Cluster Bombs and Food Packages

[Ronn_Bman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fljotsdale:

Or have I seen too many American films, lol?!

And yes - we DO sometimes agree, don't we!

---

Maybe just a few too many American movies [img]smile.gif[/img]

Elite forces are for conducting strategic strikes against many types of assets both infront of and behind enemy lines, but you can't just send a small strike force with a mission like that into a large country like Afghanistan without support, and huge amounts of it.

[skywalker]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:


Maybe just a few too many American movies [img]smile.gif[/img]

Elite forces are for conducting strategic strikes against many types of assets both infront of and behind enemy lines, but you can't just send a small strike force with a mission like that into a large country like Afghanistan without support, and huge amounts of it.

---

I never really thought much about it, but Afghanistan is roughly the size of Texas. That's pretty big...ask any Texan!

[Silver Cheetah]

Y'know, bin Laden is a lot of things - but 'stupid' isn't one of them. In fact, the man seems almost fiendishly clever (and no, that adjective doesn't mean I am buying into the mindless good/evil polarities that a dismaying percentage of our politicians and media seem to favour...).

Given this, does anybody think for a second that he is holed up where American troops are going to be able to get at him? I don't think so, somehow. Is he even IN Afghanistan?

This dude knows what he's doing. So far, all is going to plan, with America and the West doing exactly what he wants - i.e. fighting a war in Afghanistan and getting the ordinary Middle Eastern man in the street riled up enough to start thinking that maybe old Osama *is* a hero, and maybe, yes, maybe the US is the source of all evil on the planet, just like Osama says, and should be destroyed. (Doesn't look good from afar, the richest country in the world bombing hell out of the poorest...)

Given the way al-Qaida operates, i.e. cells in countries all over the world, and drawing upon hordes of different organisations, the majority of members of whom have not even met Osama, the notion that bombing Afghanistan is going to make two pence worth of difference is a ridiculous notion, if you ask me. All that's happening is the situation is getting worse.

bin Laden's reach extends far far beyond Afghanistan. Taking out most of the country's infrastructure along with the Taliban (who seem to be proving somewhat more resistant than was first expected)is not really going to do a lot to to make the world safe from terrorism. I don't understand why on earth anybody would think that it would. What are you going to do, bomb the whole world to be safe? Terrorists hang out in locations all over the globe. You start bombing one place, they'll go some place else that's a little less uncomfortably 'warm' to make their preperations. Such preparations are frequently made in countries other than the ones they habitually reside in, in any case, witness the recent training of the Sept 11th attack pilots in Florida.

As 'the war against terrorism' gets more sophisticated, so will the terrorists. The notion that they'll just give up and go away because you're bringing big guns to bear in Afghanisatn just doesn't bear up. (Some of the other measures being taken may be more effective... )

Do people stop committing crimes because they'll get punished? Nope. Even when the death penalty was awarded for such crimes as stealing food, (in Britain, few hundred years ago) people still did it. Desperate people who are in need/feel strongly enough about something will always do what they feel they need to do to combat the perceived source of their desperation.

(Whether they are right about the source or not is not the matter I'm debating here, by the way... I'm talking about what they see as the problem - and that's what you are up against. People's beliefs - which currently has some British Muslims desperate to get to Afghanistan and join the fight against the west.)

Meanwhile, Pakistan is looking increasingly unstable, and India is *well* pissed off with the fact that econcomic sanctions have been and continue to be lifted. Much grumbling and mumbling...... by India, who no longer feel like America's fav rave in the area, (panic about Pakistan pinching their markets is currently rife, epecially in the huge textiles sector) and who continue to deeply resent Pakistani terrorist action in Kashmir. (Terrorist to them, freedom fighters to others... ) Tensions between India and Pakistan run deep at the best of times, now they're starting to run high as well. Great stuff. World War III, here we come... (potentially.)

Funny, when Bush got in, me and my Dutch friend Hester called each other to express our total fear and terror at what the world was getting itself into. 'He's got world war three written all over his forehead', she said.

We watched with horror as he stamped all over the multilateral treatys/agreements/conventions which much of the rest of the world had worked hard to put together. Then came September 11th, and we watched again as he incited the west to war, all of a sudden abandoning his prediliction for unilataralism, and going all multilateral instead.

'Anyone who is not for us is against us'. Hmmm... now, where have I heard that one before? Bush better start looking behind him then - support around the world is cooling off big time according to the list of public opinion polls I have right here in front of me. If the bombing continues into Ramadan, then those polls will start looking even less healthy than they do now...

[Yorick]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Silver Cheetah:
Then came September 11th, and we watched again as he incited the west to war,

---

Cheetah, to use your words... (don't read this Moni)

OH FOR FUCKS SAKE!

Are you forgetting that the single worst attack on the United States occured? That people from many nations died?

Are you forgetting that someone threw the first punch?

WTC was the incitement!!!

Whose side are you on Amanda? Whose side are you on?

[Yorick]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Silver Cheetah:

Funny, when Bush got in, me and my Dutch friend Hester called each other to express our total fear and terror at what the world was getting itself into. 'He's got world war three written all over his forehead', she said.

---

Did it occur to you that Bin Laden et al may have thought the same thing?

Why do you repeatedly refuse to apportion any blame on those that of their own volition destroyed the lives, careers and families of innocent civilians in New York?

This is such bullshit! Did Al Qa'eda send any food packages? Did Al Qa'eda try and minimalise civilian losses by attacking at 3am when the buildings would have been deserted?

No. MAXIMUM CIVILIAN DEATH was their aim.

Again I ask, whose side are you on?

Al Qa'eda wanted people like me DEAD. But for the grace of God I would be dead, as would many friends of mine.

Did I deserve this? Did I do anything to Mr Bin Laden? I AM NOT AMERICAN!!!!!

If the army has to commit destruction to prevent a nuclear bomb hitting New York so be it. Al Qa'eda started this and WILL NOT STOP!

Do you want me to die? Is that what you're implying? Because that is what will happen if Bin Laden is not reigned in. It is just a matter of time.

[Ladyzekke]

Well I've heard about those yellow food packages and cluster bombs. As Ronn Bman said, somebody is getting reamed big time right now for that! But I am still a big ignorant to what exactly a cluster bomb is. Obviously, it is not a bomb dropped that explodes on impact, or nobody would be worried about civilians accidentally picking one up thinking it was a food package. So how do they work? Timer? Remote? Just curious.

[Barry the Sprout]

I am not going to quote your post Silver Cheetah because it was a long one but I agreed with everything on it. It actually made me think about the way me and my friends joked about Bush when he was elected. 1500 dead and nothing to show for it - the homour is now wearing thin. I also don't beleive Osama is still in Afghanistan, why on earth would he stay and it is not as if there aren't places for him to go and hide. He knew that this war was going to happen some time and he is calling the shots. He has this on his own terms and it is not him getting killed. As Sun Tzu said (I can't remember the exact wording so please don't get angry if I am wrong) "If your enemy is arrogant then provoke him.".

In vietnam the US had a kill rate of 100 people for every solider dead, but the war was considered lost. Why? Because it didn't acheive its objectives. This war will equally fail to acheive its objectives. Already the deadline for it to finish has extended to 40 years, a good legacy for our grandchildren in my view. This is basically giving carte blanche to Bush and Blair to do what they like and kill who they like. If they have nothing to show for it then they can claim that "Rome wasn't built in a day" or similar. They will never acheive this objective, instead a lot of people will be killed.

The only thing I don't agree with in your post is the emphasis on Bush as an instigator. As brits it is possibly a bit easy for us to forget Blair's role in this but he is a lot more than 100% behind Bush. He is right up there with him every step of the way. He has already been described as the attack dog of the west and it is suprisingly true, what with his visits all over. We have a duty to protest against him as well as Bush.

BTW Silver Cheetah, there is a big anti war demo in London on the 18th. We need all the people we can get if you are intrested...

[Fljotsdale]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Silver Cheetah:
Y'know, bin Laden is a lot of things - but 'stupid' isn't one of them. In fact, the man seems almost fiendishly clever (and no, that adjective doesn't mean I am buying into the mindless good/evil polarities that a dismaying percentage of our politicians and media seem to favour...).

Given this, does anybody think for a second that he is holed up where American troops are going to be able to get at him? I don't think so, somehow. Is he even IN Afghanistan?

This dude knows what he's doing. So far, all is going to plan, with America and the West doing exactly what he wants - i.e. fighting a war in Afghanistan and getting the ordinary Middle Eastern man in the street riled up enough to start thinking that maybe old Osama *is* a hero, and maybe, yes, maybe the US is the source of all evil on the planet, just like Osama says, and should be destroyed. (Doesn't look good from afar, the richest country in the world bombing hell out of the poorest...)

Given the way al-Qaida operates, i.e. cells in countries all over the world, and drawing upon hordes of different organisations, the majority of members of whom have not even met Osama, the notion that bombing Afghanistan is going to make two pence worth of difference is a ridiculous notion, if you ask me. All that's happening is the situation is getting worse.

bin Laden's reach extends far far beyond Afghanistan. Taking out most of the country's infrastructure along with the Taliban (who seem to be proving somewhat more resistant than was first expected)is not really going to do a lot to to make the world safe from terrorism. I don't understand why on earth anybody would think that it would. What are you going to do, bomb the whole world to be safe? Terrorists hang out in locations all over the globe. You start bombing one place, they'll go some place else that's a little less uncomfortably 'warm' to make their preperations. Such preparations are frequently made in countries other than the ones they habitually reside in, in any case, witness the recent training of the Sept 11th attack pilots in Florida.

As 'the war against terrorism' gets more sophisticated, so will the terrorists. The notion that they'll just give up and go away because you're bringing big guns to bear in Afghanisatn just doesn't bear up. (Some of the other measures being taken may be more effective... )

Do people stop committing crimes because they'll get punished? Nope. Even when the death penalty was awarded for such crimes as stealing food, (in Britain, few hundred years ago) people still did it. Desperate people who are in need/feel strongly enough about something will always do what they feel they need to do to combat the perceived source of their desperation.

(Whether they are right about the source or not is not the matter I'm debating here, by the way... I'm talking about what they see as the problem - and that's what you are up against. People's beliefs - which currently has some British Muslims desperate to get to Afghanistan and join the fight against the west.)

Meanwhile, Pakistan is looking increasingly unstable, and India is *well* pissed off with the fact that econcomic sanctions have been and continue to be lifted. Much grumbling and mumbling...... by India, who no longer feel like America's fav rave in the area, (panic about Pakistan pinching their markets is currently rife, epecially in the huge textiles sector) and who continue to deeply resent Pakistani terrorist action in Kashmir. (Terrorist to them, freedom fighters to others... ) Tensions between India and Pakistan run deep at the best of times, now they're starting to run high as well. Great stuff. World War III, here we come... (potentially.)

Funny, when Bush got in, me and my Dutch friend Hester called each other to express our total fear and terror at what the world was getting itself into. 'He's got world war three written all over his forehead', she said.

We watched with horror as he stamped all over the multilateral treatys/agreements/conventions which much of the rest of the world had worked hard to put together. Then came September 11th, and we watched again as he incited the west to war, all of a sudden abandoning his prediliction for unilataralism, and going all multilateral instead.

'Anyone who is not for us is against us'. Hmmm... now, where have I heard that one before? Bush better start looking behind him then - support around the world is cooling off big time according to the list of public opinion polls I have right here in front of me. If the bombing continues into Ramadan, then those polls will start looking even less healthy than they do now...

---

I'm so proud to be your mom! Excellent post, puss-cat! Wish I had written it! [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Fljotsdale]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:


Did it occur to you that Bin Laden et al may have thought the same thing?

Why do you repeatedly refuse to apportion any blame on those that of their own volition destroyed the lives, careers and families of innocent civilians in New York?

This is such bullshit! Did Al Qa'eda send any food packages? Did Al Qa'eda try and minimalise civilian losses by attacking at 3am when the buildings would have been deserted?

No. MAXIMUM CIVILIAN DEATH was their aim.

Again I ask, whose side are you on?

Al Qa'eda wanted people like me DEAD. But for the grace of God I would be dead, as would many friends of mine.

Did I deserve this? Did I do anything to Mr Bin Laden? I AM NOT AMERICAN!!!!!

If the army has to commit destruction to prevent a nuclear bomb hitting New York so be it. Al Qa'eda started this and WILL NOT STOP!

Do you want me to die? Is that what you're implying? Because that is what will happen if Bin Laden is not reigned in. It is just a matter of time.

---

It is not a matter of 'sides', Yorick. It is a matter of common sense, which seems to have gone out the window on 9/11 (understandable, initially).
But it is quite clear that bombing Afghanistan is not achieving the stated aims, and is, in fact, destabilising whole nations. It could EASILY escalate into WW3, which I am quite sure is not at all what you want to experience, any more than I do.

[Silver Cheetah]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:
I am not going to quote your post Silver Cheetah because it was a long one but I agreed with everything on it. It actually made me think about the way me and my friends joked about Bush when he was elected. 1500 dead and nothing to show for it - the homour is now wearing thin. I also don't beleive Osama is still in Afghanistan, why on earth would he stay and it is not as if there aren't places for him to go and hide. He knew that this war was going to happen some time and he is calling the shots. He has this on his own terms and it is not him getting killed. As Sun Tzu said (I can't remember the exact wording so please don't get angry if I am wrong) "If your enemy is arrogant then provoke him.".

In vietnam the US had a kill rate of 100 people for every solider dead, but the war was considered lost. Why? Because it didn't acheive its objectives. This war will equally fail to acheive its objectives. Already the deadline for it to finish has extended to 40 years, a good legacy for our grandchildren in my view. This is basically giving carte blanche to Bush and Blair to do what they like and kill who they like. If they have nothing to show for it then they can claim that "Rome wasn't built in a day" or similar. They will never acheive this objective, instead a lot of people will be killed.

The only thing I don't agree with in your post is the emphasis on Bush as an instigator. As brits it is possibly a bit easy for us to forget Blair's role in this but he is a lot more than 100% behind Bush. He is right up there with him every step of the way. He has already been described as the attack dog of the west and it is suprisingly true, what with his visits all over. We have a duty to protest against him as well as Bush.

BTW Silver Cheetah, there is a big anti war demo in London on the 18th. We need all the people we can get if you are intrested...

---

I'm totally with you on Blair! Me and my friend Hester never had a conversation about him - maybe we shoulda done...

Re the anti-war thing - I'd love to come. Can't you get them to change the date? I'm in Somerset doing a 5 rhythms dance workshop - 5 day, residential. Finishes on the night of the 18th. As it cost £500, I'm unlikely to duck out.... But for the next one, maybe we could meet up?