The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Yeah, okay. Hold up...
*Prepares handbag*
C'mon, then!
*Prepares handbag*
C'mon, then!
That's true.
Want a fight you dirty hippie?
Want a fight you dirty hippie?
Goatboy wrote:
> You and I are going to disagree on this issue Wookiee, and that's cool.
Not to mention passing another boring day at work with nowt to do.
> You and I are going to disagree on this issue Wookiee, and that's cool.
Not to mention passing another boring day at work with nowt to do.
You and I are going to disagree on this issue Wookiee, and that's cool.
You are entitled to your viewpoints as am I, and the fact we can disagree without fear of reprisals is one of the facades of "civil liberty" that we are allowed in this country.
My personal belief is that George W Bush is a warmongering, evil retard looking to ramp up defense spending at the expense of Afghans.
The Taliban/ The USA, it's all the same to me.
Both are regimes that brutalise their citizens when they feel it necessary (Waco, Ruby Ridge, Asset Forfeiture, Rodney King, Eduardo Ramirez etc for the USA).
No difference between either of them, the USA have been bombing Afghanistan/Sudan for decades and using terrorist tactics to unsettle the region for their own aims.
The Taliban responded.
I'm not saying it was right, I lost a relative in that attack and I condemn it 100%
But I also condemn the USA for decades of murder, terrorism and covert-operations that makes them no better.
These are only my views and I am not trying to convince anyone else to think the same, nor am I saying I am right.
The USA has a history of shoving it's face into foreign countries and telling them what to do.
Cuba, Isreal, Grenada, Nicargua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Iran...the list is endless.
Whether it's Osama Bin Laden or George W Bush, same ideals different flags.
Both are murderous leaders of terrorist nations that use force and brutality to enforce their views on the world.
You are entitled to your viewpoints as am I, and the fact we can disagree without fear of reprisals is one of the facades of "civil liberty" that we are allowed in this country.
My personal belief is that George W Bush is a warmongering, evil retard looking to ramp up defense spending at the expense of Afghans.
The Taliban/ The USA, it's all the same to me.
Both are regimes that brutalise their citizens when they feel it necessary (Waco, Ruby Ridge, Asset Forfeiture, Rodney King, Eduardo Ramirez etc for the USA).
No difference between either of them, the USA have been bombing Afghanistan/Sudan for decades and using terrorist tactics to unsettle the region for their own aims.
The Taliban responded.
I'm not saying it was right, I lost a relative in that attack and I condemn it 100%
But I also condemn the USA for decades of murder, terrorism and covert-operations that makes them no better.
These are only my views and I am not trying to convince anyone else to think the same, nor am I saying I am right.
The USA has a history of shoving it's face into foreign countries and telling them what to do.
Cuba, Isreal, Grenada, Nicargua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Iran...the list is endless.
Whether it's Osama Bin Laden or George W Bush, same ideals different flags.
Both are murderous leaders of terrorist nations that use force and brutality to enforce their views on the world.
Goatboy wrote:
> Dont want to get shot at? Dont join the army.
It's not a question of not wanting to get shot at; it's a question of defending freedom of choice. If not for people like those in the forces, those against military action of any sort (and I'm not just referring to the current situation) may not even have the right to say so.
Those fundamentalists living a nice cosy life here, while denouncing the West as 'infidels' and declaring fatwah's and holy wars, are hypocrites and should think far more carefully about their situation and be grateful.
"I may not agree with what you say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it."
Were they still back in the country that they are so keen on defending, their beloved leaders would be keeping them indoors at gunpoint, in the hope that they will be blown to pieces by a stray missile, so that they can be decalred martyrs and back up the Taliban's claims of a 'brutal' West.
They're not too keen on their civilians being killed, unless it's them that are killing them. There was another news article this morning, showing that the Taliban are carrying out more public hangings of their own people in order to keep them 'in line'.
There will be ground troops deployed, I'm sure. If it takes missile and air strikes to pave the way to ensuring increased safety for those troops, then so be it.
"Never let your sense of morals keep you from doing what is right." - Isaac Asimov
> Dont want to get shot at? Dont join the army.
It's not a question of not wanting to get shot at; it's a question of defending freedom of choice. If not for people like those in the forces, those against military action of any sort (and I'm not just referring to the current situation) may not even have the right to say so.
Those fundamentalists living a nice cosy life here, while denouncing the West as 'infidels' and declaring fatwah's and holy wars, are hypocrites and should think far more carefully about their situation and be grateful.
"I may not agree with what you say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it."
Were they still back in the country that they are so keen on defending, their beloved leaders would be keeping them indoors at gunpoint, in the hope that they will be blown to pieces by a stray missile, so that they can be decalred martyrs and back up the Taliban's claims of a 'brutal' West.
They're not too keen on their civilians being killed, unless it's them that are killing them. There was another news article this morning, showing that the Taliban are carrying out more public hangings of their own people in order to keep them 'in line'.
There will be ground troops deployed, I'm sure. If it takes missile and air strikes to pave the way to ensuring increased safety for those troops, then so be it.
"Never let your sense of morals keep you from doing what is right." - Isaac Asimov
WÚÛkiee M¯nßÜÄR wrote:
Remember we have SAS and SBS
> troops inside Afghanistan, and they will definitely be at risk.
That's what they get paid for.
Dont want to get shot at? Dont join the army.
Remember we have SAS and SBS
> troops inside Afghanistan, and they will definitely be at risk.
That's what they get paid for.
Dont want to get shot at? Dont join the army.
Goatboy wrote:
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.
And no doubt there will be enough of us looking somewhere else the next time a pop star falls out of her dress.
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.
And no doubt there will be enough of us looking somewhere else the next time a pop star falls out of her dress.
I think he's referring to the troops on the ground, who are always at risk when deployed, whether it be 'in action' or training.
Remember we have SAS and SBS troops inside Afghanistan, and they will definitely be at risk.
Remember we have SAS and SBS troops inside Afghanistan, and they will definitely be at risk.
Stranger In Paradise wrote:
Well I've digressed from my original point, I totally
> support any and all action taken against any terrorist group anywhere, if you
> shelter them then go down with them, and I realise many oppose this view, and
> they can, because that is what freedom is about, and that is what this conflict
> is for. Freedom
Agreed also.
But that means you also have to pursue terrorists acting on behalf of our own country.
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.
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.
And once we've done those, we should go after the IRA.
The States can pursue the fundamentalist Americans living in the hills of Virginia that do things like the Oklahoma bombing. Weren't no Muslims involved in that one.
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)
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.
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.
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.
Well I've digressed from my original point, I totally
> support any and all action taken against any terrorist group anywhere, if you
> shelter them then go down with them, and I realise many oppose this view, and
> they can, because that is what freedom is about, and that is what this conflict
> is for. Freedom
Agreed also.
But that means you also have to pursue terrorists acting on behalf of our own country.
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.
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.
And once we've done those, we should go after the IRA.
The States can pursue the fundamentalist Americans living in the hills of Virginia that do things like the Oklahoma bombing. Weren't no Muslims involved in that one.
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)
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.
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.
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.
Can someone explain how our servicemen are in danger floating on big iron islands, launching cruise missiles from 15 miles away?
I dont get that
I dont get that
Page: