will see great evil in what our governments did to try and help preserve a free world. You know what, if the Cold War had turned hot then we'd probably never even be having this discussion...anyone see the irony.
>What I am trying to
> say is that yes, the attacks on Sept 11th were horrendous.
>But we ignore the
> terrorist acts that benefit us and only pursue those that >we didn't have any
> involvement in.
The classic debate over what terrorism is. Tell me a time when we the civilised world has been involved in targeting thousands of civlians, of telling people we're going to kill everyone on their plane, of issuing tv pictures saying we're going to kill them all. Is this the emotional response from me, yes, and I won't apologise for it because our emotions make us human. If anyone can tell someone they and everyone around them is going to be killed and feel no emotion or sympathy then they deserve everything they and their supporters get.
>And if you think Bin Laden and the Taliban are in any >serious
> danger of being "hunted and destroyed"?
>Go ask Saddam Hussein about
> just how seriously we take these sorts of miltary actions.
Different situation, did Iraq attack the US mainland, kill US, UK, Russian e.t.c men women and children ? No. Last precedent for an attack on the US mainland...Pearl Harbour. Look at what we are seeing on tv, in opinion polls, at the worldwide support and you'll see this is a whole new situation. Id say, baring in mind tonights new heavy attacks, that the Taliban are worried. Why else keep issuing threats. US fighters flew daylight raids and how many got shot down ? None. That is air superiority. Seen the now nicknamed bunker buster ? Well that seems pretty damn scary. Considering any nation harbouring Bin Laden is then open to attack who will have him ? Iraq ? Then the war will continue there. It happened before and it can happen again.
>We bomb long
> enough to satisfy public outrage, then get right back to >supplying arms, aid and
> economic assistance when everyone is looking somewhere >else.
A very Cold War warrior attitude....this isnt the Cold War, and we havent supplied aid to anyone much since the Balkans. As for satisfying outrage.... in excess of 7000 people were murdered and more attacks are being threatened. Its clear now that this is not something we, the peaceful nations of the world, can walk away from. Peace is not the absence of war, and even if we had not gone to war now then the terrorist attacks wouldn't stop. Instead we'd turn the tv on to see a mushroom cloud, or hundreds dead from a biological weapon, or more symbols of what freedom is about destroyed. Just because you ignore something does not mean it leaves you alone, WW2 proved that. "Never Again" is an often used quote that seems poignant now.
Goatboy, without getting too personal, you seem to see imply the "public" as very tempremental, with short attention spans, yet before in other discussions you have said you believe in people. These seem two opposing ideas, I believe no one should think they can predict what the public is going to do, nor should it be assumed there even is a mass opinion, never generalise opinions because the public is made up of individuals.
Finally, and thank you to anyone still reading,I'll address this which I strongly disagree with;
"Can someone explain how our servicemen are in danger floating on big iron islands, launching cruise missiles from 15 miles away?"
They are flying refueling tankers, and on standby in nearby Oman as well as flying supplies to US forces. They are also training constantly, a risk in itself, proved today by the first US casualty of the war, a serviceman injured in an accident whilst unloading supplies. And its not just "our" servicemen, its the Americans and everyone else. The americans are flying air combat missions around the clock exposing themselves to danger every moment, carrier ops are the most dangerous kind there is in war. And SAS forces are almost certainly in country, whom if captured face an enemy to whom the geneva convention is probably a thing of mystery. Those men are the amongst the bravest people in this country and saying they are not at risk is daft. Just by being a member of the military or simply working for the military they become targets....look on SKY news at the role call of the dead from the Pentagon attack and see the numbers of civilians killed. Now if I'd have said "Can someone explain how US/other nations servicemen/women are in danger in a big building in the heartland of America ?" then I wouldnt have known why...but now I do, and so do lots more people. Terrorists have plagued this world for decades and now is the time to stop them, maybe we cannot stop them all, maybe Bin Laden won't be caught, all that matters is we try because if we don't history will judge us for our failings, and our children, and theirs, will be the ones who suffer.
America isn't perfect, but its close, and many countries owe so much to her. We've borrowed their culture, watched their shows, eaten their food, seen their films, shared their laws which allow freedom and America has always helped us and other countries in need in past history. It's about time we helped America back and nows the chance to do it.
Goatboy wrote:
> "Righteous Indignation Boy"
Hee hee... I get to break a RIB... cool!
> "Righteous Indignation Boy"
Hee hee... I get to break a RIB... cool!
Ok, as soon as I've finished doing my marketing presentation, I'll put on my "Righteous Indignation Boy" costume and we'll scrap like kids in the car park.
Page: