The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
WÚÛkiee M¯nßÜÄR wrote:
He may not have directly
> orchestrated it, but there are links to him from some of those who hijacked the
> planes. They were trained by the organisation which he set up and runs.
I've also heard that there are links to Hussein as well.
Face it, we don't know all the facts, we probably never will. Whether that is right or wrong doesn't seem to matter. I personally think it's wrong, but there you go.
I also think it's completely pointless blowing 7 bells of crap out of Afghanistan. Whta will it achieve? People are already starting riots in Pakistan against the West. If we blow up Afghanistan completely, Pakistan will just take over where they left off.
Terrorism isn't one person, or one conutry, it's an idea. And killing Bin Laden won't will the idea. Another leader will just step up and take his place. Whether that's a within a week of Bin Laden's death, or 10 years, it doesn't matter. Someone else will carry on what he's doing.
Look at Northern Ireland from prrof. That's been going on for hundreds of years. Old leaders die, new leaders take over, the principle remains and is carried on.
Also, the US will never nuke Afghanistan. Why? What countries are nearby? Kuwait, Iran etc, all oil rich countries, which the US need. They won't risk damaging those countries, or relations with those countries, so nuclear weapons are not an option.
Moving on to the "Is Blair weak?" thing. I don't really see what else he could have done. Was he supposed to say "Count us out Bush, you're on your own son."? I think not.
I agree that we should be in with the US in this whole thing, but I don't agree with what they are doing.
Having said all that, I can't think or another way to sort it out. Bin Laden is blatantly a man that can't be reasoned with (although, has anyone actually ever tried that?). Afghanistian is so poor sanctions won't help. Any resources will just be taken by the Taliban, leaving the civilians to starve, so you're affecting the innocent people again, the same as if you bomb them.
He may not have directly
> orchestrated it, but there are links to him from some of those who hijacked the
> planes. They were trained by the organisation which he set up and runs.
I've also heard that there are links to Hussein as well.
Face it, we don't know all the facts, we probably never will. Whether that is right or wrong doesn't seem to matter. I personally think it's wrong, but there you go.
I also think it's completely pointless blowing 7 bells of crap out of Afghanistan. Whta will it achieve? People are already starting riots in Pakistan against the West. If we blow up Afghanistan completely, Pakistan will just take over where they left off.
Terrorism isn't one person, or one conutry, it's an idea. And killing Bin Laden won't will the idea. Another leader will just step up and take his place. Whether that's a within a week of Bin Laden's death, or 10 years, it doesn't matter. Someone else will carry on what he's doing.
Look at Northern Ireland from prrof. That's been going on for hundreds of years. Old leaders die, new leaders take over, the principle remains and is carried on.
Also, the US will never nuke Afghanistan. Why? What countries are nearby? Kuwait, Iran etc, all oil rich countries, which the US need. They won't risk damaging those countries, or relations with those countries, so nuclear weapons are not an option.
Moving on to the "Is Blair weak?" thing. I don't really see what else he could have done. Was he supposed to say "Count us out Bush, you're on your own son."? I think not.
I agree that we should be in with the US in this whole thing, but I don't agree with what they are doing.
Having said all that, I can't think or another way to sort it out. Bin Laden is blatantly a man that can't be reasoned with (although, has anyone actually ever tried that?). Afghanistian is so poor sanctions won't help. Any resources will just be taken by the Taliban, leaving the civilians to starve, so you're affecting the innocent people again, the same as if you bomb them.
Goatboy wrote:
> If you feel so strongly about this, go sign up and get out there.
If not for medical conditions I would probably already be out there. I was going to join the RAF but due to the surgery on my back I couldn't.
Not that you were implying it, but I'm not one of these who does a lot of shouting and then says "but I wouldn't do it myself". Had things been different when I was younger, I'd already be trained and out there.
> Right now, the way I have listened to people at work
> today?
Some people can't differentiate between groups and individuals. It happens to everyone at some point, just like my outburst on these forums on 11th September which was deleted.
> If you feel so strongly about this, go sign up and get out there.
If not for medical conditions I would probably already be out there. I was going to join the RAF but due to the surgery on my back I couldn't.
Not that you were implying it, but I'm not one of these who does a lot of shouting and then says "but I wouldn't do it myself". Had things been different when I was younger, I'd already be trained and out there.
> Right now, the way I have listened to people at work
> today?
Some people can't differentiate between groups and individuals. It happens to everyone at some point, just like my outburst on these forums on 11th September which was deleted.
Because we are eager to bomb stuff rather than talk, we will never ever end this cycle.
That's all I can say because I can't argue this anymore.
This is just my beliefs, and I respect yours Wookie.
If you feel so strongly about this, go sign up and get out there.
"How much does it take before retaliation is acceptable"?
How much does it take before we stop before it gets to that point and ask "Why are you behaving like this?"
I dont have any answers, if I did then I'd run the world.
All I know is, I have lost someone in the Pentagon attack and I do not wish that upon anyone else.
I could not go up to an Afghan family and say "Well, casualties are expected, what can you do? Shouldn't have bombed America should you? Sorry for your loss, have some grain."
Right now, the way I have listened to people at work today?
I couldn't care less if a plane landed on where I work, I just don't care anymore about this whole deal.
America + UK go kill Arabs.
Arabs go kill Westerners.
Muslims kill Christians
Christians kill whoever
Just get it over with and stop making me take sides.
This whole race is stupid and violent and childish.
Blow us all up, let something else have a go at being top of the food chain, because we dont have a goddamn clue.
That's all I can say because I can't argue this anymore.
This is just my beliefs, and I respect yours Wookie.
If you feel so strongly about this, go sign up and get out there.
"How much does it take before retaliation is acceptable"?
How much does it take before we stop before it gets to that point and ask "Why are you behaving like this?"
I dont have any answers, if I did then I'd run the world.
All I know is, I have lost someone in the Pentagon attack and I do not wish that upon anyone else.
I could not go up to an Afghan family and say "Well, casualties are expected, what can you do? Shouldn't have bombed America should you? Sorry for your loss, have some grain."
Right now, the way I have listened to people at work today?
I couldn't care less if a plane landed on where I work, I just don't care anymore about this whole deal.
America + UK go kill Arabs.
Arabs go kill Westerners.
Muslims kill Christians
Christians kill whoever
Just get it over with and stop making me take sides.
This whole race is stupid and violent and childish.
Blow us all up, let something else have a go at being top of the food chain, because we dont have a goddamn clue.
Goatboy wrote:
> Whose language?
Fanatics in general.
> Who did this? Bin Laden has still not admitted he had anything to do
> with it, why not claim responsibility now? What can it hurt?
He may not have directly orchestrated it, but there are links to him from some of those who hijacked the planes. They were trained by the organisation which he set up and runs.
The philosophy seems to be 'cut off the head and the body dies'. Granted that may not be the case, as I'm sure there are many waiting to take his place, but you can't be seen to just shrug it off and do nothing. Something had to be done, and what else is there? You can't impose sanctions against a country which already has nothing.
> Why are they sending in missiles from miles away, floating on ships in the sea?
Why not
> ground troops where you can see who you are hitting?
Because they can see what they're hitting without sending in ground troops. These weapons are accurate to within metres, and are more effective against vehicles and troops. You use these weapons to soften up targets and reduce the dangers to your own ground troops. The same way a boxer fights from behind his jab, rather than wading in with arms flailing and getting knocked out by a sucker-punch.
And there are troops in Afghanistan - our SAS and SBS are in, identifying targets for the missiles, and (hopefully) thereby further reducing civilian and collateral damage.
> Unless you go in, person to person and get whoever did do it,you will never win.
Same with The Gulf,
> they left Hussain in there.
I agree they cocked up there. A ground invasion to capture or otherwise remove Hussein.
> We have no intention of doing anything, this is
> saving face because America got punched in the balls.
Nothing more.
We'll have to agree to differ. I've never been a big fan of Americans; I think they're generally a loud, obnoxious, greedy, self-centred and self-serving nation; they may well have brought this on themselves by past actions, but I still think they are entitled to retaliate. Again I have to ask: how big an atrocity does it take, how many civilian lives must be lost, before retaliation is 'acceptable'?
> Whose language?
Fanatics in general.
> Who did this? Bin Laden has still not admitted he had anything to do
> with it, why not claim responsibility now? What can it hurt?
He may not have directly orchestrated it, but there are links to him from some of those who hijacked the planes. They were trained by the organisation which he set up and runs.
The philosophy seems to be 'cut off the head and the body dies'. Granted that may not be the case, as I'm sure there are many waiting to take his place, but you can't be seen to just shrug it off and do nothing. Something had to be done, and what else is there? You can't impose sanctions against a country which already has nothing.
> Why are they sending in missiles from miles away, floating on ships in the sea?
Why not
> ground troops where you can see who you are hitting?
Because they can see what they're hitting without sending in ground troops. These weapons are accurate to within metres, and are more effective against vehicles and troops. You use these weapons to soften up targets and reduce the dangers to your own ground troops. The same way a boxer fights from behind his jab, rather than wading in with arms flailing and getting knocked out by a sucker-punch.
And there are troops in Afghanistan - our SAS and SBS are in, identifying targets for the missiles, and (hopefully) thereby further reducing civilian and collateral damage.
> Unless you go in, person to person and get whoever did do it,you will never win.
Same with The Gulf,
> they left Hussain in there.
I agree they cocked up there. A ground invasion to capture or otherwise remove Hussein.
> We have no intention of doing anything, this is
> saving face because America got punched in the balls.
Nothing more.
We'll have to agree to differ. I've never been a big fan of Americans; I think they're generally a loud, obnoxious, greedy, self-centred and self-serving nation; they may well have brought this on themselves by past actions, but I still think they are entitled to retaliate. Again I have to ask: how big an atrocity does it take, how many civilian lives must be lost, before retaliation is 'acceptable'?
Once again you've said everything that I would've liked to have said.
To sum up my feelings on this:
An innocent body that has been destroyed by bombing will look, smell and be exactly the same wheather it be at the ruins of the WTC or on a street full of families in Afganistan.
Or something like that.
To sum up my feelings on this:
An innocent body that has been destroyed by bombing will look, smell and be exactly the same wheather it be at the ruins of the WTC or on a street full of families in Afganistan.
Or something like that.
Agreed.
But what of UK terrorist activity? And USA? Or France?
We are all guilty, terrorism is the use of force to achieve your idealogical goals, including murder.
We have been guilty of that just as much as Bin Laden, it doesn't make sense that when we do it, it's correct and morally right - but when it's against us, it needs punishing.
I am not condoning the actions taken (christ I have to keep repeating that, just in case), but I am also able to step away from this and see why El Kahed may have felt it had enough of being terrorised by the States and hit back.
If anyone here should be screaming for revenge and killing the arabs,it's me.
I lost my Uncle in the attack, but that is precisely why I dont agree with the retaliation.
Even if 1 innocent person is killed, they will experience the same emotions as myself and the thousands of others that lost someone in the WTC/Pentagon attacks.
And I cannot accept that on my conscience, merely because "casualties happen".
T**-for-tat attack is why the West Bank has been warring for ever and this world is terratorial.
I dont know what the answer is, but bombing countries in the hope you hit a few terrorists isn't it.
But what of UK terrorist activity? And USA? Or France?
We are all guilty, terrorism is the use of force to achieve your idealogical goals, including murder.
We have been guilty of that just as much as Bin Laden, it doesn't make sense that when we do it, it's correct and morally right - but when it's against us, it needs punishing.
I am not condoning the actions taken (christ I have to keep repeating that, just in case), but I am also able to step away from this and see why El Kahed may have felt it had enough of being terrorised by the States and hit back.
If anyone here should be screaming for revenge and killing the arabs,it's me.
I lost my Uncle in the attack, but that is precisely why I dont agree with the retaliation.
Even if 1 innocent person is killed, they will experience the same emotions as myself and the thousands of others that lost someone in the WTC/Pentagon attacks.
And I cannot accept that on my conscience, merely because "casualties happen".
T**-for-tat attack is why the West Bank has been warring for ever and this world is terratorial.
I dont know what the answer is, but bombing countries in the hope you hit a few terrorists isn't it.
Goatboy wrote:
> That's all, I'm not trying to pick a fight with anyone here.
This is the basic difference between "us" and "them" - the difference to express opinions and have them differ, without feeling the need to pick up some form of weapon and physically harm the other.
("Them" being the fanatics, no-one else. Not Arabs, not Muslims, not the Irish... just the minority fanatics among them.)
> That's all, I'm not trying to pick a fight with anyone here.
This is the basic difference between "us" and "them" - the difference to express opinions and have them differ, without feeling the need to pick up some form of weapon and physically harm the other.
("Them" being the fanatics, no-one else. Not Arabs, not Muslims, not the Irish... just the minority fanatics among them.)
WÚÛkiee M¯nßÜÄR wrote:
They only seem to understand violence, so let's speak
> their language.
Whose language?
Who did this? Bin Laden has still not admitted he had anything to do with it, why not claim responsibility now? What can it hurt?
Why are they sending in missiles from miles away, floating on ships in the sea?
Why not ground troops where you can see who you are hitting?
Unless you go in, person to person and get whoever did do it,you will never win.
Same with The Gulf, they left Hussain in there.
We have no intention of doing anything, this is saving face because America got punched in the balls.
Nothing more.
They only seem to understand violence, so let's speak
> their language.
Whose language?
Who did this? Bin Laden has still not admitted he had anything to do with it, why not claim responsibility now? What can it hurt?
Why are they sending in missiles from miles away, floating on ships in the sea?
Why not ground troops where you can see who you are hitting?
Unless you go in, person to person and get whoever did do it,you will never win.
Same with The Gulf, they left Hussain in there.
We have no intention of doing anything, this is saving face because America got punched in the balls.
Nothing more.
I'm not even having a dig at anyone here.
I'm just bloody frustrated that my viewpoint is not being reflected in the media.
I'm not the only person that thinks this is a wrong course of action, but nobody is saying this where it matters.
I have written to newspapers with no result.
Anyone that feels against this "War" is not being listened to, or allowed to have their voice heard above the patriotic music and shots of bombs hitting targets.
I'm just trying to vent what I feel, to try and explain why this is making me so frustrated, please, I dont expect anyone to listen to me or take what I say to heart.
I am trying to understand the thoughts I'm having about this and questioning why nobody in the media is saying the same.
That's all, I'm not trying to pick a fight with anyone here.
I'm just bloody frustrated that my viewpoint is not being reflected in the media.
I'm not the only person that thinks this is a wrong course of action, but nobody is saying this where it matters.
I have written to newspapers with no result.
Anyone that feels against this "War" is not being listened to, or allowed to have their voice heard above the patriotic music and shots of bombs hitting targets.
I'm just trying to vent what I feel, to try and explain why this is making me so frustrated, please, I dont expect anyone to listen to me or take what I say to heart.
I am trying to understand the thoughts I'm having about this and questioning why nobody in the media is saying the same.
That's all, I'm not trying to pick a fight with anyone here.
Page: