Tweet
Hmm... Rasbelin, here's an old file or two from that era:
I'd have to dig deeper to find older
:
ON 9/26/01
THE ANDY_MAN Posted the following:
MING's response
The Emperor Fabulous-
DarkCloud-
The andy man
Ming
And so on... for 3 pages Thread started the 25th- up to 3 pages by the 26th
----
10-7-01 by Stefan Hartel-
etc.
I can dig up more if you like
I'd have to dig deeper to find older
:ON 9/26/01
THE ANDY_MAN Posted the following:
"War With Afghanistan a Waste of Time, money and lives.
Why is America so willing to goto war with Afghanistan (using British troops!).
Firstly, airstrikes will do little (much as they have done in Iraq). This is because most of the troops will be hidden in the mountains.
Secondly, this war would just be a repeat of Vietnam and The Russian Afghan war. Many Troops (non American, as it will be NATO ground forces (namely the British SAS) that the US will send in) will be slaughtered fighting an enemy that has the benifit of defensive terrain, knowlage of the terrain and SAS trainig. (Because when Russian was fighting America and Maggie Thatcher thought it a good idea to set up the Taliban to oppose Russia, and so had them SAS trained!).
There is also the problem of the worlds weakening economy. Even before the attack on the WTC, world economy was declining (it has now sped up). A long lasting war would be expensive and would most l;ikely cause a world recesiion on the magnetude of 1929.
Afghanistan (and Bin Laden) have been inteligent enough to call this a holy war, so most of the islamic world will rise in arms against the American 'devil'. And in Pakistan, there is massive anti American movements, so although the Govt. has said they may station troops there, the people will most likely raid the american bases and revolt against the govt.
Let us also remember that due to the withdrawal of UN Aid, over 5million Afghans will die of hunger before christmas.
The way i see it, in 2 years time we will have this situation:
USA, UK & India vs Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq (plus other Sympathisers).
I also see the western 'demorcracies' having their arse ****d around the middle eaast like a football
"
Why is America so willing to goto war with Afghanistan (using British troops!).
Firstly, airstrikes will do little (much as they have done in Iraq). This is because most of the troops will be hidden in the mountains.
Secondly, this war would just be a repeat of Vietnam and The Russian Afghan war. Many Troops (non American, as it will be NATO ground forces (namely the British SAS) that the US will send in) will be slaughtered fighting an enemy that has the benifit of defensive terrain, knowlage of the terrain and SAS trainig. (Because when Russian was fighting America and Maggie Thatcher thought it a good idea to set up the Taliban to oppose Russia, and so had them SAS trained!).
There is also the problem of the worlds weakening economy. Even before the attack on the WTC, world economy was declining (it has now sped up). A long lasting war would be expensive and would most l;ikely cause a world recesiion on the magnetude of 1929.
Afghanistan (and Bin Laden) have been inteligent enough to call this a holy war, so most of the islamic world will rise in arms against the American 'devil'. And in Pakistan, there is massive anti American movements, so although the Govt. has said they may station troops there, the people will most likely raid the american bases and revolt against the govt.
Let us also remember that due to the withdrawal of UN Aid, over 5million Afghans will die of hunger before christmas.
The way i see it, in 2 years time we will have this situation:
USA, UK & India vs Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq (plus other Sympathisers).
I also see the western 'demorcracies' having their arse ****d around the middle eaast like a football
"
Ahhhh... just another troll without a clue...
Wait...haven't I seen a post like this...about every ten minutes?
So? In a war anyone and anything is volatile.
I consider citizens of a country- regardless of their stance, just as guilty as the government if they cannot change the government.
At worst, the killing of the citizens will make all Afganies hate America and most of the world condemn the troops and other countries who make sanctions against Afghanistan.
I consider citizens of a country- regardless of their stance, just as guilty as the government if they cannot change the government.
At worst, the killing of the citizens will make all Afganies hate America and most of the world condemn the troops and other countries who make sanctions against Afghanistan.
America claims to be fighting for democracy - the 5million people that will die have never even heard of the WTC, are defensless against the taliban regeim (set up by US), and are inoccent of any crimes, not to mention it wasnt even afghanistan that attacked america (it was a terrorist attack).
And Ming, stop being an arsewhole and tell me why i am a troll.
And Ming, stop being an arsewhole and tell me why i am a troll.
Because all you are trying to do is get the americans to respond, and you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.
So you are a troll without a clue... it's that simple. Now go away and do some research about the facts before you continue to make an even bigger fool of yourself...
So you are a troll without a clue... it's that simple. Now go away and do some research about the facts before you continue to make an even bigger fool of yourself...
----
10-7-01 by Stefan Hartel-
Once a single civilian is killed...
Bush's speech on the attack on Afghanistan was nice, less patriotic than I had expected. I can only agree with what he said about the goals of this strike.
But I hope the Americans are careful with what they do. The destruction of power plants in Kabul and Kandahar would already be critical if the vast majority of Afghans would rely on electricity (which they don't). As long as the war is kept on an entirely military stage, as long as the targets are militaristic and governmental, it is allright, it is backened by a number of good reasons, arguments, viewpoints, etc.
But the entire thing will go into the plain unacceptable as soon as one civilian Afghan, be it of any cause, loses his or her life in result of these military strikes. It doesen't matter wether he becomes victim of a misguided missile or bomb or whatever (I have no idea what 'inventions' the US are using, and I don't really care either), starves to death due to the destruction of his only possible source of food or whatever.
As soon as one civilian dies, it is not vengeance against the terrorists, or the regime that backens then, but on an innocent people, and for this, it may righteously be called an "unprovoked attack".
I do believe Bush's words that the US are a friend to the Afghan people, as long as this people is spared.
If an Afghan civilian is killed in response to the people killed during the events of September 11th, it is vendetta, and this is unacceptable for a state and society such as the American, which considers itself the most advanced and modern in the world, and is considered at least a highly advanced one by others.
Aside from that it is entirely against the goals and ideals the US lay into this themselves.
There is no kill by accident. There just isn't. A lot of consideration must be layed into one thing before one can surely say that nobody is harmed or killed. If someone gets killed even though this consideration has been made, it's not an accident.
I hope the US army, air force, government, whatever, thinks about such things as well.
I couldn't change it, no matter what I did. Those who live in illusions may call that what I do 'praying'.
Bush's speech on the attack on Afghanistan was nice, less patriotic than I had expected. I can only agree with what he said about the goals of this strike.
But I hope the Americans are careful with what they do. The destruction of power plants in Kabul and Kandahar would already be critical if the vast majority of Afghans would rely on electricity (which they don't). As long as the war is kept on an entirely military stage, as long as the targets are militaristic and governmental, it is allright, it is backened by a number of good reasons, arguments, viewpoints, etc.
But the entire thing will go into the plain unacceptable as soon as one civilian Afghan, be it of any cause, loses his or her life in result of these military strikes. It doesen't matter wether he becomes victim of a misguided missile or bomb or whatever (I have no idea what 'inventions' the US are using, and I don't really care either), starves to death due to the destruction of his only possible source of food or whatever.
As soon as one civilian dies, it is not vengeance against the terrorists, or the regime that backens then, but on an innocent people, and for this, it may righteously be called an "unprovoked attack".
I do believe Bush's words that the US are a friend to the Afghan people, as long as this people is spared.
If an Afghan civilian is killed in response to the people killed during the events of September 11th, it is vendetta, and this is unacceptable for a state and society such as the American, which considers itself the most advanced and modern in the world, and is considered at least a highly advanced one by others.
Aside from that it is entirely against the goals and ideals the US lay into this themselves.
There is no kill by accident. There just isn't. A lot of consideration must be layed into one thing before one can surely say that nobody is harmed or killed. If someone gets killed even though this consideration has been made, it's not an accident.
I hope the US army, air force, government, whatever, thinks about such things as well.
I couldn't change it, no matter what I did. Those who live in illusions may call that what I do 'praying'.
I can dig up more if you like
Comment