PDA

View Full Version : Kick-off in Afghanistan


El Grifo
7th Oct 2001, 21:44
Well,
Unless I am very much mistaken,it appears the Game is now underway in Afghanistan.
We watch and wait once again. Poor old Yvonne Ridley

Gulfpilot4
7th Oct 2001, 21:59
According to reports, she is released already. What happens next is another matter.

El Grifo
7th Oct 2001, 22:26
I heard they had delayed her release until tomorrow, when they were going to hand her over to the British High Commission at the Pakistani Border. I hope that report was incorrect. In the light of recent events her future could be very insecure.I suppose people will be asking if it was perhaps a little insensitive of the Pentagon to start the action knowing that a National from their "Staunchest Ally" was about to be released. I assume that they beleive this thing to be bigger than the interests of one person. If all of this is true,and her release is compromised, I would expect a minor backlash in UK :eek:

SomewhereOverHere
7th Oct 2001, 23:11
According to a text item on CNN the Taliban say she was released today. Hope so!

Apparently US and UK are attacking three cities in Afghanistan. CNN were talking about sub launched cruise missiles. Blair sounded very grim and determined in his statement just now.

VIKING9
7th Oct 2001, 23:14
Kick ass http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/usa.gif There is nowhere to hide http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/anon.gif

Airbubba
7th Oct 2001, 23:37
>>I suppose people will be asking if it was perhaps a little insensitive of the Pentagon to start the action knowing that a National from their "Staunchest Ally" was about to be released.<<

The Pentagon certainly doesn't need the UK's permission to start an attack. However, we always appreciate the loyalty to our cause shown by the UK and its forces. Just because some idiot reporter tries to cross the border with no passport and gets caught is no reason to let the enemy escape justice. Do you remember a similar incident with CBS reporter Bob Simon during the Gulf War? Also, I'll remind you there are several Americans held by the Taleban who will be used for full P.R. advantage on CNN in the coming days.

While other countries are trying to decide whether to get involved, Britain has stood with us on the front line as we strike back against these bastards. See PM Blair's speech moments ago for more...

Thanks and God Save the Queen!

[ 07 October 2001: Message edited by: Airbubba ]

[ 07 October 2001: Message edited by: Airbubba ]

sanjosebaz
8th Oct 2001, 00:19
They just showed Osoilmy Bed-Linen on TV, recorded (apparently) "earlier today". a$$hole is still saying that America will never feel security again as long as there is no security in Palestine.

The sooner that [email protected] and his mates are wiped off the face of the earth, the better.

My thoughts are with the military of many countries and their families.

sanjosebaz
8th Oct 2001, 00:24
[ 07 October 2001: Message edited by: sanjosebaz ]

Father Dougal
8th Oct 2001, 00:34
Airbubba's right. I sincerely hope and pray Yvonne Ridley returns to the UK in one piece but it has to be remembered that she was a journalist chasing a story and put herself at risk.

If the retaliation was compromised due to the effort being expounded in securing the release of one British journalist, who knew very well the possible consequences of her actions, then I think there would be more than a minor backlash in the US.

I don't want this to sound like an anti-journo post - she's obviously got guts - but there was no reason for her to be where she was. Meanwhile my thoughts are with her small daughter and I, like everyone else, wish to see her home safe. :(

tiger burn
8th Oct 2001, 01:04
Here Here Father Dougal. She knew the risks, took the chance & can only be responsible for the outcome - I doubt the story was worth it. Now I sincerely hope she is safe & comes home swiftly but I don't think I'll be buying the book. And dare I admit it, I'm female & a writer.

Any news on the imprisoned aid workers arrested for "preaching" Christianity?

Thoughts & prayers with our lads (& lasses)out there.

1 2 GO
8th Oct 2001, 01:16
Wishing all the Brits and Americans the best of luck, my thoughts are with you and your families. Proud of you all :p

fire wall
8th Oct 2001, 02:07
Sorry Father, people often mistake courage/guts for shear stupidity.
I wish the woman well but question her lack of grey matter leaving a young child in the UK to cross the pakistan/afgan border minus a passport in such times. You do not need to be a rocket scientist to work this one out.

Superpilot
8th Oct 2001, 02:13
yeah "Poor old Yvonne Ridley".

As much as I hate Osama for what he's done, that comment about Palestine must not be thrown out the window, take heed.

[ 07 October 2001: Message edited by: Superpilot ]

El Grifo
8th Oct 2001, 02:29
“The Pentagon certainly doesn't need the UK's permission to start an attack. However, we always appreciate the loyalty to our cause shown by the UK and its forces.”

Ok Airbubba keep your hair on. I think you have just affirmed what we all know deep down. Of course America will do exactly what it wants to do in this campaign, this attack on blind faith terrorism. However it is not “”Your Cause”. It is the problem of free thinking, civilised people all, over the world. Your president (and I say your President, because I assume from your rhetoric that you are actually American) will act in what ever way he deems fit. But having easily captured the consensus of most of the prominent world leaders, he would do well to retain that consensus.
I agree in part, about the recklessness of Yvonne Ridley’s incursion into Afghanistan. On a different day, in a different country, in different circumstances, some would hail her as a brave, story hungry, journo who risked all to get “The Big Story” History is littered with characters like her.
I simply stated an inarguable fact, if she is still in the hands of the Taleban, then she is in deep trouble, as a result of the timing of the strikes.
Nobody could seriously suggest that a strike operation of this magnitude could have been delayed to spare the life of one person however, that in no way will diminish the babble of words and the wave of sympathy/revulsion that will undoubtedly follow any anouncement of her "disappearance" in the hands of the Taleban. Facts are facts.
Regarding the assault on America
One day, sometime in the future the question is going to be asked.” why could any living, thinking, breathing supposedly “god fearing” group of people, ever plan and carry out an attack like this, on innocent people on the american mainland. I fear it will take Philosophers not Historians to come up with the answer.

As a postscript, I say to Viking - - - - - grow ! :confused:
null

[ 07 October 2001: Message edited by: El Grifo ]

Flap 5
8th Oct 2001, 02:31
I can not believe how a female reporter would go in to Afghanistan. Knowing how the Taliban treat their own women how could someone do such a thing? The ordinary law abiding women there are not entitled to education or medical treatment so how they treat their women prisoners doesn't bear thinking about.

Airbubba
8th Oct 2001, 03:01
>>...However it is not “”Your Cause”. It is the problem of free thinking, civilised people all, over the world. Your president (and I say your President, because I assume from your rhetoric that you are actually American) will act in what ever way he deems fit. But having easily captured the consensus of most of the prominent world leaders, he would do well to retain that consensus...<<

Well, like I said other countries are mumbling and fumbling but the Americans and Brits are doing something about it.

____________________________________________


You won’t see Europe in the trenches

Britain aside, NATO’s all dressed up with nowhere to go

ANALYSIS
By Michael Moran
MSNBC

LONDON, Oct. 7 — The Sept. 11 attacks on the United States brought unmistakable changes to Europe’s prosperous democracies. Armed soldiers reappeared in force on German, French and Spanish streets for the first time since the 1980s. NATO pledged to regard the attacks as an act of war against all its members — 17 of them in Europe. There have been moments of silence, canceled weddings, calls to curtail civil liberties and issue national identity cards. Europe’s Muslims, far more numerous than their American counterparts, have been assaulted and denounced. But outside Tony Blair’s Britain, Europe is hardly at war.

AS THE UNITED States and Britain have stitched together a broad and fragile alliance for a military campaign that will target the alleged perpetrators — extremist leader Osama bin Laden and his protectors in Afghanistan’s Taliban regime — the rest of Europe has been wondering what it all means for them...


http://www.msnbc.com/news/638473.asp?0dm=C1BRN

bean_counter
8th Oct 2001, 03:01
I believe as well as UK journo there are also US citizens held in Afghanistan for attempting to preach christianity -
all of these people would have either known the risks or been told of the danger by their govt/employer and still decided to go -
yes they are now in more danger, but they also have to take reponsibility for their own actions. it's not like you can accidentally get there !
this thing is bigger than a few hostages

El Grifo
8th Oct 2001, 03:32
Airbubba
I wish I knew exactly what it is you are trying to say. You are failing to insult me if that is your tack, because I am British. I also support what Tony Blair is doing and saying. I also beleive that the firmest retribution should be brought down on the heads of Bin Laden and his monkey band of followers. What precisely is your point :confused:

Strobin' Purple
8th Oct 2001, 05:34
Maybe Airbubba's a little confused by your staggeringly naive comments about " a minor backlash in the UK", about some mind-numbingly stupid woman smuggling herself into a warzone run by one of the most brutal and misogynistic regimes seen in medieval times....without any papers/passport/ID. And we're supposed to postpone a war for this halfwit? What planet are you from El G?

Maybe the Taliban will go easy on her when she tells them that back home she's shacked up with one of their mates from the PLO. Anyway good luck to her despite the fact that she is the architect of her own misfortune, may be she'll have to take her chances like quite a few other professionals in or over Afghanistan tonight.

SKYDRIFTER
8th Oct 2001, 08:01
Hmmmm...

A Senator on Larry King Live commented that the Air Force had been practicing the humanitarian food drops to the Afghanis for a year and that the mission went well.

I could have sworn the crisis started just last month. I assume he knows more than I do.

ABGO
8th Oct 2001, 09:21
SuperPilot's point (07 2113hrs) is very compelling.

The sooner the UN ( primarily the US and Western World allies) brings pressure to bear on Israel and Palestine to stop the vengeful killing and maiming of innocents - under whatever pretext - and establishes a lasting peaceful co-existence, the fuel/justification for international terrorism by Islamic believers will persist.
If we are to accept globilization in every other context then Americans and the rest of us must embrace the concept of personal security equality: that a Palestinian deserves to feel just as secure in going about his daily life as an American! Until then the words of Bin Laden give every disaffected zealot justification for their 'get evens' motivation.

Raining 50 cruise missiles etc., upon so-called military targets in Afganistan is a 'cop-out' from facing up to the hard task of controlling Israel and securing peace with equality for Palestine.

Meanwhile President Bush's 'Ambassador at Large' - Mr Tony Blair - continues to use the 11 Sep tragedy as an escape, a convenient diversion, a 'cop-out' for not facing up to the terrorism being practised weekly in Northern Ireland, again by vengeful individuals using feud pay-backs and religion as their justification.

If indeed President Bush and Mr. Blair are for real about destroying all who support terrorism, how come the organizations and individuals in the USA that have supported the IRA with money and arms have not been arrested? How come Mr. Blair has not insisted upon that as a start point, knowing for many years of the facts and details?

If they are to demonstrate consistency in this their first military application of anti-terrorism policy are we soon to see cruise missiles raining down on Boston and other concentrations of southern Irish immigrants and their descendants in the US of A ?

LevelFive
8th Oct 2001, 10:44
Taliban Song (http://members.home.net/beverlyhmcmahon/dayo.mp3)

PCav8or
8th Oct 2001, 10:57
This strike was long overdue. The only way out of this mess is to liquidate the ba***rds with extreme prejudice!!! No mercy!!!!! :mad:

flapsforty
8th Oct 2001, 12:11
Despite ambivalent feelings on the effectiveness of the whole thing, and the sadness at the inevitable loss of life that will be the result of these attacks, I do think I see Airbubba's point.

A lot of posturing and talk from European leaders, but at the end of the day, the USA and the UK are the ones that take the action.

Sitting at home cringing at having to explain to my kids that both our "home countries" once again are too cowardish to get involved.

The people of the USA and the UK have my greratest respect for standing up to the Taliban governement and the terrorists it shelters.

And my heart goes out to all the mothers whose sons & daughters will be put in harm's way, be they Christian or Muslim.

enginefailure
8th Oct 2001, 12:52
el grifo: WAR IS NO GAME !!!!!!!!!!!!

El Grifo
8th Oct 2001, 12:55
So,
In Summary the general consensus seems to be. Screw Ms Ridley, she is an idiot and lets Carpet bomb "The Taleban" back into some non-specific era prior to the stoneage. Phew, I am glad this is a site generaly browsed by educated people, otherwise the opinions could get a little gauche :eek:

1.3VStall
8th Oct 2001, 12:57
ABGO,

Don't worry, having sorted out OBL and his towel-headed chums, the alliance will turn its attention nearer home.

A cruise missile attack on Dublin will be the precursor to an invasion of Ireland to sort out once and for all a regime that harbours the World's second most successful terrorist regime and its arms dumps.

In your dreams!

Suit
8th Oct 2001, 16:59
1.3VStall,

You really are a bit dim aren't you?

If that post was a lame attempt at a joke then you are in need of help, if that was serious then you are beyond help.

Suit

El Grifo
8th Oct 2001, 18:56
Suit,
Get a life. On a thread which seems to consist of Mainly but not All, bigoted meatheads, ABGO's comments are the most level headed and perceptive around. Irony and humour are often the only tools available, when discussing sheer,crushing, obscene situations,the likes of which we are undoubtedly faced with.

Suit
8th Oct 2001, 19:15
El Grifo,

Have a life thanks.

My comments were aimed at 1.3VStall not ABGO.

Read you fives how me?

Suyit

1.3VStall
8th Oct 2001, 19:27
Suit,

Ever heard of sarcasm?

1.3VStall
8th Oct 2001, 19:31
Suit,

Never heard of sarcasm?

sanjosebaz
8th Oct 2001, 19:32
Full text of Bin Laden's (pre-recorded) misguided rant: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1585000/1585636.stm

El Grifo
8th Oct 2001, 19:46
Suit, read you loud and kleer,
However, you do understand what 1.3V Stall is getting at I take it ??

Flap 5
8th Oct 2001, 19:54
Well that rant by OBL was as good as a confession. Bit of an own goal I thought! If there was any doubt at his involvment of the events of 11 September there isn't any more.

As a Brit I would like to make a contribution to the annoyance we feel at once again being the only country in Europe to effectively do something to deal with this problem. Lots of nice words from other european countries but not a lot else.

Warthog 1
8th Oct 2001, 19:55
LEVEL5--Taliban Song--**** HOT--Liked it a lot.
SKYDRIFTER--The USAF has been airdropping food and provisions to the Kurds in Northern Iraq for many moons--doesn't much matter who's on the receiving end, the aircrews are pretty proficient.

sanjosebaz
8th Oct 2001, 19:58
Well at least the French have promised "action" ... we'll see

Suit
8th Oct 2001, 20:05
1.3VStall,

SarCasm? Yeah I've heard of it, in fact I learnt to fly there.............or was that SouthCerney?

Fair point 1.3, I shouldn't take posts out of context.

Suit

tiger burn
8th Oct 2001, 20:55
Ho hum.......do I detect a slight air of antagonism on this thread? Those poor souls recently imprisoned for allegedly "preaching" Christianity were bona fide aid workers - not missionaries - there have been whispers that they will be used as human shields.

Sorry El G, but a story "at all costs" of Afghanistan (gender persecution & current political climate taken into account)does not a hero make. Kate Adie she 'aint & thinking about it, you can't compare her actions to those of the late Alison Hargreaves either.

Here's to PEACE ASAP.

tb

Paterbrat
8th Oct 2001, 21:10
El Grifo, on reading through the thread, it did not appear to me that you were in any way sympathising with Ousama, the taliban or against military action, but had simply commented that it was perhaps insensitive of the US to start just before Yvonne 'might' have been released, and that it might provoke a minor backlash in the UK.
Perhaps a slightly naive comment is all I might venture. There are events in history that sadly take scant consideration of individuals and sadly in the scale of things Yvonne was a very tiny particle.
That she is a women of great courage there is little doubt, that it is tragic for her to have left a daughter also, but that there should be a backlash on account of her, I hope not.
There is a battle at the moment with a force and a man that threatens many with violent and unprovoked assault to suit his interpretation of world events. There are many unsatisfactory and unresolved conflicts in the world today including the one of the Palastinians however their methods of indiscriminate suicide killing is repugnant and is part of the bigger problem today that we are attempting to begin to try and sort out in an admittedly imperfect way. But since Bin Ladin openly declared war first it seems unsurprising that at last some action is being taken to try and do something about him.
I am not nor have been a Labour supporter nor till recently did I have much time for Tony Blair. I can however say that I wholeheartedly support his recent actions and the stand he has taken, and am fully in support of the present Goverments stance in the support of the USA.He has definitely gone up in my estimation

tiger burn
8th Oct 2001, 21:58
Paterbrat - forgive my bee in a bonnet stance re Yvonne Ridley ......but I don't think her actions can be termed courageous. They were undoubtably self motivated & what exactly was she trying to prove? She certainly would not have had official protection & to defy Foreign Office's instructions in this circumstance is blatantly ignorant. Perhaps the carrot was too big....her courage would have been apparent had she walked away from it. I hope she's safe.

tiger burn
8th Oct 2001, 22:31
Have just heard the good news - Yvonne Ridley is free & has arrived in Pakistan.

El Grifo
8th Oct 2001, 23:39
Excellent News tiger burn.

Maybe I will duck back down behind the barrier and get on with my knitting.
Some excellent points tho'

Ain't freedom of speech just great :cool:

PETERJ
8th Oct 2001, 23:40
FLAP5

I blame her employers. There was a well known British TV reporter who managed earlier to get into Afghan land dressed as a woman in that burquah gear the Taliban impose on their woman. I,m told he even did a piece to camera dressed in it. She was on the spot, she was a professional reporter......guess what her editor might have demanded of her :mad: Gutsy lady who got it wrong.....good luck to her

tiger burn
9th Oct 2001, 00:21
El Grifo - hope you've got those sandbags in place!!

LatviaCalling
9th Oct 2001, 00:51
PETERJ,

That well-known British reporter is now safe and sound with the Northern Alliance in northern Afghanistan in a nice wolly jacket expounding his very self-important views for the BBC.

El Grifo
9th Oct 2001, 00:57
Amigo,
When you see the beaches on this wee part of the planet, then you know that you do not need sandbags. ;)

whatshouldiuse
9th Oct 2001, 01:14
All;


Some very insightful, informative posts.


My views, don't send Christian missionaries or journalists to a country where Christianity is frowned upon. These people do not nor ever will have the same beliefs as the Western Civilization and trying to convert them is a direct insult to their upbringing. Having said that, may the remaining "relief workers" get out safely.

Secondly, most Americans don't want a war with Afghanistan, let alone anybody else. We saw what Russia accomplished in 10 years and that wasn't very much. And at the time the USSR was a superpower. All we want are the terrorists and their financial suppliers who perpetrated the most cowardly, rotten attack on humanity ever known to man.


A lot of kids overhere now (15 - 17 years old) are very fearful this will be drawn out for years and they will be drafted to fight. They have nothing against Afghanistan, but they do know right from wrong. And while they realize the WTC was a nightmare straight from Hell, they have no desire to spend 3 years of their lives searching caves for a nutter who has no comprehension of decency. Why should they?


Let's hope sane minds prevail, because this could become a lot nastier before it becomes a lot better.


Whatshouldiuse

tiger burn
9th Oct 2001, 02:32
I think its already becoming dirtier. It looks as if the poor chap who succombed to anthrax in Florida may have been intentionally exposed to it. Apparently a coworker has presented with similar symptoms.If this is true & the FBI can prove the spores were specifically introduced, then it freaks me. :mad:

Budgie69
9th Oct 2001, 02:53
Looks like somebody has been reading his Tom Clancy terrorism manuals.

Strobin' Purple
9th Oct 2001, 03:56
Or may be just watching the news Budgie. Perhaps you should try it.

Strobin' Purple
9th Oct 2001, 04:16
Apologies Budgie, upon rereading the last part of the thread I realise you were probably weren't taking the p*ss.

But....

El G, merely because I don't subscribe to your less than robust attitudes, ie "stop the war, journo in danger" makes me neither a bigot, ineducated nor narrow minded. It means I have an opinion which as we all know are like a**eholes: everyone has one. But as you alluded to in your last post that's the great thing about living in a democracy.

Just as well there are some people willing to do something to protect that right huh?

God bless the Yanks for having the balls and thank our lucky stars that the faceless, unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels have been neatly and effectively sidelined so far. They're probably all still in a meeting trying to come to agreement on the wording for a condemnation of the events of Sept 11, or fiddling their allowances, whatever.

swashplate
9th Oct 2001, 04:26
Budgie:

Is it fair to blame Mr Clancy? How do you know that they couldn't have come up with these ideas anyway? Everyone has an arsehole to be sure, but also, everyone has grey matter....

Maybe Mr Clancy's books have effectivleyblown some of these ideas out of cover? Terrorism is all about surprise remember....

Like I said on the Mil forum, I hope the forces all come back safe having actually achieved something other then the redistribution of rubble.....

So many Armies, in so many wars, have just pissed off the local people and ended up with a huge guerilla problem.... :(

El Grifo
9th Oct 2001, 14:09
Strobin'purple,
By you own admission, you are not very good at absorbing what has been scribed on the pages (See apologies to Budgie 69) To say that I suggested "stopping the "war" because of a journo in trouble" is exactly the kind of misrepresentation that leads to all sorts of problems downstream, Its the kind of [email protected] that politicians spout. Check out paterbrats summary on page three. He has picked up the general sentiment of this thread pretty well.

Oddly enough, somone further back chastised me by saying "WAR IS NOT A GAME" I hope he seen the comments from the F14 driver, saying that as he flew in to Afghanistan he was part of a precisely timed operation that consisted of B1, B2 and F-- Bombers all coming in in blocks at differing altitudes and speeds. "IT WAS JUST LIKE THE SUPERBOWL" says he :confused:

Techman
9th Oct 2001, 19:51
To Flap 5, Airbubba and ......

Get off your high horse, bombing a clapped out third world country, whos biggest assets are dirt and rubble, isnt the only way to "do something about it". It is probably the least effective way to combat terrorism, but I guess it looks good on television. And who would miss a good photo opportunity?, surely not Tony.

As you know or should know NATO has activated the "Musketeer" article and has asked the U.S. what they need from them. So far it has mostly been use of bases and airspace, but who knows what will be next.
Or do you want an aircraft from each NATO nation to drop a bomb on Afghanistan?.

"Doing something" has a lot more facets than sitting a thousend miles away lobbing cruise missiles. But that never makes the news.

SKYDRIFTER
9th Oct 2001, 20:06
Anybody hearing of any strikes on bin Laden's camps. The USA media mentions them, but nothing to say it's a serious effort. Nothing on striking the opium fields, either.

Techman
9th Oct 2001, 20:37
Dont believe everything your are told.
Untrue things are being said, in order to shape the public opinion.

Remember who the first casualty in war is.
http://www.undcp.org/newsletter_2001-06-30_1_page002.html

Oldjet Jockey
9th Oct 2001, 23:15
An interesting thread with basically the hawks and the doves. Lets try to put the two together.

There is no doubt at all that those responsible for Sept. 11 must be brought to justice, but if we just stop there there will be more fanatics to come and the revenge and counter revenge attacks will continue for many years to come as is the case in Northern Ireland.

We must get to the root cause of the agression, which seems to be, rightly or wrongly, a feeling that the west and the USA in particular have for years been too hard on arabs. Any one who can get hold of a copy of Winston Churchill's memories of the second world war should read the first chapter in which he describes the folies of the victors of the first world warin forcing financial sanctions on Germany. The result was economic disaster in that land, and while one may say they deserved it, it was the general population and not so much the politicians who suffered. This allowed an extreemist called Adolph Hitler to come to power and persuade the population to follow him into Naziism. So came about the second world war. After the Gulf war the sanctions on Iraq have led to an increased popularity of Sadam Hussain, and enormous resentment towards the west. I have no time for Mr Hussain but the policy of sanctions does nothing but create resentment and hatred. There must be better ways of dealing with tyrants and our leaders should be puting much more effort into finding the ways to get rid of these people without hurting the majority of the populations.

The privations of the population of Afganistan have been going on for years and it is only since 11th. September that leaders such as King Tony have talked of humanitarian aid. He loves to make political capital out of other peoples misery. Why wasn't something done to aid these poor people years ago. If it had been the 11th. September might have been just an ordinary day.

Dont get me wrong I am in no way trying to justify these cruel attacks, just trying to look more closely at the reasons behind them.
There is a big difference between causes and justification, and in no way was this terrorism justified. Bringing the perptators to justice may be the first step, but will never permanently solve the problem unless the causes are removed.

:(

Paterbrat
10th Oct 2001, 03:08
An attempt is being made as we speak to remove the cause.

Oldjet Jockey
10th Oct 2001, 11:49
Yes I am very happy to see that some attempts are being made to remove the causes of terrorisme and I sincerely hope they succeed. What a pity it is that our politicians and leaders ignored the lessons of history and did nothing before. If they had, several thousand innocent civilians would not have been brutally killed and perhaps many more underprivileged people in the world may have had better prospects of a normal life.

Celtic Emerald
10th Oct 2001, 15:38
The end of the world is nigh :p

Emerald

Tricky Woo
10th Oct 2001, 19:08
It seems to me that the airstrikes on Afghanistan are a very early prelude to forces on the ground which can only arrive much, much later. Probably months and months away to be honest.

Maybe Bush was one of the many, many Americans that got frustrated and then bored waiting for CNN to show something interesting during the six months or so that it took to build up forces ready to tackle Iraq in 1991? So an early air strike of some sort was always on the cards: gotta be seen to do SOMETHING after the horrible events of the 11th of September.

Am I being cynical? Is October really the best month to begin a military campaign in Afghanistan?

As soon as the various allies have total air supremacy, (er, about two days from now) then we can look forward to a winter and early spring of A10s and Apaches wandering over Afghanistan at will, firing at anything that moves. Nasty business for anyone on the ground, but safe(ish) as houses for the allies.

A quick spin or two, and the only dead reported in Afghanistan will be Taliban forces. And the odd A10 that flies into an Afghan mountain in IMC.

Then, finally, the land forces move in... six months or so from now; which is when people on the allied side will start to die... nastily, and in far larger numbers than the Gulf War has led us to believe, or find acceptable. This is NOT Kuwait; this is NOT the Desert Campaign of WWII; this is squaring up to be much more of a guerilla war, à la Yugoslavia 1941-1945; or Vietnam, Lord help us.

Even worse, the Allied armies will likely spend years there trying to eradicate Taliban forces... rather like the Russians did from 1980 through to 1989.

Meanwhile, what exactly are the military aims this time around? It seems to me that the general aims that are being touted are to:

1. Overthrow the Taliban 'government'.
2. Destroy the Taliban forces.
3. Catch Osama Bin-Laden and chums.
4. Ensure that another, less naughty government is put into place.

I honestly believe that only the first aim is achievable militarily.

The Taliban forces are often portrayed on CNN as sitting in old USSR tanks and waving Stinger missiles around. Not so: they're more often to be found in small groups on a mountain side with an AK47 each, plus a live goat or two for supplies. A guerilla army if ever I heard of one.

Bin-Laden & Co will skip the country and go into hiding somewhere else. Plenty of places for him to go.

Any more tolerant government that's installed by the Allies will simply be seen by most Arab countries as being a puppet regime. It'll probably last a few years before it also gets toppled.

The future is bleak.

Tricky Woo
10th Oct 2001, 19:21
Second post: there always seems to be some tosser getting kidnapped or arrested in the Near/Middle/Far East for a variety of reasons.

For anyone who wants to hear it, here's some good advice that I'd like to backdate about 50 years, if I may:

i. Only a complete **** goes hiking in Kashmir.

ii. Only a complete **** of a journalist goes 'bonding' with the Palestinians or Afghans. (West Bank, Hebron, Lebanon until recently, Afghanistan).

iii. Only a complete **** goes 'travelling' in a country that happens to be in the middle of a civil war. (Cambodia, Lebanon until recently, Peru).

iv. Only a complete **** crosses a border with drugs in spite of LARGE SIGNS warning of that particular countries death penalty laws for the sort of thing.

v. Only a complete **** goes into Afghanistan with a charity called 'Christian Aid', any more than it would have been advisable to go into Germany in 1943 with a charity called 'Jewish Aid'.

vi. Only a complete **** swigs a bottle of whisky in a Saudi Arabian hotel lobby.

vii. Only a complete **** wanders through Salford, Moss Side, The Bronx or wherever with a nice new Rolex on display.

I wish these people would wake up to the fact that the world is a dangerous place, and not everywhere runs to the same 'reasonable' rules of conduct as Surrey or Vermont.

Other than that, no real opinions on the matter.

TW

tony draper
10th Oct 2001, 21:45
Yeh, wicks me off all these people saying we must have justice but make sure you don't hurt anyone, b*gger justice, I'd give them a whole new sodom and gomorra I'd salt that bloody earth,I'd give them a final chapter to write in that holy book of theirs.
Sorry just getting more and more angry at the bleeding hearts.
I thought or hoped it would be the next generation that would have to fight this war.
We either do what we have to do or give up now and just go away.

Techman
11th Oct 2001, 00:40
Unless the cause of the bloody mess we are in now, is being dealt with, and not just the symptoms as is the case these days, I am afraid that the next generation will have to deal with this.

Unless the West and the U.S. in particular rethinks its foreign policies, and stops catering for the domestic audience there will be no end to this.

I am sad to say that I was not surprised at the events September 11., shocked, horrified yes, but not surprised.

I just pray to god that those in power have thought this through, and realize that they have a responsability to the entire world, and not just to their respective home audience.

Velvet
11th Oct 2001, 03:00
So what happens after, after the troops go home, after all the bombs are dropped, after the Taleban is toppled, after they catch the 'nasty' terrorists and either kill them, or have a trial and kill them, after.........

Do Bush and Blair really believe that once the Taleban are gone, that suddenly a new era of tolerance and peace will suddenly and magically appear. That all the refugees will flood back into the country and rebuild it into a wondrous western style democracy, because they've seen how it works here.

Of course something had to be done, but isn't this just a rather sanitised hollywood version of war, where they hope only the bad guys get killed. No civilian casualties, we are only fighting terrorism not Islam is the mantra from 'our Tone' and Bush. Well, I hate to be the one to break it to them, but they ain't fighting Christians and they ain't fighting Buddists, Atheists or Hindus - they are fighting Islamic fundamentalists.

For all the fine talk of fighting terrorism, they have only gone to war in one area and ignored all the terrorism elsewhere. I suspect Mr Mugabe has found this a heaven sent act, as no one is now watching his terrorism.


However, I would like to ask a question of all those Muslims who state that they will fight alonside their brothers in Afghan against the American agression - 'Have you asked your Afghan brothers why they were leaving in millions, fleeing from the Taleban'.

As for Yvonne Ridley - has anyone spared a thought for the Afghanistan guides and helpers who showed far more courage than her and will not be released to the cheers of her media colleagues - but will be the forgotten few.

Celtic Emerald
11th Oct 2001, 15:39
Seems those evil idiot hijackers drank more than their odd swig of whisky before they went to their paradise like all clean living fundamentalist Muslims are supposed to.

They also attended strip joints, hired prostitutes, copulated capriciously & spent more than their fair share of time drinking themselves stupid. It's look like they didn't have to wait till paradise till they screwed their 90 virgins supposed waiting for them (hope there all as ugly as hell, with loads of diseases :) )

Is it only me that sees a bit of hypocrisy here? Okay I'll hand one thing to the [email protected], they did order the pizzas with no ham.

Maybe they were good little fanatical with a few screws lose little fundamentalist Muslims after all. Now let the rest of the little nutters get on with fighting the principles of us lose living heathen westerners, living the life of Reilly while they get on with serving their Allah of no joy and fun (only when nobody's looking lest they get a belt or two from the religious police or a hand or foot chopped off) for Gawds sake and being the holier than thou hypocritical @@sholes that they are because it seems to me by their behaviour they've totally negated the cause there fighting for.

Emerald

[ 11 October 2001: Message edited by: Celtic Emerald ]

Paterbrat
11th Oct 2001, 19:53
Mugabe is almost certainly absolutely delighted that no-one is looking his way and he can get on quite 'legaly', now that he has (fixed) sorted out the judiciary.
"It's legal, not terrorism Guv, these thugs ere are court appointed baliffs see."
It's a shame that of course the land will go unplanted, that there will be massive starvation, unemployment and worse poverty than ever before under the former white colonial regime. This of course will mean ... "yes please, aid and lots, now! Of course the present government will have to administer and distribute it to whoever we feel needs it most. What's that... you object to this poor starving minister collecting his rations in a new 18 wheeler rig."
But enough of that gloomy scenario that is coming, it's not here yet.

Back to what is happening in the hills. Well it did have to start somewhere, so why not with a search for the gent with the long face fungus who thinks he has been personaly appointed to sort out the world. Why not attempt to destabalise a perfectly charming set of kindly old gents in black hats and whiskers who have so benevolantly been looking after the concerns of the people they have forced themselves upon.
They have a charming houseguest who they have been looking after with kindly concern, and positively encouraging his particular little foboils.

Unfortunately it is a very grim, dangerous, and particularly thankless task, but it appears that our Tone and Dubya do indeed have the will and the courage to get down and try to do it, more power to them.
This particular problem is part of a larger one and yes the root causes are not going to be easy to eradicate.
It is and has been just too damned easy to say that it is the fault of the West, of the USA. There is a lot of envy at the relative differences between east and west. People at the bottom of any heap resent those at the top. Some indeed do try and work their way to the top and do in fact succeed, some sadly never get a chance.
Somehow though it does seem the further we get away from the West the less level the playing field becomes, and just whose fault is that anyway.
Is it worthy of blame to be efficient, to have managed through blood sweat and tears to have created a modern and affluent society. If we would believe some of the anarchistic wooly headed riotous, smash it all up brigade, that get such a buzz from running riot through the various cities at the big monetry meetings, yup its bad.
We should give it all away and start over, do it their way. With the example they set, one is left perhaps wandering what their way would bring?
Or perhaps instead we should give in and listen to the people who run the IRA, ETA. RAF, Bader Mienhoff, Red Army Faction, Symbionese Army, Hamas, Black September and various other fanatic extremist organisations that proliferate. Basicaly if anyone doesn't do what you want, simple, just kill them, blow them up indescriminately.

Yes there is some pretty serious bombing and blowing up going on now, but there is a subtle difference. It was massively provoked, and before any of it began in retaliation, there was first a request to hand over the culprit with a very reasonable length of time given along with a specific warning.
There has also been very deterimined effort to be selective in just who is being attacked in direct contrast to the blanket killing of thousands of everyday citizens going about their daily business who were given no such warning.
It's time. It's begun and may it succeed.

gravity victim
11th Oct 2001, 20:19
Good American Danziger cartoon reproduced in today's paper:

Mullah (to young Muslim lad under instruction):

"And when you enter Paradise as a martyr,my boy, you will have the services of 70 women of your own."

Young Lad (dubiously): "What do women look like then?"

Paterbrat
12th Oct 2001, 13:16
And when any of us gets too serious, than heaven for the touch of light relief

tony draper
12th Oct 2001, 14:00
It seems a certain Australian/American media barron has decided which side his empire will support.
We have an endless supply of islamic faces being interviewed on Sky News after every item on the war, interviewed as long as they are critical of the west that is.

Techman
12th Oct 2001, 18:49
This might be slightly off topic, but since several media insists on translating "jihad"into "holy war" I thought this might be in order :

What does Jihad really mean?.

- The Arabic word "Jihad" is often translated as "Holy War", but a more accurate translation is "Holy Struggle". Islamic scolars say the term "Holy War" was actually coined in Europe during the Crusades to mean a war against Muslims. A fact that many historians agree with.

- In a purelt linguistic sense, the word "jihad" means struggling or striving. There are two different, unrelated words which mean war.

- In a religious sense, as described be the Koran and teachings of the Prophet Mohammad, jihad means striving for the benefits of the community or the retstraint of personal sins. It can refer to internal as well as external efforts to be a good Muslim, or believer. Scolars say it primarily refers to efforts to improve oneself.

- Jihad is a religious duty.

- If jihad is required to protect the faith against others, it can be performed using anything from legal, diplomatic and economic to political means. if there is no peaceful alternative, Islam also allows the use of force, but there are strict rules of engagement. innocents, - such as woman, children, or invalids - must never be harmed, and any peaceful overtures from the enemy must be accepted.

- Military action is therefore only one means of jihad, and is very rare. To highlight this point, the Prophet Mohammed told his followers returning from a military campaign: "this day we have returned from the minor jihad to the major jihad", which he said meant returning from armed battle to the peaceful battle for self control and betterment.

- In case military action appears necessary, not everyone can declare jihad. the religious military campaign has to be declared by a proper authority, advised by shcolars, who say the religion and people are under threat and violence is imperative to defend them. The concept of "just war" is very important.

- The concept of jihad has been hijacked by many political and religious groups over the ages in a bid to justify various forms of violence. in most cases, Islamic splinter groups invoked jihad to fight against the established Islamic order. Scholars says this misuse contradicts Islam.

- Examples of sanctioned military jihad includes the Muslims' defensive battles against the Crusaders in medieval tiems, and before that some responses by Muslims against Byzantine and Persian attacks during the period of early islamic conquests.

What jihad is not.

- Jihad is not a violent concept.

- Jihad is not a declaration of war againt other religions. It is worth noting that the Koran specifically refers to Jews and Christians as "people of the book" who should be protected and respected. All three faiths worship the same God. Allah is just the arabic word for God, and is used by Christian Arabs as well as Muslims.

Paterbrat
12th Oct 2001, 19:04
That all sounded pretty straight to me Techman, but somebody had better explain to old Ousama that he may have just one or two things slightly squiff, only with the look in his eyes I am not too sure he's listening to anybody but the voices in his head.

Paterbrat
14th Oct 2001, 21:49
Just heard the most awful rumour that simply goes to show what a complete set of cads those american are and the depths to which they can sink.
Al Jazeera had kindly put out the fact that the Taliban had offered a bounty for any American soldier, or piece of uniform or weapon handed in to them by any Afghan. I believe it was something like $1500 for the piece of uniform.
It now appears that US Airforce Transport aircraft have been observed loading massive ammount of old military clothing for flights over Afghanistan. Since the dropping of food and other relief supplies had been coming in for the usual universal criticism such as, too little, too late, not the right sort,etc,etc,etc, they decided that in order to get cash assistance directly to the Afghans, if they provided them with the clothing the Taliban had so kindly offered to pay so handsomely for, it was a very cost effective way of getting money into quickly and directly into the Afghan economy.