Viewing Thread:
"The USA and UK bomb Afghanistan"

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.

So, I'm not alone.

Thank you, Stranger.

*awakes from long sleep*

I won't go into my own feelings as to what the correct response would be to September 11th, except to say that we should all remember that out in Oman, and in the ocean surrounding Afghanistan and the region, are thousands of British and American ( and other countries ) servicemen and women who are being asked to do a dangerous job, and its a job they believe in. They are risking their lives while we sit here watching on tv and whilst many who have never known this kind of conflict criticise and say the war is wrong. Now if I was on one of those submariines I'd feel pretty sad about that....

I'm sure someone here has already said it, but truth is the first casualty of war in any conflict and many of those opposed ( I dont mean you guys ) seem willing to disbelieve the USA/ coalition but not the Taliban/Al Quaeda. Well I'm sorry but thats not fair. CND and the other tagalong groups seem more concerned about the fact it is the USA doing this than anything else. At the University I attend already they have organised two marches for peace with the slogan "Diplomacy and peace- not war". Gee, I'd love to know how you neogtiate with an enemy who you cannot see, an enemy who ignores 4 weeks of warnings, an enemy who is trying to incite his followers and pervert the Islamic religion to his own version. There have been civilian casulaties undoubtedly, but New York is looking at 7000+ and Washington 100+. The justification of "they did it to us so we'll do it to them" is not right, but suggestions the coalition is "carpet bombing" are inaccurate. If we were seeing that then Kabul would not be a feature on the map anymore. Also, so what if the average American didn't know where Afghanistan was ! Just because I don't know about a place does not give a 'citizen' of that country the right to savagely attack mine ! Who in the 1980's knew where the Falklands was ? Not many until the invasion, and we killed quite a few civilians there as well, after they killed ours.

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

That's where I started to question this whole situation as maybe not as straight forward as it seemed:

Clinton:
Plays Sax on Saturday Night Live, admits to smoking a joint (but not inhaling), tries to lay any woman near him and just lives it up.
The best economy the USA had ever had, not one single act of terrorism against the country except for the Oklahoma bombing and very little foreign trouble.
Halted the Star Wars project and cuts back defence spending by over $5 billion saying "There is no enemy anymore, we are wasting money protecting ourselves from a non-existent threat" and basically chases skirt for his time in office.

Bush Jr:
Wins one of the most decidely suspicious elections in US history, starting with the announcement by his brother Jeb that George had won in Florida.
6 weeks of recounts before Bush is declared winner on the narrowest of margins.
2 weeks after his election with his popularity waning, he launches airstrikes on Baghdad, the 1st in 2 years.
Both he and his father have their history in the CIA and Military Industrial Complex sector.
Bush backs out of the Kyoto summit on clean-air policy on the urging of ESSO, who co-incidentally paid over £2 billion to his campaign fund.

Bush is in the pocket of big business, hence his refusal to be part of the Kyoto summit.
War is business, good business and helps a waning economy.

This has been nothing but a blessing to an adminstration that has, in just under a year, undone 8 years of Clinton administration to reduce arms spending and encourage interior growth.

"It's not that I disagreed with Bush's policy on arms, it's that I think he's a child of Satan put here to ruin the earth for you and me."
Bill Hicks 1962-1994

Is it me or when it comes to this sort of thing, isn't Bush a bit of an idiot? I mean Clinton had that Lewinsky girl affair thing but at least he was a good president.

You're Gold.
A different colour to me and I percieve you feel you are better than me.

I shall spend billions on defence, then use overwhelming force to bomb your street in the vague hope I hit you, I mean if they live near you they gotta be one too right?

I know I'm right cos my daddy told me so.

George "Was out of Texas twice before I got elected as President and had to ask where France was" Bush.

Goatboy wrote:

I fully understand that the USA need to do something, of
> that there can be no doubt.
My problem is with the methods.

My sentiments exactly.

(I love these forums when we're all capable of discussion without shouting)

That's cool Wookiee, and the fact we can sit and agree that we see different sides of this thing is why, ultimately, I believe that the decent, intelligent people will prevail.

I fully understand that the USA need to do something, of that there can be no doubt.
My problem is with the methods.

Bombing is notoriously unreliable, I do not see it is worth the effort.
Bush was thumping his chest about using troops etc, but seems to be content right now with levelling Kabul etc and then sending in soldiers to pick through the rubble.

To fight local "rebels", you need to be in at ground zero, because you can never hit those responsible from the air.
At least on the ground you can see who is in your sights.

Goaty, I do understand and accept your viewpoint, but I cannot agree with it. There will always be inoccent casualties in any armed conflict, and at the end of the day, there will always be what are considered "acceptable" losses.

I'm not sitting here gloating that "our boys" are "kicking Arab butt" - it is a great, great shame that anyone has to die, innocent or not. But I honestly do not see how the US can be expected to ignore what happened and do nothing. If you do nothing, they get bolder, and do it again - or maybe even worse.

Afghan civilians would be at far less risk if the Taliban were not forcing them to stay in homes near the strikes. While it's not quite the same as Saddam's 'Human Shield' policy, it's almost as bad. My view is that any civilian casualties around legitimate targets are not the responsibility of the alliance troops.

The Taliban want their fellow Muslims around the world to rise up and follow them in a Jihad, yet they force them to stay in the line of fire. These fanatics may be willing to die for their 'cause', but normal Afghan people clearly are not - yet they are forced at gunpoint to remain. I'm sure the Taliban are actually hoping for many civilian deaths, which they will then blame on the alliance.

I also do not see what other course of action can be taken. Sanctions will not work - you cannot deprive a country which already has nothing. And I don't see that they could be negotiated with either. So the other option is to do nothing, and let them get away scot free? That was never going to happen.

So I believe what's happening now is right. At least there is a conscious effort to avoid civilian deaths, which is the complete opposite of the terrorists viewpoint - whether they be Bin Laden's faction, or the IRA.

America is a very inward-looking country - I doubt that 85% of the population even knew where Afghanistan was before the 11th September, let alone what the US has or hasn't done there in the past. Rightly or wrongly, a lot of the people killed on 11th September were probably completely oblivious, and should never have been targetted in such a way - you can't punish people for being ignorant. It is the government that are primarily responsible, and - with the greatest respect to you - something like the Pentagon would be a 'legitimate' target. The WTC was not.

It would be interesting to know if the worldwide response would have been the same if *only* the Pentagon had been hit. I mean no disrespect to you or the memory of your uncle, Goaty, but I feel that it is the WTC and the civilian casualties that has caused most of the outrage, and is the prime reason for the military response.

And I do admit that, as far as I'm concerned, as long as every possible measure is taken to avoid it, some civilian and collateral damage is acceptable.

My primary concern is for our troops - they always seem to be given the dangerous missions. The RAF were the low-level bombers over Iraq, while the USAF were high above and safe. Now we are the only nation currently with troops on the ground, while the US pummel away at installations from a safe distance.

I wish that September 11th had never happened, and I wish that no-one was dying now. But when push comes to shove, if people are going to die, I'd rather it was theirs than ours, even though I wouldn't wish it on anyone. I'm sorry, but that's just the way I feel - there's no conscious nationalist or racist thinking behind it, it's just a basic gut feeling.

The bombing of Afghanistan is nothing else but "legal terrorism". Innocent lives were taken on September 11th. Innocent lives are being taken now. Tell me, what is the different?
In the anti-war protest in London last night I saw a woman holding up a sign on which was written: "NOT IN OUR NAME". My thoughts exactly.

Well said Goatboy. Hear hear.