Cluster Bombs
enterfornone
Wright) wrote:
>PS Cluster bombs are designed to create terror and cause maximum human
>casualties. Luckily the Afghans won't mind if a few thousand innocent
>people get killed as long as the US gets one Talibani or so.
Hmm interesting, so much for only targetting terrorists.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2001350024-2001371448,00.html
Stop cluster bombing, Diana's fund says
BY TOM BALDWIN AND KATTY KAY
THE Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund today calls on the US and
British Governments to end the use of cluster bombs in Afghanistan
because of the “serious long-term threat to civilians”.
In a letter to The Times Andrew Purkis, the charity’s chief executive,
says that in spite of its own recently published report on such bombs,
“it seems that lessons have still not been learnt from past
conflicts”.
The report says that 35,000 unexploded bomblets were left on the
ground in Kosovo and are still killing one civilian a week.
Critics say that the cluster bomb is notoriously inaccurate and a high
failure rate means that they often lie unexploded for years. Each
weapon contains 200 bomblets which on detonation spray out shrapnel
and set fire to any combustible material nearby.
Although the Pentagon has emphasised its desire to minimise civilian
casualties, American aircraft have recently begun dropping cluster
bombs on the Taleban’s front line with the Northern Alliance.
Mr Purkis’s letter, which is also signed by Richard Lloyd, of Landmine
Action, says: “The UK should seek assurances from other members of the
military alliance that they will not only cease using cluster
munitions, but also take responsibility afterwards for the complete
clearance of all unexploded bomblets.”
Despite the expressions of concern about cluster bombs, and claims
about a number of other misdirected weapons causing significant
civilian casualties, US forces yesterday launched their fiercest
airstrikes to date against the Taleban front line in Northern
Afghanistan, following heavy night attacks on Tuesday.
US defence officials confirmed that American planes had stepped up
strikes against Taleban troops and supply depots in a concerted effort
to isolate their power base.
Rear Admiral John Stufflebeem said, however, that the ground battle
between Northern Alliance forces and Taleban troops was still moving
slowly. “We are still attacking their forces. We know we’re having an
effect on their forces based on pilot reports.”
--
enterfornone - http://www.enterfornone.net/
buy my comics and help me get to Europe - http://members.ebay.com.au/aboutme/enterfornone/
BERNARDZ
Denis Wright
> You cannot make a scrambled egg without breaking the shell.
Tell that to the egg being scrambled and see if it makes it feel any
better.
Denis
--
change mutz to metz and zap .invalid to make email work
http://www-personal.une.edu.au/~dwright/arundhatiroy.htm
caplin
well on runways.
enterfornone <sp...@enterfornone.net> wrote in message
news:rgjftt0d6sbsabri6...@4ax.com...
BERNARDZ
dwr...@metz.une.edu.au says...
> BERNARDZ <BERNAR...@iname.COM> wrote:
>
> > You cannot make a scrambled egg without breaking the shell.
>
> Tell that to the egg being scrambled and see if it makes it feel any
> better.
That it what we are doing right now in Afghanistan.
>
> Denis
>
>
Denis Wright
> BS.. cluster bombs are also effective on military targets,,, they work
> well on runways.
Not a lot of runways in residential areas of Khandahar.....
Ausstu
a wrote:
> Denis Wright <dwr...@metz.une.edu.au> wrote in message news:1f1vnnr.ie...@digimodem-37.une.edu.au...
> > caplin <mke...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> BS.. cluster bombs are also effective on military targets,,,
> >> they work well on runways.
>
> > Not a lot of runways in residential areas of Khandahar.....
>
> Pity you dont know cluster bombs are being used in residential areas, fuckwit.
Pity you don't understand the nature of war, especially when the Taliban hides in residential areas.
Clearly civilians are not directly targeted by the US as is the case with the Taliban who do not value human life.
Denis Wright
> That it what we are doing right now in Afghanistan.
Your government and mine decided to go into Afghanistan for three main
purposes - to get ObL, to strike at terrorist bases and to topple the
Taliban.
All of these purposes may be accomplished. What you haven't done yet is
count the cost, because you don't yet have a clue what that cost is
going to be. But I'll tell you one thing that is absolutely certain - it
won't stop terrorism against the US. The reason I say this is that
terrorism everywhere has *never* been stopped by force - e.g., Ireland,
Sri Lanka, Africa and the mid-East.
The only way it has ever been stopped is when the legitimate grievances
of the people amongst whom terrorists flourish have been dealt with. NOT
the grievances of the terrorists themselves - of the people who, when
they are treated reasonably, will themselves cut the ground from under
the terrorists and see their actions as counter-productive.
You have to get that into your head. Military action alone will not stop
terrorism. It never has and it never will. On the contrary, it often
makes terrorists of those who would not otherwise be. Do you seriously
think that a Kabul man who has seen his family killed, mutilated and
homeless by bombing from US planes will not be a fertile target for
recruitment into a terrorist organisation?
I'm not sure it's the egg that scrambled.
enterfornone
wrote:
>
>
>Denis Wright wrote:
>
>> caplin <mke...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > BS.. cluster bombs are also effective on military targets,,, they work
>> > well on runways.
>>
>> Not a lot of runways in residential areas of Khandahar.....
>
>There are alot of Taliban hiding in residential areas of Khandahar, however,
>there is no evidence that cluster bombs have been directly targeting residential areas. By the way, far more civilians
>were killed in Nazi Germany than there are in Afganistan. Sorry to inform you, but part of the unfortunate nature of
>war is that innocent civilians will be killed. More the reason the people of Afganistan should abandon the terrorist
>ways of the Taliban or wind up with the same fate of the German people who blindly supported Hitler.
I'm sure Bin Laden says the same thing about Americans who blindly
support Bush.
--
"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play."
enterfornone - http://www.enterfornone.net/
Russ
BERNARDZ wrote:
>
> You cannot make a scrambled egg without breaking the shell.
Out of interest, I once peeled the shell off and left the egg whole
inside the membran skin.
--
Russ
Dissent is terrorism.
Russ
> > >> BS.. cluster bombs are also effective on military targets,,,
> > >> they work well on runways.
> >
> > > Not a lot of runways in residential areas of Khandahar.....
> >
> > Pity you dont know cluster bombs are being used in residential areas, fuckwit.
>
> Pity you don't understand the nature of war, especially when the Taliban hides in residential areas.
> Clearly civilians are not directly targeted by the US as is the case with the Taliban who do not value human life.
I'm amazed you put the phrase "do not value human life" in the same
sentence as talking about collateral damage. That's all it is.
Stretch a little:
What is the difference between a terrorist with a legitimate grievance,
and a military force with a legitimate aim?
I bet you think that no matter what reason the terrorists had in
destroying the WTC towers, that they absolutely shouldn't have killed
people in the process?
Why does this line of thought fizzle when you apply it to the U.S.
military?
That's the problem of hypocrisy - they can't condemn the terrorists
*too* much or else even children will start to see the gap in logic.
dennis
> BERNARDZ <BERNAR...@iname.COM> wrote:
>
> > You cannot make a scrambled egg without breaking the shell.
>
> Tell that to the egg being scrambled and see if it makes it feel any
> better.
>
> Denis
a
Denis Wright <dwr...@metz.une.edu.au> wrote in message news:1f1xsjs.lcd...@digimodem-31.une.edu.au...
> BERNARDZ <BERNAR...@iname.COM> wrote
>> That it what we are doing right now in Afghanistan.
> Your government and mine decided to go into Afghanistan for three main
> purposes - to get ObL, to strike at terrorist bases and to topple the Taliban.
The MUCH more important reason than all of those is making it very clear
that that sort of utter obscenity like the WTC will get a massive response.
> All of these purposes may be accomplished.
The more important one already has been.
> What you haven't done yet is count the cost, because
> you don't yet have a clue what that cost is going to be.
True of anything that big, you can only count the cost after the event.
Doesnt have a damned thing to do with whether its the only viable thing to do.
> But I'll tell you one thing that is absolutely
> certain - it won't stop terrorism against the US.
And doing nothing wouldnt stop it either, stupid.
> The reason I say this is that terrorism everywhere
> has *never* been stopped by force
Wrong.
> - e.g., Ireland, Sri Lanka, Africa and the mid-East.
Thats just in modern times when we are no longer prepared
to use the most gung ho approaches in response.
> The only way it has ever been stopped is when the legitimate grievances
> of the people amongst whom terrorists flourish have been dealt with.
Wrong again. The only time its been stopped in modern times
is when the terrorised have caved in to the terrorists demands
and given them what they demand, like when the poms pulled
out of Palestine in response to the use of terrorism.
And with a fool like bin Laden, it aint even possible do what he demands, stupid.
> NOT the grievances of the terrorists themselves - of the people who,
> when they are treated reasonably, will themselves cut the ground from
> under the terrorists and see their actions as counter-productive.
Wota terminal fuckwit you have always been Wright.
That wouldnt happen with bin Laden, or with the terrorism in Indonesia either.
It didnt even happen with Northern Ireland.
And aint gotta hope in hell with Sri Lanka either.
> You have to get that into your head.
Wota terminal fuckwit. No use trying to proclaim
that this is some universal truth, fuckwit, coz it aint.
> Military action alone will not stop terrorism.
No one ever said it would, fuckwit.
> It never has
Wrong again.
> and it never will.
Neither will pandering to the demands either, fuckwit.
> On the contrary, it often makes terrorists
> of those who would not otherwise be.
Just as true of doing nothing and pandering to the demands, fuckwit.
> Do you seriously think that a Kabul man who has seen his family
> killed, mutilated and homeless by bombing from US planes will
> not be a fertile target for recruitment into a terrorist organisation?
Have fun explaining why that didnt happen with the Japs and the
krauts when they got fucked over very comprehensively indeed.
As always, you aint gotta fucking clue to your name, uniwanker.
> I'm not sure it's the egg that scrambled.
Wota pathetic uniwanker.
enterfornone
>
>Denis Wright <dwr...@metz.une.edu.au> wrote in message news:1f1xsjs.lcd...@digimodem-31.une.edu.au...
>> BERNARDZ <BERNAR...@iname.COM> wrote
>
>>> That it what we are doing right now in Afghanistan.
>
>> Your government and mine decided to go into Afghanistan for three main
>> purposes - to get ObL, to strike at terrorist bases and to topple the Taliban.
>
>The MUCH more important reason than all of those is making it very clear
>that that sort of utter obscenity like the WTC will get a massive response.
Not that any terrorist would care, since 1) The don't live in
Afghanistan and 2) they are fully prepared to die.
enterfornone
>> Pity you don't understand the nature of war, especially
>> when the Taliban hides in residential areas.
>
>Wota terminal fuckwit. The yanks arent deliberately
>cluster bombing residential areas in Afghanistan, fuckwit.
And you know this how. Major western newspapers seem to disagree with
you.
Ausstu
enterfornone wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2001 14:25:35 +0930, Ausstu <Aus...@primus.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Denis Wright wrote:
> >
> >> caplin <mke...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > BS.. cluster bombs are also effective on military targets,,, they work
> >> > well on runways.
> >>
> >> Not a lot of runways in residential areas of Khandahar.....
> >
> >There are alot of Taliban hiding in residential areas of Khandahar, however,
> >there is no evidence that cluster bombs have been directly targeting residential areas. By the way, far more civilians
> >were killed in Nazi Germany than there are in Afganistan. Sorry to inform you, but part of the unfortunate nature of
> >war is that innocent civilians will be killed. More the reason the people of Afganistan should abandon the terrorist
> >ways of the Taliban or wind up with the same fate of the German people who blindly supported Hitler.
>
> I'm sure Bin Laden says the same thing about Americans who blindly
> support Bush.
As I am sure that Hitler said the same things about the Americans to brainwash his people with propaganda. I know which
side I'd rather be on do you?
Ausstu
Russ wrote:
> Ausstu wrote:
>
> > > >> BS.. cluster bombs are also effective on military targets,,,
> > > >> they work well on runways.
> > >
> > > > Not a lot of runways in residential areas of Khandahar.....
> > >
> > > Pity you dont know cluster bombs are being used in residential areas, fuckwit.
> >
> > Pity you don't understand the nature of war, especially when the Taliban hides in residential areas.
> > Clearly civilians are not directly targeted by the US as is the case with the Taliban who do not value human life.
>
> I'm amazed you put the phrase "do not value human life" in the same
> sentence as talking about collateral damage. That's all it is.
>
> Stretch a little:
> What is the difference between a terrorist with a legitimate grievance,
> and a military force with a legitimate aim?
Big difference when civilians are not directly targeted versus when civilians are directly targeted as was the case with
the WTC which is pure terrorism.
>
>
> I bet you think that no matter what reason the terrorists had in
> destroying the WTC towers, that they absolutely shouldn't have killed
> people in the process?
Yes, because there targets were innocent civilians not military targets. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
>
>
> Why does this line of thought fizzle when you apply it to the U.S.
> military?
Because you are obviously too stupid to understand the difference. The freedom you now enjoy would not have existed had
people like you had your way in the 1940's and not attacked Nazi germany because innocent civilians would be killed.
Remember the allies had no smart bombs then and many innocent civilians were killed which is what was required to
eliminate tyranny. However, Many more innocent civilian lives were saved by destroying Hitler before he took over the
world.
>
>
> That's the problem of hypocrisy - they can't condemn the terrorists
> *too* much or else even children will start to see the gap in logic.
The problem with bleeding hearts is they are the true hypocrates. Their hearts bleeds for Afganistan which is run by a
terrorist government which will kill many more innocent civilians, including innocent Afgans if they are not stopped,
yet they have no compassion or sympathy for the innocent civilians who needlessly died in the World Trade Center. You
are a true hypocrate, and an apologist for terrorist.
Ausstu
a wrote:
> Ausstu <Aus...@primus.com.au> wrote in message news:3BD8EB97...@primus.com.au...
> > a wrote
> >> Denis Wright <dwr...@metz.une.edu.au> wrote
> >>> caplin <mke...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> BS.. cluster bombs are also effective on military targets,,,
> >>>> they work well on runways.
>
> >>> Not a lot of runways in residential areas of Khandahar.....
>
> >> Pity you dont know cluster bombs are being used in residential areas, fuckwit.
>
> > Pity you don't understand the nature of war, especially
> > when the Taliban hides in residential areas.
>
> Wota terminal fuckwit. The yanks arent deliberately
> cluster bombing residential areas in Afghanistan, fuckwit.
>
> > Clearly civilians are not directly targeted by the US as is
> > the case with the Taliban who do not value human life.
>
> Essentially what I said, fuckwit.
By being a foulmouth idiot with nothing intelligent to say, you prove you are a western apologist supporter of terrorist
and are an idiot.
Brash
every paper too, don't you?
--
"Common folk sleep soundly at night knowing that rough men stand ready to do
violence on their behalf."
"enterfornone" <sp...@enterfornone.net> wrote in message
news:gshmttk05cpd0okg8...@4ax.com...
Rod Speed
enterfornone <sp...@enterfornone.net> wrote in message news:pqhmtt0irrifdk3lb...@4ax.com...>>> BERNARDZ <BERNAR...@iname.COM> wrote
>>>> That it what we are doing right now in Afghanistan.
>>> Your government and mine decided to go into Afghanistan for three main
>>> purposes - to get ObL, to strike at terrorist bases and to topple the Taliban.
>> The MUCH more important reason than all of those is making it very clear
>> that that sort of utter obscenity like the WTC will get a massive response.
> Not that any terrorist would care,
The terrorists aint what matter, stupid. Its the countrys they
attempt to operate from that notice the inevitable consequences
of allowing terrorists to operate from their country.
There is now a VERY long list of countrys that have allowed
terrorists to operate from their country, who have booted them
out when the terrorists targets have fucked that country over.
> since 1) The don't live in Afghanistan and
> 2) they are fully prepared to die.
Pity about those running the country those terrorists are based in. For
some odd reason they arent too keen on getting fucked over like Afghanistan
is currently being fucked over, and very few of THEM are prepared to die.
So they usually give the terrorists the bums
rush rather than end up with that sort of result.
Often just a threat has been enough, most obviously with the
middle east and that clown Arafat when he was into terrorism.
a
>>>> That it what we are doing right now in Afghanistan.
>>> Your government and mine decided to go into Afghanistan for three main
>>> purposes - to get ObL, to strike at terrorist bases and to topple the Taliban.
>> The MUCH more important reason than all of those is making it very clear
>> that that sort of utter obscenity like the WTC will get a massive response.
> Not that any terrorist would care,
The terrorists aint what matter, stupid. Its the countrys they
attempt to operate from that notice the inevitable consequences
of allowing terrorists to operate from their country.
There is now a VERY long list of countrys that have allowed
terrorists to operate from their country, who have booted them
out when the terrorists targets have fucked that country over.
> since 1) The don't live in Afghanistan and
> 2) they are fully prepared to die.
Pity about those running the country those terrorists are based in. For
a
Ausstu <Aus...@primus.com.au> wrote in message news:3BDA065D...@primus.com.au...
Wota terminal fuckwit.
And that terminally silly shit of yours just above is nothing even remotely
resembling anything like 'intelligent', you silly little posturing fuckwit.
Denis Wright
> Pity you don't understand the nature of war, especially when the Taliban
> hides in residential areas.
Afghan cities, like those on most of the subcontinent, have residential
areas everywhere, amidst the industries and the commerce and the
military installations. It's not that the Taliban are deliberately
hiding in these areas (though it is obviously good political/military
strategy to do so) but that there is nowhere in most of these cities
where there aren't large numbers of residences - shanties that they are
in many cases. The Americans are bombing people with nowhere to go.
Denis Wright
> More the reason the people of Afganistan should abandon the terrorist ways
> of the Taliban or wind up with the same fate of the German people who
> blindly supported Hitler.
"the people of Afganistan" are the meat in the sandwich. To compare
them with the German people in WW2 mode is not reasonable. To claim that
the people of Afghanistan are responsible for the terrorist ways of the
Taliban is as illogical as saying that that the innocent people who died
on September 11 were responsible for their fate. Neither of them were in
control of events.
dennis
terrorist in any way you need to be around longer and see what Rod has to
say. He only foul mouths people to irritate them. Pay more attention before
you start mouthing off on people yourself
>
>
R. Kym Horsell
> BERNARDZ <BERNAR...@iname.COM> wrote:
>> That it what we are doing right now in Afghanistan.
> Your government and mine decided to go into Afghanistan for three main
> purposes - to get ObL, to strike at terrorist bases and to topple the
> Taliban.
Minor correction: to put the "right" Taliban into the leadership.
Russ
> > > Pity you don't understand the nature of war, especially when the Taliban hides in residential areas.
> > > Clearly civilians are not directly targeted by the US as is the case with the Taliban who do not value human life.
> >
> > I'm amazed you put the phrase "do not value human life" in the same
> > sentence as talking about collateral damage. That's all it is.
> >
> > Stretch a little:
> > What is the difference between a terrorist with a legitimate grievance,
> > and a military force with a legitimate aim?
>
> Big difference when civilians are not directly targeted versus when civilians are directly targeted as was the case with
> the WTC which is pure terrorism.
Subtle but important correction:
Symbols were directly targetted, not civilians.
1/ planes 20-30% full
2/ 8-9am in the morning before most have arrived to work
If they were after maximum civilian casualties, it would have been
planned differently to take advantage of the 50,000 worker capacity of
the towers. (some say 20,000)
> > I bet you think that no matter what reason the terrorists had in
> > destroying the WTC towers, that they absolutely shouldn't have killed
> > people in the process?
This, for most, is a given.
Reading the Gallop internation polls following the WTC attack, it was
interesting that there was a percentage worldwide who specifically
thought it necessary for the US to target civilians in retaliation.
Only 2% in Argentina thought it,
whilst USA, India and Israel had about 20-30% wanting civilians to be
targetted alongside military.
> > Why does this line of thought fizzle when you apply it to the U.S.
> > military?
and so one wonders what the difference is - what goes through the minds
of those 22% in America who specifically want civilians killed in
Afghanistan?
> Because you are obviously too stupid to understand the difference. The freedom you now enjoy would not have existed had
> people like you had your way in the 1940's and not attacked Nazi germany because innocent civilians would be killed.
> Remember the allies had no smart bombs then and many innocent civilians were killed which is what was required to
> eliminate tyranny. However, Many more innocent civilian lives were saved by destroying Hitler before he took over the
> world.
And whenever hypocrisy like this is pointed out to people, they always
revert to WWII mode, as though that is all they know about wars.
"You'd be speaking German if it weren't for the US!"
"You'd best remember that you'd be a Japanese subject if it weren't for
the US"
etc
In World War II,
you obviously feel that Churchill's deliberate policy of civilian
bombings was justified?
The idea was, if he could relentlessly bomb civilians then fear alone
would shatter their resolve, and the weakening of morale would bring
about an end to their support of the war. (it had the opposite
effect, strengthening their will). It was the same idea as the V2
bombings of Britain, with the "wail" added by Hitler for psychological
effect.
More than easy to say that Hitler was evil to terror bomb Britain,
simply because they were "your people".
To do it back, and feel justified, requires some convoluted logic
which you've seemed to have mastered quite well!
Besides, WW2 is a bad example for you to raise. There are so many
variable which affected the duration of the war. U.S. companies
supplying the German war machine, thus prolonging the war, is one
example.
<snip>
So while you think its okay to kill civilians to save civilians, use
terror tactics to fight terrorism, and do evil to fight evil ...
and while there are people like you on both sides who feel its justified
& necessary to kill civilians on the 'other' side,
I actually care about lives lost on *both* sides.
That's value for human life.
Denis Wright
> Wota pathetic uniwanker.
Well, Rod/Howie/etc, I'm mildly amused by the fact that you think you're
so important to usenet that you have to get around killfiles to force
people to read your junk!
enterfornone
>> since 1) The don't live in Afghanistan and
>> 2) they are fully prepared to die.
>
>Pity about those running the country those terrorists are based in. For
>some odd reason they arent too keen on getting fucked over like Afghanistan
>is currently being fucked over, and very few of THEM are prepared to die.
True, but no one is bombing the US or UK, where the WTC terrorists
were based,
enterfornone
<acrobat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>How convenient for you. And you adopt the stance of everything said in
>every paper too, don't you?
I would expect the papers would be more accurate than US government
propaganda, which you seem to beleive without question.
enterfornone
>
>enterfornone <sp...@enterfornone.net> wrote in message news:gshmttk05cpd0okg8...@4ax.com...
>> a <a...@b.com> wrote
>
>>>> Pity you don't understand the nature of war, especially
>>>> when the Taliban hides in residential areas.
>
>>> Wota terminal fuckwit. The yanks arent deliberately
>>> cluster bombing residential areas in Afghanistan, fuckwit.
>
>> And you know this how.
>
>The yanks aint that stupid, stupid.
>
>> Major western newspapers seem to disagree with you.
>
>Liar. You cant cite a SINGLE one that says that the yanks are
>deliberately cluster bombing RESIDENTIAL AREAS in Afghanistan.
The one that began this thread for a start.
a
enterfornone <sp...@enterfornone.net> wrote in message news:ve8nttov6s4h9qci4...@4ax.com...
>>>> Denis Wright <dwr...@metz.une.edu.au> wrote
>>>>> BERNARDZ <BERNAR...@iname.COM> wrote
>>>>>> That it what we are doing right now in Afghanistan.
>>>>> Your government and mine decided to go into
>>>>> Afghanistan for three main purposes - to get ObL,
>>>>> to strike at terrorist bases and to topple the Taliban.
>>>> The MUCH more important reason than all of those
>>>> is making it very clear that that sort of utter obscenity
>>>> like the WTC will get a massive response.
>>> Not that any terrorist would care,
>> The terrorists aint what matter, stupid. Its the countrys they
>> attempt to operate from that notice the inevitable consequences
>> of allowing terrorists to operate from their country.
>> There is now a VERY long list of countrys that have allowed
>> terrorists to operate from their country, who have booted them
>> out when the terrorists targets have fucked that country over.
>>> since 1) The don't live in Afghanistan and
>>> 2) they are fully prepared to die.
>> Pity about those running the country those terrorists are
>> based in. For some odd reason they arent too keen on
>> getting fucked over like Afghanistan is currently being
>> fucked over, and very few of THEM are prepared to die.
> True, but no one is bombing the US or UK,
Because they aint deliberately harbouring terrorists that
engage in that sort of activity, you stupid little fuckwit.
> where the WTC terrorists were based,
Pity that wasnt with the active support of the
govts of those countrys, you stupid little fuckwit.
Back to those comics, boy, its all you can ever manage.
Rod Speed
Denis Wright <dwr...@metz.une.edu.au> wrote in message news:1f1y2s0.1fu...@digimodem-8.une.edu.au...
> Ausstu <Aus...@primus.com.au> wrote:
>> More the reason the people of Afganistan should abandon
>> the terrorist ways of the Taliban or wind up with the same
>> fate of the German people who blindly supported Hitler.
> "the people of Afganistan" are the meat in the sandwich.
That's inevitable with any war, stupid.
> To compare them with the German people in WW2 mode is not reasonable.
You dont get to rule on that, or anything else either, any time soon.
> To claim that the people of Afghanistan are
> responsible for the terrorist ways of the Taliban
He never did. Having fun thrashing that straw man are you boy ?
> is as illogical as saying that that the innocent people who
> died on September 11 were responsible for their fate.
Wota fucking wanker.
> Neither of them were in control of events.
Wrong again as far as giving the Talibums the bums
rush when they produce that result in Afghanistan, stupid.
a
Denis Wright <dwr...@metz.une.edu.au> wrote in message news:1f1y2s0.1fu...@digimodem-8.une.edu.au...
>> More the reason the people of Afganistan should abandon
>> the terrorist ways of the Taliban or wind up with the same
>> fate of the German people who blindly supported Hitler.
> "the people of Afganistan" are the meat in the sandwich.
That's inevitable with any war, stupid.
> To compare them with the German people in WW2 mode is not reasonable.
You dont get to rule on that, or anything else either, any time soon.
> To claim that the people of Afghanistan are
> responsible for the terrorist ways of the Taliban
He never did. Having fun thrashing that straw man are you boy ?
> is as illogical as saying that that the innocent people who
> died on September 11 were responsible for their fate.
Wota fucking wanker.
> Neither of them were in control of events.
Wrong again as far as giving the Talibums the bums
Rod Speed
enterfornone <sp...@enterfornone.net> wrote in message news:uk8nttcr1147qqvnk...@4ax.com...>>> a <a...@b.com> wrote
> >>>> Pity you don't understand the nature of war, especially
> >>>> when the Taliban hides in residential areas.
> >
> >>> Wota terminal fuckwit. The yanks arent deliberately
> >>> cluster bombing residential areas in Afghanistan, fuckwit.
> >
> >> And you know this how.
> >
> >The yanks aint that stupid, stupid.
> >
> >> Major western newspapers seem to disagree with you.
> >
> >Liar. You cant cite a SINGLE one that says that the yanks are
> >deliberately cluster bombing RESIDENTIAL AREAS in Afghanistan.
>
> The one that began this thread for a start.
Doesnt do that, fuckwit.
Back to the comics, boy, its all you can manage.
Ausstu
Denis Wright wrote:
> Ausstu <Aus...@primus.com.au> wrote:
>
> > More the reason the people of Afganistan should abandon the terrorist ways
> > of the Taliban or wind up with the same fate of the German people who
> > blindly supported Hitler.
>
> "the people of Afganistan" are the meat in the sandwich. To compare
> them with the German people in WW2 mode is not reasonable. To claim that
> the people of Afghanistan are responsible for the terrorist ways of the
> Taliban is as illogical as saying that that the innocent people who died
> on September 11 were responsible for their fate. Neither of them were in
> control of events.
No different from Nazi Germany, where a minority of Germans were afraid to speak out an had to fall in law. However,
like the Nazi regime most are fanatic supporters of the Taliban. It is ashame that innocent Afgan civilians will die in
this war, however history has shown that you must stop tyranical regimes before they gain too much power and become even
more dangerous. Truth is the Taliban have killed far more innocent civilians than the Americans and the world will be a
better place without them.
Ausstu
Denis Wright wrote:
> Ausstu <Aus...@primus.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Pity you don't understand the nature of war, especially when the Taliban
> > hides in residential areas.
>
> Afghan cities, like those on most of the subcontinent, have residential
> areas everywhere, amidst the industries and the commerce and the
> military installations. It's not that the Taliban are deliberately
> hiding in these areas (though it is obviously good political/military
> strategy to do so)
The truth is the Taliban are deliberately hiding in residential areas and mosques knowing the American's won't bomb them
there which only goes to show how little regard they have for their own people.
> but that there is nowhere in most of these cities
> where there aren't large numbers of residences - shanties that they are
> in many cases.
Far more innocent Afgans have been killed by the Taliban who have a very poor record on human rights. The world will be
a better place without the Taliban.
> The Americans are bombing people with nowhere to go.
Was the bombing of Dresden any different. What would have happened if you applied your same rules to World War II?
Nazi Germany would probably never have been defeated if the war factories in Dresden were not bombed for fear of
civilian casualties? Remember they didn't have smart bombs in World War II. The Taliban have armed all residents in
Kabul and perhaps the people should turn their guns on the Taliban and fight for their own country.
Ausstu
dennis wrote:
Perhaps you should pay more attention to what is. There is no need to resort to foul language unless one is attacked in
kind. It degrades the credibility of ones argument and your views by supporting such foul language.
>
> >
> >
Ausstu
Russ wrote:
> Ausstu wrote:
>
> > > > Pity you don't understand the nature of war, especially when the Taliban hides in residential areas.
> > > > Clearly civilians are not directly targeted by the US as is the case with the Taliban who do not value human life.
> > >
> > > I'm amazed you put the phrase "do not value human life" in the same
> > > sentence as talking about collateral damage. That's all it is.
> > >
> > > Stretch a little:
> > > What is the difference between a terrorist with a legitimate grievance,
> > > and a military force with a legitimate aim?
> >
> > Big difference when civilians are not directly targeted versus when civilians are directly targeted as was the case with
> > the WTC which is pure terrorism.
>
> Subtle but important correction:
> Symbols were directly targetted, not civilians.
>
> 1/ planes 20-30% full
> 2/ 8-9am in the morning before most have arrived to work
>
> If they were after maximum civilian casualties, it would have been
> planned differently to take advantage of the 50,000 worker capacity of
> the towers. (some say 20,000)
Look, no need to bother trying to have an intelligent conversation with you here. With the statement you just made you have
proved your lack of capacity to understand even basic concepts. Glad to hear only 5000 innocent civilians were killed, It
makes me feel so much better to know it could have been worse.
>
> I actually care about lives lost on *both* sides.
> That's value for human life.
No you don't otherwise you would want to see the Taliban destroyed. They have killed far more innocent Afgans than the
Americans.
Fiona Lim
often enough will await them. Oblige them and Allah will bless you for the
good deed. Bomb them and keep on bombng them
R. Kym Horsell <k...@www.kymhorsell.com> wrote in message
news:9rfsgc$29m$1...@news.latrobe.edu.au...
enterfornone
>> True, but no one is bombing the US or UK,
>
>Because they aint deliberately harbouring terrorists that
>engage in that sort of activity, you stupid little fuckwit.
>
>> where the WTC terrorists were based,
>
>Pity that wasnt with the active support of the
>govts of those countrys, you stupid little fuckwit.
If terrorists can be based in countries without the support of the
government, then it's pretty clear that bombing countries to stop
terrorists will have no effect.
enterfornone
wrote:
>> >Liar. You cant cite a SINGLE one that says that the yanks are
>> >deliberately cluster bombing RESIDENTIAL AREAS in Afghanistan.
>>
>> The one that began this thread for a start.
>
>Doesnt do that, fuckwit.
Does a village count as a residential area.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/0110/25/world/world102.html
On Wednesday the United Nations said unexploded bombs from a US air
raid - believed to be cluster bombs - had trapped villagers in the
west Afghan village of Shaker Kala, leaving them afraid to venture
from their homes
enterfornone
wrote:
>The truth is the Taliban are deliberately hiding in residential areas and mosques knowing the American's won't bomb them
>there which only goes to show how little regard they have for their own people.
Clearly the taliban overestimates the US government's regard for human
life.
Denis Wright
> Try harder,
Well now, here's a laugh. Rod is replying to the same posting under two
aliases simultaneously, just for my benefit, so that I won't miss his
words of wisdom by killfiling him. It's OK, Howie/A/Rod/etc. - my
newsreader is sophisticated enough to detect that even killfiled, you
have been posting, so if in the future I should feel any inclination to
read what you wrote, your efforts won't be wasted.
But don't bother, because I won't....
Goodbye again... at least till you write under a less detectable alias -
for which you don't seem to have the wit or imagination.
Warren
<fion...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>All the Talibans are in a hurry to go to heaven where the 72 virgins recyled
>often enough will await them. Oblige them and Allah will bless you for the
>good deed. Bomb them and keep on bombng them
Then you're no better than they are, Fiona.
Warren
wrote:
>
>
>Russ wrote:
>
>> Ausstu wrote:
>>
>> > > >> BS.. cluster bombs are also effective on military targets,,,
>> > > >> they work well on runways.
>> > >
>> > > > Not a lot of runways in residential areas of Khandahar.....
>> > >
>> > > Pity you dont know cluster bombs are being used in residential areas, fuckwit.
>> >
>> > Pity you don't understand the nature of war, especially when the Taliban hides in residential areas.
>> > Clearly civilians are not directly targeted by the US as is the case with the Taliban who do not value human life.
>>
>> I'm amazed you put the phrase "do not value human life" in the same
>> sentence as talking about collateral damage. That's all it is.
>>
>> Stretch a little:
>> What is the difference between a terrorist with a legitimate grievance,
>> and a military force with a legitimate aim?
>
>Big difference when civilians are not directly targeted versus when civilians are directly targeted as was the case with
>the WTC which is pure terrorism.
>
>>
>>
>> I bet you think that no matter what reason the terrorists had in
>> destroying the WTC towers, that they absolutely shouldn't have killed
>> people in the process?
>
>Yes, because there targets were innocent civilians not military targets. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
>
>>
>>
>> Why does this line of thought fizzle when you apply it to the U.S.
>> military?
>
>Because you are obviously too stupid to understand the difference. The freedom you now enjoy would not have existed had
>people like you had your way in the 1940's and not attacked Nazi germany because innocent civilians would be killed.
>Remember the allies had no smart bombs then and many innocent civilians were killed which is what was required to
>eliminate tyranny. However, Many more innocent civilian lives were saved by destroying Hitler before he took over the
>world.
>
>>
>>
>> That's the problem of hypocrisy - they can't condemn the terrorists
>> *too* much or else even children will start to see the gap in logic.
>
>The problem with bleeding hearts is they are the true hypocrates. Their hearts bleeds for Afganistan which is run by a
>terrorist government which will kill many more innocent civilians, including innocent Afgans if they are not stopped,
>yet they have no compassion or sympathy for the innocent civilians who needlessly died in the World Trade Center. You
>are a true hypocrate, and an apologist for terrorist.
>
And you're a bad speller.
Denis Wright
> Was the bombing of Dresden any different. What would have happened
> if you applied your same rules to World War II?
Frankly, I find this comparison with WW2 unrealistic. War has not been
declared on Afghanistan by the US, has it? WW2 was a total war - this is
a punitive expedition. There are no Afghan armies out there backed by
the civilian population fighting the US in a declared war.
Just remember that thousands of tons of bombs were dropped on North
Vietnam, and all it did was create a Vietnamese nationalism that
guaranteed the enemies of the US would win. While Afghanistan is nowhere
near as strong a state as Vietnam or with as willing a set of allies,
this thing is going to end in a fiasco.
a
enterfornone <sp...@enterfornone.net> wrote in message news:psqnttk4keptsenlg...@4ax.com...
>>> True, but no one is bombing the US or UK,
>> Because they aint deliberately harbouring terrorists that
>> engage in that sort of activity, you stupid little fuckwit.
>>> where the WTC terrorists were based,
>> Pity that wasnt with the active support of the
>> govts of those countrys, you stupid little fuckwit.
> If terrorists can be based in countries
> without the support of the government,
That aint the reason Aghanistan is currently being fucked
over, you stupid little fuckwit. Thats happening because
they have supported bin Laden, and werent prepared to
hand him over when he perpetrated the WTC obscenity.
If bin Laden had been stupid enough to base his operation
in pomland, the poms would have handed him over to the
yanks in a flash if they had been able to find him in pomland.
> then it's pretty clear that bombing countries
> to stop terrorists will have no effect.
Wota terminally silly little fuckwit.
Back to those comics, boy, its all you can actually manage.
Rod Speed
enterfornone <sp...@enterfornone.net> wrote in message news:q2rntt4paok4ejv6t...@4ax.com...
> Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> enterfornone <sp...@enterfornone.net> wrote
>>> a <a...@b.com> wrote
>>>> enterfornone <sp...@enterfornone.net> wrote
>>>>> a <a...@b.com> wrote
>>>>> Pity you don't understand the nature of war, especially
>>>>> when the Taliban hides in residential areas.
>>>>>> Wota terminal fuckwit. The yanks arent deliberately
>>>>>> cluster bombing residential areas in Afghanistan, fuckwit.
>>>>> And you know this how.
>>>> The yanks aint that stupid, stupid.
>>>>> Major western newspapers seem to disagree with you.
>>>> Liar. You cant cite a SINGLE one that says that the yanks are
>>>> deliberately cluster bombing RESIDENTIAL AREAS in Afghanistan.
>>> The one that began this thread for a start.
>> Doesnt do that, fuckwit.
> Does a village count as a residential area.
Doesnt count as DELIBERATELY bombing it with cluster bombs, liar.
> http://www.smh.com.au/news/0110/25/world/world102.html
> On Wednesday the United Nations said unexploded bombs
> from a US air raid - believed to be cluster bombs - had
> trapped villagers in the west Afghan village of Shaker
> Kala, leaving them afraid to venture from their homes
Back to those comics, boy, its all you can manage.
Darragh Murray
I wonder if Rod is REALLY like this in real life (rude, ignorant,
obnoxious), or is just doing it to get under people skin (i.e for his own
personal amusement)
It would be pretty funny if he was really a nice guy, with a particulary
deranged sense of humour:)
Thanks
Darragh
-=-=
www.iamtheporkfireman.com
[Email]: s35...@student.uq.edu.au [ICQ]: 114283262
Scott Hillard
> Stop cluster bombing, Diana's fund says
Wouldn't they be better off advising people to wear seatbelts?
Or to avoid getting into a car with a drunk driver?
Kevin Jordan
>
> Just remember that thousands of tons of bombs were dropped on North
> Vietnam, and all it did was create a Vietnamese nationalism that
> guaranteed the enemies of the US would win. While Afghanistan is nowhere
> near as strong a state as Vietnam or with as willing a set of allies,
> this thing is going to end in a fiasco.
>
> Denis
I do not think the bombing created a nationalism in Vietnam. Indeed it
was the misreading by US of the degree of nationalism that led to the
war. The yanks never accepted that NV was nationalist first and
communist a long way second.
Warren
wrote:
In Rod's case it shows his unwillingness to listen, an unfounded
belief in his own superiority, and all round misanthropy.
>
>>
>> >
>> >
>
Roy Chang
what they are experiencing now. All you could say was offer advise on
road safety.
While I respect that sentiment(road safety) the issue here is the
people who are actually facing real bombs. I know you have some
grudges against them because of their ties to the boat people, but
doesn't mean cluster bombing is good for them.
Please.....
"Scott Hillard" <shil...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in reply to a
humanitarian suggestion:<vm%C7.154$w61....@ozemail.com.au>...
Denis Wright
> I do not think the bombing created a nationalism in Vietnam. Indeed it
> was the misreading by US of the degree of nationalism that led to the
> war. The yanks never accepted that NV was nationalist first and
> communist a long way second.
Ah - right... I see now that I didn't put that well. You are right, it
wasn't the bombing that created the nationalism, because that was
already there. But I do think that the bombing that then occurred added
to the nationalism that Ho was always tapping into.
Generally speaking, American governments have never been that great at
interpreting foreign policy towards Asian societies, and that has caused
a great deal of trouble in the region. Their policy towards the Indian
subcontinent since 1947 has been based on a heap of skewed assumptions,
and some chickens are coming home to roost because of that now.
Denis
--
change mutz to metz and zap .invalid to email me
Darragh Murray
> > I wonder if Rod is REALLY like this in real life (rude, ignorant, obnoxious),
> > or is just doing it to get under people skin (i.e for his own personal amusement)
>
> usenet who keep reading my posts just for that amusement.
>
> > It would be pretty funny if he was really a nice guy,
> > with a particulary deranged sense of humour:)
>
>
> Stupids like Wright never manage it.
>
> No surprise that it ended up in the absolute dregs of the
> pathetic little sheltered workshops in the entire country.
>
> You know what they say about academics ?
no, what do "they" say?
Rod Speed
Some pathetic little turd desperately cowering behind
Warren <warr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3bdbfcfa...@news.zipworld.com.au...
just the puerile shit that always poors from the back of that cowering turd.
Warren
<s35...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>
>I wonder if Rod is REALLY like this in real life (rude, ignorant,
>obnoxious), or is just doing it to get under people skin (i.e for his own
>personal amusement)
>
>It would be pretty funny if he was really a nice guy, with a particulary
>deranged sense of humour:)
He probably votes for the Democrats.
Warren
wrote:
>
>Some pathetic little turd desperately cowering behind
>Warren <warr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3bdbfcfa...@news.zipworld.com.au...
>just the puerile shit that always poors from the back of that cowering turd.
>
In Rod's case it shows his unwillingness to listen, an unfounded
Warren
>The point is cluster bombing which you have not experienced before and
>what they are experiencing now. All you could say was offer advise on
>road safety.
>
>While I respect that sentiment(road safety) the issue here is the
>people who are actually facing real bombs. I know you have some
>grudges against them because of their ties to the boat people, but
>doesn't mean cluster bombing is good for them.
>
>Please.....
I think Scott's post was a cruel allusion to the way she died.......
enterfornone
wrote:
>>> Doesnt do that, fuckwit.
>
>> Does a village count as a residential area.
>
>Doesnt count as DELIBERATELY bombing it with cluster bombs, liar.
So they accidently bomb residential areas?
Rod Speed
Darragh Murray <s35...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote in message news:Pine.OSF.4.30.011029...@student.uq.edu.au...
>>> I wonder if Rod is REALLY like this in real life (rude, ignorant, obnoxious),
>>> or is just doing it to get under people skin (i.e for his own personal amusement)
>> And for the amusement of an amazing number of denizens of
>> usenet who keep reading my posts just for that amusement.
>>> It would be pretty funny if he was really a nice guy,
>>> with a particulary deranged sense of humour:)
>> Took you long enough to notice.
>> Stupids like Wright never manage it.
>> No surprise that it ended up in the absolute dregs of the
>> pathetic little sheltered workshops in the entire country.
>> You know what they say about academics ?
> no, what do "they" say?
Those that can do something, do it. Those that cant, 'teach' it.
Rod Speed
enterfornone <sp...@enterfornone.net> wrote in message news:tb6qttoa2pbboo3ad...@4ax.com...
> Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> enterfornone <sp...@enterfornone.net> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>> enterfornone <sp...@enterfornone.net> wrote
>>>>> a <a...@b.com> wrote
>>>>>> enterfornone <sp...@enterfornone.net> wrote
>>>>>>> a <a...@b.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> Wota terminal fuckwit. The yanks arent deliberately
>>>>>>>> cluster bombing residential areas in Afghanistan, fuckwit.
>>>>>>> And you know this how.
>>>>>> The yanks aint that stupid, stupid.
>>>>>>> Major western newspapers seem to disagree with you.
>>>>>> Liar. You cant cite a SINGLE one that says that the yanks are
>>>>>> deliberately cluster bombing RESIDENTIAL AREAS in Afghanistan.
>>>>> The one that began this thread for a start.
>>>> Doesnt do that, fuckwit.
>>> Does a village count as a residential area.
>> Doesnt count as DELIBERATELY bombing it with cluster bombs, liar.
>> Doesnt count as DELIBERATELY bombing it with cluster bombs, liar.
> So they accidently bomb residential areas?
They dont even do that with cluster bombs, fuckwit.
Scott Hillard
Darragh Murray <s35...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.4.30.011029...@student.uq.edu.au...
> > You know what they say about academics ?
> no, what do "they" say?
"Gas them!"
Oh, sorry, that's what I say.
Scott Hillard
Roy Chang <roy...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8335a0cb.01102...@posting.google.com...
> The point is cluster bombing which you have not experienced before
You have no idea of what I may or may not have experienced before. I dare
say my experience with explosive devices has been somewhat greater than
yours.
> and what they are experiencing now. All you could say was offer advise on
> road safety.
Dumb as dogshit, as usual.
Obviously missed my dig at the Diana foundation - the stupid tart would be
alive today if she wore a seatbelt, and didn't get into the car with a drunk
at the wheel. Hence the advice on road safety in response to complaints
about cluster bombs from the "Dianna Foundation".
Dumd as dogshit.
> While I respect that sentiment(road safety) the issue here is the
> people who are actually facing real bombs.
Not people, untermenschen.
Darragh Murray
> >>> or is just doing it to get under people skin (i.e for his own personal amusement)
>
> >> And for the amusement of an amazing number of denizens of
> >> usenet who keep reading my posts just for that amusement.
>
> >>> It would be pretty funny if he was really a nice guy,
> >>> with a particulary deranged sense of humour:)
>
> >> Took you long enough to notice.
>
> >> Stupids like Wright never manage it.
>
> >> No surprise that it ended up in the absolute dregs of the
> >> pathetic little sheltered workshops in the entire country.
>
> >> You know what they say about academics ?
>
> > no, what do "they" say?
>
> Those that can do something, do it. Those that cant, 'teach' it.
Do class academics as those who lecture etc......and/or students?
Rod Speed
Darragh Murray <s35...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote in message news:Pine.OSF.4.30.01103...@student.uq.edu.au...
>>>>> I wonder if Rod is REALLY like this in real life (rude,
>>>>> ignorant, obnoxious), or is just doing it to get under
>>>>> people skin (i.e for his own personal amusement)
>>>> And for the amusement of an amazing number of denizens of
>>>> usenet who keep reading my posts just for that amusement.
>>>>> It would be pretty funny if he was really a nice guy,
>>>>> with a particulary deranged sense of humour:)
>>>> Took you long enough to notice.
>>>> Stupids like Wright never manage it.
>>>> No surprise that it ended up in the absolute dregs of the
>>>> pathetic little sheltered workshops in the entire country.
>>>> You know what they say about academics ?
>>> no, what do "they" say?
>> Those that can do something, do it. Those that cant, 'teach' it.
> Do class academics as those who lecture etc......and/or students?
The usual use of that term doesnt include the students.
dennis
"Scott Hillard" <shil...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:xrkD7.759$w61....@ozemail.com.au...
>
dennis
"Fiona Lim" <fion...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:2RRC7.246530$bY5.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> All the Talibans are in a hurry to go to heaven where the 72 virgins
recyled
> often enough will await them. Oblige them and Allah will bless you for the
> good deed. Bomb them and keep on bombng them
> news:9rfsgc$29m$1...@news.latrobe.edu.au...
> > > BERNARDZ <BERNAR...@iname.COM> wrote:
> > >> That it what we are doing right now in Afghanistan.
> > > Your government and mine decided to go into Afghanistan for three main
> > > purposes - to get ObL, to strike at terrorist bases and to topple the
> > > Taliban.
Kevin Jordan
> >
> > Those that can do something, do it. Those that cant, 'teach' it.
>
>
> Do class academics as those who lecture etc......and/or students?
>
> Thanks
> Darragh
> -=-=
Students are hardly academics. They re ignorant little people who are
avoiding going to work.
Warren
Most of the students I lectured to worked harder than me. Not only did
they study, but they mostly had part time jobs as well. Often they
were up till 4 in the morning the evening before doing assignments
etc, esp towards the end of the semester. This tallies with my
experience of 20 years ago when I was a university student. I worked a
lot harder at certains times, anyway, than I do in my job. In my job,
even if I finish at 9 or 10 at night I can still switch off the minute
I walk out the door. When you're a student there's less deliniation
between work time and free time. Not complaining, that's the way it
is. If nothing else I learnt to appreciate my free time and to
appreciate having money in the bank.
Russ
> > > > Stretch a little:
> > > > What is the difference between a terrorist with a legitimate grievance,
> > > > and a military force with a legitimate aim?
The above was my original challenge, in regards to the loss of
civilians lives.
> > > Big difference when civilians are not directly targeted versus when civilians are directly targeted as was the case with
> > > the WTC which is pure terrorism.
You've said "big difference", but not explained what the big
difference is.
If the "big difference" is that civilians indirectly targetted, aka
'collateral damage', then no wonder you are scared to consider that
terrorists may often also consider civilian losses as collateral damage.
Terrorists know innocents will die when they bomb specific targets.
The U.S. knows that innocents will die when they bomb specific targets.
If the "big difference" is that the U.S. have good reasons to be
attacking Afghanistan, then you've misunderstood the question - when
all variables are the same except one, what's the difference between:
a) a terrorist who causes the deaths of innocents
b) a military force that causes the deaths of innocents?
No doubt you'll do whatever you can to avoid answering the question,
and no doubt you can't see that often "terrorists" & "freedom fighters"
are often nothing more than a covert military force - even when the
terrorists themselves are misled and have no idea who is arming,
training and suppling them.
(according to what the C.I.A. has admitted so far, Osama Bin Laden had
no idea that the C.I.A. was supplying, training and arming him and a
100,000 other radicals who flocked to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets.
The C.I.A. worked through Pakistan's ISI, who were apparently even
more zealous than the C.I.A. in fighting the Soviets, and did not want
to be seen directly supporting 'freedom fighters' against the Soviets,
and thus Bin Laden did not know that he was also working for U.S.
interests.)
> > Subtle but important correction:
> > Symbols were directly targetted, not civilians.
> >
> > 1/ planes 20-30% full
> > 2/ 8-9am in the morning before most have arrived to work
> >
> > If they were after maximum civilian casualties, it would have been
> > planned differently to take advantage of the 50,000 worker capacity of
> > the towers. (some say 20,000)
>
> Look, no need to bother trying to have an intelligent conversation with you here. With the statement you just made you have
> proved your lack of capacity to understand even basic concepts. Glad to hear only 5000 innocent civilians were killed, It
> makes me feel so much better to know it could have been worse.
you keep missing it, perhaps deliberately.
if it makes you feel more secure to feel that I'm the one not making any
sense, then that's fine, but otherwise you should tell me if you don't
want to try to understand.
the simple point is that if civilians was the target - i.e. they were
aiming at civilian losses, then obviously the plan would have been
different to account for simple things like working hours.
it has nothing to do with being glad that "only 5000 innocent civilians
were killed when it could have been worse", and I suspect you know
this.
> > I actually care about lives lost on *both* sides.
> > That's value for human life.
>
> No you don't otherwise you would want to see the Taliban destroyed.
> They have killed far more innocent Afgans than the Americans.
I get it, black and white:
If the Taliban kills more innocent civilians than America, it means
America is good and the Taliban is bad.
But conversely,
as soon as America kills more Afghans than the Taliban, no doubt
you'll change the rules?
Just because one is not as bad as the other... doesn't mean that
either one is good.
You don't seem to see, that no matter which foreign power fights over
Afghanistan, that its the people that continue to suffer the most?
A country like Iraq was ruled by a dictator and had a terrible human
rights record, and America was its ally who overlooked this record when
it was inconvenient - even when it supplied biological weapons (public
record).
When America decided not to be friends anymore with this dictator, Iraq
went from a 'first world' country to a 'third world'. Over a million
civilians have died, and more will due to sanctions, lack of clean
water, no hospitals & school, lack of sanitation, etc.
Yet Saddam is still dictator, still living comfortably, and his
population is suffering even more than when America saved them.
How do you suppose the people of Afghanistan will be after America's
latest "Ally turned enemy" is defeated?
It'll be a miracle if:
1/ Afghanistan is restored
2/ The people are no longer living in poverty, or forced to grow
"revolutionary tax crops" of opium
3/ The government:
a) is genuinly democratic
b) doesn't violate human rights
c) isn't a puppet US government
4/ Afghanistan is allowed to live in peace and self-determination
without foreign (overt or covert) control or presence
> No you don't otherwise you would want to see the Taliban destroyed.
Why doesn't America then go after other countries such as Saudi
Arabia? Similar human rights record.
Are they, *gasp*, too good for business?
--
Russ
Dissent is terrorism.
Russ
> > > Those that can do something, do it. Those that cant, 'teach' it.
> >
> >
> > Do class academics as those who lecture etc......and/or students?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Darragh
>
> Students are hardly academics. They re ignorant little people who are
> avoiding going to work.
Most people look on comments like that as an example of the thing,
especially when so many students in Australia and New Zealand *have* to
work in order to survive and continue in their tuition.
Out of curiosity, would someone please inform me if the HECS scheme
(like ATM machine) is still in place?
enterfornone
wrote:
>>>>>>> Liar. You cant cite a SINGLE one that says that the yanks are
>>>>>>> deliberately cluster bombing RESIDENTIAL AREAS in Afghanistan.
>
>>>>>> The one that began this thread for a start.
>
>>>>> Doesnt do that, fuckwit.
>
>>>> Does a village count as a residential area.
>
>>> Doesnt count as DELIBERATELY bombing it with cluster bombs, liar.
>
>>> Doesnt count as DELIBERATELY bombing it with cluster bombs, liar.
>
>> So they accidently bomb residential areas?
>
>They dont even do that with cluster bombs, fuckwit.
So the bombs have been dropped on a residential area, yet neither on
purpose or by accident?
>
>>>> http://www.smh.com.au/news/0110/25/world/world102.html
>
>>>> On Wednesday the United Nations said unexploded bombs
>>>> from a US air raid - believed to be cluster bombs - had
>>>> trapped villagers in the west Afghan village of Shaker
>>>> Kala, leaving them afraid to venture from their homes
>
--
Darragh Murray
> > Do class academics as those who lecture etc......and/or students?
> avoiding going to work.
"work" eh.
Students study for better jobs (well, some of them do)...
most have part-time jobs
how are they "not working"
Darragh Murray
At this stage, HECS is still in place
Rod Speed
Russ <thisi...@dingoblue.net.au> wrote in message news:3BDE329B...@dingoblue.net.au...
> Ausstu wrote
>>>>> Stretch a little:
>>>>> What is the difference between a terrorist with a legitimate
>>>>> grievance, and a military force with a legitimate aim?
> The above was my original challenge, in regards to the loss of civilians lives.
Pity its just more of your peurile silly shit.
>>>> Big difference when civilians are not directly targeted
>>>> versus when civilians are directly targeted as was the
>>>> case with the WTC which is pure terrorism.
> You've said "big difference", but not explained what the big difference is.
Pigs arse he hasnt.
> If the "big difference" is that civilians indirectly targetted,
Thats what he said, stupid.
> aka 'collateral damage', then no wonder you are scared to consider that
> terrorists may often also consider civilian losses as collateral damage.
Wota pathetic little wanker.
> Terrorists know innocents will die when they bomb specific targets.
Pity they DELIBERATELY kill them you fool.
> The U.S. knows that innocents will die when they bomb specific targets.
Pity they dont DELIBERATELY kill them you fool.
> If the "big difference" is that the U.S. have
> good reasons to be attacking Afghanistan,
He never said that, fool.
> then you've misunderstood the question
Wota fucking wanker.
> - when all variables are the same except one,
Wota fucking wanker.
> what's the difference between:
> a) a terrorist who causes the deaths of innocents
> b) a military force that causes the deaths of innocents?
He TOLD you, fuckwit.
> No doubt you'll do whatever you can to avoid answering the question,
He answered it already you stupid fuckwit.
All the rest of your terminally silly shit flushed where it belongs.
Rod Speed
enterfornone <sp...@enterfornone.net> wrote in message news:nimstton8aebdknbi...@4ax.com...
> Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> Liar. You cant cite a SINGLE one that says that the yanks are
>>>>>>>> deliberately cluster bombing RESIDENTIAL AREAS in Afghanistan.
>>>>>>> The one that began this thread for a start.
>>>>>> Doesnt do that, fuckwit.
>>>>> Does a village count as a residential area.
>>>> Doesnt count as DELIBERATELY bombing it with cluster bombs, liar.
>>> So they accidently bomb residential areas?
>> They dont even do that with cluster bombs, fuckwit.
> So the bombs have been dropped on a residential
> area, yet neither on purpose or by accident?
Nope, what has got dropped accidentally on a residential
area ARENT CLUSTER BOMBS YOU STUPID FUCKWIT.
Back to those comics, boy. Its all you can manage.
enterfornone
wrote:
>
>Darragh Murray <s35...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote in message news:Pine.OSF.4.30.011030...@student.uq.edu.au...
>
>> Students study for better jobs (well, some of them do)...
>> most have part-time jobs
>
>Wrong on that most.
I would say most students I have known have part time jobs and are
studying for future employment. It is the arts degree, rally
attending mobs that give the rest a bad name.
enterfornone
wrote:
>> Terrorists know innocents will die when they bomb specific targets.
>
>Pity they DELIBERATELY kill them you fool.
>
>> The U.S. knows that innocents will die when they bomb specific targets.
>
>Pity they dont DELIBERATELY kill them you fool.
So they drop bombs on residential areas knowing that innocent
civillians die, yet they are not considered to be deliberately
killling them?
enterfornone
wrote:
>> So the bombs have been dropped on a residential
>> area, yet neither on purpose or by accident?
>
>Nope, what has got dropped accidentally on a residential
>area ARENT CLUSTER BOMBS YOU STUPID FUCKWIT.
Yet the quoted text below would indicate otherwise. Do you have
access to information that mainstream media does not?
>> >>>> http://www.smh.com.au/news/0110/25/world/world102.html
>> >
>> >>>> On Wednesday the United Nations said unexploded bombs
>> >>>> from a US air raid - believed to be cluster bombs - had
>> >>>> trapped villagers in the west Afghan village of Shaker
>> >>>> Kala, leaving them afraid to venture from their homes
>
>
Gregory Shearman
>
>As I am sure that Hitler said the same things about the Americans to brainwash his people with propaganda. I know which
>side I'd rather be on do you?
a) Hitler is dead and Germany is part of the "coalition against
terror".
b) The USA is NOT at war with Afghanistan.
c) Who is winning THIS propaganda war? Who has all the weapons?
I call Godwin's Law.... 'stu mentioned Hitler AGAIN.
--
Regards,
Gregory.
"Ding-a-Ding Dang, My Dang-a-Long Ling Long."
Gregory Shearman
>
>
>Denis Wright wrote:
>
>> Ausstu <Aus...@primus.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> > More the reason the people of Afganistan should abandon the terrorist ways
>> > of the Taliban or wind up with the same fate of the German people who
>> > blindly supported Hitler.
>>
>> "the people of Afganistan" are the meat in the sandwich. To compare
>> them with the German people in WW2 mode is not reasonable. To claim that
>> the people of Afghanistan are responsible for the terrorist ways of the
>> Taliban is as illogical as saying that that the innocent people who died
>> on September 11 were responsible for their fate. Neither of them were in
>> control of events.
>
>No different from Nazi Germany, where a minority of Germans
>were afraid to speak out an had to fall in law. However,
Ahh... just like in the US... where you CANNOT speak out against
US policy on Afghanistan or you'll suffer the "consequences" as
Mundine has found out... no-one is free to speak on this issue.
>like the Nazi regime most are fanatic supporters of the
>Taliban. It is ashame that innocent Afgan civilians will die
>in this war, however history has shown that you must stop
>tyranical regimes before they gain too much power and become
>even more dangerous.
I agree.. The United States MUST be stopped before they become
even MORE dangerous. They are bombing a country and killing
hundreds, if not thousands.... without ANY evidence that THEY
are responsible for the S11 attack.
> Truth is the Taliban have killed far more innocent civilians
> than the Americans and the world will be a better place
> without them.
Garbage. I suppose you don't count Hiroshima, Nagasaki and
Vietnam in your body count.
Rod Speed
enterfornone <sp...@enterfornone.net> wrote in message news:cl4uttg32uhu9hbgb...@4ax.com...
>>> Students study for better jobs (well, some of them do)...
>>> most have part-time jobs
>> Wrong on that most.
> I would say most students I have known
The ones you may or may not have 'known' are completely
and utterly irrelevant to students as a whole, stupid.
> have part time jobs
Some do, some dont.
> and are studying for future employment.
Some do, some dont.
> It is the arts degree, rally attending mobs that give the rest a bad name.
There are plenty of bludgers in other facultys,
and plenty that dont have part time jobs too.
Rod Speed
Ausstu <Aus...@primus.com.au> wrote in message news:3BD9F98A...@primus.com.au...
> enterfornone wrote
>> Ausstu <Aus...@primus.com.au> wrote
>>> There are alot of Taliban hiding in residential areas of Khandahar,
>>> however, there is no evidence that cluster bombs have been directly
>>> targeting residential areas. By the way, far more civilians were killed
>>> in Nazi Germany than there are in Afganistan. Sorry to inform you,
>>> but part of the unfortunate nature of war is that innocent civilians will
>>> be killed. More the reason the people of Afganistan should abandon
>>> the terrorist ways of the Taliban or wind up with the same fate of
>>> the German people who blindly supported Hitler.
>> I'm sure Bin Laden says the same thing
>> about Americans who blindly support Bush.
> As I am sure that Hitler said the same things about the
> Americans to brainwash his people with propaganda.
He didnt, actually, regardless of whether you are sure of that or not.
> I know which side I'd rather be on do you?
Separate issue entirely.
Rod Speed
enterfornone <sp...@enterfornone.net> wrote in message news:nr4utt83jjereu0ke...@4ax.com...
> Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>> So the bombs have been dropped on a residential
>>> area, yet neither on purpose or by accident?
>> Nope, what has got dropped accidentally on a residential
>> area ARENT CLUSTER BOMBS YOU STUPID FUCKWIT.
> Yet the quoted text below would indicate otherwise.
Liar, whats quoted below does nothing of the sort, fuckwit.
> Do you have access to information that mainstream media does not?
Wota pathetic little fuckwit child.
Kevin Jordan
Ah yes, but then, you do not come across as the brightest card in the
pack.
Warren
Jordan) wrote:
I doubt you even have the ability to recognise it. You sound like a
pig ignorant thick shit.
enterfornone
wrote:
>
>enterfornone <sp...@enterfornone.net> wrote in message news:cl4uttg32uhu9hbgb...@4ax.com...
>> Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>> Darragh Murray <s35...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote
>
>>>> Students study for better jobs (well, some of them do)...
>>>> most have part-time jobs
>
>>> Wrong on that most.
>There are plenty of bludgers in other facultys,
>and plenty that dont have part time jobs too.
Plenty, sure - but most?
enterfornone
wrote:
>
>enterfornone <sp...@enterfornone.net> wrote in message news:nr4utt83jjereu0ke...@4ax.com...
>> Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>>>> So the bombs have been dropped on a residential
>>>> area, yet neither on purpose or by accident?
>
>>> Nope, what has got dropped accidentally on a residential
>>> area ARENT CLUSTER BOMBS YOU STUPID FUCKWIT.
>
>> Yet the quoted text below would indicate otherwise.
>
>Liar, whats quoted below does nothing of the sort, fuckwit.
So how did the cluster bombs get to the residential area if they
weren't dropped?
>> Do you have access to information that mainstream media does not?
>
>Wota pathetic little fuckwit child.
>
>>>>>>>> http://www.smh.com.au/news/0110/25/world/world102.html
>
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday the United Nations said unexploded bombs
>>>>>>>> from a US air raid - believed to be cluster bombs - had
>>>>>>>> trapped villagers in the west Afghan village of Shaker
>>>>>>>> Kala, leaving them afraid to venture from their homes
>
>
enterfornone
wrote:
>
>enterfornone <sp...@enterfornone.net> wrote in message news:2p4uttc4f074i9hbt...@4ax.com...
>> Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>>>> Terrorists know innocents will die when they bomb specific targets.
>
>>> Pity they DELIBERATELY kill them you fool.
>
>>>> The U.S. knows that innocents will die when they bomb specific targets.
>
>>> Pity they dont DELIBERATELY kill them you fool.
>
>> So they drop bombs on residential areas knowing that innocent civillians die,
>
>Pity they dont DELIBERATELY do that you stupid comic reading child.
So they accidently do it?
Kevin Jordan
> >> Most of the students I lectured to worked harder than me. Not only did
> >> they study, but they mostly had part time jobs as well. Often they
> >> were up till 4 in the morning the evening before doing assignments
> >> etc, esp towards the end of the semester. This tallies with my
> >> experience of 20 years ago when I was a university student. I worked a
> >> lot harder at certains times, anyway, than I do in my job. In my job,
> >> even if I finish at 9 or 10 at night I can still switch off the minute
> >> I walk out the door. When you're a student there's less deliniation
> >> between work time and free time. Not complaining, that's the way it
> >> is. If nothing else I learnt to appreciate my free time and to
> >> appreciate having money in the bank.
> >
> >Ah yes, but then, you do not come across as the brightest card in the
> >pack.
>
> I doubt you even have the ability to recognise it. You sound like a
> pig ignorant thick shit.
If this is your level of discussion I doubt that you ever lectured
anybody. You are simply a foul-mouthed liar.
dennis
"Gregory Shearman" <ZekeG...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:4RED7.143$Ef.1...@nasal.pacific.net.au...
leaving. Many Vietnamese welcomed the U.S. there to help fight the Vietcong.
They needed help and they were abandonded yes. The U.S. was there at the
blessing of the South Vietnamese goverment (as it was with the South Korean
government.
Scott Hillard
Warren <warr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3bdd0b97...@news.zipworld.com.au...
> On 28 Oct 2001 18:35:45 -0800, roy...@yahoo.com (Roy Chang) wrote:
> >While I respect that sentiment(road safety) the issue here is the
> >people who are actually facing real bombs. I know you have some
> >grudges against them because of their ties to the boat people, but
> >doesn't mean cluster bombing is good for them.
> >Please.....
> I think Scott's post was a cruel allusion to the way she died.......
Nothing cruel about it - if the silly tart had worn a seatbelt, she would
have survived.
MB "guarantee" that you will survive a crash at speeds up to 60km/h, but
only if you wear a correctly adjusted seatbelt.
enterfornone
wrote:
>>>>>> Students study for better jobs (well, some of them do)...
>>>>>> most have part-time jobs
>
>>>>> Wrong on that most.
>
>>> There are plenty of bludgers in other facultys,
>>> and plenty that dont have part time jobs too.
>
>> Plenty, sure - but most?
>
>What I said, stupid, 'Wrong on that most'
You said "Wrong on that most" to the claim that most students have
part time jobs. Therefore you must be claiming that most do not have
part time jobs. Stupid.
enterfornone
wrote:
>
>enterfornone <sp...@enterfornone.net> wrote in message news:6ehvttofvmepbgaia...@4ax.com...
>> Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>> enterfornone <sp...@enterfornone.net> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>>>>>> So the bombs have been dropped on a residential
>>>>>> area, yet neither on purpose or by accident?
>
>>>>> Nope, what has got dropped accidentally on a residential
>>>>> area ARENT CLUSTER BOMBS YOU STUPID FUCKWIT.
>
>>>> Yet the quoted text below would indicate otherwise.
>
>>> Liar, whats quoted below does nothing of the sort, fuckwit.
>
>> So how did the cluster bombs get to the residential area
>
>That quote DOESNT SAY THAT, FUCKWIT.
It says that villagers are afraid to venture from their homes because
of the fear of unexploded cluster bombs. That would suggest to me
that there are cluster bombs located in a residential area.
Or perhaps the villagers are hallucinating about the bombs?
Rod Speed
enterfornone <sp...@enterfornone.net> wrote in message news:sd72utk6b27t924mo...@4ax.com...
> Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Students study for better jobs (well, some of them do)...
>>>>>>> most have part-time jobs
>>>>>> Wrong on that most.
>>>> There are plenty of bludgers in other facultys,
>>>> and plenty that dont have part time jobs too.
>>> Plenty, sure - but most?
>> What I said, stupid, 'Wrong on that most'
> You said "Wrong on that most" to the claim
> that most students have part time jobs.
You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist comic reading fuckwits ?
> Therefore you must be claiming that most do not have part time jobs.
You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist comic reading fuckwits ?
So what I said was what you said, comic reading fuckwit.
Back to those comics, fuckwit, its all you can manage.
Rod Speed
enterfornone <sp...@enterfornone.net> wrote in message news:ph72utkc4enfpml6e...@4ax.com...
> Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> enterfornone <sp...@enterfornone.net> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>> enterfornone <sp...@enterfornone.net> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>>> So the bombs have been dropped on a residential
>>>>>>> area, yet neither on purpose or by accident?
>>>>>> Nope, what has got dropped accidentally on a residential
>>>>>> area ARENT CLUSTER BOMBS YOU STUPID FUCKWIT.
>>>>> Yet the quoted text below would indicate otherwise.
>>>> Liar, whats quoted below does nothing of the sort, fuckwit.
>>> So how did the cluster bombs get to the residential area
>> That quote DOESNT SAY THAT, FUCKWIT.
> It says that villagers are afraid to venture from their
> homes because of the fear of unexploded cluster bombs.
You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist comic reading fuckwits ?
> That would suggest to me that there are
> cluster bombs located in a residential area.
Wrong again, fuckwit.
> Or perhaps the villagers are hallucinating about the bombs?
Or perhaps some comic reading fuckwit cant manage
to read and comprehend even the simplest stuff, fuckwit.
Back to those comics, fuckwit, its all you can manage.
>>>>> Do you have access to information that mainstream media does not?
rb
Rod Speed wrote:
> Darragh Murray <s35...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote in message news:Pine.OSF.4.30.011029...@student.uq.edu.au...
>
> >>> I wonder if Rod is REALLY like this in real life (rude, ignorant, obnoxious),
> >>> or is just doing it to get under people skin (i.e for his own personal amusement)
>
> >> And for the amusement of an amazing number of denizens of
> >> usenet who keep reading my posts just for that amusement.
>
> >>> It would be pretty funny if he was really a nice guy,
> >>> with a particulary deranged sense of humour:)
>
> >> Took you long enough to notice.
>
> >> Stupids like Wright never manage it.
>
> >> No surprise that it ended up in the absolute dregs of the
> >> pathetic little sheltered workshops in the entire country.
>
> >> You know what they say about academics ?
>
> > no, what do "they" say?
>
> Those that can do something, do it. Those that cant, 'teach' it.
For some reason this has always stuck in my brain
Those who can, do
Those who can't, teach
Those who can't teach, teach teachers to teach
Rod Speed
rb <sna...@lycos.com> wrote in message news:3BE214C4...@lycos.com...
>>>>> I wonder if Rod is REALLY like this in real life (rude,
>>>>> ignorant, obnoxious), or is just doing it to get under
>>>>> people skin (i.e for his own personal amusement)
>>>> And for the amusement of an amazing number of denizens of
>>>> usenet who keep reading my posts just for that amusement.
>>>>> It would be pretty funny if he was really a nice guy,
>>>>> with a particulary deranged sense of humour:)
>>>> Took you long enough to notice.
>>>> Stupids like Wright never manage it.
>>>> No surprise that it ended up in the absolute dregs of the
>>>> pathetic little sheltered workshops in the entire country.
>>>> You know what they say about academics ?
>>> no, what do "they" say?
>> Those that can do something, do it. Those that cant, 'teach' it.
> For some reason this has always stuck in my brain
> Those who can, do
> Those who can't, teach
> Those who can't teach, teach teachers to teach
Yeah, its been around for quite a while and is pretty accurate.
And the last packa wankers now rabbit on about 'training the trainers'
Most academics couldnt even manage to 'teach' wanking.