GameBanshee Forums

Originally posted by Quark:
<STRONG> Weasel, you think the Red Cross is bad? Try the US government. Those famous US Subsidies that help farmers survive? All they do with the grain they buy is stick it in a warehouse and let it rot.</STRONG>

I'm from the southeast USA. I have saw crops burned so the 'farmer' can claim his check.

Originally posted by Quark:
<STRONG> I don't know if you should blame the Red Cross right now - after all, how often are they expected to evacuate? It doesn't happen often, so even they weren't prepared for it.</STRONG>

I'm not blaming them, I just want answers to why all this food is there. Why with all this food does the US have to put pilots at risk dropping food?

Originally posted by Quark:
<STRONG> As for this theory that feeding starving people is good, anyone who thinks that should read Ishmael (by Daniel Quinn). A very simple statement is said in it:
Feed someone with imported food, they'll go have kids, which just creates a bigger food gap for the population.

Now, teach them better farming techniques and they might get somewhere (of course, Afghanistan is not the best farming region). </STRONG>

I agree teaching is the way, but for someone to learn they need food to get by on.

Then it gets to the point... if they decide to take the food and have children...instead of learning, what can anybody do about it? Force them not to? Force them to learn instead?

@ fable. What was hit was a grain distribution center. the grain is taken there and sent on. at the moment it is very hard to get trucks in afganistan. 1 the drivers are scared of US attacks. 2 the US has hit fuel depots so distribution is now even harder.

The US must stop their attacks. 500.000 people could easily die this winter in afghanist if more food is not brought in. That i think would be a crime against humanity.

dropping a bit of food from plains is worse than useless. it might well fall into minefields leading to more deaths.
It is merely a disgusting propaganda exercise. 7.5 million people need food. 37.500 lunch boxes is an insult.

This is all irrelevant.

Tens of thouasands are already dead. Blood has been spilled. If the US doesn't stop terror, tens of thousands more will die.

Civilian casualties, whilst regretable, are an inevitable consequence of the Taleban's refusal to end their evil ways and support for Terror. Its their fault. They're killing their own as surely as they killed those thousands of people at the WTC.

They had a choice. Those people sitting down to their coffee on the upper floors of the Towers at 8:40am on sept 11 didn't.

Originally posted by Weasel:
<STRONG>I sat and watched CNN show the Red Cross Building that was hit....and wondered.

1.A building full of grain bags.

2.People starving.

3.Why was this building full of grain bags if the people are starving?

I know winter is coming, but to let people starve today so you can have food for tomorrow?

And the main question...Why have the food in a city the people are fleeing from? Wouldn't it be better to take the food to where the people are going?


I'm not a rich person, but I make what little donations I can to the Red Cross. After this...(depending on the reply I get back from the Red Cross) my little donations will go somewhere else.</STRONG>

The warehouse held wheat and rice which are the staple foods in the region.
You can't go around and carry a bussel of wheat on your back and attempt to get to pakistan at the same time.
The warehouses are staging ground from what i know.
The store the food and then take a portion of it up in to the mountains and other areas.

To paraphrase the Economist - the Afghanis don't need pop-tarts for food.
Yes those "100% PR 0% humanitarian" - again not my words from last weeks economists said by some unknown NGO official - have pop tarts and strawberry jam as a part of the food kit.

Originally posted by Gruntboy:
<STRONG>This is all irrelevant.

Tens of thouasands are already dead. Blood has been spilled. If the US doesn't stop terror, tens of thousands more will die.

Civilian casualties, whilst regretable, are an inevitable consequence of the Taleban's refusal to end their evil ways and support for Terror. Its their fault. They're killing their own as surely as they killed those thousands of people at the WTC.

They had a choice. Those people sitting down to their coffee on the upper floors of the Towers at 8:40am on sept 11 didn't.</STRONG>

Ditto.

Originally posted by Happy Evil:
<STRONG>Ditto.</STRONG>

Or the US could provide the proof, and get him by international norms.
To bad the US did not agree to the International Criminal Court.
They could have used that to their advantage.

I'm right with ya' Grunt and Happy Evil. Civilian causalities are unfortunate, but if we’re going to fight this war to win, then we can’t hold back. It’s the Taliban that’s damning their people with their hidebound refusal to cooperate. As long as we’re talking about human suffering let’s not forget the thousands of American lives that were lost and thousands more who were wounded on September 11.

Originally posted by Fas:
<STRONG>The warehouse held wheat and rice which are the staple foods in the region.
You can't go around and carry a bussel of wheat on your back and attempt to get to pakistan at the same time.
The warehouses are staging ground from what i know.
The store the food and then take a portion of it up in to the mountains and other areas.
</STRONG>

For three or four weeks the Afghan people knew an attack was coming. Did the Red Cross not think at this time about moving the food as well? The people were fleeing, shouldn't the food went with them? No it did not, instead they hired guards. Why? Was it to feed only the one's who didn't leave?


________________________________

international norms

Meaning? Sanctions..

Take a little look at Iraq and see where sanctions gets you.

Children dying and a mad dictator rebuilding his army with every scrap of money he gets his hands on. All the while telling his people the 'bad' US is why they are starving.


I hope at nighttime when the 'bleeding hearts' lay their head on their pillow, that thoughts of these deaths don't cause them to lose too much sleep. Instead of taking a gun and killing them, they choose to drag their deaths out over weeks.

Originally posted by Fas:
<STRONG> The store the food and then take a portion of it up in to the mountains and other areas.

To paraphrase the Economist - the Afghanis don't need pop-tarts for food.
Yes those "100% PR 0% humanitarian" - again not my words from last weeks economists said by some unknown NGO official - have pop tarts and strawberry jam as a part of the food kit.</STRONG>

I know, they're also giving them peanut butter and strawberry shortcake. Nobody in that part of the world eats that stuff. Give them rice, corn, and flour. They can cook.

Originally posted by Gruntboy:
<STRONG>
Civilian casualties, whilst regretable, are an inevitable consequence of the Taleban's refusal to end their evil ways and support for Terror. Its their fault. They're killing their own as surely as they killed those thousands of people at the WTC.

They had a choice. Those people sitting down to their coffee on the upper floors of the Towers at 8:40am on sept 11 didn't.</STRONG>

Palavras de Gruntboy.
Seguido por apoiadores de sua opinião.

@Gruntboy e apoiadores.

Vossas palavras muito me agridem.
Me Agridem como Humano.

Nove crianças morreram nos ataques americanos no Afeganistão. Que fosse uma. Seria tudo. Uma vida nao tem valor, ela é o valor, é tudo para um alguém, um valor supremo, o mesmo valor de tudo junto, para alguem que poderia ser você.
Você pode imaginar a dor das respectivas Mães. A dor de perder um filho. Digo que não, você nunca sentiu isso. Do contrário não diria o que disse.
Diz que a culpa é do Taliban. Não importa de quem é a culpa. Não importa Taliban ou EUA. Importa é que estão matando crianças, e você esta achando normal, apoiando. Melhor para você, que a sua memória ou sua consciência não te lembrem disso.

Não diga de quem é a culpa. Antes de ser Americano você é humano. A culpa tambem é de quem apoia os assassinos, de quem patrocina os assassinos. Legal saber que você pagou os tiros e as bombas que mataram aquelas crianças. Crianças que eram os únicos verdadeiros inocentes, inocentes de tudo.

Pode a vingança, a prepotência, o orgulho ferido; passar por cima disso tudo. Pra você pode.
Talvez venha a dizer que eles começaram primeiro. Começaram ( Tem certeza? ). E se começaram. Mais vale a vingança, adocicada com sangue de crianças, do que a sua humanidade? Pra você sim.

Isso é doente. Patologicamente grave. Humanamente desumano.
Me sinto triste de ler o que li. Aliviado por escrever o que escrevi.

Triste pensar que você não é o único.
Esperançoso em acreditar que não és a maioria.

Desculpem-me pelo meu Português.

Buck has explained previously that this is meant to be a board in English, not in Portugese. @Ivan, I'm sure we'd all appreciate it if you kept to that language. Thanks.

[ 10-30-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

Ivan,

Posting in a language I don't understand is the height of bad manners.

Ivan:

Your words insult me. Nine children dead? Thousands of American men, women and children are dead, thouasands more without fathers, mothers, loved ones. Not even a body left to mourn. I don't have to imagine the pain, Ivan, I was there. Have you ever had 10,000 people die less than a mile away from you? Have you ever wondered if your brother isn't coming home from work today? A pain like that doesn't ever go away.

I don't find the killing of children normal. That's why we're attacking and destroying the terrorists. They are people who rejoice in the deaths of children. They have brought the killing of innocents into our lives. I hate them for making us do now what we must. The terrorist are killing those children, not us. I hate them for that.

Oh, and I'm not American.

I think, IMHO, the Afghans should be grateful for whatever they get - pop tarts or grain.

Or the US could provide the proof, and get him by international norms.
To bad the US did not agree to the International Criminal Court.
They could have used that to their advantage.

This is just obfuscating the inevitable process that will lead to the unpleasant death of Laden and the Terrorists. Are you advocating that mass murder should go unpunished?

Originally posted by Gruntboy:
<STRONG>This is all irrelevant.

Tens of thouasands are already dead. Blood has been spilled. If the US doesn't stop terror, tens of thousands more will die.

Civilian casualties, whilst regretable, are an inevitable consequence of the Taleban's refusal to end their evil ways and support for Terror. Its their fault. They're killing their own as surely as they killed those thousands of people at the WTC.

They had a choice. Those people sitting down to their coffee on the upper floors of the Towers at 8:40am on sept 11 didn't.</STRONG>

Would you care to define what a terrorist attack is.Also,differentiate between collateral damage from an unorthodox warfare attack,a tactical attack and a strategic attack.Bear in mind the means at our disposal.

Originally posted by Weasel:
<STRONG>
Meaning? Sanctions..

Take a little look at Iraq and see where sanctions gets you.

Children dying and a mad dictator rebuilding his army with every scrap of money he gets his hands on. All the while telling his people the 'bad' US is why they are starving.


I hope at nighttime when the 'bleeding hearts' lay their head on their pillow, that thoughts of these deaths don't cause them to lose too much sleep. Instead of taking a gun and killing them, they choose to drag their deaths out over weeks.</STRONG>

A. The don't think the Red cross had the idea that the US would be bombing their warehouses.
Second this was for IDP - Internally displaced peoples.
The Red cross has been there for nearly 7 years now.
The areas where to get the food are ingrained into the minds of every man woman and child.
They can't just up and leave without telling peopl now can they.
People come to them with food, and they go to areas where they get information that people have moved to.
They need a staging ground.
The warehouses were it.

Second sanctions are international brutality.
If anybody remembers the Loye Jirga - the tribal governing body - said provide us with proof and we will get rid of saddam hussien.
But however the US wanted them to be handed over to them, it without a clue to the historical and cultural aspects of the Afghani culture they demand he be handed over.
That of course just pissed them off.
Bush wanted a war and not diplomacy in my opinion.
They didn't hand him over which i don't agree with.
However until i don't see the proof of his involvement i will not condemn the man.
I guess the moral aspect of innocent until proven guilty just flies out the window in this case.

Also some information i came across in the pakistani news paper the dawn.
[url="http://www.dawn.com/2001/10/30/top3.htm"]http://www.dawn.com/2001/10/30/top3.htm[/url]

And people wonder why the americans aren't liked in the muslim nations.

Fas:

Second sanctions are international brutality.

Doesn't leave us with many options does it Fas?

Fas, your posts are extremely opinionated and I'm trying not to take offense to them.

Originally posted by Gruntboy:
<STRONG>I think, IMHO, the Afghans should be grateful for whatever they get - pop tarts or grain.</STRONG>

I guess if an arab said that you got what you deserved with the bombings would be worse right?
I don't agree with either sentiments.
If you guys stopped bombing Red cross warehouses and UN stations and actually let the NGOs do they work, you wouldn't need to send it pop tarts or gummi bears and other ridiculous stuff.

<STRONG>This is just obfuscating the inevitable process that will lead to the unpleasant death of Laden and the Terrorists. Are you advocating that mass murder should go unpunished?</STRONG>

The american image of gun ho and doing all of it on their own isn't realistic, like i said in the other thread.
The US emphasises a great deal on the use of international law, but when the US is involved that goes right out the window.
You could have earned the respect of the muslim people if you made the proof public and we would have got the guy for you.
Of course now, with the uni-lateral bombing of innocents in afghanistan you are in much worse of a situation.

Also i will repeat my question which i stated in the other thread.
Do you think since innocents died in the WTC bombing, it is fit to kill Afghani innocents.
If you do think that is correct you are justifying everything Osama says.
Osama has stated publically before that he is going to punish the US for killing inncocents in the Muslim world.
Draw your own conclusions.

Originally posted by Gruntboy:
<STRONG>Fas: Doesn't leave us with many options does it Fas?

Fas, your posts are extremely opinionated and I'm trying not to take offense to them.</STRONG>

Yes they are Grunt.
And if you do take offense to them, there is no need to control it.
I say what i think and i am truthful about it.
Opinions are not meant to be uniformal.
However i will never cross the line at some poing by insulting the people the nation.
I have a problem with the policies and their implementation that is all.

And no it does not leave you with many options.
But with the situation in afghanistan, you use a carrot and stick policy.
Use pakistan so that you can get a dialogue started.
Show the proof to the public.
Get muslims to back you on the street and then use the islamic system to your advantage.
You get all the muslims nations to say one and the same thing after they have seen the proof, and then they can pressure the Taliban.
Who will not like to see Pakistan and Saudi Arabia there biggest backers leaving them in the dust.
The taliban are between a rock and a hard place, and the only option they have is to fight.

Would you care to define what a terrorist attack is.Also,differentiate between collateral damage from an unorthodox warfare attack,a tactical attack and a strategic attack.Bear in mind the means at our disposal.

Terrorist attack: The intentional targetting of non-combatants/civilians in a civilian or non-com environment, with attacks intended to cause the most civilian casualties. For the express purpose of terrorising civilians to obtain ones political end.

Could you explain what you think an "unorthodox warfare attack" is? I have no idea what that you are referring to and cannot answer. If you are referring to the killing of Afghan civilians, I see nothing unorthodox about bombing a Terrorist regime that has supported acts of Terror against civilians. They have provoked a response. Accidents happen. The bombs would not be falling if September 11th had just been a normal day.

In what context do you mean tactical and strategic? What means are you referring to?

A simple definition of tactics: methods used to win a battle.

A simple definition of strategy: using battles to win a war.