The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Why are those not draping themselves in the flag of ìJusticeî labelled as Taliban sympathisers?
Why is it not possible to say ìI condemn the actions of Sept 11th by Bin Laden (we have still yet to be shown any evidence) yet I also condemn the systematic bombing of Afghanistan by the USAî
Just because a person is not cheering and clapping as The West ìPursues the evil Bin Ladenî (by bombing Kandahar, Kabul and other civilian townships in the hope of hitting targets) that does mean that the person supports the Taliban in anyway whatsoever.
Since Sept 11th we have seen a sustained bombing campaign with a total of 9 targets hit. These have been Taliban Gov buildings (empty) and no personnel hit or wounded (apart from civilian casualties and Red Cross stations stockpiling foodstuffs).
The Taliban have no air capability whatsoever, and what vehicles they do have with ballistic ability are ageing Russian tanks etc.
I cannot defend the massive expenditure so far (an estimated $293 million already on bombs alone), when there are refugees in their hundreds of thousands in make-shift shelters with no food or water.
A fraction of the money spent on bombings with precisely zero effect or result could have been used for humanitarian aid to make sure those left homeless and exhausted by the Allied air-strikes will not die in the rapidly approaching winter.
Please note that I am concerned purely for those hundreds of thousands of innocent Afghans that are illiterate and have no communication means, and donít know who the hell is attacking them this time.
These are people no different from those that died on Sept 11th in the USA. People that had no say in their countryís actions, were not asked if they wanted to do this or whether they approved or not.
People caught up in a situation they do not understand.
The echoing question throughout the US is ìWhy?î, and the same is true for the Afghans.
Again, I am not talking about The Taliban and Bin Laden.
People here (specifically Ben Hodgetts) have mentioned the images of crying families explaining to their relatives why mummy or daddy wonít be coming home.
How is that any different to trying to explain to your family why you have had to leave your ancestral home and live in a camp, thousands of miles from anywhere with the knowledge that winter is coming and you cannot survive outside? How is that any different to explaining why your home is being bombed, when you donít even know who Bin Laden is. (reports from Reuters suggest that most of the population of Afghanistan are not aware of Bin Laden at all, communication is that bad).
Terrorism is terrorism, inexcusable under any circumstance.
But that also has to extend to the present situation with the Allied bombing of Afghanistan.
ìYeah, but it is in retaliation for the evil attack on Sept 11thî.
Well, the same is being said by the Taliban and other extreme Islamic groups. The attacks on Sept 11th are in retaliation for years of what they see as brutal oppression by the West.
Iím not saying that is the case, Iím saying that from their perspective, it is the same thing.
People were furious about footage of people celebrating in the streets on Sept 11th and 12th over the attack.
Yet I have seen on CNN and the BBC, footage of people in bars cheering and whooping when they show the footage of USA bombs striking Afghanistan and applauding Bush for his ìWe will get these folksî speeches.
For someone against the USA, it is just as offensive.
It is all a matter of which side you are one.
The Red Cross has begged the Allied Forces to cease their bombing, because it is unsafe to get in and deliver vital relief to hundreds of thousands of refugees. Sure, we dropped food parcels with the bombs, but the real aid, getting it to the people who asked not for this action and not just hoping they can find food tins thrown from planes, has been stopped.
Those refugees will die during the Afghan winter, sub-zero temperatures, no food or water, no shelter.
Imagine the devastation of New York, those pics we all saw of ìGround Zeroî.
Now, extend that to an area the size of Afghanistan.
Remove the rescue teams and thousands of civilians that got together to help each other.
And finally, start to drop bomb after bomb on Manhattan 5 days after the WTC attack, and you begin to understand the conditions that the Afghan people are living under.
Iím not talking about The Taliban (yet again), those people are in caves and hidden in the deserts.
Iím talking about the people in places like Kabul and Kandahar that donít even know about the WTC, all they know is that now yet another country is attacking them.
We should not be hurling bombs around with embarrassing accuracy and results, we should be in there helping these people. We should be spending those millions and millions of dollars on clothing, feeding and helping the hundreds of thousands of innocent victims (both in Afghanistan AND the USA).
Once we have ensured that thousands more will not die from retaliatory strikes, then we begin the process of hunting down those responsible for the attacks.
The present action of continuos bombing is not achieving anything. Bush has said so himself ,yet they are reluctant to send ground troops in because they donít know the area and the harsh winter is approaching.
Public support for this campaign is falling. In the USA, support has dropped in the previous 2 weeks from 75% to 64%.
People are asking why are we bombing, when it is doing nothing except bringing more misery and death to innocent Afghans.
Tony Blair has stated that we must ìremain true to the idealî of this ìwar against terrorismî, yet more and more voices are expressing concern.
Not ìThe USA is evil and wrong!î but ìWhy are we bombing a country with no resources and hitting nothing? Why are we not achieving our aims?î. Simple, genuine concern that maybe this isnít the best way to do things.
Bin Laden & The Taliban must be dealt with, everyone agrees with that.
But surely the 1st priority is to help those caught up in the situation?
Why are we not ensuring the hundreds of thousands of refugees and innocent Afghans will not die from neglect, whilst Allied planes drop more bombs in the hope theyíll hit something worthwhile?
Why are those that say ìHang on, the Taliban is not affected at all by this campaignî being labelled as liberals or pro-Taliban?
Times have changed massively since Sept 11th, not only did the US become a victim of the worst terrorist attack in history, but the general consensus of ìYou are either with us or against usî (Bush himself said that) means that those of us with genuine concerns are seen as dirty commies or sympathisers.
If that is the case, if I am to not speak out for fear of being labelled as Pro-Taliban, then the war against terrorism is not what we should be calling this.
We should be calling this ìA war on personal freedomî
Why is it not possible to say ìI condemn the actions of Sept 11th by Bin Laden (we have still yet to be shown any evidence) yet I also condemn the systematic bombing of Afghanistan by the USAî
Just because a person is not cheering and clapping as The West ìPursues the evil Bin Ladenî (by bombing Kandahar, Kabul and other civilian townships in the hope of hitting targets) that does mean that the person supports the Taliban in anyway whatsoever.
Since Sept 11th we have seen a sustained bombing campaign with a total of 9 targets hit. These have been Taliban Gov buildings (empty) and no personnel hit or wounded (apart from civilian casualties and Red Cross stations stockpiling foodstuffs).
The Taliban have no air capability whatsoever, and what vehicles they do have with ballistic ability are ageing Russian tanks etc.
I cannot defend the massive expenditure so far (an estimated $293 million already on bombs alone), when there are refugees in their hundreds of thousands in make-shift shelters with no food or water.
A fraction of the money spent on bombings with precisely zero effect or result could have been used for humanitarian aid to make sure those left homeless and exhausted by the Allied air-strikes will not die in the rapidly approaching winter.
Please note that I am concerned purely for those hundreds of thousands of innocent Afghans that are illiterate and have no communication means, and donít know who the hell is attacking them this time.
These are people no different from those that died on Sept 11th in the USA. People that had no say in their countryís actions, were not asked if they wanted to do this or whether they approved or not.
People caught up in a situation they do not understand.
The echoing question throughout the US is ìWhy?î, and the same is true for the Afghans.
Again, I am not talking about The Taliban and Bin Laden.
People here (specifically Ben Hodgetts) have mentioned the images of crying families explaining to their relatives why mummy or daddy wonít be coming home.
How is that any different to trying to explain to your family why you have had to leave your ancestral home and live in a camp, thousands of miles from anywhere with the knowledge that winter is coming and you cannot survive outside? How is that any different to explaining why your home is being bombed, when you donít even know who Bin Laden is. (reports from Reuters suggest that most of the population of Afghanistan are not aware of Bin Laden at all, communication is that bad).
Terrorism is terrorism, inexcusable under any circumstance.
But that also has to extend to the present situation with the Allied bombing of Afghanistan.
ìYeah, but it is in retaliation for the evil attack on Sept 11thî.
Well, the same is being said by the Taliban and other extreme Islamic groups. The attacks on Sept 11th are in retaliation for years of what they see as brutal oppression by the West.
Iím not saying that is the case, Iím saying that from their perspective, it is the same thing.
People were furious about footage of people celebrating in the streets on Sept 11th and 12th over the attack.
Yet I have seen on CNN and the BBC, footage of people in bars cheering and whooping when they show the footage of USA bombs striking Afghanistan and applauding Bush for his ìWe will get these folksî speeches.
For someone against the USA, it is just as offensive.
It is all a matter of which side you are one.
The Red Cross has begged the Allied Forces to cease their bombing, because it is unsafe to get in and deliver vital relief to hundreds of thousands of refugees. Sure, we dropped food parcels with the bombs, but the real aid, getting it to the people who asked not for this action and not just hoping they can find food tins thrown from planes, has been stopped.
Those refugees will die during the Afghan winter, sub-zero temperatures, no food or water, no shelter.
Imagine the devastation of New York, those pics we all saw of ìGround Zeroî.
Now, extend that to an area the size of Afghanistan.
Remove the rescue teams and thousands of civilians that got together to help each other.
And finally, start to drop bomb after bomb on Manhattan 5 days after the WTC attack, and you begin to understand the conditions that the Afghan people are living under.
Iím not talking about The Taliban (yet again), those people are in caves and hidden in the deserts.
Iím talking about the people in places like Kabul and Kandahar that donít even know about the WTC, all they know is that now yet another country is attacking them.
We should not be hurling bombs around with embarrassing accuracy and results, we should be in there helping these people. We should be spending those millions and millions of dollars on clothing, feeding and helping the hundreds of thousands of innocent victims (both in Afghanistan AND the USA).
Once we have ensured that thousands more will not die from retaliatory strikes, then we begin the process of hunting down those responsible for the attacks.
The present action of continuos bombing is not achieving anything. Bush has said so himself ,yet they are reluctant to send ground troops in because they donít know the area and the harsh winter is approaching.
Public support for this campaign is falling. In the USA, support has dropped in the previous 2 weeks from 75% to 64%.
People are asking why are we bombing, when it is doing nothing except bringing more misery and death to innocent Afghans.
Tony Blair has stated that we must ìremain true to the idealî of this ìwar against terrorismî, yet more and more voices are expressing concern.
Not ìThe USA is evil and wrong!î but ìWhy are we bombing a country with no resources and hitting nothing? Why are we not achieving our aims?î. Simple, genuine concern that maybe this isnít the best way to do things.
Bin Laden & The Taliban must be dealt with, everyone agrees with that.
But surely the 1st priority is to help those caught up in the situation?
Why are we not ensuring the hundreds of thousands of refugees and innocent Afghans will not die from neglect, whilst Allied planes drop more bombs in the hope theyíll hit something worthwhile?
Why are those that say ìHang on, the Taliban is not affected at all by this campaignî being labelled as liberals or pro-Taliban?
Times have changed massively since Sept 11th, not only did the US become a victim of the worst terrorist attack in history, but the general consensus of ìYou are either with us or against usî (Bush himself said that) means that those of us with genuine concerns are seen as dirty commies or sympathisers.
If that is the case, if I am to not speak out for fear of being labelled as Pro-Taliban, then the war against terrorism is not what we should be calling this.
We should be calling this ìA war on personal freedomî
The humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan was very real far before September 11. Aid agencies based around the globe had Afghanistan labelled for their next big awareness campaigns. This is because we are talking of tens of thousands of Afghans who will strave if aid does not reach them. Self sustinance in Afghanistan is next to impossible when faced by the extreme climate conditions and enduring poverty. Since the war began those that had not already fled to the borders now have. These people are homeless.
In the great perspective of the world these people's situation far outways the need for American air strikes on populated areas. With aid agencies forced to withdraw what was going to be a crisis is now a disaster, and why? Because America and Britain refused to consider the sutilties that this campaign against terror really needed.
Right from the start there were cries for proportional action. Proportional action in my book meant only attacking the terrorists and not the innocents. What we have seen in its broud entirety is gross unproportionalism.
When the air raids first started I thought the Americans had it right. They would bomb the air fields to prevent the few Taliban jets from taking off. They would bomb the al-Qa'eda camps. This seemed sensibly to me but then the bombing did not stop there. It seemed the bombing would continue despite the lack of any real targets. Then the same day we here of UN workers being killed by a stray bomb the US Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld says, "We are not running out of targets, Afghanistan is." This staetment sums up the apalling attitute present in America which only reflects complete arogance and the desire to revenge America.
Only by understanding American hatred will the long term threat be resolved. Unfortunatly by the actions taken so far I fear far from addressing this issue America only esculates its own problems.
The 2 million dollars spent on the bomb that destroyed the red cross ware houses, if added to those supplies now gone, could have helped to save thousands.
In the great perspective of the world these people's situation far outways the need for American air strikes on populated areas. With aid agencies forced to withdraw what was going to be a crisis is now a disaster, and why? Because America and Britain refused to consider the sutilties that this campaign against terror really needed.
Right from the start there were cries for proportional action. Proportional action in my book meant only attacking the terrorists and not the innocents. What we have seen in its broud entirety is gross unproportionalism.
When the air raids first started I thought the Americans had it right. They would bomb the air fields to prevent the few Taliban jets from taking off. They would bomb the al-Qa'eda camps. This seemed sensibly to me but then the bombing did not stop there. It seemed the bombing would continue despite the lack of any real targets. Then the same day we here of UN workers being killed by a stray bomb the US Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld says, "We are not running out of targets, Afghanistan is." This staetment sums up the apalling attitute present in America which only reflects complete arogance and the desire to revenge America.
Only by understanding American hatred will the long term threat be resolved. Unfortunatly by the actions taken so far I fear far from addressing this issue America only esculates its own problems.
The 2 million dollars spent on the bomb that destroyed the red cross ware houses, if added to those supplies now gone, could have helped to save thousands.
Oops... thought this was going to be something like 'Log in the Creek'... sorry!
I shall pay more attention to the forum name in future!
I shall pay more attention to the forum name in future!
Why are those not draping themselves in the flag of ìJusticeî labelled as Taliban sympathisers?
Why is it not possible to say ìI condemn the actions of Sept 11th by Bin Laden (we have still yet to be shown any evidence) yet I also condemn the systematic bombing of Afghanistan by the USAî
Just because a person is not cheering and clapping as The West ìPursues the evil Bin Ladenî (by bombing Kandahar, Kabul and other civilian townships in the hope of hitting targets) that does mean that the person supports the Taliban in anyway whatsoever.
Since Sept 11th we have seen a sustained bombing campaign with a total of 9 targets hit. These have been Taliban Gov buildings (empty) and no personnel hit or wounded (apart from civilian casualties and Red Cross stations stockpiling foodstuffs).
The Taliban have no air capability whatsoever, and what vehicles they do have with ballistic ability are ageing Russian tanks etc.
I cannot defend the massive expenditure so far (an estimated $293 million already on bombs alone), when there are refugees in their hundreds of thousands in make-shift shelters with no food or water.
A fraction of the money spent on bombings with precisely zero effect or result could have been used for humanitarian aid to make sure those left homeless and exhausted by the Allied air-strikes will not die in the rapidly approaching winter.
Please note that I am concerned purely for those hundreds of thousands of innocent Afghans that are illiterate and have no communication means, and donít know who the hell is attacking them this time.
These are people no different from those that died on Sept 11th in the USA. People that had no say in their countryís actions, were not asked if they wanted to do this or whether they approved or not.
People caught up in a situation they do not understand.
The echoing question throughout the US is ìWhy?î, and the same is true for the Afghans.
Again, I am not talking about The Taliban and Bin Laden.
People here (specifically Ben Hodgetts) have mentioned the images of crying families explaining to their relatives why mummy or daddy wonít be coming home.
How is that any different to trying to explain to your family why you have had to leave your ancestral home and live in a camp, thousands of miles from anywhere with the knowledge that winter is coming and you cannot survive outside? How is that any different to explaining why your home is being bombed, when you donít even know who Bin Laden is. (reports from Reuters suggest that most of the population of Afghanistan are not aware of Bin Laden at all, communication is that bad).
Terrorism is terrorism, inexcusable under any circumstance.
But that also has to extend to the present situation with the Allied bombing of Afghanistan.
ìYeah, but it is in retaliation for the evil attack on Sept 11thî.
Well, the same is being said by the Taliban and other extreme Islamic groups. The attacks on Sept 11th are in retaliation for years of what they see as brutal oppression by the West.
Iím not saying that is the case, Iím saying that from their perspective, it is the same thing.
People were furious about footage of people celebrating in the streets on Sept 11th and 12th over the attack.
Yet I have seen on CNN and the BBC, footage of people in bars cheering and whooping when they show the footage of USA bombs striking Afghanistan and applauding Bush for his ìWe will get these folksî speeches.
For someone against the USA, it is just as offensive.
It is all a matter of which side you are one.
The Red Cross has begged the Allied Forces to cease their bombing, because it is unsafe to get in and deliver vital relief to hundreds of thousands of refugees. Sure, we dropped food parcels with the bombs, but the real aid, getting it to the people who asked not for this action and not just hoping they can find food tins thrown from planes, has been stopped.
Those refugees will die during the Afghan winter, sub-zero temperatures, no food or water, no shelter.
Imagine the devastation of New York, those pics we all saw of ìGround Zeroî.
Now, extend that to an area the size of Afghanistan.
Remove the rescue teams and thousands of civilians that got together to help each other.
And finally, start to drop bomb after bomb on Manhattan 5 days after the WTC attack, and you begin to understand the conditions that the Afghan people are living under.
Iím not talking about The Taliban (yet again), those people are in caves and hidden in the deserts.
Iím talking about the people in places like Kabul and Kandahar that donít even know about the WTC, all they know is that now yet another country is attacking them.
We should not be hurling bombs around with embarrassing accuracy and results, we should be in there helping these people. We should be spending those millions and millions of dollars on clothing, feeding and helping the hundreds of thousands of innocent victims (both in Afghanistan AND the USA).
Once we have ensured that thousands more will not die from retaliatory strikes, then we begin the process of hunting down those responsible for the attacks.
The present action of continuos bombing is not achieving anything. Bush has said so himself ,yet they are reluctant to send ground troops in because they donít know the area and the harsh winter is approaching.
Public support for this campaign is falling. In the USA, support has dropped in the previous 2 weeks from 75% to 64%.
People are asking why are we bombing, when it is doing nothing except bringing more misery and death to innocent Afghans.
Tony Blair has stated that we must ìremain true to the idealî of this ìwar against terrorismî, yet more and more voices are expressing concern.
Not ìThe USA is evil and wrong!î but ìWhy are we bombing a country with no resources and hitting nothing? Why are we not achieving our aims?î. Simple, genuine concern that maybe this isnít the best way to do things.
Bin Laden & The Taliban must be dealt with, everyone agrees with that.
But surely the 1st priority is to help those caught up in the situation?
Why are we not ensuring the hundreds of thousands of refugees and innocent Afghans will not die from neglect, whilst Allied planes drop more bombs in the hope theyíll hit something worthwhile?
Why are those that say ìHang on, the Taliban is not affected at all by this campaignî being labelled as liberals or pro-Taliban?
Times have changed massively since Sept 11th, not only did the US become a victim of the worst terrorist attack in history, but the general consensus of ìYou are either with us or against usî (Bush himself said that) means that those of us with genuine concerns are seen as dirty commies or sympathisers.
If that is the case, if I am to not speak out for fear of being labelled as Pro-Taliban, then the war against terrorism is not what we should be calling this.
We should be calling this ìA war on personal freedomî
Why is it not possible to say ìI condemn the actions of Sept 11th by Bin Laden (we have still yet to be shown any evidence) yet I also condemn the systematic bombing of Afghanistan by the USAî
Just because a person is not cheering and clapping as The West ìPursues the evil Bin Ladenî (by bombing Kandahar, Kabul and other civilian townships in the hope of hitting targets) that does mean that the person supports the Taliban in anyway whatsoever.
Since Sept 11th we have seen a sustained bombing campaign with a total of 9 targets hit. These have been Taliban Gov buildings (empty) and no personnel hit or wounded (apart from civilian casualties and Red Cross stations stockpiling foodstuffs).
The Taliban have no air capability whatsoever, and what vehicles they do have with ballistic ability are ageing Russian tanks etc.
I cannot defend the massive expenditure so far (an estimated $293 million already on bombs alone), when there are refugees in their hundreds of thousands in make-shift shelters with no food or water.
A fraction of the money spent on bombings with precisely zero effect or result could have been used for humanitarian aid to make sure those left homeless and exhausted by the Allied air-strikes will not die in the rapidly approaching winter.
Please note that I am concerned purely for those hundreds of thousands of innocent Afghans that are illiterate and have no communication means, and donít know who the hell is attacking them this time.
These are people no different from those that died on Sept 11th in the USA. People that had no say in their countryís actions, were not asked if they wanted to do this or whether they approved or not.
People caught up in a situation they do not understand.
The echoing question throughout the US is ìWhy?î, and the same is true for the Afghans.
Again, I am not talking about The Taliban and Bin Laden.
People here (specifically Ben Hodgetts) have mentioned the images of crying families explaining to their relatives why mummy or daddy wonít be coming home.
How is that any different to trying to explain to your family why you have had to leave your ancestral home and live in a camp, thousands of miles from anywhere with the knowledge that winter is coming and you cannot survive outside? How is that any different to explaining why your home is being bombed, when you donít even know who Bin Laden is. (reports from Reuters suggest that most of the population of Afghanistan are not aware of Bin Laden at all, communication is that bad).
Terrorism is terrorism, inexcusable under any circumstance.
But that also has to extend to the present situation with the Allied bombing of Afghanistan.
ìYeah, but it is in retaliation for the evil attack on Sept 11thî.
Well, the same is being said by the Taliban and other extreme Islamic groups. The attacks on Sept 11th are in retaliation for years of what they see as brutal oppression by the West.
Iím not saying that is the case, Iím saying that from their perspective, it is the same thing.
People were furious about footage of people celebrating in the streets on Sept 11th and 12th over the attack.
Yet I have seen on CNN and the BBC, footage of people in bars cheering and whooping when they show the footage of USA bombs striking Afghanistan and applauding Bush for his ìWe will get these folksî speeches.
For someone against the USA, it is just as offensive.
It is all a matter of which side you are one.
The Red Cross has begged the Allied Forces to cease their bombing, because it is unsafe to get in and deliver vital relief to hundreds of thousands of refugees. Sure, we dropped food parcels with the bombs, but the real aid, getting it to the people who asked not for this action and not just hoping they can find food tins thrown from planes, has been stopped.
Those refugees will die during the Afghan winter, sub-zero temperatures, no food or water, no shelter.
Imagine the devastation of New York, those pics we all saw of ìGround Zeroî.
Now, extend that to an area the size of Afghanistan.
Remove the rescue teams and thousands of civilians that got together to help each other.
And finally, start to drop bomb after bomb on Manhattan 5 days after the WTC attack, and you begin to understand the conditions that the Afghan people are living under.
Iím not talking about The Taliban (yet again), those people are in caves and hidden in the deserts.
Iím talking about the people in places like Kabul and Kandahar that donít even know about the WTC, all they know is that now yet another country is attacking them.
We should not be hurling bombs around with embarrassing accuracy and results, we should be in there helping these people. We should be spending those millions and millions of dollars on clothing, feeding and helping the hundreds of thousands of innocent victims (both in Afghanistan AND the USA).
Once we have ensured that thousands more will not die from retaliatory strikes, then we begin the process of hunting down those responsible for the attacks.
The present action of continuos bombing is not achieving anything. Bush has said so himself ,yet they are reluctant to send ground troops in because they donít know the area and the harsh winter is approaching.
Public support for this campaign is falling. In the USA, support has dropped in the previous 2 weeks from 75% to 64%.
People are asking why are we bombing, when it is doing nothing except bringing more misery and death to innocent Afghans.
Tony Blair has stated that we must ìremain true to the idealî of this ìwar against terrorismî, yet more and more voices are expressing concern.
Not ìThe USA is evil and wrong!î but ìWhy are we bombing a country with no resources and hitting nothing? Why are we not achieving our aims?î. Simple, genuine concern that maybe this isnít the best way to do things.
Bin Laden & The Taliban must be dealt with, everyone agrees with that.
But surely the 1st priority is to help those caught up in the situation?
Why are we not ensuring the hundreds of thousands of refugees and innocent Afghans will not die from neglect, whilst Allied planes drop more bombs in the hope theyíll hit something worthwhile?
Why are those that say ìHang on, the Taliban is not affected at all by this campaignî being labelled as liberals or pro-Taliban?
Times have changed massively since Sept 11th, not only did the US become a victim of the worst terrorist attack in history, but the general consensus of ìYou are either with us or against usî (Bush himself said that) means that those of us with genuine concerns are seen as dirty commies or sympathisers.
If that is the case, if I am to not speak out for fear of being labelled as Pro-Taliban, then the war against terrorism is not what we should be calling this.
We should be calling this ìA war on personal freedomî