Bombing targets? Nonsense!

0 views
Skip to first unread message

A. van Ginkel

unread,
Dec 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/18/98
to
One thing really amazes me: that no Western military expert has yet come
up with the view that the air strikes sofar are nonsensical. Why?
Historic research has proven, drawing from examples of WW2, Vietnam and
other wars, that air raids not accompanied by a ground war achieve
little, except disrupt enemy activities. On the contrary, they actually
strengthen the feelings of the stricken population for their government,
it has been proven. So no toppling of Saddam as long as no ground
strikes are added to this Operation Desert Fox. In other words, it's a
scam and a loss of millions of dollars.
OR: send the cavalry over to Baghdad. And then let's see what will
happen. Clinton and Blair, you've put us all into a fine mess!


Tomoyuki Tanaka

unread,
Dec 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/18/98
to

how many Iraqis do you think were killed in the Gulf War?

about 200,000, according to U.N., Pentagon, and other sources.
Michael Parenti, [book] "Democracy for the Few" (1995)
Pages 96-97.

about 1/3 of the deaths were of women and children.
"When a Census Bureau demographer reported that President
Bush's war against Iraq had resulted in 158,000 Iraqi
deaths, including 71,807 women and children, she was
informed she would be fired."
Michael Parenti, [book] "Democracy for the Few"
(1995) Page 274. (more sources cited in the book)

"President Clinton continues to foster the myth of the
`clean war' although his adviser, former President Jimmy
Carter, has suggested that more than 150,000 Iraqi
civilians were killed in the bombings."
San Francisco Chronicle, Sunday, August 20, 1995.

-----------------------------------------------------------
when i found this out, i was surprised how large this number
was. i was duped by the CNN's propaganda of "precise,
smart-bombs" which were supposed to pin-point military targets
without causing human damages.

--
;;; TANAKA Tomoyuki ("Mr. Tanaka" or "Tomoyuki")
;;; http://www.cs.indiana.edu/hyplan/tanaka.html

Tom James

unread,
Dec 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/19/98
to

Tomoyuki Tanaka wrote in message <75grui$cf1$1...@mark.ucdavis.edu>...
>
> the following article i posted yesterday (apparently) got
> cancelled by someone. but it was archived in dejanews.
>
> can i find out who issued the forged cancel message?
> am i up against the Internet dept of a right-wing conspiracy?
>


It appeared on my server. What makes you think it got cancelled?


Andrew Gierth

unread,
Dec 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/19/98
to
>>>>> "Tomoyuki" == Tomoyuki Tanaka <ez07...@dilbert.ucdavis.edu> writes:

Tomoyuki> the following article i posted yesterday (apparently) got
Tomoyuki> cancelled by someone. but it was archived in dejanews.

Tomoyuki> can i find out who issued the forged cancel message?

----
Path: ...!wn3feed!worldnet.att.net!128.230.129.106!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!206.165.3.11!nntp.primenet.com!news.primenet.com!pedophiles.vszbr.cz!pedophiles.inet.tele.dk!pedophiles.ferret.ocunix.on.ca!dilbert.ucdavis.edu!ez074520
From: ez07...@dilbert.ucdavis.edu (Tomoyuki Tanaka)
Newsgroups: alt.gothic,alt.slack,alt.religion.scientology,soc.culture.jewish,alt.war
Subject: cmsg cancel <75dt7b$4bd$1...@mark.ucdavis.edu>
Control: cancel <75dt7b$4bd$1...@mark.ucdavis.edu>
Date: 19 Dec 1998 13:55:25 GMT
Organization: Czech Pedophiles in Denmark
Lines: 2
Approved: pedop...@vszbr.cz
Message-ID: <NQfDE6yHmFR7GQzY...@mark.ucdavis.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ip-43-99.tus.primenet.com
X-Complaints-To: ab...@globalcenter.net
X-Posted-By: @206.165.43.99 (mmpitts)
X-No-Archive: Pedophiles
Pedophile: Barry Bouwsma
Pedophiles: Barry Bouwsma & Friends

BARRY BOUWSMA IS A PEDOPHILE!

----

Tomoyuki> am i up against the Internet dept of a right-wing conspiracy?

Doubt it... there were a whole slew of cancels from the same place,
mostly in the net-abuse groups.

--
Andrew.

Steve Sundberg

unread,
Dec 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/20/98
to
On Sat, 19 Dec 1998 22:46:53 +0900, D-...@animal.com (Daniel Simpson
Day) wrote:

>In article <75dt7b$4bd$1...@mark.ucdavis.edu>, ez07...@dilbert.ucdavis.edu
>(Tomoyuki Tanaka) wrote:
>
> [blah blah blah]
>
>NHK news reported 5 deaths and about 35 injuries on the 1st. day of
>the attack.

I read a report that claimed a total of 64 civilian deaths so far. But
have you also noticed that most of the civilians that are shown from
Iraqi TV are men?


_.,-*'`^`'*-,._.,-*'`^`'*-,._.,-*'` | Recipes From Most All Of Asia
http://www.straitscafe.com | The Straits Cafe Virtual Restaurant
Asian Cookbooks & Travel Guides | http://www.straitscafe.com/books.htm

naked and free

unread,
Dec 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/20/98
to
most of the women are kept indoors like slaves i s'pose
~
jason

Daniel Simpson Day wrote:


>
> In article <367c9156...@enews.newsguy.com>, dee...@mm.com wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 19 Dec 1998 22:46:53 +0900, D-...@animal.com (Daniel Simpson
> >Day) wrote:
> >
> >>In article <75dt7b$4bd$1...@mark.ucdavis.edu>, ez07...@dilbert.ucdavis.edu
> >>(Tomoyuki Tanaka) wrote:
> >>
> >> [blah blah blah]
> >>
> >>NHK news reported 5 deaths and about 35 injuries on the 1st. day of
> >>the attack.
> >
> >I read a report that claimed a total of 64 civilian deaths so far. But
> >have you also noticed that most of the civilians that are shown from
> >Iraqi TV are men?
>

> I would assume that there is some part of their culture/religion that
> objects to showing dead women.
>
> 64 dead ain't that bad. Hell, Clinton & Reno bagged more than that at Waco,
> and those were Christians.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> "Oh...Boy! This is Great!" Kent Dorfman
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> ATTENTION:Driver only carries $20.00 worth of ammunition!
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> "They have something whereof the are proud.
> What do they call it, that which maketh them
> proud? Culture, they call it; it distinguisheth
> them from the goatherds." Nietzsche
> -----------------------------------------------------------------

--
When they took the fourth amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal
drugs.
When they took the sixth amendment, I was quiet because I was innocent.
When they took the second amendment, I was quiet because I didn't own a
gun.
Now they've taken the first amendment, and I can say nothing about it.

lin...@mindspring.com

unread,
Dec 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/21/98
to
71,807? Is that all? I thought our smart bombs were better than
that.

Delta Force

unread,
Dec 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/21/98
to
71,807 IS THAT ALL WE GOT FOR OUR MONEY,SEE I TOLD YOU WE SHOULD USE
ONLY NUKES, THEIR A BETTER BANG FOR YOUR BUCK. A REAL BARGIN IF YOU ASK
ME!!


x...@xx.com

unread,
Dec 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/27/98
to

>
> 64 dead ain't that bad. Hell, Clinton & Reno bagged more than that at Waco,
> and those were Christians.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> "Oh...Boy! This is Great!" Kent Dorfman
> -----------------------------------------------------------------


Are you suggesting that those of us who worship the dead guy on the stick
are somehow better than the rest of the world? What does their religion
have to do with it?

Delta Force

unread,
Dec 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/27/98
to
You call JESUS (he will still save your stupid ass) a dead guy on a
stick with a dumb fucking name like xx@xx ??? YOUR ALLAH CAN`T SAVE YOU
FROM POWERFUL AMERICANS CAUSE HE`S WITH US, GIVING US HIS SUPPORT &
HELP!!!


naked and free

unread,
Dec 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/27/98
to
no i think he means those of you who worship that dead guy on the stick
were the ones caught in the waco debacle as they all believed
whatever-that-guys-name-was (don't laugh at me, i just forgot it. i just
got up.) was going to open the 7 seals of hell or some such so they were
all shacking up with him based on their dead-guy-on-a-stick beliefs.
apparently he also engaged in relations with many of the women & young
girls but those are just rumours since everyone was killed. anyways
goodbye
~
jason

--

naked and free

unread,
Dec 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/27/98
to
it was david something. not bowie, he's still alive

The Murphys

unread,
Dec 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/28/98
to
David Koresh (pls excuse spelling)
naked and free wrote in message <368726...@end-war.com>...

Aidan Ryder

unread,
Dec 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/31/98
to
In article <368726...@end-war.com>, naked and free
<nakeda...@end-war.com> writes

>it was david something. not bowie, he's still alive
>

David Koresh, and he`s dead IIRC...

--
Aidan Ryder -- http://members.tripod.com/~Aidan_Ryder/Start.htm
"Two parts apathy, one part despair" - NOFX

naked and free

unread,
Jan 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/2/99
to
actually he HAS spoken out about it. he said (and i try to get as close
to the original qutoe as i can) that the government could have simply
picked him up while he was out jogging or at a bar trying to pick up
some new girls to join his cult. so i'm assuming biafra has also heard
the rumours koresh was engaging in relations with the women. but ya know
what? they're RUMOURS! because i don't know for sure. that's why i said
RUMOURS!
Daniel Simpson Day wrote:
>
> In article <azKh2.5661$Js2....@news.rdc1.nj.home.com>, "The Murphys"

> <the-m...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >David Koresh (pls excuse spelling)
>
> It's the correct spelling.

>
> >naked and free wrote in message <368726...@end-war.com>...
> >>it was david something. not bowie, he's still alive
>
> No...he's dead. Victim of big government's cowboys.

>
> >>naked and free wrote:
> >>>
> >>> no i think he means those of you who worship that dead guy on the stick
> >>> were the ones caught in the waco debacle as they all believed
> >>> whatever-that-guys-name-was (don't laugh at me, i just forgot it. i just
> >>> got up.) was going to open the 7 seals of hell or some such so they were
> >>> all shacking up with him based on their dead-guy-on-a-stick beliefs.
>
> Having beliefs doesn't give the government the right to kill you. Or burn
> your house down. Nor does a bunch of people "shacking up" mean that
> they deserved to be killed.

>
> >>> apparently he also engaged in relations with many of the women & young
> >>> girls but those are just rumours since everyone was killed. anyways
> >>> goodbye
>
> Are you a professional idiot?
>

actually i'm a lawyer
~
jason

> The Waco massacre is something that I'm suprised that Jello hasn't spoken
> out against.


> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> "Oh...Boy! This is Great!" Kent Dorfman
> -----------------------------------------------------------------

> ATTENTION:Driver only carries $20.00 worth of ammunition!
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> "They have something whereof the are proud.
> What do they call it, that which maketh them
> proud? Culture, they call it; it distinguisheth
> them from the goatherds." Nietzsche
> -----------------------------------------------------------------

--

naked and free

unread,
Jan 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/2/99
to
Daniel Simpson Day wrote:
>
> In article <azKh2.5661$Js2....@news.rdc1.nj.home.com>, "The Murphys"
> <the-m...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >David Koresh (pls excuse spelling)
>
> It's the correct spelling.
>
> >naked and free wrote in message <368726...@end-war.com>...
> >>it was david something. not bowie, he's still alive
>
> No...he's dead. Victim of big government's cowboys.
>
> >>naked and free wrote:
> >>>
> >>> no i think he means those of you who worship that dead guy on the stick
> >>> were the ones caught in the waco debacle as they all believed
> >>> whatever-that-guys-name-was (don't laugh at me, i just forgot it. i just
> >>> got up.) was going to open the 7 seals of hell or some such so they were
> >>> all shacking up with him based on their dead-guy-on-a-stick beliefs.
>
> Having beliefs doesn't give the government the right to kill you. Or burn
> your house down. Nor does a bunch of people "shacking up" mean that
> they deserved to be killed.
>
no, they don't, the guy asked what koresh had to do with the dead guy on
the stick. i don't believe anyone has the right to kill anyoen else or
take their property, their god and their government included. but i
don't think your'e getting my wavelength

> >>> apparently he also engaged in relations with many of the women & young
> >>> girls but those are just rumours since everyone was killed. anyways
> >>> goodbye
>
> Are you a professional idiot?
>

Vicki Andrada

unread,
Jan 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/4/99
to
In response to your Post, I’d like to say that Saddam Hussein himself made
that point once. He told Dan Rather of CBS news during an interview in
1990, that a war has never been won by air power alone. He even can see
this fact.
Vicki

Darko

unread,
Jan 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/4/99
to
Vicki Andrada wrote:
>
> In response to your Post, I d like to say that Saddam Hussein himself made
> that point once. He told Dan Rather of CBS news during an interview in
> 1990, that a war has never been won by air power alone. He even can see
> this fact.

I believe a lesson in history is due at this moment, to further prove that fact:

- during "war for Brittain" Luftwaffe bombed heavily London and other places.
Result was that population got even more prepared for fight, standing up
against Nazi Germany and Hitler. Winston Churchill, PM at that time, even
said famous words "We shall never surrender!".

- Germany also was bombed extensively during WWII. And even more than Brittain.
And yet, common question in Germany was "Why are they bombing us?", and only
after Berlin fell and allied forces eventually Germany (and Hitler commited
suicide), only then Nazi Germany capitulated.

- one and only example of successfull war effort through aerial bombardment ONLY
was dropping of attomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Little did
japanese generals and the Emperor know that americans HAD only 2 bombs left.
Total of three were produced. Two plutonium bombs, and one uranium bomb. First
plutonium bomb was exploded on a US test site in Nevada desert. In effect,
US succeeded in bluffing Japanese (but, God, at what price), because they
indeed wanted to send a message to Russians (who started capturing Japanese
territories from the north already).

Regards!
Darko

--

kegofnails

unread,
Jan 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/4/99
to
Well, you hit that one on the head. I guarnatee after dropping a couple of nukes
from an airplane, any war would be over. So, it sounds a little ridiculous to state
that a war cannot be won by airpower alone. It all depends on how much power is
applied. The more power, the better the air strike. And the nuke is the ultmiate
power. It sure put a halt to WWII.

John Campbell

unread,
Jan 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/4/99
to

One simple nuke bomb on Saddam's head, when he's out on the
victory stand, and this will put a halt to WWIII. Hard to find him?
Simple. Use GPS.

firefly

unread,
Jan 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/5/99
to
PLEASE>PLEASE <ANSWER MY QUESTION!!!
HOW MANY DUMMYS LIKE COFFIN ARE ON THIS NEWSGROUP?

John Campbell

unread,
Jan 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/5/99
to

We all knew that already a long time ago before Saddam knew it. All it
takes is a ground war with coalition of armies to win the war. We have
alot more experience in warfare than Saddam. The Gulf war was just to
kick Saddam's ass out of Kuwait.

Ever wonder why he signed the "cease-fire" agreement? What did this
mean to you?

Vicki Andrada <and...@voyager.net> wrote:

> In response to your Post, I’d like to say that Saddam Hussein himself made
>that point once. He told Dan Rather of CBS news during an interview in
>1990, that a war has never been won by air power alone. He even can see
>this fact.

Darko

unread,
Jan 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM1/5/99
to
kegofnails wrote:
>
> Well, you hit that one on the head. I guarnatee after dropping a couple of nukes
> from an airplane, any war would be over. So, it sounds a little ridiculous to state
> that a war cannot be won by airpower alone. It all depends on how much power is
> applied. The more power, the better the air strike. And the nuke is the ultmiate
> power. It sure put a halt to WWII.

Knowing that it's quite clear why other countries are also trying to get that
kind of weapon. US would reluctuntly dare to nuke some country into oblivion
if it would know that a nuke or two (or more) would come the opposite way.
Appropriate Cold War term was "MAD" = Mutual Assured Destruction. Balance of
power during Cold War was the sole reason for relative stability throught
the world (measured in number of world hot-spots).

Regards!
Darko

> Darko wrote:


>
> > Vicki Andrada wrote:
> > >
> > > In response to your Post, I d like to say that Saddam Hussein himself made
> > > that point once. He told Dan Rather of CBS news during an interview in
> > > 1990, that a war has never been won by air power alone. He even can see
> > > this fact.
> >

> > I believe a lesson in history is due at this moment, to further prove that fact:
> >
> > - during "war for Brittain" Luftwaffe bombed heavily London and other places.
> > Result was that population got even more prepared for fight, standing up
> > against Nazi Germany and Hitler. Winston Churchill, PM at that time, even
> > said famous words "We shall never surrender!".
> >
> > - Germany also was bombed extensively during WWII. And even more than Brittain.
> > And yet, common question in Germany was "Why are they bombing us?", and only
> > after Berlin fell and allied forces eventually Germany (and Hitler commited
> > suicide), only then Nazi Germany capitulated.
> >
> > - one and only example of successfull war effort through aerial bombardment ONLY
> > was dropping of attomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Little did
> > japanese generals and the Emperor know that americans HAD only 2 bombs left.
> > Total of three were produced. Two plutonium bombs, and one uranium bomb. First
> > plutonium bomb was exploded on a US test site in Nevada desert. In effect,
> > US succeeded in bluffing Japanese (but, God, at what price), because they
> > indeed wanted to send a message to Russians (who started capturing Japanese
> > territories from the north already).
> >
> > Regards!
> > Darko
> >
> > --
> >

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages