Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

106 US/UK bombing raids on Afghan and Iraqi resistance fighters today

0 views
Skip to first unread message

m9mck...@yahoo.com

unread,
Nov 3, 2007, 12:13:57 AM11/3/07
to
Nov. 1 airpower summary: Invader Airmen trying to engineer
success in criminal colonial wars in Asia
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123074426

106 bombing raids on Afghans and Iraqis today
X avg 4 = 424 bombed to pieces by vicious
illegal invaders.This does not even include the hundreds
of resistance fighters and civilians killed by other occupier
violence such as cannon fire and missiles from helicopters
and helicopter gunships.

Of course you always claim these are killers and terrorists, you
never call them resistance fighters or partisans who have every right
to throw the vicious Western occupiers out.

2. 60,000 Iraqi resistance fighters - men, women and children - now
in US concentration camps in Iraq ('Guantanamos' in Iraq itself):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/gallery/2007/sep/21/iraq.international...

3. A remarkable article about bombing non-Christian people
to smithereens in their own countries:
DEATH from ABOVE
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IG12Ak01.html

>From Dresden and Tokyo to Hanoi, and now Iraq's Baquba
and Afghanistan's tribal villages, the US military has been
"HOOKED ON AIRPOWER".

That addiction will only grow stronger as US ground troops
gradually withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, increasingly
leaving civilians to continue to take the heat.
- by Tom Engelhardt (Jul 11, '07)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. A FALLACY that BOMBS - literally
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IG12Ak06.html
US and Israeli reliance on air power to fight urban guerilla warfare
has unintended consequences. Dead civilians, decimated homes,
schools and hospitals strengthen and unify opponents and portend
an ominous future for US geopolitical goals.
By Khody Akhavi (Jul 11, '07)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/29/opinion/edinderfurth.php
Losing the 'other war' in Afghanistan?
By Karl F. Inderfurth
Published: May 29, 2007
WASHINGTON:
Controversy rages over the war in Iraq, but what about the so-called
other war in Afghanistan, for which there is immoral bipartisan
support in the United States and in the international community?
Is there a danger of losing in Afghanistan? The answer is yes.
My question: A 'danger'? What silliness:

It is not a 'danger', it already is a fact:
This colonial war was lost a long time ago. As it was never about
winning the hearts and minds, but always about oil and gas and
pipelines and new military bases and access to Central Asia's
resources, i.e., about geo-political power and greed.

It is just a matter of time and the Western colonial invaders can no
longer sustain the slow but permanent and persistent bleeding in
money and casualties and will be forced to leave.

First, however, I'm sure they will kill many tens of thousands more.
We have seen immoral bombing wars and millions of dead before:
In Vietnam, another ill-conceived, immoral and illegal colonial
bombing war on darker skinned non-Christians in their own country.
3 - 4 million perished in the American orgy of colonial violence
in Asia. And a new horrible and racist orgy of violence by western
nations is happening again, now even in two countries in Asia
simultaneously.

There is no question whatsoever who or what the real
'axis of evil' is: Rich Western 'Christian' nations occupying
and bombing poor Muslim people to smithereens in their
own countries in Asia.

And we know why.

Michael McKinley - USA

Patriot Games

unread,
Nov 3, 2007, 12:34:47 PM11/3/07
to
<m9mck...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1194063237.4...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

> 106 bombing raids on Afghans and Iraqis today

Hurray!

> Of course you always claim these are killers and terrorists

They are.

> First, however, I'm sure they will kill many tens of thousands more.

Tens of millions.

> There is no question whatsoever who or what the real
> 'axis of evil' is: Rich Western 'Christian' nations occupying
> and bombing poor Muslim people to smithereens in their
> own countries in Asia.

Death to Iran!

Bomb Iran NOW!

Mavisbeacon

unread,
Nov 6, 2007, 4:15:47 AM11/6/07
to

"Patriot Games" <Pat...@America.com> wrote in message
news:472ca327$0$9540$4c36...@roadrunner.com...

> <m9mck...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1194063237.4...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> 106 bombing raids on Afghans and Iraqis today
>
> Hurray!

I thought you were of the opinion that bombings are "Failures" unless they
are 100 per cent successful at permanently driving out the target?

I mean when I pointed out to you that it was clinton who ordered the first
bombings in afghanistan you described this as a "failure" didn't you?
Why are you so happy about this and why isn't it a failure?
Do you always apply double standards?

>
>> Of course you always claim these are killers and terrorists
>
> They are.

Is he referring to the US Military?


>
>> First, however, I'm sure they will kill many tens of thousands more.
>
> Tens of millions.

Who will? You are talking about a world war with that total. Well that or
recognising several dictatorships and trading with them. You know like
suharto,Pinochet, Saddam, Mabutu, china etc.

>
>> There is no question whatsoever who or what the real
>> 'axis of evil' is: Rich Western 'Christian' nations occupying
>> and bombing poor Muslim people to smithereens in their
>> own countries in Asia.
>
> Death to Iran!

Strange. I noted Symore Hersh was in my alma mater last night. He pointed
out Iran hasn't invaded another country in about 260 years! They HAVe
supported some assassinations but not invasions or armies. for example Iran
has am ample supply of TOW and tank killing weapons as well as SAMs and Air
defence. If they were really helping an Army in Iraq then threr would be
helicopters and planes shot down and tanks destroyed. The idea that
insurgents are suddenly getting new tank destroying technology is silly.

>
> Bomb Iran NOW!

But I thought you called that sort of thing a "failure"?


Docky Wocky

unread,
Nov 6, 2007, 10:25:08 AM11/6/07
to
mavis sez:

"Strange. I noted Symore Hersh was in my alma mater last night. He pointed

out Iran hasn't invaded another country in about 260 years!..."
____________________________
Tell that to the Elam, Babylonia, Assyria, Arabia, Egypt, the countries by
the Sea, Lydia, the Greeks, Media, Armenia, Cappadocia, Parthia, Drangiana,
Aria, Chorasmia, Bactria, Sogdia, Gandara, Scythia, Sattagydia, Arachosia
and Maka.


Patriot Games

unread,
Nov 6, 2007, 10:53:46 AM11/6/07
to
"Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in message
news:LDWXi.8574$Hv4.45@amstwist00...

> "Patriot Games" <Pat...@America.com> wrote in message
> news:472ca327$0$9540$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>> <m9mck...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1194063237.4...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>> 106 bombing raids on Afghans and Iraqis today
>> Hurray!
> I thought you were of the opinion that bombings are "Failures" unless they
> are 100 per cent successful at permanently driving out the target?

Its not my fault you weren't paying attention.

> I mean when I pointed out to you that it was clinton who ordered the first
> bombings in afghanistan you described this as a "failure" didn't you?

Yes, they were failures.

> Why are you so happy about this and why isn't it a failure?

Dead enemies is always a source of celebration.

Dead enemies isn't a failure.

>>> Of course you always claim these are killers and terrorists
>> They are.
> Is he referring to the US Military?

Ask him.

>>> First, however, I'm sure they will kill many tens of thousands more.
>> Tens of millions.
> Who will? You are talking about a world war with that total.

This IS a World War, in case you didn't know.

>> Death to Iran!
> Strange. I noted Symore Hersh was in my alma mater last night. He pointed
> out Iran hasn't invaded another country in about 260 years! They HAVe
> supported some assassinations but not invasions or armies. for example
> Iran has am ample supply of TOW and tank killing weapons as well as SAMs
> and Air defence. If they were really helping an Army in Iraq then threr
> would be helicopters and planes shot down and tanks destroyed. The idea
> that insurgents are suddenly getting new tank destroying technology is
> silly.

Iran is providing the IEDs in Iraq.

Iran is providing other rockets and such used in Iraq.

Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

>> Bomb Iran NOW!
> But I thought you called that sort of thing a "failure"?

Its not my fault you weren't paying attention.

Mavisbeacon

unread,
Nov 6, 2007, 7:35:32 PM11/6/07
to

"Docky Wocky" <mrc...@lst.net> wrote in message
news:oH%Xi.18954$Cb.9261@trnddc08...
Anachronistic! Next I suppose you will blame the Italian Parliament for not
paying attention the Gracchi or the Corn Laws. :)


0 new messages