The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Mewtwo wrote:
> America is once again flexing it's almighty power and unfortunately for us
> Britton's we have such a week Prime Minister and even weaker opposition leader
> that British "DEFENCE" forces are being engaged in this unjust
> military action.
I personally think that Blair has been stronger and done more than anyone else in this matter.
The one thing I have to ask is: how many civilian lives does it take before a response such as this is justified?
Sanctions have been mentioned, but they don't work. We've had sanctions against Iraq for ten years, and it's done nothing but harm the civilians. The leaders certainly aren't being affected by them. And now people are moaning about them, saying that they're no longer justified.
Governments are being painted into a corner - military action is "unjust", and sanctions are "cruel". Will someone please clarify exactly WHAT can be done that everyone will be happy with?
Or are we to let them keep blowing up our families and friends, and keep turning the other cheek for them to slap?
They only seem to understand violence, so let's speak their language.
> "coalition". Why are we not launching tomahawk missiles at northern
> Ireland?
I have no idea, but I wish we'd make up our minds. Either do something final, or withdraw and let them sort themselves out.
> Have all the terrorists from northern Ireland been caught and
> prosecuted? No, they still reside in northern Ireland and as for those who were
> found guilty, well they are as free as you me.
I agree. I was disgusted when the terrorists were released, and I find it hypocritical that the same government now take a hard line against the Taliban. However, I don't think that the action against the Taliban should be scaled down - I think that action against the IRA should be stepped up. Anything else is only doing half the job.
> America is once again flexing it's almighty power and unfortunately for us
> Britton's we have such a week Prime Minister and even weaker opposition leader
> that British "DEFENCE" forces are being engaged in this unjust
> military action.
I personally think that Blair has been stronger and done more than anyone else in this matter.
The one thing I have to ask is: how many civilian lives does it take before a response such as this is justified?
Sanctions have been mentioned, but they don't work. We've had sanctions against Iraq for ten years, and it's done nothing but harm the civilians. The leaders certainly aren't being affected by them. And now people are moaning about them, saying that they're no longer justified.
Governments are being painted into a corner - military action is "unjust", and sanctions are "cruel". Will someone please clarify exactly WHAT can be done that everyone will be happy with?
Or are we to let them keep blowing up our families and friends, and keep turning the other cheek for them to slap?
They only seem to understand violence, so let's speak their language.
> "coalition". Why are we not launching tomahawk missiles at northern
> Ireland?
I have no idea, but I wish we'd make up our minds. Either do something final, or withdraw and let them sort themselves out.
> Have all the terrorists from northern Ireland been caught and
> prosecuted? No, they still reside in northern Ireland and as for those who were
> found guilty, well they are as free as you me.
I agree. I was disgusted when the terrorists were released, and I find it hypocritical that the same government now take a hard line against the Taliban. However, I don't think that the action against the Taliban should be scaled down - I think that action against the IRA should be stepped up. Anything else is only doing half the job.
I donít know your parents Wookiee, and I have no intention of commenting on them at all.
My comments were directed towards the general Sun reader.
The ill-educated, slavering at a topless woman fool that has not taken the time nor interest to make themselves aware of the Middle Eastern situations in regards to USA and UK Foreign Policy.
Directed towards those morons that think Wingdings gives you a ìspooky load of symbolsî or thinks Nostradamus predicted this.
The ignorant, mouth-breathers that donít stop to ask why the terrorists felt this necessary and instead scream for ìRevenge!î and ìKill those Afghansî.
I put a post a few days ago from an Afghan writer explaining that the Afghans would like nothing more than the Taliban removed from their land, as they are murderous thugs. But they are a broken people, they have no food, no water, no will and no means of even being aware what is going on in the world, with most communications being taken by the Taliban.
The WTC attacks were wrong, but you need to look behind the atrocity to see what caused that action.
And you need to be able to say ìWell, looking at the history of the Middle East and our involvement there, itís not surprising. Shocking, yes. Surprising? Noî.
Fanatics cannot be reasoned with, I agree.
Action is needed against whoever did this, but we have no proof it was Bin Laden.
Taliban and Afghanistan said ìShow us proof and we will hand him overî.
This did not happen.
And I donít mean showing the media the proof, I mean showing the people you intend to bomb.
But all I hear right now is ìKill the Arabs! Look what they did to America!î.
Nobody has been, or is saying, ìLook at The Sudan! Look at Nicaragua! Look at East Timoor! Look at El Salvador!î where America and the UK have been involved in systematic acts of terrorism.
Or France, like I mentioned, blowing up and sinking The Rainbow Warrior.
Terrorism is ok as long as itís us doing it.
If itís the filthy Arabs? Letís get those scum!!!!
My comments were directed towards the general Sun reader.
The ill-educated, slavering at a topless woman fool that has not taken the time nor interest to make themselves aware of the Middle Eastern situations in regards to USA and UK Foreign Policy.
Directed towards those morons that think Wingdings gives you a ìspooky load of symbolsî or thinks Nostradamus predicted this.
The ignorant, mouth-breathers that donít stop to ask why the terrorists felt this necessary and instead scream for ìRevenge!î and ìKill those Afghansî.
I put a post a few days ago from an Afghan writer explaining that the Afghans would like nothing more than the Taliban removed from their land, as they are murderous thugs. But they are a broken people, they have no food, no water, no will and no means of even being aware what is going on in the world, with most communications being taken by the Taliban.
The WTC attacks were wrong, but you need to look behind the atrocity to see what caused that action.
And you need to be able to say ìWell, looking at the history of the Middle East and our involvement there, itís not surprising. Shocking, yes. Surprising? Noî.
Fanatics cannot be reasoned with, I agree.
Action is needed against whoever did this, but we have no proof it was Bin Laden.
Taliban and Afghanistan said ìShow us proof and we will hand him overî.
This did not happen.
And I donít mean showing the media the proof, I mean showing the people you intend to bomb.
But all I hear right now is ìKill the Arabs! Look what they did to America!î.
Nobody has been, or is saying, ìLook at The Sudan! Look at Nicaragua! Look at East Timoor! Look at El Salvador!î where America and the UK have been involved in systematic acts of terrorism.
Or France, like I mentioned, blowing up and sinking The Rainbow Warrior.
Terrorism is ok as long as itís us doing it.
If itís the filthy Arabs? Letís get those scum!!!!
Actually, I'd have to disagree partly...
My parents get the Sun (dad likes the Sports pages... apparently) and they have been remarkably adult (for them) about it.
They've been very, very clear that this isn't a campaign against Arabs or Muslims, and I think some of their editorial "The Sun Says" columns have been widely praised for what they've said.
I think they should be commended for that. They may be at the bottom of the press heap, but they do have the widest circulation, and it would be easy for them to inspire racial hatred.
In general though, it seems they've been very grown up about it.
As for the flags... it's sad, I know, but this is the same paper that printed a Union Jack 'prayer mat' prior to the Germany v England game several weeks ago, complete with markings showing where to put your knees, and one for your beer...
My parents get the Sun (dad likes the Sports pages... apparently) and they have been remarkably adult (for them) about it.
They've been very, very clear that this isn't a campaign against Arabs or Muslims, and I think some of their editorial "The Sun Says" columns have been widely praised for what they've said.
I think they should be commended for that. They may be at the bottom of the press heap, but they do have the widest circulation, and it would be easy for them to inspire racial hatred.
In general though, it seems they've been very grown up about it.
As for the flags... it's sad, I know, but this is the same paper that printed a Union Jack 'prayer mat' prior to the Germany v England game several weeks ago, complete with markings showing where to put your knees, and one for your beer...
America is once again flexing it's almighty power and unfortunately for us Britton's we have such a week Prime Minister and even weaker opposition leader that British "DEFENCE" forces are being engaged in this unjust military action.
Based on the philosophy of the so called "coalition". Why are we not launching tomahawk missiles at northern Ireland? Have all the terrorists from northern Ireland been caught and prosecuted? No, they still reside in northern Ireland and as for those who were found guilty, well they are as free as you me.
What I cannot understand is what the US, sorry coalition hope to achieve? what is there mission? what is the desired Outcome?
Left up to Tony Blair Osama Bin Laden a binlarden would become prime minister, all political prisoners would be free and anybody unhappy with this would be free to form a dissident group, who inevitably would cause even more carnage in the US.
If old Bushy Boy had his own way, then I'd expect an atom bomb to land Kabul. The former would suite America done to the ground, In one swift swoop the whole of Afghanistan would be wiped off the map with no loss of American life. Of innocent civilians would be murdered and malted but as long as they weren't American, well that's fine.
Thankfully though Neither of the Tony or Gorge can have it there own way (Thankfully). However this does still pose that awkward question which nobody seems willing to answer.
"What Is The Desired Outcome Of The Military Strikes, War or Invasion?"
Threes a television program on tonight, It's called "Children In Need 2001: The Fun Starts Here". The program is to gain awareness for the event in November, they are hoping to beat last years record of £20 Million Pounds.
I have an excellent fundraising idea. It's called "Pounds For Pacifism". The Idea is that the government stop wasting millions of pounds on unnecessary action and start concentrating finical and logical support on providing a better social state for every UK citizen. For example money could be spent irradiating poverty, Providing better health care and education or even funding the huge cost of asylum claims.
Based on the philosophy of the so called "coalition". Why are we not launching tomahawk missiles at northern Ireland? Have all the terrorists from northern Ireland been caught and prosecuted? No, they still reside in northern Ireland and as for those who were found guilty, well they are as free as you me.
What I cannot understand is what the US, sorry coalition hope to achieve? what is there mission? what is the desired Outcome?
Left up to Tony Blair Osama Bin Laden a binlarden would become prime minister, all political prisoners would be free and anybody unhappy with this would be free to form a dissident group, who inevitably would cause even more carnage in the US.
If old Bushy Boy had his own way, then I'd expect an atom bomb to land Kabul. The former would suite America done to the ground, In one swift swoop the whole of Afghanistan would be wiped off the map with no loss of American life. Of innocent civilians would be murdered and malted but as long as they weren't American, well that's fine.
Thankfully though Neither of the Tony or Gorge can have it there own way (Thankfully). However this does still pose that awkward question which nobody seems willing to answer.
"What Is The Desired Outcome Of The Military Strikes, War or Invasion?"
Threes a television program on tonight, It's called "Children In Need 2001: The Fun Starts Here". The program is to gain awareness for the event in November, they are hoping to beat last years record of £20 Million Pounds.
I have an excellent fundraising idea. It's called "Pounds For Pacifism". The Idea is that the government stop wasting millions of pounds on unnecessary action and start concentrating finical and logical support on providing a better social state for every UK citizen. For example money could be spent irradiating poverty, Providing better health care and education or even funding the huge cost of asylum claims.
Yeah, let's kill those dirty arabs for what they did.
I hope The Sun put a cut-out flag in for me to put in my window so I can show support for "Our Boys".
Nasty, hateful Arabs.
Kill 'em all!
Sorry, this isn't even aimed at you Wookie, but the next person that waves a copy of The Sun at me and starts screaming about "justice" gets punched in the face.
I have had it today with idiots waving a Union Jack and acting no differently to those dirty Palastinians cheering in the streets after the planes hit.
The Sun...a rag more interested in putting topless women on page 3 suddenly thinks it matters.
So, altogether now:
Go On Our Boys! Kill those Arabs! Look what they did to America! Kill 'em all!!
I hope The Sun put a cut-out flag in for me to put in my window so I can show support for "Our Boys".
Nasty, hateful Arabs.
Kill 'em all!
Sorry, this isn't even aimed at you Wookie, but the next person that waves a copy of The Sun at me and starts screaming about "justice" gets punched in the face.
I have had it today with idiots waving a Union Jack and acting no differently to those dirty Palastinians cheering in the streets after the planes hit.
The Sun...a rag more interested in putting topless women on page 3 suddenly thinks it matters.
So, altogether now:
Go On Our Boys! Kill those Arabs! Look what they did to America! Kill 'em all!!
Meka_Dragon wrote:
> And lets target ALL terrorists hey, not just those that talk funny.
I agree, Meka. I hope not only that this prevents further funding for the IRA from the US, but also that we are now able to eradicate the IRA under the same banner.
After all, are Gerry Adams and Sinn Fein really that different to the Taliban?
> And lets target ALL terrorists hey, not just those that talk funny.
I agree, Meka. I hope not only that this prevents further funding for the IRA from the US, but also that we are now able to eradicate the IRA under the same banner.
After all, are Gerry Adams and Sinn Fein really that different to the Taliban?
Goatboy wrote:
> The Taleban ambassador in Pakistan,
> Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef, described the strikes as "a terrorist attack...
> not only against the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, but on the whole Muslim
> world".
And we all know what crap that is - it has nothing to do with them being Muslims, and most of the 'true' "whole Muslim world" knows that, and will pay no attention to his inane ramblings. We still have to be wary, though, for there are still those fanatics among us who hate us so much that they sit here in comfort in their council house, running anti-Western websites and claiming their benefit. These are the only "Muslims" (I use the term losely) who we should be worried about.
> Because of a strict
> nightly curfew enforced by the Taleban, residents of the battle-scarred capital
> had nowhere to run to during the bombardment.
I'm sorry, but I don't see that as any fault of ours; just another sign of an illegitimate government abusing its own people.
These targets are near towns, not in them.
> She did not know when operations would resume.
Many Kabul residents are
> leaving for fear of more attacks
Millions of Afghans depend on international
> aid to survive.
These refugees existed in their millions before last nights attack, simply because large amounts of aid shipped into the country are syphoned off by the Taliban for their own use, leaving those they expect to follow them to die.
> The Taleban ambassador in Pakistan,
> Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef, described the strikes as "a terrorist attack...
> not only against the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, but on the whole Muslim
> world".
And we all know what crap that is - it has nothing to do with them being Muslims, and most of the 'true' "whole Muslim world" knows that, and will pay no attention to his inane ramblings. We still have to be wary, though, for there are still those fanatics among us who hate us so much that they sit here in comfort in their council house, running anti-Western websites and claiming their benefit. These are the only "Muslims" (I use the term losely) who we should be worried about.
> Because of a strict
> nightly curfew enforced by the Taleban, residents of the battle-scarred capital
> had nowhere to run to during the bombardment.
I'm sorry, but I don't see that as any fault of ours; just another sign of an illegitimate government abusing its own people.
These targets are near towns, not in them.
> She did not know when operations would resume.
Many Kabul residents are
> leaving for fear of more attacks
Millions of Afghans depend on international
> aid to survive.
These refugees existed in their millions before last nights attack, simply because large amounts of aid shipped into the country are syphoned off by the Taliban for their own use, leaving those they expect to follow them to die.
Exactly.
Why didnt we get behind this idea when Bishopsgate was blown up?
Why did (and still do) the USA fund the IRA?
Why do UK and USA utilise Terrorists to achieve their own political goals in places like Iran, Afghanistan etc when it serves a purpose?
Will the USA attack itself for the groups that live in the hills and bomb The Oklahoma buildings?
Once more, I have to stress, I do not condone the absolute horror of the Sept 11th attacks, but this does not excuse identical action from us "in revenge".
Why didnt we get behind this idea when Bishopsgate was blown up?
Why did (and still do) the USA fund the IRA?
Why do UK and USA utilise Terrorists to achieve their own political goals in places like Iran, Afghanistan etc when it serves a purpose?
Will the USA attack itself for the groups that live in the hills and bomb The Oklahoma buildings?
Once more, I have to stress, I do not condone the absolute horror of the Sept 11th attacks, but this does not excuse identical action from us "in revenge".
A radio report (Independent Radio News) states that the Talaban are reporting only 20 civilian lives lost.
Still, that's 20 people.
Something has to be done, but I don't think that these bombings will do the job - those responsible for the terrorist attacks are in hiding. The only way to get them is to go in there on foot, otherwise they're safe.
And lets target ALL terrorists hey, not just those that talk funny.
Still, that's 20 people.
Something has to be done, but I don't think that these bombings will do the job - those responsible for the terrorist attacks are in hiding. The only way to get them is to go in there on foot, otherwise they're safe.
And lets target ALL terrorists hey, not just those that talk funny.
WÚÛkiee M¯nßÜÄR wrote:
Civilian lives
> should be spared as far as possible, but sometimes you have little choice.
And that's my point.
That is what the terrorists (whoever it is) have said, to them the loss of life in the WTC is acceptable loss, a means to achieve a goal.
Maybe wrong to us, but not to them.
And as for not bombing cities, the USA and UK have targetted:
CNN.COM:
The Taleban ambassador in Pakistan, Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef, described the strikes as "a terrorist attack... not only against the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, but on the whole Muslim world".
Independent reports from Kabul have not confirmed the death toll, but bombs are said to have landed in a residential area in the centre of the city.
Protests against the air strikes in Afghanistan break out in two Pakistani cities as President Musharraf tries to reassure people that strikes hit military targets and did not hit Afghan cities
Because of a strict nightly curfew enforced by the Taleban, residents of the battle-scarred capital had nowhere to run to during the bombardment.
Warplanes - some having flown all the way from continental America - roared over the city shortly after the curfew began at 2100 (1600 GMT).
Following Sunday's air strikes the UN has halted all food convoys into Afghanistan indefinitely.
World Food Programme spokeswoman Christiane Berthiaume said: "We have suspended the operation. Everything has been put on hold because of what happened overnight."
She did not know when operations would resume.
Many Kabul residents are leaving for fear of more attacks
Millions of Afghans depend on international aid to survive.
I am not going to argue with you Wookie, your beliefs are your own, nor am I telling anyone that they should agree with me, I am merely saying I am opposed to this war, and jingoistic reports from Red Banner Tabloids are an insult to those that can read.
The Sun: Falklands Conflict "Gotcha!" in regards to the sinking of the Belgrano, a warship headed away from the area.
Idiot Tabloids that usualy concern themselves with pop-tarts suddenly speak for "the voice of the nation".
Not this man they dont, I question what I am told before I accept it.
That's just me, for my choice and applies only to me.
Civilian lives
> should be spared as far as possible, but sometimes you have little choice.
And that's my point.
That is what the terrorists (whoever it is) have said, to them the loss of life in the WTC is acceptable loss, a means to achieve a goal.
Maybe wrong to us, but not to them.
And as for not bombing cities, the USA and UK have targetted:
CNN.COM:
The Taleban ambassador in Pakistan, Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef, described the strikes as "a terrorist attack... not only against the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, but on the whole Muslim world".
Independent reports from Kabul have not confirmed the death toll, but bombs are said to have landed in a residential area in the centre of the city.
Protests against the air strikes in Afghanistan break out in two Pakistani cities as President Musharraf tries to reassure people that strikes hit military targets and did not hit Afghan cities
Because of a strict nightly curfew enforced by the Taleban, residents of the battle-scarred capital had nowhere to run to during the bombardment.
Warplanes - some having flown all the way from continental America - roared over the city shortly after the curfew began at 2100 (1600 GMT).
Following Sunday's air strikes the UN has halted all food convoys into Afghanistan indefinitely.
World Food Programme spokeswoman Christiane Berthiaume said: "We have suspended the operation. Everything has been put on hold because of what happened overnight."
She did not know when operations would resume.
Many Kabul residents are leaving for fear of more attacks
Millions of Afghans depend on international aid to survive.
I am not going to argue with you Wookie, your beliefs are your own, nor am I telling anyone that they should agree with me, I am merely saying I am opposed to this war, and jingoistic reports from Red Banner Tabloids are an insult to those that can read.
The Sun: Falklands Conflict "Gotcha!" in regards to the sinking of the Belgrano, a warship headed away from the area.
Idiot Tabloids that usualy concern themselves with pop-tarts suddenly speak for "the voice of the nation".
Not this man they dont, I question what I am told before I accept it.
That's just me, for my choice and applies only to me.
Page: