The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
We're at war. Our troops may not be officially on the ground and we may not be bombing Al Queda/Taliban targets, but we've joined the coalition and are part of NATO who invoked article 5 - which compels member states to aid any state which is attacked, and basically treats an attack on one member as an attack on all. After 4 weeks of being talked to, neogitated with, being warned of the consequences, terrorist targets came under attack in Afghanistan. Not cities, not towns, not village, terrorist targets.
After nearly three weeks the war still continues and there have been mistakes, the Red Cross building was hit because of misleading intelligence, the hospital was hit because it was placed right by a military target. The Taliban are claiming hundreds of civilian casualties. The Taliban also claim to have shot down a Blackhawk in Pakistan, if this is the case we should be interrogating every Taliban member we can get because they have a wondrous new weapon with a 30 mile range which is heat seeking, and can be fired with no visual confirmation of the target - a blatant lie. The Taliban claim to have shot down a CH47 Chinook because they have the landing gear and a few rotor parts. A lie, proven by the Pentagon. Claims by the Taliban that another helicopter removed the wreckage and bodies are false because the CH47 is the largest helicopter in combat use with transport capability. It has nowhere near the weight tolerances or the space to remove that much wreckage. A Lie. The Taliban claimed to have captured US servicemen 2 weeks ago - another lie as they produce no imagery. The Taliban initially said they knew no location for Bin Laden, yet they did. A lie.
Yes, the Pentagon could lie to us, but what makes the Taliban so trustworthy they are to be belived implicitly ? Today they have issued a statement they are prepared to fight to the last Afghan. I'm sure the general population feel enthusiastic to do so, considering the Taliban have taken food from them in the past, burnt crops, press ganged children into fighting for them, rounded up men to fight for them, killed those who resisted and suppressed women fiercely.
Here is my main point. What if.......
On September 11th one passenger plane hits Canary Wharf's tower, another hits Big Ben, another hits Whitehall and a final one is forced down outside of London. Emergency services respond but, like America, many thousands are dead, wreckage is everywhere. The stock exchange in London immediately shuts, trains are stopped at stations, planes grounded and the subway system evacuated. Initial suspicion lies with Bin Laden and it is confirmed. What do we do ? Alone we do not have the power to attack Afghanistan, we have capability to inflict limited strikes but thats all. America immediately pledges support to us. Within days most of the nation is calling for war on whoever did the acts. In America there are already voices of dissent, why should they get involved ? After all it was the UK which was hit. In New York, Washington e.t.c the protests start. But the American government still supports the UK and the war begins.
What if it were us that was hit so murderessly on September 11th ? It wasn't, but it could have been. It is all very well saying neogitate, go to the United Nations, diplomacy e.t.c but this is a nation which has stated it will fight to the last person. They do not recognise the UN except when it suits them. Yes, we've hit civilians, but if military targets werent purposelly moved next to them then maybe that wouldnt have happened. Yes, starvation is rife, and that was a problem before the attacks. Yes, hundreds are fleeing to Pakistan, because of the way the Taliban are suicidally pursuing this war. Give a viable, actually proven method of destroying the terrorist facilities, getting Bin Laden,, stopping Al Queda ( who are all over the globe ) and restoring some kind of peaceful government to Afghanistan and I'll listen. In Northern Ireland diplomacy has apparently worked, which is excellent, but whilst the cease fires were in act Britain was repeatedly attacked in Manchester and Canary Wharf being just two of the places. Northern Ireland has taken decades, decades we don' have with modern terrorism. the IRA and other groups were brought to the negotiating table by force. SAS units intercepted terrorist operations, army units snatched suspected ring leaders and imprisoned them, the RUC provided a visible show of force daily. You cannot impose the same kind of model on Afganistan because they are geographically and socially different.
Finally, the Anti War groups mostly claim to be not biased. Well you are biased, because anyone who assumes they aren't is blatantly biased. Not me, not you, the Pentagon, Taliban, CND e.t.c can claim to be the truth.
Discuss ! :) ( probably no one will post now ! )
After nearly three weeks the war still continues and there have been mistakes, the Red Cross building was hit because of misleading intelligence, the hospital was hit because it was placed right by a military target. The Taliban are claiming hundreds of civilian casualties. The Taliban also claim to have shot down a Blackhawk in Pakistan, if this is the case we should be interrogating every Taliban member we can get because they have a wondrous new weapon with a 30 mile range which is heat seeking, and can be fired with no visual confirmation of the target - a blatant lie. The Taliban claim to have shot down a CH47 Chinook because they have the landing gear and a few rotor parts. A lie, proven by the Pentagon. Claims by the Taliban that another helicopter removed the wreckage and bodies are false because the CH47 is the largest helicopter in combat use with transport capability. It has nowhere near the weight tolerances or the space to remove that much wreckage. A Lie. The Taliban claimed to have captured US servicemen 2 weeks ago - another lie as they produce no imagery. The Taliban initially said they knew no location for Bin Laden, yet they did. A lie.
Yes, the Pentagon could lie to us, but what makes the Taliban so trustworthy they are to be belived implicitly ? Today they have issued a statement they are prepared to fight to the last Afghan. I'm sure the general population feel enthusiastic to do so, considering the Taliban have taken food from them in the past, burnt crops, press ganged children into fighting for them, rounded up men to fight for them, killed those who resisted and suppressed women fiercely.
Here is my main point. What if.......
On September 11th one passenger plane hits Canary Wharf's tower, another hits Big Ben, another hits Whitehall and a final one is forced down outside of London. Emergency services respond but, like America, many thousands are dead, wreckage is everywhere. The stock exchange in London immediately shuts, trains are stopped at stations, planes grounded and the subway system evacuated. Initial suspicion lies with Bin Laden and it is confirmed. What do we do ? Alone we do not have the power to attack Afghanistan, we have capability to inflict limited strikes but thats all. America immediately pledges support to us. Within days most of the nation is calling for war on whoever did the acts. In America there are already voices of dissent, why should they get involved ? After all it was the UK which was hit. In New York, Washington e.t.c the protests start. But the American government still supports the UK and the war begins.
What if it were us that was hit so murderessly on September 11th ? It wasn't, but it could have been. It is all very well saying neogitate, go to the United Nations, diplomacy e.t.c but this is a nation which has stated it will fight to the last person. They do not recognise the UN except when it suits them. Yes, we've hit civilians, but if military targets werent purposelly moved next to them then maybe that wouldnt have happened. Yes, starvation is rife, and that was a problem before the attacks. Yes, hundreds are fleeing to Pakistan, because of the way the Taliban are suicidally pursuing this war. Give a viable, actually proven method of destroying the terrorist facilities, getting Bin Laden,, stopping Al Queda ( who are all over the globe ) and restoring some kind of peaceful government to Afghanistan and I'll listen. In Northern Ireland diplomacy has apparently worked, which is excellent, but whilst the cease fires were in act Britain was repeatedly attacked in Manchester and Canary Wharf being just two of the places. Northern Ireland has taken decades, decades we don' have with modern terrorism. the IRA and other groups were brought to the negotiating table by force. SAS units intercepted terrorist operations, army units snatched suspected ring leaders and imprisoned them, the RUC provided a visible show of force daily. You cannot impose the same kind of model on Afganistan because they are geographically and socially different.
Finally, the Anti War groups mostly claim to be not biased. Well you are biased, because anyone who assumes they aren't is blatantly biased. Not me, not you, the Pentagon, Taliban, CND e.t.c can claim to be the truth.
Discuss ! :) ( probably no one will post now ! )
Let me start by saying this:
ALL WAR IS WRONG
(but then the terrorists did start it)
IF it had been us who had been hit on that day, i still could never support the war until I had been shown the evidence, in some small form.
We are detached from the horror, so we can look at things logically and unemotionally.
America does not have that luxery, but they should still show restraint.
Like all of life, this is a riddle which has no answer.
Should the terrorists get away with it? Should we risk civialian casuties? should we belive one side over the other?
'on the battlefield, it is very easy to forget what a sin is'
Brought to us by a japanese game. (MGS) Japan is a country which knows that both sides are wrong in the war, and it has obviously paid the highest price for its war time sins.
Has america?
No side can every be COMPLETLEY right or justified in war.
ALL WAR IS WRONG
(but then the terrorists did start it)
IF it had been us who had been hit on that day, i still could never support the war until I had been shown the evidence, in some small form.
We are detached from the horror, so we can look at things logically and unemotionally.
America does not have that luxery, but they should still show restraint.
Like all of life, this is a riddle which has no answer.
Should the terrorists get away with it? Should we risk civialian casuties? should we belive one side over the other?
'on the battlefield, it is very easy to forget what a sin is'
Brought to us by a japanese game. (MGS) Japan is a country which knows that both sides are wrong in the war, and it has obviously paid the highest price for its war time sins.
Has america?
No side can every be COMPLETLEY right or justified in war.
I can only speak for myself here.
As for the Pentagon Vs Taliban in the media war, both sides are just as guilty at using propaganda, so I cast a weary eye on both sides reporting on what they hit and what they didn't.
I tend to try and listen out for neutral reports from things like Amnesty International and The Red Cross, groups that have no vested interest in convincing the public that they are are on the winning side.
I remember during the Iraq war. The Iraqis were saying that the West had hit a factory that produced baby-milk, whilst CNN and the BBC and other news sites carried the Pentagon explanation of "This is propaganda nonsense, this was a legit military target and they're making it look like we hit a baby-milk place. Disgusting"
Except it turned out it WAS a baby-milk factory.
I don't automatically disbelieve everything I hear from governments, but neither do I instantly believe. I need to take in info from as many sources as I can before I decide my position on the subject.
As for if it were Britain that was hit?
I would still be saying what I am.
I lost my Uncle in the Pentagon attack, out of anyone here with an opinion, I should be the one waving a flag and demanding "justice be served".
But I'm not.
Because retaliatory strikes are not the answer.
Going in and removing Bin Laden with specialist groups is the way to do it,not by a substained bombing campaign and ground war - which we will lose.
We may kill more of theirs than they do of ours, but it gives the Islamic fundamentalist groups more fuel for the idea that the West is a corrupt and bullying force only out to sate it's own interests.
Much the same as in Vietnam, where the Vietcong went to villages and said "You see what the Americans are doing to you?"
The Afghans do not have televisions and most are illiterate, so they cannot read the news explaining what is happening and why.
All they know is that America is now just another country bombing and attacking them. Yet another in a very long list.
To them, it doesnt matter if it's the Taliban or the USA, it's always someone.
With this propoganda crap, the only people that are seeing it is you and I.
And we're not involved.
So I would be just as vocal if it were Britain that was hit, the same way that I am vocal about our involvement in East Timoor and Burma and Indonesia and Jakarta and many many other places.
I lost someone on Sept 11th, whether it was here or in the States doesn't matter.
I personally believe that the US (and by proxy the UK) launching an offensive on Afghanistan (call it The Taliban, but with an accuracy success rate of 2%, the Allied bombs are next-to-useless) is not the way to go.
But,just like with The Gulf, we will make no serious attempt to hit Bin Laden. It's too good a business to have enemies, keeps those defence contracts rolling in.
Saddam Hussein was not "brought to justice", Slobodan Milosevic was not "brought to justice" by the USA or UK, it was an internal coup that surrendered him to The Hague.
We'll do what we're doing now:
Bomb anywhere that looks suspicious, claim we hit "military targets with a few mistakes" whilst the Taliban shout that we have hit hundreds of civilians.
We'll have our blood-lust sated and then the USA can get back to quietly trading and funding the Taliban and Bin Laden etc, but we'll have seen "Enduring Freedom" in effect every night at 6pm before Eastenders.
This is a bullsheet "war" with no real objective other than to strut about and prove that you can't hurt the USA.
If it was a serious attempt to solve world-wide terrorism?
The USA has to deal with it's internal militia groups that produce Tim McVeighs and Robert Newtons, they would stop funding the IRA through NORAID and then, and if you are fighting terrorism, you have to cease your own terrorist activities, because whilst you think you're right and it needs to be done? So did Bin Laden with the WTC attack.
Just because we do it, doesn't mean it isn't terrorism.
As for the Pentagon Vs Taliban in the media war, both sides are just as guilty at using propaganda, so I cast a weary eye on both sides reporting on what they hit and what they didn't.
I tend to try and listen out for neutral reports from things like Amnesty International and The Red Cross, groups that have no vested interest in convincing the public that they are are on the winning side.
I remember during the Iraq war. The Iraqis were saying that the West had hit a factory that produced baby-milk, whilst CNN and the BBC and other news sites carried the Pentagon explanation of "This is propaganda nonsense, this was a legit military target and they're making it look like we hit a baby-milk place. Disgusting"
Except it turned out it WAS a baby-milk factory.
I don't automatically disbelieve everything I hear from governments, but neither do I instantly believe. I need to take in info from as many sources as I can before I decide my position on the subject.
As for if it were Britain that was hit?
I would still be saying what I am.
I lost my Uncle in the Pentagon attack, out of anyone here with an opinion, I should be the one waving a flag and demanding "justice be served".
But I'm not.
Because retaliatory strikes are not the answer.
Going in and removing Bin Laden with specialist groups is the way to do it,not by a substained bombing campaign and ground war - which we will lose.
We may kill more of theirs than they do of ours, but it gives the Islamic fundamentalist groups more fuel for the idea that the West is a corrupt and bullying force only out to sate it's own interests.
Much the same as in Vietnam, where the Vietcong went to villages and said "You see what the Americans are doing to you?"
The Afghans do not have televisions and most are illiterate, so they cannot read the news explaining what is happening and why.
All they know is that America is now just another country bombing and attacking them. Yet another in a very long list.
To them, it doesnt matter if it's the Taliban or the USA, it's always someone.
With this propoganda crap, the only people that are seeing it is you and I.
And we're not involved.
So I would be just as vocal if it were Britain that was hit, the same way that I am vocal about our involvement in East Timoor and Burma and Indonesia and Jakarta and many many other places.
I lost someone on Sept 11th, whether it was here or in the States doesn't matter.
I personally believe that the US (and by proxy the UK) launching an offensive on Afghanistan (call it The Taliban, but with an accuracy success rate of 2%, the Allied bombs are next-to-useless) is not the way to go.
But,just like with The Gulf, we will make no serious attempt to hit Bin Laden. It's too good a business to have enemies, keeps those defence contracts rolling in.
Saddam Hussein was not "brought to justice", Slobodan Milosevic was not "brought to justice" by the USA or UK, it was an internal coup that surrendered him to The Hague.
We'll do what we're doing now:
Bomb anywhere that looks suspicious, claim we hit "military targets with a few mistakes" whilst the Taliban shout that we have hit hundreds of civilians.
We'll have our blood-lust sated and then the USA can get back to quietly trading and funding the Taliban and Bin Laden etc, but we'll have seen "Enduring Freedom" in effect every night at 6pm before Eastenders.
This is a bullsheet "war" with no real objective other than to strut about and prove that you can't hurt the USA.
If it was a serious attempt to solve world-wide terrorism?
The USA has to deal with it's internal militia groups that produce Tim McVeighs and Robert Newtons, they would stop funding the IRA through NORAID and then, and if you are fighting terrorism, you have to cease your own terrorist activities, because whilst you think you're right and it needs to be done? So did Bin Laden with the WTC attack.
Just because we do it, doesn't mean it isn't terrorism.
I agree with what you say.
I have a brother and a father who work in London. If London had been hit on Sept 11th, there are chances that either one or both of them could have been involved, and I would have wanted whoever did this to have the crap kicked out of them.
I have a brother and a father who work in London. If London had been hit on Sept 11th, there are chances that either one or both of them could have been involved, and I would have wanted whoever did this to have the crap kicked out of them.
We're at war. Our troops may not be officially on the ground and we may not be bombing Al Queda/Taliban targets, but we've joined the coalition and are part of NATO who invoked article 5 - which compels member states to aid any state which is attacked, and basically treats an attack on one member as an attack on all. After 4 weeks of being talked to, neogitated with, being warned of the consequences, terrorist targets came under attack in Afghanistan. Not cities, not towns, not village, terrorist targets.
After nearly three weeks the war still continues and there have been mistakes, the Red Cross building was hit because of misleading intelligence, the hospital was hit because it was placed right by a military target. The Taliban are claiming hundreds of civilian casualties. The Taliban also claim to have shot down a Blackhawk in Pakistan, if this is the case we should be interrogating every Taliban member we can get because they have a wondrous new weapon with a 30 mile range which is heat seeking, and can be fired with no visual confirmation of the target - a blatant lie. The Taliban claim to have shot down a CH47 Chinook because they have the landing gear and a few rotor parts. A lie, proven by the Pentagon. Claims by the Taliban that another helicopter removed the wreckage and bodies are false because the CH47 is the largest helicopter in combat use with transport capability. It has nowhere near the weight tolerances or the space to remove that much wreckage. A Lie. The Taliban claimed to have captured US servicemen 2 weeks ago - another lie as they produce no imagery. The Taliban initially said they knew no location for Bin Laden, yet they did. A lie.
Yes, the Pentagon could lie to us, but what makes the Taliban so trustworthy they are to be belived implicitly ? Today they have issued a statement they are prepared to fight to the last Afghan. I'm sure the general population feel enthusiastic to do so, considering the Taliban have taken food from them in the past, burnt crops, press ganged children into fighting for them, rounded up men to fight for them, killed those who resisted and suppressed women fiercely.
Here is my main point. What if.......
On September 11th one passenger plane hits Canary Wharf's tower, another hits Big Ben, another hits Whitehall and a final one is forced down outside of London. Emergency services respond but, like America, many thousands are dead, wreckage is everywhere. The stock exchange in London immediately shuts, trains are stopped at stations, planes grounded and the subway system evacuated. Initial suspicion lies with Bin Laden and it is confirmed. What do we do ? Alone we do not have the power to attack Afghanistan, we have capability to inflict limited strikes but thats all. America immediately pledges support to us. Within days most of the nation is calling for war on whoever did the acts. In America there are already voices of dissent, why should they get involved ? After all it was the UK which was hit. In New York, Washington e.t.c the protests start. But the American government still supports the UK and the war begins.
What if it were us that was hit so murderessly on September 11th ? It wasn't, but it could have been. It is all very well saying neogitate, go to the United Nations, diplomacy e.t.c but this is a nation which has stated it will fight to the last person. They do not recognise the UN except when it suits them. Yes, we've hit civilians, but if military targets werent purposelly moved next to them then maybe that wouldnt have happened. Yes, starvation is rife, and that was a problem before the attacks. Yes, hundreds are fleeing to Pakistan, because of the way the Taliban are suicidally pursuing this war. Give a viable, actually proven method of destroying the terrorist facilities, getting Bin Laden,, stopping Al Queda ( who are all over the globe ) and restoring some kind of peaceful government to Afghanistan and I'll listen. In Northern Ireland diplomacy has apparently worked, which is excellent, but whilst the cease fires were in act Britain was repeatedly attacked in Manchester and Canary Wharf being just two of the places. Northern Ireland has taken decades, decades we don' have with modern terrorism. the IRA and other groups were brought to the negotiating table by force. SAS units intercepted terrorist operations, army units snatched suspected ring leaders and imprisoned them, the RUC provided a visible show of force daily. You cannot impose the same kind of model on Afganistan because they are geographically and socially different.
Finally, the Anti War groups mostly claim to be not biased. Well you are biased, because anyone who assumes they aren't is blatantly biased. Not me, not you, the Pentagon, Taliban, CND e.t.c can claim to be the truth.
Discuss ! :) ( probably no one will post now ! )
After nearly three weeks the war still continues and there have been mistakes, the Red Cross building was hit because of misleading intelligence, the hospital was hit because it was placed right by a military target. The Taliban are claiming hundreds of civilian casualties. The Taliban also claim to have shot down a Blackhawk in Pakistan, if this is the case we should be interrogating every Taliban member we can get because they have a wondrous new weapon with a 30 mile range which is heat seeking, and can be fired with no visual confirmation of the target - a blatant lie. The Taliban claim to have shot down a CH47 Chinook because they have the landing gear and a few rotor parts. A lie, proven by the Pentagon. Claims by the Taliban that another helicopter removed the wreckage and bodies are false because the CH47 is the largest helicopter in combat use with transport capability. It has nowhere near the weight tolerances or the space to remove that much wreckage. A Lie. The Taliban claimed to have captured US servicemen 2 weeks ago - another lie as they produce no imagery. The Taliban initially said they knew no location for Bin Laden, yet they did. A lie.
Yes, the Pentagon could lie to us, but what makes the Taliban so trustworthy they are to be belived implicitly ? Today they have issued a statement they are prepared to fight to the last Afghan. I'm sure the general population feel enthusiastic to do so, considering the Taliban have taken food from them in the past, burnt crops, press ganged children into fighting for them, rounded up men to fight for them, killed those who resisted and suppressed women fiercely.
Here is my main point. What if.......
On September 11th one passenger plane hits Canary Wharf's tower, another hits Big Ben, another hits Whitehall and a final one is forced down outside of London. Emergency services respond but, like America, many thousands are dead, wreckage is everywhere. The stock exchange in London immediately shuts, trains are stopped at stations, planes grounded and the subway system evacuated. Initial suspicion lies with Bin Laden and it is confirmed. What do we do ? Alone we do not have the power to attack Afghanistan, we have capability to inflict limited strikes but thats all. America immediately pledges support to us. Within days most of the nation is calling for war on whoever did the acts. In America there are already voices of dissent, why should they get involved ? After all it was the UK which was hit. In New York, Washington e.t.c the protests start. But the American government still supports the UK and the war begins.
What if it were us that was hit so murderessly on September 11th ? It wasn't, but it could have been. It is all very well saying neogitate, go to the United Nations, diplomacy e.t.c but this is a nation which has stated it will fight to the last person. They do not recognise the UN except when it suits them. Yes, we've hit civilians, but if military targets werent purposelly moved next to them then maybe that wouldnt have happened. Yes, starvation is rife, and that was a problem before the attacks. Yes, hundreds are fleeing to Pakistan, because of the way the Taliban are suicidally pursuing this war. Give a viable, actually proven method of destroying the terrorist facilities, getting Bin Laden,, stopping Al Queda ( who are all over the globe ) and restoring some kind of peaceful government to Afghanistan and I'll listen. In Northern Ireland diplomacy has apparently worked, which is excellent, but whilst the cease fires were in act Britain was repeatedly attacked in Manchester and Canary Wharf being just two of the places. Northern Ireland has taken decades, decades we don' have with modern terrorism. the IRA and other groups were brought to the negotiating table by force. SAS units intercepted terrorist operations, army units snatched suspected ring leaders and imprisoned them, the RUC provided a visible show of force daily. You cannot impose the same kind of model on Afganistan because they are geographically and socially different.
Finally, the Anti War groups mostly claim to be not biased. Well you are biased, because anyone who assumes they aren't is blatantly biased. Not me, not you, the Pentagon, Taliban, CND e.t.c can claim to be the truth.
Discuss ! :) ( probably no one will post now ! )