I find it hard to believe that someone, such as yourself, with such callous disregard and contempt for poor people facing days and nights of carpetbombing would have difficulty usnig the word, #*!@. If it's going to be edited out, you can at least use fhit. Feces is too good for you.
posted on November 2, 2001 08:14:03 PM new
Don't you want to rant about gas prices again, internationalgolf?
I guess Helen brought the prospect of negotiation to your attention, and you have expressed your view of it's potential. but to say that any negotiation with any muslim is unwarranted makes odd the current practices of the bush administration, don't you think?
There is negotiation with those other afganis, with pakistan, with Iran. There is negotiation with Saudi Arabia. There are secondary negotiations taking place with other unpronouncable muslim places as we sit here right now. So much friendliness toward arabs that Isreal objects.
Doesn't the fact of all those other negotiations deflate your premise that it is useless to negotiate with muslims?
But all of this bombing has not served it's intended purpose, and the administration now admits that. Still it continues as if there is no other avenue imaginable to the people who press for it to be done. It does kill civilians. You say that muslims should not be considered civilians. But what of children too young to know even whether they are muslims or not?
The pictures that I posted are not faked. There's no reason to make fake pictures when the reality of indiscriminate bombing exists. You may not know it, but I do know that there is no way to predict the results of any of those explosions whether they are from supposed 'smart bombs' or not. Are you as ignorant of their force as the people who wondered the other day in another thread whether the pictured explosion and cloud of smoke was an indicator of someone using nuclear weapons? It was not. It was a picture of a pretty run of the mill bomb's resultant cloud. Maybe a 1000 lb bomb, maybe a 2000 lb. one. The damage and killing done by those little guys is appalling, and there are non nuclear bombs in our arsenals which could duplicate twice over the effects of the attack on the WTC.
Only a few weeks ago everyone was decrying the actions of the taliban against the afgani people. How is it that those same mistreated people, recipients of so much good will and of many millions of US humanitarian assistance have suddenly become one with their oppressors as an enemy to bomb?
posted on November 2, 2001 08:40:17 PM new
no, when the automatic #*!@ censor, censorers out words like #*!@, like your seeing now, you can go either use sh!t
or just s-h-i-t works also.
posted on November 2, 2001 08:50:34 PM new
What I find most frightening of all is the fact these terrorists actually lived among us for years -- plenty of time to "understand" us and to find at least something good about us -- like the children they passed every day in the street! Yet, they were willing to die in order to take a few thousand of us out with them and to disrupt our way of life.
That is very scary! You can never make them understand anything when the hate goes that deep. (And that was before we started bombing them -- no telling what they will try to do now). I agree that they would love to see us all dead. Nothing will change that so it is either them or us. I personally choose us.
In the first place, I would not send the first bomb to Afghanistan. As you can see, nothing has been accomplished. One day Rumsfeld says that bombs will never be effective and the next day he is sending B52's loaded to carpetbomb. It appears that they have lost their senses. And as the countries in the coalition view this spectacle and as the coalition falls apart, Tony Blair makes a vow that "military action will not end until bin Laden is brought to justice."
We are only killing more innocent people while we impress the Northern Alliance with our fire power and at the same time alienating the entire Mid East. And please don't tell me about the 5,000 victims we already have. I know that. But can you accept the fact that the number can rise above 5,000. Poor women, men and children who have no food or shelter. Their happiness is a bag of food falling from a plane before the bombs start to fall. Can't you find some compassion for these people also. We cannot focus only on the first 5000 and forget the additional deaths that can be prevented.
By rushing to call this a war with air strikes, I believe that we incited the terrorists even more. Instead of protecting our own country we are in Afghanistan fighting a civil war. What kind of sense does that make?
First, I thought that we should form a coalition of countries including Pakistan to face this problem together and by negotiation and diplomacy with improved intelligence and covert operations by special forces , I believed that we would have a good chance to cope with this problem.
It look's like the Bush administration has blown that option. Hell, they can't even hit the targets.
posted on November 2, 2001 10:17:36 PM new
That would have been the best plan, yes.
A peaceful, diplomatic negiotation with a coalition next to us.
Who would we be negotiating with? Well, the Taliban Regime, al Queeda, and whoever else that choose to show up. Maybe bin Laden, but only if he were so inclined.
Covert operations too of course, but only for information.
[/end sarcasm]
Compassion, yes of course I do.
I'm going to have compassion for the unemployed here, the ones that can't make
their mortgage payments, the ones in the unemployment and welfare lines. Not because of the bombings, but this would have started anyway, because some planes were hijacked here, some criminals, that we could never had negotiated with.
Compassion, of course we have compassion. And given the chance, American compassion would astound the people of Afghanistan, if not the world. But the enemies of the United States consider this a weakness and use it against us at every turn. Food that is being dropped, many times not feeding the hungry, but military personnel. Misinformation has us target hospitals, and relief warehouses. Yes, a few are going to get in the way, yes, this I have compassion and sorrow. These losses are consequences of war, and can't be avoided on either side.
You seem to misunderstand that they have declared war on us, and our way of life. If this is someone you wish to negiotiate with, well, I'll buy you the plane ticket.
posted on November 2, 2001 10:29:08 PM new
I ask the question "negotiate with who?" only to make a point. they are not a government that can be negotiated with, there is nothing to negotiate with.
posted on November 2, 2001 11:18:33 PM new"I'm also subscribing to all the European newspapers now"
The administration here can't control newspapers there.
Speaking of control, did you see bush's new order protecting his father's papers from historical research? What a good son he's turned out to be. If only he could negotiate world approval to start to REALLY bomb Iraq again, big Georgie could die a happy man.
posted on November 3, 2001 12:15:48 AM new
krs & hjw
Since when did we begin carpet bombing Afghanistan??? The two of you appparently have political beliefs which cause you to gross extentions of real or imagined "facts".
krs
You infer an extensive knowledge of US weaponry. If we were "carpet bombing" with B52 "arc light" missions or fuel air weapons, Afghanistan would not exist now. The photos are "not fake". Really??? How would you even begin to know?? Were you standing there when they were taken or know a reputable source who would verify them. I mean, I can drive over to Manhattan or hundreds of news agencies have shown the same thing. But a Muslim network supplying pictures is kind of like the pictures of Himmler giving sugar candy to Jewish children in WWII.
Helen
Our demands are:
1) turn over bin Laden and his supporters.
2) Do not allow your country to be a staging place for terrorists.
What part of this would you negotiate????
President Johnson extended an olive branch to get the N viets to the peace table. He stopped the bombing of supply routes and cities and "negotiated" for years with the enemy, who simply used the oppurtunity to resupply and kill more of our men. "Real" negotiations began when Nixon began bombing the crap out of them while negotiating.
Your frame of reference is as a "rich" American who wants to live and let live. You figure the earnest effort to "work something out" is a universal belief. There are people and countries that will take your hand only to sieze it to prevent defense while the stab you with the other. And there always have been such people. That's why in almost every war we've ever been in we get our brains beat out in the beginning.
posted on November 3, 2001 12:32:51 AM new
These folks that want the bombing stopped and to "negotiate" may see things in an enlightened manner pretty soon.
MSNBC just reported that 3 Pakistani scientists have been arrested for providing nuclear technology to bin Laden.
Perhaps those that are so self loathing that they can find nothing worth fighting for will change their minds when a major American city is vaporized.
posted on November 3, 2001 01:31:03 AM new
VERY old news, Reamond, at least in world press. To think that an ally would do that! You'd better find a deep hole somewhere.
desquirrel,
We've been carpetbombing, though I didn't use that term, for two or three days now along the 'front', whatever that means.
As to 'arclight', do you watch movies a lot? We used those missions in Vietnam for several years and last I saw it still exists. But you're right, I do have some knowledge of it as one of the things that were assigned me and mine to do was called 'BDAs' or bomb damage assessments during which we'd go at first light to fly over bombed areas to see and make a record of numbers of bunker complexes, tunnels, and anything else which had been destroyed by the previous night's missions. The bombing can and does cover wide swaths of ground area and destroys all foliage, trees, and anything else to a depth of about 20-30 feet depending on bomb loads. Those missions were often flown dropping 250 lb bombs in what were called 'sticks' of 20, I think, four sticks per plane and a dozen planes at a time. In truth I don't really know exactly how many bombers or bombs were used as these are things that were in the stories passed around. The planes came from Guam and Thailand, probably Okinawa. I only saw them if there was a full moon and their flights would pass in front of it. For daylight bombing all aircraft including ours had to be at least 10 kilometers away to avoid being knocked out of the air by the concussion waves. BDAs were just one of several types of missions we'd fly and we'd just find out about us going to do that in the morning. Generally we prefered to avoid doing it because it happened that someone somewhere wouldn't like a report and we'd have to go back out to confirm again what we'd reported the first time. Enough?
As to the photos, anyone who's seen (or had, for that matter) schrapnel wounds doesn't have to have been there. I'm sure that you would prefer that nobody who isn't a verified taliban got hurt by this bombing but unfortunately the bombs are not precise weapons, and with large ones if someone is anywhere withing a thousand yards of an impact stands a very good to excellent chance of suffering for it.
Oh, your timeline is askew, by the way. Johnson stopped the bombing of HANOI only on apr. 1, 1968 which brought the NLF to the table on May 13, 1968. He didn't negotiate for YEARS as you said, because he didn't run for president in Nov.1968. Nixon negotiated for YEARS before resuming the bombing of Hanoi.
[ edited by krs on Nov 3, 2001 01:41 AM ]
posted on November 3, 2001 02:27:00 AM new
krs
My college roommate's brother was in special forces hanging in treetops calling in the bombers. You are, of course, correct in saying these missions are the opposite of "pinpoint, but they are not directed at housing projects in Kabul. I would doubt there would be very many civilians in what is defined as the "front". Those guys have been 500 feet apart shooting at each other's bunkers for years.
I would certainly prefer if only "guilty Talibans" were killed but that's not possible.
posted on November 3, 2001 05:13:31 AM new
It seems as though the US defines the front to be whatever it bombs, and it wouldn't surprise me if there is a group of S1 (military intelligence) types totaling up the bodies, whatever bodies, to use in a future justification for the bombing as well as proof of it's efficacy.
But it just isn't working. The taliban are thriving under it, bin laden and his cronies are safe somewhere from it, and with each passing day the US is finding that it has demonstrated it's powerlessness by a show of force. Bombing is a timid approach to war. Call it preparation or prelude if you like but it is being done because it is virtually risk free. Now the opportunity to attack has passed, they can't even get the 'special forces' in any position where they might do some good, and the full blast of winter is upon them all, so they bomb. It's for lack of a better plan. And they build up. Now they talk of a spring offensive. The 'alliance' are not allied--they're a bunch of bickering tribes who've fought each other for centuries, yet the US has come to rely on them, playing one faction against the other in order to get anything that could be presented as a success. The administration is becoming desperate for a victory, any victory to show for all of this to the world and to the people of this country.
posted on November 3, 2001 09:12:49 AM new
outoftheblue, misinformation and incompetence are 2 different things.
Get in the way. I won't mention the unmentionable here, as it pisses some off (you know, what happened in Sept. when some big buildings and a lot of people 'got in the way') If someone keeps bringing it up, they say 'we know all that' and its like 'shut up already about it, we've heard enough' We need to have compassion for the innocent Afghanis that are starving and getting killed!
brienhold, I guess I didn't understand your question. If you mean you would like to negiotiate, and who is it the U.S. would negotiate with..... the answer *could* be the Taliban Regime, as it is, they use their own country as terrorist training grounds, and bin Laden is part of them, as his own country threw him out. They even repeatedly
said they would not turn over bin Laden, meaning they were 'keeping him safe'. But the ex spurts here know better.
If you remember the 'President' (most people here use quotes on that, or use the term 'selected' when referring to Pres. Bush)
said that anyone that harbours or gives aid to these terrorists are as guilty as the terrorist themselves, then that sure would mean that the Taliban Regime are as guilty as any terrorist. (but the ex spurts would know the real answer, that is only speculation)
But please ignore this, the ones in charge here, and know what is going to happen, and knows more military strategies, and negotioations than anyone in D.C. are a couple posters that only use their intials, I think you know the ones. They are the only ones that know the right thing to do and the only competent and sensible answers to this whole thing. They are the only true American patriots.
Soon if not already, the ones that do support the bombings in Afghanistan will be labeled baby killers, war mongers, and the real strategy here is to get Iraq, and finish Daddy Bushs' job which btw I hold to the belief that Iraq had/has a lot to do with this whole frikking mess.
posted on November 3, 2001 09:40:56 AM new
"But please ignore this, the ones in charge here, and know what is going to happen, and knows more military strategies, and negotioations than anyone in D.C. are a couple posters that only use their intials, I think you know the ones. They are the only ones that know the right thing to do and the only competent and sensible answers to this whole thing. They are the only true American patriots.
posted on November 3, 2001 10:08:48 AM new
I beginning to think that those posters (the ones you just quoted from my post) are about to give me a suspension or a really big warning
posted on November 3, 2001 11:42:52 AM new"I hold to the belief that Iraq had/has a lot to do with this whole frikking mess"
Which of course makes YOU the expert who ought to advise the resident, eh? In that case what do you intend to advise the resident do about rumsfeld who has said that he doesn't know anymore what to do? Don'y you think that as the official know it all you have a responsibility to share your knowledge with him?
Oh, you're not a know it all, you say? Instead you are a patriot and so will believe in your resident? Sorry, but in case you don't know blind obedience has nothing to do with patriotism, nor does unquestioningly repeating the company line as though it were your own. Any other robotic dope can do those things for you quite well. Oh, then, you say that you are not a patriot if it means that you should question your resident? Fine, then expect no more that any other robotic dope should receive. It's good followers like you who have made every despot in history a happy man.
posted on November 3, 2001 12:09:52 PM new
We could I suppose send Jesse Jackson and krs to Kabul to beg indulgences from the Taliban and al Qaida, and negotiate for the 5000 murdered here in America.
Naw... let the B 52s and FA 18s do the negotiating. They're doing a much better job.
Bush is pursuing the correct strategy that may assure his re-elction, that is what disturbs krs. Anything Bush does right, his detractors will find a problem with.
I didn't vote for Bush, but I am not such a zealot that I would call his policy wrong, even when it is right.
posted on November 3, 2001 12:12:34 PM new
No Ken I am not, by far!, a know it all.
I said I hold to a belief, excuse me, is this better: it is in my opinion.
Nor am I a robot.
And I sure do not know what the hell you mean when you type 'resident' I don't know what that is supposed to mean.
You can sit and post all day long, be the armchair General here, as you've tried to be for so long. Try to convince the internet world to your way of thinking, the ones that belong to a message board. Now you have a parrot to sing praises of your intellect and political leanings, and echo your opinions.
And do links to anything that only is agreeable to your mindset.
Ken, I'm outta here. You and your shadow can agree on everything together. That should make for interesting conversations. Since you nor your shadow,can agree to disagree on anything with anyone elses opinion, seems its yours or nothing, should prove to be a pretty mundane place to read.
JMHO
posted on November 3, 2001 12:32:45 PM new
So happy in your 'opinion' that your children should be put to death because you are possibly associated with a criminal.
What! You didn't say that? Why sure, you must have. I bring a thread about innocent victims of this holocaustic bombing actions and you say that they are not innocent, they are taliban and they desrve to die because they killed, ahem, about 3000 people at the WTC.
When did those children sign up? Oh, from birth they are raised that way! Really? Now who's the expert? That little bit of gossip can't be supported anywhere as a universal truth. But THEY want to kill us all! (help me) So annihilate everyone anywhere in the area just to be safe. Think that makes you safe? Sorry stupid, it's about world opinion not yours. And the world is growing very unhappy with the US for indiscriminate killing without any basis presented that anyone there did anything whatsoever to further any jihad aim.
But even if the taliban as a military force did in any way perpetrate the WTC attack, they are not an entire nation of people. Killing the nation because you can't catch the bad guys is counter to every principle that this country has presented to the world as an advantage of our way of life.
Now, bear in mind that these are my opinions, Knowing that because they don't agree with your so carefully drawn repititions I should never think to utter them, but I do.
And if you leave because of that, good riddance to another hypocrite.
posted on November 3, 2001 12:54:00 PM new
Well as soon as someone at auction watch will remove my credit card number, I hope someone is reading, and has read my email to remove it..
One more thing, maybe two, (you seemed pissed Ken)
I don't need to be a hypocrite to leave, thats total nonsense, in what way am I showing any hypocrisy by leaving
I've seen you put down so many people over the last few years. Wow, I remember you telling ME that, 'ah don't worry about it, its just a chatboard, who cares' do you remember that? Yes you were 'in' with AW, anyone else would have suspended your ass.
So this may seem or look so juvenile, but oh, so appropriate right now, I don't care what you or your shadow thinks, so Ken,
just F-U-C-K O-F-F
can't help it, ROTFLMAO
you did seem pretty cool at one time, what happened? Not enough followers?
