Moscow Bombing [Archive] - Military Photos

Trigger

07-10-2003, 12:07 PM

I don't know if you've seen this already but...
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/nm/20030710/mdf313811.jpg
Russian TV television images combo shows a Russian security officer trying to defuse a bomb and the explosion, which killed him in Moscow in the early hours of July 10, 2003. The bomb was planted at a central Moscow restaurant by a suspected Chechen separatist. Moscow has been on terror alert since Saturday when two women, said to be Chechens, blew themselves up at an open-air rock festival, killing 14 people and themselves. (*******)
ouch. :(

budanski

07-10-2003, 12:50 PM

The police robot handled it prior to the FSB's approach to the device. I sense it was remotely set offed.

As sad as whats going on over there. I've yet to hear any criticism on Putin's tough "cowboy" talk. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3050806.stm)

Herrmannek

07-10-2003, 12:59 PM

More details... (http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/holnus/03101606.htm)

Dmitri

07-10-2003, 12:59 PM

What kind of criticism are you expecting? Why?

He219

07-10-2003, 01:46 PM

Dimitri:
'Criticism' is a reference to Liberal Gibberish regarding the implementation of the US fight against terror; 'Cowboy' being that President Bush is from Texas and also a reference of a direct approach (euros call it wild west style) to problem solving in lieu of beurocratic squabbling by likes of GazB, Mortimer, Kriz, the French, Germans, Democrats and all the other leftist perverts.

Some more pictures of the incident:

http://a1112.g.akamai.net/7/1112/492/03312000/news.lycos.com/news/ot_getImage.asp?op=img&id=370075

Federal Security Service (FSB) officers prepare to defuse an explosive device outside of Imber restaurant in downtown Moscow, early Thursday morning, July 10, 2003. An FSB officer died trying to defuse the device, which was in a bag seized from a woman at the restaurant. Investigators are questioning the woman. The press service would not give details, saying the case was being handled by the Federal Security Service, or FSB. The FSB refused to comment. (AP Photo)

http://a1112.g.akamai.net/7/1112/492/03312000/news.lycos.com/news/ot_getImage.asp?op=img&id=370347

A forensic investigator examines the body of FSB explosives expert Maj. Georgy Trofimov killed early Thursday morning, July 10, 2003 as he defused an explosive device while police questioned a woman who brought the device into Imber restaurant in downtown Moscow. (AP Photo/ Alexander Zemlianichenko)

RIP
:|

budanski

07-10-2003, 03:06 PM

Kriz

07-10-2003, 05:20 PM

I feel "honored" :lol: as long as there is humour :)

Dmitri

07-10-2003, 10:02 PM

'Criticism' is a reference to Liberal Gibberish regarding the implementation of the US fight against terror; 'Cowboy' being that President Bush is from Texas and also a reference of a direct approach (euros call it wild west style) to problem solving in lieu of beurocratic squabbling by likes of GazB, Mortimer, Kriz, the French, Germans, Democrats and all the other leftist perverts.
Got ya ;)

dugdug

07-10-2003, 11:44 PM

I can't say a word about this.

usa320

07-10-2003, 11:56 PM

no critisism from me, i hope putin kicks their ass.

terrorists are terrorists, no matter if they are from chechnya or yemen or Philiipines or Colombia.

GazB

07-11-2003, 03:21 AM

Perhaps Putin is not being criticised because he is threatening and attacking his enemies and not his allies. Equally he is not using terrorism as an excuse to invade Iraq or afghanistan.

Ironic that they are both fighting nutters, but I don't feel sorry for the Americans... well not since they started invading everyone. I must admit I felt very sad when I watched the second plane hit live on TV. But any sympathy I might have had was balanced with the fact that I knew America would have its revenge and that for every fatality on 11/9 there would be 5-6 innocent killed as well as those really responsible.

"GazB, Mortimer, Kriz, the French, Germans, Democrats and all the other leftist perverts. "

Another person who likes to name call those who disagree with them. Rather pathetic.

budanski

07-11-2003, 09:49 AM

Perhaps Putin is not being criticised because he is threatening and attacking his enemies and not his allies.

What the hell are you talking about? Can you please give me an example of the U.S. waging war on an ally? I don't recall Bush inviting the Taliban or the Baathist a seat at the White House.

Equally he is not using terrorism as an excuse to invade Iraq or afghanistan.

Did you even read the article?

Russian President Vladimir Putin has pledged to root out Chechen separatists, following the suicide bombings at a Moscow rock festival on Saturday which killed 15 people.

"They must be dug up out of their basements and caves, where they are still hiding, and destroyed," Russian media quoted Mr Putin as saying.

Doesnt sound like he's describing chechen tourists. :roll: A suicide attack on innocent civilians at a rock festival to me, is a terrorist act.

Ironic that they are both fighting nutters, but I don't feel sorry for the Americans... well not since they started invading everyone. I must admit I felt very sad when I watched the second plane hit live on TV. But any sympathy I might have had was balanced with the fact that I knew America would have its revenge and that for every fatality on 11/9 there would be 5-6 innocent killed as well as those really responsible.

What more can we expect coming from your trap? Your anti-american remarks have been quite consistent. Looking for an outlet to vent on the impending war back in March, did you somehow lose your way and ended up here instead? Let me redirect you (http://www.internationalanswer.org)then.

Dmitri

07-11-2003, 10:34 AM

Russian President Vladimir Putin has pledged to root out Chechen separatists, following the suicide bombings at a Moscow rock festival on Saturday which killed 15 people.

"They must be dug up out of their basements and caves, where they are still hiding, and destroyed," Russian media quoted Mr Putin as saying.
Note, that by separatists he doesn't mean chechen people, but those who are making attacks and terrorist activities agaist Russia or its military. Also, those "separatists" are making attacks agaist chechens, although their reason to fight is suppose to be prootecting them. :cantbeli: And almost a half of those who fight in chechnya are mercenaries, coming from other muslim countries around chechnya.
I just don't want people to think that Putin is going to blow up all the chechens, he is just trying to root out the terrorists.

Kriz

07-11-2003, 11:23 AM

Somehow this topic reminded me off this http://maddox.xmission.com/limits_to_freedom.html

Some jokes about Bush and his government, by an American. Pretty funny allthough maybe over the top sometimes.

hood

07-11-2003, 12:30 PM

I'm all for jokes and well edited photos, but 3/4 of the stuff that guy says (on the above linked maddox page) is flat out wrong... not being able to find a single bush supporter, even though half the country voted for him.. saying that north korea started up their nuke program when we announced them as part of the axis of evil, even though it was proved it was started back in the clinton era... the list goes on. humor over viewpoints is one thing, stupidity because all your facts are dead wrong is another.

GazB

07-12-2003, 12:42 AM

"What the hell are you talking about? Can you please give me an example of the U.S. waging war on an ally? I don't recall Bush inviting the Taliban or the Baathist a seat at the White House. "

No, it was Reagan and Bush snr that spend US taxpayers money to CREATE the Taleban. But that wasn't what I meant. I meant all the BS about new Europe and old europe. Your allies like Germany and France that you are basically treating like Sh!t simply because they didn't happen to agree with Bush and Blair.

"Did you even read the article?"

Yes, I did. He has so far refrained from bombing Iraq or Afghanistan, or for that matter the countries where most of the mercs that are fighting for chechen independance.. ie Ukraine, Georgia, and many countries in the middle east like Saudi Arabia etc.
Ie he is targetting the terrorists, not anyone with even the remotest connection to them.

"Your anti-american remarks have been quite consistent. Looking for an outlet to vent on the impending war back in March, did you somehow lose your way and ended up here instead?"

I think you need an education on real anti american rhetoric. A real anti american wouldn't point out that Bush is an idiot. They'd say he was evil and must be killed and that all americans should be hunted down because they are all evil. Lets bomb every city in America. I have merely criticised US actions in the world outside america... there is such a place you know... I live in it. If the US wants to make changes and take actions inside america then that is fine, you can do what you like, but actions outside america effect me and 5.5 billion other people on this planet. I realise Americans are thin skinned and can't take criticism... they take it personally and reply with crap like... we are the best country in the world and we are the worlds only super power blah blah blah. If you want to continue with the "You are either with us or against us" policy where those with you have no say and just follow then expect more and more people to choose against you. That doesn't mean I support Al quada or anyone else that really is anti american... just don't expect support either if you are going to alienate the rest of the world.

budanski

07-12-2003, 03:21 AM

No, it was Reagan and Bush snr that spend US taxpayers money to CREATE the Taleban. But that wasn't what I meant. I meant all the BS about new Europe and old europe. Your allies like Germany and France that you are basically treating like Sh!t simply because they didn't happen to agree with Bush and Blair.

The Taliban -- literally "the Seekers" -- was founded in the southern Afghan city of Kandahar by graduates of Pakistani religious colleges. Their aims were to end the political chaos that had been ongoing in Afghanistan since the Soviet withdrawal in 1989 and to impose a strict interpretation of Islam. They came into power amidst a power vacuum within afghanistan in the early 90's which happened after Reagan's presidency which makes you an idiot.

Yes, I did. He has so far refrained from bombing Iraq or Afghanistan, or for that matter the countries where most of the mercs that are fighting for chechen independance.. ie Ukraine, Georgia, and many countries in the middle east like Saudi Arabia etc.
Ie he is targetting the terrorists, not anyone with even the remotest connection to them.

Lessons in LOGIC:
Chechen terrorists bomb Russians = Russians bomb Chechens terrorists

He refrained his bombing cause Iraq and Aghanistan had nothing to do with the bombings in Russia.

I think you need an education on real anti american rhetoric. A real anti american wouldn't point out that Bush is an idiot. They'd say he was evil and must be killed and that all americans should be hunted down because they are all evil. Lets bomb every city in America. I have merely criticised US actions in the world outside america... there is such a place you know... I live in it. If the US wants to make changes and take actions inside america then that is fine, you can do what you like, but actions outside america effect me and 5.5 billion other people on this planet. I realise Americans are thin skinned and can't take criticism... they take it personally and reply with crap like... we are the best country in the world and we are the worlds only super power blah blah blah. If you want to continue with the "You are either with us or against us" policy where those with you have no say and just follow then expect more and more people to choose against you. That doesn't mean I support Al quada or anyone else that really is anti american... just don't expect support either if you are going to alienate the rest of the world.

If it walks like a duck,... You kiwi, are anti-american.

You are one delusion fool. When has any country not act on its interest overseas? Are you to believe that this too is an american invention? The U.S. has the right to protect its own people, be it domestic or from foreign threats. Fortunately, we can afford to deal with these problems take necessary steps to eliminate these threats. Threats from groups that have declared war on the U.S. I'll be damn if a two-bit country like yourself or France,Russia, etc. dictates our national security. Boo F*cking Hoo you don't like what the Big Bad U.S. is doing. Do something about it then. Remember. Its was the US that was attacked on 9/11. Not Europe, not New Zealand, but us. Let me fill you in on something. Nationalism is not only an American phenomena.

Mortimer

07-12-2003, 03:39 AM

"It's amazing how people still use 9-11 to justify American imperialism. Wake up and do some research. You've been conned with the use of fear by multi-national corporations into a series of wars to justify the consolidation of resources and wealth by an elite few." - Someone

lol i love these arguments

just to clear something up i am not anti-american i just think the american people are being conned by a bunch of rich (political and corporate)families who control most of the worlds wealth. Which is what that quote says.

http://www.losangelesalmanac.com/topics/Economy/ec21.htm

budanski

07-12-2003, 03:55 PM

Problem is. America is far from an Imperialist power. Where U.S. military bases are set up, we get permission from that country. When asked to leave, we do accordingly.

He219

07-12-2003, 05:41 PM

I realise Americans are thin skinned and can't take criticism... they take it personally and reply with crap like...

squabbling by likes of GazB...leftist pervert

but I don't feel sorry for the Americans... well not since they started invading everyone

GazB...leftist pervert

No, it was Reagan and Bush snr that spend US taxpayers money to CREATE the Taleban
That crap again. Give us a credible example or link for once.

Your allies like Germany and France

the French, Germans...leftist perverts

American imperialism

Liberal Gibberish..by likes of..leftist perverts

im·pe·ri·al·ism ( P ) ****unciation (m-pîr--lzm)
n.
The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.
The system, policies, or practices of such a government.

he·gem·o·ny ( P ) ****unciation (h-jm-n, hj-mn)
n. pl. he·gem·o·nies
The predominant influence, as of a state, region, or group, over another or others.

So are we economically or politically predominant or are you attempting to relate a cultural 'predominance'? The latter is what the French seem to be whining about. Predominance is superiority in weight, force, importance or influence. How has America become such an important influence upon the world in merely 227 years?

Tell us, Mortimer, what the 'Wealthiest Persons in Los Angeles County 2002' have got to do with

a bunch of rich (political and corporate)families who control most of the worlds wealth
Please elaborate!

p-)
He219

Trigger

07-12-2003, 06:49 PM

Please elaborate!

...we'll wait while they find their next quote or statistic from the 'little red book' p-)

hood

07-12-2003, 06:56 PM

As should be obvious, it's not so much that the US has done everything right in it's history, it's just that so many recent potential superpowers have failed. During an interview with a SEAL on the discovery channel, his quote applies "It's not that we're supermen, it's just that everyone else sucks."

Beowulf

07-12-2003, 08:32 PM

Just a comment about a notion which seems to be prevalent, that I find logically untenable. It is this:

To say that a political/ foreign policy is flawed b/c it entails the support of something that was not supported before said policy or vice versa does not make any sense.

For example: You supported country x you can never not support country x w/o being criticised.

You voted for politician x you may not vote against politician x w/o being criticised

You etc etc etc

This is especially problematic when one takes into consideration regime/administration changes of the nations involved.

The notion is tantamount to saying that one may never correct a mistake.

Imagine the occupants of apartment 11b are enemies with those of apt. 11a this must always stay the same and never change, even if the occupants of said apt's change. See what I mean..

All Best
beowulf

Beowulf

07-12-2003, 08:34 PM

oh yeah and if the a$$h0les in 11b read this, I'm gonna kill your cat
;)
-B

Mortimer

07-12-2003, 11:04 PM

Tell us, Mortimer, what the 'Wealthiest Persons in Los Angeles County 2002' have got to do with

a bunch of rich (political and corporate)families who control most of the worlds wealth
Please elaborate!

p-)
He219
lol the LA richest people thing was just a site i quickly found but look at what a lot of those people are rich because of.

-Most TNC's are owned by US companies.......

-People who OWN the federal reserve.....
1) The Rothschild Family - London 2) The Rothschild Family - Berlin 3) The Lazard Brothers - Paris 4) Israel Seiff - Italy 5) Kuhn-Loeb Company - Germany 6) The Warburgs - Amsterdam 7) The Warburgs - Hamburg 8) Lehman Brothers - New York 9) Goldman & Sachs - New York 10) The Rockefeller Family - New York
http://www.members.shaw.ca/theultimatescam/thegoldsmiths.htm
----
-ok take Israel for insance.

The US has many many influential and rich jewish families who have strong ties with the US and Israel, they have a vested interest in Israel belonging to the Jews and not the arabs

hence to make sure of this the US makes them their buddies and gives them a nice big army and or money.....

i don't pretend to be an expert but i told you that off the top pf my head...i can tell you many many more with even 15min of research and general knowledge.

believe it or not.... i don't really care, i have no real interest in changing your opinion of your country, thats just my opion you asked me to back up my comments.

My main reason for saying stuff like this is because the SAME people influencing the American people are doign it here in Australia and i resent that.

But this isn't a forum where i try and tell you that the world is corrupt and going to **** becuase of a few ****heads, this is a forum where i can look and talk about militray photos something wich i enjoy very much...can we please just do that?

"Who said invasions need to be a bunch of GI's and tanks??
We possess one of the most powerful weapons in the world
......MTV.." -ibstolidude- beowulf[/url]

Mortimer

07-12-2003, 11:31 PM

do corporate companies sponsor elections in the US????......

JohnJohn

07-13-2003, 12:08 AM

no they don't, they sponsor political campaigns but never elections son ;)

GazB is just another terrorist sympathizer that is hoping for another attack on my wonderful country. Probably was disappointed with the ammount of lives lost that horrible day back in September 2001.

This leftist ****ard can't even get his facts straight :slap:

Mortimer

07-13-2003, 12:15 AM

same thing....
and if my facts arn't right prove me wrong....mate

GazB

07-13-2003, 12:59 AM

"The Taliban -- literally "the Seekers" "

The seekers of knowledge... ie it actually means "Students".

"was founded in the southern Afghan city of Kandahar by graduates of Pakistani religious colleges."

Was created and paid for by the Pakistani secret service, an organistation that filtered money from the US taxpayer to every side in Afghanistan that would oppose the Soviets while they were there. Ironically via the poor advice of the pakistani secret service more money went to the Iranian backed group which tended to sit back and let other groups fight, and less money was given to the more successful leaders. An amusing repeat of the mistakes in Nazi held Yugoslavia by the allies.
When the Soviets pulled out they continued to prop up their puppet government which remained in power till about 94. Largely because US funding dried up when the Soviets left. Reagans policy of pretty much letting the Pakistani SIS decide where the money should go lead to the Taliban getting almost all the money and support just after they were created. This money was used to buy light trucks and radios and was also used to good effect as bribes. The mobility and communications advantage allowed them to largely take over most of afghanistan except the northern areas relatively quickly and often bribes and promises to remove the local warlord was enough to turn a village without the need for bloodshed.

"They came into power amidst a power vacuum within afghanistan in the early 90's which happened after Reagan's presidency which makes you an idiot. "

They didn't come to power in the midst of a vaccuum, they took it from the communist government the Russians installed when they left in 89. It stayed in power till the early mid 90s and was removed by force... and what does that make you? I didn't realise lack of knowledge on the history of a country I had never visited, and only read about could make someone an idiot. You must tell us all about the history of the Island nation of Tonga.

"He refrained his bombing cause Iraq and Aghanistan had nothing to do with the bombings in Russia."

And that is why he is not criticised. George Bush Jnr on the other hand did bomb Afghanistan and Iraq in belated response to a group of 15 odd Saudi citizens and a few other nationalities blowing up three planes and destroying the WTC and damaging the pentagon. Or are you going to say that the bombings in iraq and Afghanistan are not part of the "war on terror"?

"When has any country not act on its interest overseas? "

Quite normal procedure actually. What isn't normal is when it claims everyone else "owes" it something when it does choose to do something in its own interests.

"Do something about it then."

Al quada are. Keep up the attitude and such ignorance will become a much more popular option.

"Its was the US that was attacked on 9/11. Not Europe, not New Zealand, but us."

So only Americans died. That is a relief. All those aussies can get their relatives back. And how about all those brits that died.

And how about the New Zealand and Aussie troops who died helping Uncle Sam in Vietnam. Every time America remembers Vietnam they mention the aid they got from their alies... or do they? Talk about ungrateful.

GazB

07-13-2003, 01:20 AM

"GazB is just another terrorist sympathizer that is hoping for another attack on my wonderful country. Probably was disappointed with the ammount of lives lost that horrible day back in September 2001. "

I was shocked a horrified by the number killed and the method used. I think anyone who thinks that the lives of others are expendible and will take lives just to further their beliefs are scum and should be tried and if found guilty executed by a nice clean steralised needle.

What disappointed me further was that the American people didn't want justice, only revenge and so for every person that died on 11/9 there are probably 10 other people in the world who have died for it. Some thoroughly deserved it and I have no sympathy for them... in fact I hope it hurt quite a bit. Others didn't deserve it and are ignored by the US in its unending quest for revenge... when will you have done enough to make you feel better? Obviously when Osama is dead. Saddam had nothing to do with 11/9 so finding him is not important. I suppose there must be a pack of cards with Alquada's names on it somewhere.

Mortimer

07-13-2003, 01:25 AM

i tend to believe that 9/11 was allowed as an exucse for the US to do what its doing.

how can at least 4 intelligence agencies be blissfully unaware of the plot....plus not being able to find the hijacked planes when in the air and shoot them down....plus a million more other factors.

Before the US put its case forward for war in iraq it should have put its case for why the war on terror occured in the first place, the goverment is with holding huge amounts of documentation about 9/11.

And the US people are gullible enough to buy it.

ONE DIRECT 9/11 arrest?(it may have changed) in nearly two years

Since the bali bombings the indonesians have arrested more then 20 people in DIRECT realation to the bombings including top officials (in less the one year)......don't tell me the indonesian intelligence rivals the US's? the bali operation was a fraction of the size of 9/11 in a country that would be the harest to find the perps.

US government= Pffffftttt

people like johnjohn are just perfect exmaples of gullible americans..."A bandwagon patriot, loving America since 9/11".

Mortimer

07-13-2003, 01:46 AM

whos the animal?

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/07/13/1058034868094.html

Beowulf

07-13-2003, 03:48 AM

Gaz, I think that there is more to what's going on than simple revenge.

I believe that many of the actions taken by the current US administration were intended to and did ensure our national security. The same can be said of the other nations involvement in Afghanistan.

I'm curious whether you believe that any war is justifiable/moral/what have you.

You mention the civilian/non-combatant casualities, which are present in any war, as a sort of refutation of coalition actions in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see any innocent people get hurt or killed. Yet, that has been and will probably continue to be the sad truth, accidents do happen.

The point is this, I don't see civilian casualities as a good argument against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and by extension the US/UK policymakers. If you want to use civilian casualties as an argument against all wars then you may do so, but to use them to criticise the foreign policies of only some nations is not a strong position.

As a side note: The kiwis were in Afghanistan also,(go All Blacks!) yet I only notice you criticising the US and maybe the UK, why?

spier

07-13-2003, 05:45 AM

Just took a brief look on everything, and this is my stance:

The wars against Iraq and Afghanistan were both impossible to justify morally. Unless, of course American lives are worth more than others. Legally, there is nothing wrong, not that it matters. The world is ruled by force, not by law, nor by morals.

If you think the US Goverment care about civilians, then you are simply wrong. If you think the US Goverment care about its own soldiers, then you are again wrong. The only real goal the US Goverment has is to increase its power. All other things are merely detours meant to distract the public from their real intentions and to gather support around their cause.

Example: The US goverment says it invades Iraq to free the Iraqi people from oppression, obviously a distraction. If it was true then they would also have to clense most of the African continent of dictators, or else they would be hypocrites. The suffering of the Iraqi people also gather support to their cause from the American people. Of course the real goal is an increase in power and influence. Iraq is rich with oil, located strategically in the Arab world and, all in all, a nice place to have substansial US military forces. Especially since they were starting to lose their grip on the Saudis, and with them their only significant land based troop concentration in the area.

Of course, I supported both the war against Afghanistan and Iraq.

Mortimer

07-13-2003, 06:06 AM

funny how when there were calls for troops to be sent to Liberia Bush hesitated and still is....

He219

07-13-2003, 03:19 PM

mortimer wrote:

-People who OWN the federal reserve.....
1) The Rothschild Family - London 2) The Rothschild Family - Berlin 3) The Lazard Brothers - Paris 4) Israel Seiff - Italy 5) Kuhn-Loeb Company - Germany 6) The Warburgs - Amsterdam 7) The Warburgs - Hamburg 8) Lehman Brothers - New York 9) Goldman & Sachs - New York 10) The Rockefeller Family - New York

The US has many many influential and rich jewish families who have strong ties with the US and Israel, they have a vested interest in Israel belonging to the Jews and not the arabs

hence to make sure of this the US makes them their buddies and gives them a nice big army and or money.....

The 'ownership' of the US Federal Reserve is an interesting assertion. So you equte the US War against Terror with the advancement of Jewish Political and Financial interests. Where do Afghanistan and Iraq fit into your model?

You really believe that the general American populus is unwittingly doing the bidding of the 'SAME people' that are influencing what Australians believe in? What happened to the notion that the war against terror is in defense of OUR rights and liberties to live free of oppression and wholesale terror upon a civilian populus?

i tend to believe that 9/11 was allowed as an exucse for the US to do what its doing.
You think the murder of 3,000 civilians on US soil was 'allowed'? Conversely, you can dedeuce that it would be futile and only serve the interests of the US to even attempt such acts of hostility.

GazB:
What you write is all too familiar. It's the same crap over and over.

US taxpayers money to CREATE the TalebanThe Taliban created itself. The political and religious climate in Afghanistan influenced by foreign intervention on all sides led to the rise of the Taliban.

They didn't come to power in the midst of a vaccuum, they took it from the communist government the Russians installed when they left in 89 Wrong! The Islamic Council of Afghanistan preceded the Taliban after the fall of (Soviet) Kabul.

We descussed the Taliban (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2056&start=20) in great detail in a previous threat and you never did rebutt my statements.

Quote:

The US created the Taleban.
The US funded and supported the Mujahedeen fighting Soviet occupation. Mullah Mohammad Omar created the Taliban (those who study the book) and NOT the United States. Omar was educated in religious schools but his studies were cut short when he joined the jihad against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. After Soviet forces withdrew a decade later, he began the radical Islamic movement that became the Taliban from his Deobandi school in his native village of Singesar, in southern Afghanistan.

Omar lost an eye in the anti-Soviet campaign, in which he was a group commander in the Afghan Mujahedeen. He rose to prominence in 1994 when infighting between the disintegrating factions of the anti-Soviet alliance brought chaos to the country. At the peak of the civil war, Omar won the support of ordinary Afghans for himself and his Talibs (religious students) with his efforts to restore order and justice according to Islamic Sharia law.

Initially the Taliban had some public support, especially in the Pashtun majority areas. Pakistan, interested in a unified and strong Muslim neighbor, sent weapons and money through the Pakistani intelligence agency (I.S.I). Many students and teachers, especially from North Western Pakistani religious schools, joined the "holy war" of the Taliban. Mullah Omar, the man who started the movement, is now known as Amir-ul-Momineen, the commander of the faithful.

US money created the Taleban. The Taleban removed the communist government from power in Afghanistan.
Mujahedeen forces were unable to rule effectively, turning on each other after they took control in Kabul in 1992 from the Soviet-backed regime. Bloody feuding between forces loyal to President Burhanuddin Rabbani, an ethnic Tajik - then President of the Islamic Council of Afghanistan, and rival factions ultimately cleared the way for the Taliban conquest in 1996.

Osama bin Laden moved to Afghanistan upon the invitation of the Riyadh backed Wahhabi group of Abdul Rab Rasool Sayyaf that ran the Afghan Mujahid Press from Peshawar. He was able to forge an alliance between the Taliban and his Al Qaeda organization after the Taliban took Kabul in 1996 from warring factions and the Islamic Council of Afghanistan.

US money did NOT create the Taliban, but there is evidence of indirect US support for the Taliban. On (May 17, 2001) the Bush administration announced an increase of $43 million in drought relief to the Taliban in reward for efforts to eradicate Opium production.

GazB wrote:

What isn't normal is when it claims everyone else "owes" it something

Every time America remembers Vietnam they mention the aid they got from their alies... or do they? Talk about ungrateful.
So you write that Americans are 'ungrateful' in not recognizing allied assistance yet it is 'abnormal' for Americans to make the same claim? Talk about hypocracy! There is a pattern in your jibberish; US action is bad while Serbian, Soviet, and Russian action meets with your approval.

spier wrote:

The wars against Iraq and Afghanistan were both impossible to justify morally War and Killing is inherently impossible to justify morally.

If you think the US Goverment care about civilians, then you are simply wrong
Explain why you didn't see the wholesale destuction of Iraqi cities with Atomic or Conventional Weapons? Why spend so much money on 'Smart Weapons' while B52's could have carpetbombed Iraqi cities and people into the 'stone age' as GazB likes to think the US did in Serbia?

Tell me spier, what African Dictator is the US currently supporting?

p-)
He219

spier

07-13-2003, 04:33 PM

War and Killing is inherently impossible to justify morally.

Explain why you didn't see the wholesale destuction of Iraqi cities with Atomic or Conventional Weapons? Why spend so much money on 'Smart Weapons' while B52's could have carpetbombed Iraqi cities and people into the 'stone age' as GazB likes to think the US did in Serbia?

Tell me spier, what African Dictator is the US currently supporting? Morals are based on ideas. One of those ideas could be "an eye for an eye", this is the moral standard that the US masses have accepted. You kill some of us, we kill some of you.

Oh, why didn't they bomb Iraq into ruins? Hm. Well, you certainly put me in a squeeze there! rofl Would that be acceptable to the public? Would that help gather the support of the masses? Would that help the US administration help achive their goals? Etcetera, until you understand you how idiotic that attempt at an argument was. Also, WW2 demonstrated that actually hitting targets was far more cost effective than just littering an area wih bombs. Vietnam could also be considered a reasonable example of this.

Currently supporting? Hm, I don't feel like reading up on the ****hole known as Africa right now so I'll have to use other examples, but that the US Goverment supported Apartheid in South Africa 100% should be noted. As a more or less direct consequence of 9/11 then the US has been backing up pakistan with weapons and other aid. Pakistan is lead by General Pervez Musharraff that came to power through the use of force and has suspended the constitution to allow him to do pretty much as he please. That's one.

Indonesia..hehe, I'll say one name and rest my case: East-Timor.

ibstolidude

07-13-2003, 04:59 PM

A couple of re-ocurring falacies continue to appear:

"prove me wrong" - actually it is YOUR opinion of the facts therefore the burden of proof is on you...prove you right.

"the US government is pffffft" - well the government is actually nothing more than a group of people - if you don't like them - get ride of them.

"Bush hesitates on Liberia" - I am no fan of Bush, but if the US goes into Liberia every critic will say " look Bush is an Imperialist" if he doesn't then the critics will cry "he doesn't care about Afrika - or only carees about nations whose oil will benefit the US" - and frankily isn't his job to look out for US interests - his hesitation to become involved in Liberia is one of the decisions of his I respect/support the most.

and Mortimer:

Mr. Conspiracy theory - I think you need to rewrap the tin foil a little tighter on your head. certainly the government is controlled by a secret pact of the richest families in America and they tell everyone , and telll them what to do, say.. and they also threatened to kill anyone who leaks the truth...of course the government can't keep any other secret worth a **** but they have been able to keep this one for generations...
The employees also can not tell anyone that the secret pacts are in control o thegovernment is because they have GPS/voice activator senses in their asses that will cause the Stars Wars Ballistic missile defense Satellites to shoot laser into their asses if they disclose the truth. But thankfully YOU figured it out. But now they know and you better hook up with David Koresh, Jim Jones and the Hallsbot gang and get ready, the Men In Black are probably on their way.

He219

07-13-2003, 10:18 PM

spier wrote:

One of those ideas could be "an eye for an eye", this is the moral standard that the US masses have accepted. You kill some of us, we kill some of you.
American morals are not based on 'an eye for an eye'. Those are jewish principles perhaps adpted by some other blood thirsty revenge happy heathens. When you blantanly kill 3,000 civilians on our soil we consider ourselves to be at war. It's obvious to see what side of the line you stand on. Your rhretoric is well beyond constructive criticism.

If you think the US Goverment care about civilians, then you are simply wrong

Explain why you didn't see the wholesale destuction of Iraqi cities with Atomic or Conventional Weapons?

Would that help gather the support of the masses? Would that help the US administration help achive their goals? Etcetera, until you understand you how idiotic that attempt at an argument was.
First you say that the US Gvt. doesn't care about civilians and then you say that unrestricted killing of civilians would not help achieve it's goals. You contradict yourself and claim your own argument as 'idiotic'.

WW2 demonstrated that actually hitting targets was far more cost effective than just littering an area wih bombs. Vietnam could also be considered a reasonable example of this.

Quite a ludicrous statement. My grandparents were on the receiving end of B-17 saturation raids in the Ruhr. 6,000 planes in columns 6 miles long and 1 mile wide. Then came the British at night. Precision bombing is a relatively current development given advances in guidance technologies. The effect six years of war has on a populus that endures 3-4 years of carpetbombing and firestorms leaves a permanent effects on peoples psyche. When WWII ended the battered people of Japan and Germany wanted to recover from the allied onslaught and not continue resisting. Exceptions were quite short-lived. There are many proponents of wholesale warfare, but in the fight against terrorism discretion must be heeded to protect the innocent. Battering a populus into submission is the last resort.

In Vietnam, the Christmas Bombings are a prime example of just how militarily and politically effective carpetbombing is on a civilian populus. December 18-30, 1972, saw an unprecedented air assault lasting day and night across North Vietnam. Hanoi and Haiphong were especially hard hit. American pilots flew nearly 4,000 sorties, including more than 700 by high-flying B-52s. Those ''area bombers,'' incapable of precision, had never been used against cities before. This was 'terror-bombing'. The specific event 'paved the way' to the Paris Peace Accords. Brutal, but effective.

The dynamic of war transcends the ability of warriors to resist it. In war, choices routinely lead to unanticipated consequences, which present wholly unimagined new choices, which involve further consequences, leading finally to choices to which warriors would never have given assent at the start. Because of this human inability to foresee or control descent into savagery once killing begins, the only way to keep war ''humane'' is not to embark on it in the first place.
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1224-04.htm

spier writes:

The US goverment says it invades Iraq to free the Iraqi people from oppression, obviously a distraction. If it was true then they would also have to clense most of the African continent of dictators, or else they would be hypocrites.

Tell me spier, what African Dictator is the US currently supporting?

Hm, I don't feel like reading up on the ****hole known as Africa right now so I'll have to use other examples...
If you can't back up your rhetoric then keep your trap shut! In discrediting US foreign policy towards Africa you present no facts to indicate any possible solidarity towards it's 'oppressed people'. Let's look at 'your other examples' because you don't seem to bother imforming yourself on the "****hole known as Africa" and the "opression" by it's "dictators".

the US Goverment supported Apartheid in South Africa 100% should be noted
Relations between Washington and Pretoria were based on reliable anticommunism and wealth of strategic minerals. Soviet backing of the ANC and the presence of communists within the ANC leadership was seen as a destabilizing element in geopolitics.

American foreign policy towards South Africa was often contradictory; the United States would denounce the existence of apartheid as a political regime while supporting financial and business interests in the country. The policies of various American presidents from the 1940s to the early 1990s produced this fluctuation until American policy stabilized when President George Bush and U.S. ambassadors to South Africa both painstakingly worked towards improved relations with the government and anti-apartheid groups and leaders. Princeton Lyman became the American ambassador in 1992, a critical juncture in South Africa’s history, and became an important player in the unfolding transition. http://www.law.harvard.edu/studorgs/hrj/current/booknotes-Partner.shtml

Pakistan is lead by General Pervez Musharraff that came to power through the use of force and has suspended the constitution to allow him to do pretty much as he please. That's one.
Wow, you win a cigar for naming ONE totalitarian leader currently supported by the US! Pakistan is a NUCLEAR POWER and centralized control by the likes of General Pervez Musharraf prevents those weapons from falling into the hands of Islamic extremists. Pakistan is an example of foreign policy based on national security interests.

Indonesia..hehe, I'll say one name and rest my case: East-Timor.
Megawati Sukarnoputri took over as president of the world's fourth-largest nation. Abdurrahman Wahid, who was the country's first freely elected leader, was ousted by the Indonesian parliament for alleged corruption. Megawati's popular support stems largely by pedigree from her father, Sukarno, who was the country's founding president. East Timor is an example of Indonesia's fragmented ethno-political scene precariously glued together by military occupation and oppression.

Back up your perverse leftist rhetoric with factual examples and references. Otherwise shut your trap!

;)
He219

Beowulf

07-13-2003, 10:32 PM

HE219 you're one sexy bitch....
-b

GazB

07-14-2003, 12:48 AM

"Gaz, I think that there is more to what's going on than simple revenge. "

There is probably a bit of pride as well. From all of the Rhetoric from the US on the "War on Terror" before 11/9 terrorism was something that happened everywhere else, but not in the US... despite Tim McVeigh.

"I'm curious whether you believe that any war is justifiable/moral/what have you. "

Desert storm was justifyable, and many other wars like that were. Wars based on what the enemy MIGHT do with capabilities they MIGHT have somethime in the future are not justifyable.

"You mention the civilian/non-combatant casualities, which are present in any war, as a sort of refutation of coalition actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. "

They certainly are a normal occurance in war. Normal people therefore don't just go to war on a whim or the possibility that an enemy might in the future be able to hurt you. How many Innocent Iraqis should die to get rid of Saddam? If they chose to rise up and the US supported them with weapons and training it would be fine. Even more Iraqis would probably die, but it would be Iraqis fighting for Iraqi against a dictator. Not a couple of foreign countries that think the nofly zone think is getting expensive and the oil prices are rising.

"Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see any innocent people get hurt or killed. Yet, that has been and will probably continue to be the sad truth, accidents do happen."

Indeed they do. A war is a very dangerous place to live in. That is why they shouldn't be created to solve other problems.

"If you want to use civilian casualties as an argument against all wars then you may do so, but to use them to criticise the foreign policies of only some nations is not a strong position. "

But the loss of lives of soldiers is what ended both the vietnam war (for the french and US and other forces there) and it it got the Soviets out of afghanistan. Presumably potential loss of soldiers lives is why the US doesn't send troops to Israel, or Chechnia, or to rescue Tibet. Ironic that the lives of soldiers are valued more than the lives of the people soldiers are supposed to protect (ie innocent civilians).

"As a side note: The kiwis were in Afghanistan also,(go All Blacks!) yet I only notice you criticising the US and maybe the UK, why?"

We have recently sent some troops to Afghanistan. They were sent to smooth ruffled feathers. Our PM has said a few things that america hasn't liked recently... Like if Al Gore was president Iraq would not have been invaded. The Bush administration got all huffy and demanded an appology.
Anyway to cut a long story short I criticise the US for the intervention because they initiated it and needless to say if they left all others would leave or not have gone in the first place.
I think it is a nice thing that the US wants Afghanistan rebuilt after both the US and USSR spent tens of trillions leveling the place. Really it is the least they could do. (Even the Russians are supplying Helos).

"You think the murder of 3,000 civilians on US soil was 'allowed'? Conversely, you can dedeuce that it would be futile and only serve the interests of the US to even attempt such acts of hostility. "

Just like the Pearl Harbour conspirisy theories I think that gives the US government and intelligence services too much credit. I mean really, the 11/9 attacks themselves were bolts out of the blue. Despite previous attempts to attack the WTC building in the past I doubt if anyone anticipated such a method of attack. (The only thing close I had read before hand was an article about the insurance problems airports and airlines might have with urban areas surrounding airports if a plane landed on a skyscraper.)

"The Taliban created itself. The political and religious climate in Afghanistan influenced by foreign intervention on all sides led to the rise of the Taliban. "

Without funding the Taleban would never have grown to the point it did anywhere near as quickly as it did. It certainly couldn't have defeated both the Iranian backed groups and the Northern Alliance without the money and training it got from the Pakistani SIS via the US government.

"Wrong! The Islamic Council of Afghanistan preceded the Taliban after the fall of (Soviet) Kabul."

Yes... the GERMAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC ... GDR was EAST Germany. What is the name of North Korea? Hmmm a pattern of friendly sounding names hiding the nature of the government. The Islamic council of Afghanistan was largely the Northern Alliance (ie Massoud) an a few other smaller groups who received most of their income from Moscow. What would you call them? I am pretty sure you'd call them socialists.
Think about it for a few minutes. The Islamic Council of Afghanistan. If they really were truely Islamic why would the Taleban want to remove them from power so they could create an Islamic state? The Islamic council had enough communists in it to make it a very moderate government... of the pick of the other groups, probably the best choice to rule with minimal oppression. Not perfect, but noone is. If they were not communist why were US taxpayers funds used by the taleban to remove them from power?

"So you write that Americans are 'ungrateful' in not recognizing allied assistance yet it is 'abnormal' for Americans to make the same claim? Talk about hypocracy!"

Yes, lets talk about hipocracy. The US demands the UN let it invade Iraq. When it doesn't get that rubber stamp it claims it is invading Iraq in "self defence" and whines and moans about those it has helped not supporting it. When did New Zealand go to the UN and complain about the US not supporting it for our plans to invade country xyz?

There has been a lot of hate even on this forum directed at the French, and I certinly have no love for them, being New Zealander. Ohh we saved you in WWI and WWII. Really?
I thought the decision to enter WWII was made after the attack on Pearl Harbour. I thought the decision to enter WWI was based on something other than "Lets save our French allies". Another by product of war.

Save the oil in Iraq and for free get the eternal loyalty of the Iraqi people for free. Great deal.

"War and Killing is inherently impossible to justify morally. "

Rubbish. A war to defend yourself from invasion... ie WWII for most allied countries, wars of colonisation... ie American Indians, Australian Aboriginies, New Zealand Maoris, etc etc.

"Explain why you didn't see the wholesale destuction of Iraqi cities with Atomic or Conventional Weapons?"

Because America needs Iraqi people to work their oil pumps...
America is not all powerful. They can't just do anything they like. They need to have good public opinion at home and with international partners.

"his hesitation to become involved in Liberia is one of the decisions of his I respect/support the most. "

If he hesitates then his critics will just say there is no oil in Liberia.
If he does go then he starts to take on the mantle of world policeman.

You can either choose to get involved in every minor squabble and remove every dictator in the world or you can ignore the state of the world. Either choice would be morally acceptable. It is the rescuing the poor oppressed... as long as there is oil there... whether they want to be rescued or not and ignoring the rest that is where the criticism comes... and is well deserved.

"When you blantanly kill 3,000 civilians on our soil we consider ourselves to be at war."

No you don't, or those caged in Guantanamo would be POWs.

"First you say that the US Gvt. doesn't care about civilians and then you say that unrestricted killing of civilians would not help achieve it's goals. You contradict yourself and claim your own argument as 'idiotic'. "

It doesn't care about foreign civilians being killed, just its own popularity with its own public. It will pretend that smart bombs really are smart... ie instead of the circular pattern of explosion they actually don't hurt unarmed noncombatants.

"If you can't back up your rhetoric then keep your trap shut!"

Why, it doesn't stop you?

If the point is that the US will save the Iraqi people from a dictator, why don't they save Africans from dictators is valid. It does not require the US to be supporting an African dictator. The US has not supported Saddam for at least 12 years now, yet felt compelled to remove him. Why not remove them all?

"Relations between Washington and Pretoria were based on reliable anticommunism and wealth of strategic minerals."

So if you have diamonds we don't care if you treat the vast majority of people like cattle.
(Sounds like US foreign policy on Saddam in the 80s... keep the Iranians in check and you can do what you like... just don't threaten a monopoly on oil by invading an arab neighbour... what a turn around now to going into Iraq to save the Iraqi people... unbelievable... really unbelievable!)

"is a NUCLEAR POWER and centralized control by the likes of General Pervez Musharraf prevents those weapons from falling into the hands of Islamic extremists. Pakistan is an example of foreign policy based on national security interests. "

Interesting idea except that the embargo imposed by their aquiring nuclear weapons was imposed when they got the nuclear weapons. This brilliant idea of being their friend because a military government was safer than a religious one didn't come about till the US needed to bomb Afghanistan and wanted bases nearby.

Ngati Tumatauenga

07-14-2003, 02:05 AM

"As a side note: The kiwis were in Afghanistan also,(go All Blacks!) yet I only notice you criticising the US and maybe the UK, why?"

We have recently sent some troops to Afghanistan. They were sent to smooth ruffled feathers.

Wrong. New Zealand troops deployed to Afghanistan in late November 2001. They were sent as a result of our governments direct support of US policies at the time.

spier

07-14-2003, 02:55 AM

American morals are not based on 'an eye for an eye'. Those are jewish principles perhaps adpted by some other blood thirsty revenge happy heathens. When you blantanly kill 3,000 civilians on our soil we consider ourselves to be at war. It's obvious to see what side of the line you stand on. Your rhretoric is well beyond constructive criticism. Oh, American morals are not based on "an eye for an eye"? rofl Did you know that you have a thing called "death penalty" in your country? If that isn't based on "an eye for an eye" then what is?

First you say that the US Gvt. doesn't care about civilians and then you say that unrestricted killing of civilians would not help achieve it's goals. You contradict yourself and claim your own argument as 'idiotic'. Yawn. Try to read what I write. The US Goverment does not care about people starving to death and being violated. That is not the reason why Iraq has been invaded. Now, when they invaded do you think they cared more about civilians than they normally do? No, they were practically forced to minimize civilian casualties, or else they would loose support and it would be another Vietnam. You know, where carpet bombing was used.

Quite a ludicrous statement. My grandparents were on the receiving end of B-17 saturation raids in the Ruhr. 6,000 planes in columns 6 miles long and 1 mile wide. Then came the British at night. Precision bombing is a relatively current development given advances in guidance technologies. The effect six years of war has on a populus that endures 3-4 years of carpetbombing and firestorms leaves a permanent effects on peoples psyche. When WWII ended the battered people of Japan and Germany wanted to recover from the allied onslaught and not continue resisting. Exceptions were quite short-lived. There are many proponents of wholesale warfare, but in the fight against terrorism discretion must be heeded to protect the innocent. Battering a populus into submission is the last resort.

In Vietnam, the Christmas Bombings are a prime example of just how militarily and politically effective carpetbombing is on a civilian populus. December 18-30, 1972, saw an unprecedented air assault lasting day and night across North Vietnam. Hanoi and Haiphong were especially hard hit. American pilots flew nearly 4,000 sorties, including more than 700 by high-flying B-52s. Those ''area bombers,'' incapable of precision, had never been used against cities before. This was 'terror-bombing'. The specific event 'paved the way' to the Paris Peace Accords. Brutal, but effective. Try "bunker busting" with dumb bombs. Does that sound cost-effective to you? If the Allies could take a bomb and shove it down Hitlers bunker would that have ended the war earlier you think?

Oh, you lost Vietnam so that might not be the best argument you have come up with.

If you can't back up your rhetoric then keep your trap shut! In discrediting US foreign policy towards Africa you present no facts to indicate any possible solidarity towards it's 'oppressed people'. Let's look at 'your other examples' because you don't seem to bother imforming yourself on the "****hole known as Africa" and the "opression" by it's "dictators". Oh wait, you mean this is actually related to the quote: "The US goverment says it invades Iraq to free the Iraqi people from oppression, obviously a distraction. If it was true then they would also have to clense most of the African continent of dictators, or else they would be hypocrites."? Guess not, since this only require them to do nothing to validate my argument.

Relations between Washington and Pretoria were based on reliable anticommunism and wealth of strategic minerals. Soviet backing of the ANC and the presence of communists within the ANC leadership was seen as a destabilizing element in geopolitics. Oh, "communists", guess that makes everything "okay" then.

Wow, you win a cigar for naming ONE totalitarian leader currently supported by the US! Pakistan is a NUCLEAR POWER and centralized control by the likes of General Pervez Musharraf prevents those weapons from falling into the hands of Islamic extremists. Pakistan is an example of foreign policy based on national security interests. Yes, without Mush then the weapons would surely already be on their way to New York right now. You think Pakistan would just give away nuclear weapons to every religious zealot they see? First, try to name one occasion where that has happened, second, try to explain to yourself that nuclear weapons cost money, a lot of money.

Megawati Sukarnoputri took over as president of the world's fourth-largest nation. Abdurrahman Wahid, who was the country's first freely elected leader, was ousted by the Indonesian parliament for alleged corruption. Megawati's popular support stems largely by pedigree from her father, Sukarno, who was the country's founding president. East Timor is an example of Indonesia's fragmented ethno-political scene precariously glued together by military occupation and oppression. Wow, fancy ****! Guess that is a good enough excuse for genocide! But you said it yourself, Indonesia is the fourth most populated nation in the world, and therefore an important trade partner, or in the words o Nixon: the "greatest prize in the Southeast Asian area,".

Back up your perverse leftist rhetoric with factual examples and references. Otherwise shut your trap! "leftist"? rofl Does supporting the war against Iraq and Afghanistan sound "leftist" to you?

Now, psssh, get off my internet.

Trigger

07-14-2003, 03:48 PM

HE219 you're one sexy bitch.... rofl
Damn, I was gonna say that!

He219

07-14-2003, 11:29 PM

Dmitri

07-14-2003, 11:41 PM

Quote:
US taxpayers money to CREATE the Taleban
The Taliban created itself. The political and religious climate in Afghanistan influenced by foreign intervention on all sides led to the rise of the Taliban.

Just read in the June eddition of the Soldier of Fortune magazine about US sponsoring Taliban and supporting Saddam Hussein...

Mortimer

07-15-2003, 12:21 AM

diamonds will be around for ever,oil won't....oil is FAR more valuble then diamonds for your wives.

don't get me started on diamonds

The United States has championed the cause of Human Rights worldwide

BS!
What about the poor indonesians who work for such companies as Nike and other TNCs making $2US a week while you pay the corporate bosses millions of dollars to suck ****, you arrogant prick.

Where are the human rights for the men at camp X-Ray!? i know they are part of a terroist org but that is no exucse.

There is an Australian there who has been there for nearly two years , no communication with family, he won't even get to pick his lawyers, he doesn't even know what he is being charged with!. He is already dead before he goes to trial. HE IS STILL HUMAN the US cannot take that right away from him.

What about the 6000+ innocent people killed in Iraq not including Afghanistan?

Where are the WMD that the US based its case for war on?

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

---------------------------

Just in case you don't get the gist of what i am trying to say.

Defending human rights isn't accomplished by sending your 72cents a month to some African kid you've never met.

Instead of speanding however many trillions of $ on your army why don't you spend it on your healthcare system or education system or releaving world debt? Some 3rd wolrd countries will never get out of debt hence NEVER develop...but wait.....thats what they want....why pay US workers minimum wage for something you get done for 1/8 of the price?!

As the US leads the way in the progression of 'civilization', utilizing the tools and capabilities gained through application of ever growing technologies

Yeah in ways it can make money.. where is the water powered car, thats right you can make money from water....

TNC's are slowing down human development so they can make money, exploiting 3rd world countries(division of labor). Something like 20% of the worlds poulation is wealthier then the other 80% put totether...how is that right?

see a movie called bowling for columbine it will provide you with some insight into how you've been conditioned into believing that **** you've been spouting.

btw i am not directly relating control of the worlds wealth to the jews....sure they are pretty wealthy and influencial but i see them as american not jews, categorising people by their religion is pointless.

spier

07-15-2003, 02:03 AM

He219, did you edit your reply blank? Coward.

GazB

07-15-2003, 02:26 AM

"Wrong. New Zealand troops deployed to Afghanistan in late November 2001. They were sent as a result of our governments direct support of US policies at the time."

OOps quite right. I was thinking of the group Helen is going to send to Iraq.

budanski

07-15-2003, 10:31 PM

Just got back in town, so I apologize for this late response. Not that it matters anymore for this thread but FYI:

Was created and paid for by the Pakistani secret service, an organistation that filtered money from the US taxpayer to every side in Afghanistan that would oppose the Soviets while they were there.

False. The Taliban didn’t exist technically until 1994. In September 1994, Mohammad Omar, then a mullah, now a deposed and hunted extremist, formed a militia group in Khandhar. The Taliban didn’t take power until September 1996.

U.S. aid and arms sales to Pakistan had been prohibited by Congress since October 1990 because the President could not make a required annual certification to Congress under Section 620E(e) of the Foreign Assistance Act with the "Pressler Amendment.”

So there is a significant problem with dates here. The Taliban was created and stole power after the US embargoed all aid to Pakistan and included with that is any funding direct or indirect to the Pakistani Secret Service.

When the Soviets pulled out they continued to prop up their puppet government which remained in power till about 94.

Not quite correct. The Soviets did pull out in 1989 however they did very little if anything to support their failing puppet government. Without Soviet troop in the country or rubles flowing in to back up the government the “government” essentially had control of Kabul and a few out lying towns. Warlords and other factions openly fought with the government and each other for control. The best description of Afghanistan during those times was anarchy, with criminals and warlords and splinter reigning in most of the country. To state that the Russians, (BTW the USSR ceased to exist after 1991) propped it up was an exageration at best. Due to the fact it was fianancially depleted and there were no Russian troops supporting the installed regime.

It was during this time without Western or Soviet support that the warlords and criminals reigned. The Taliban came to being and eventually in power due to their promise of restoring order. They attained the support of various hostile warlords that saw that the chaos was depleting their power and fortunes. This had very little to do with the Pakistani support. And absolutely nothing to do with US funneling of money to the Pakistani secret service.

Pakistani support was largely to hiring Taliban militia to escort Pakistani trading convoys through Afghanistan starting in Nov 1994. While Pakistan did provide some funding it did not come from the US as the US had an embargo on any aid to Pakistan. It should also be noted that during this time the US halted shipments of F16 fighters, and all military aid to Pakistan much of which was already paid for by Pakistan.

Your claims are completely unsupported and without merit. The evidence is that the Taliban didn’t begin to exist until almost 4 years after US aid to Pakistan was halted. Afghanistan had been in anarchy for almost 6 years before the Taliban came to power.

While Pakistan did provide funds to the Taliban, it did not come from the US.

BTW. Al Queda was in Afghanistan due to Osama’s money and the promise of support for Mullah Omar.

GazB

07-16-2003, 01:19 AM

"Your claims are completely unsupported and without merit. The evidence is that the Taliban didn’t begin to exist until almost 4 years after US aid to Pakistan was halted."

Ohh, yes, if the money comes from congress then it is US support. Who is the supporter if the money comes from the CIA? The US never finds way to funnel money to various places secretly. Ask Oliver North.

I got most of my info from that lefty, pinko, commie rag called Soldier of Fortune. (American edition).

stuntman

07-16-2003, 02:15 AM

:roll: Dam if we do! Dam if we don't!
Weep em man it's America!

Mortimer

07-16-2003, 02:52 AM

Got this info of the cia fact book
might help, bit broad though.

Afghanistan's recent history is characterized by war and civil unrest. The Soviet Union invaded in 1979 but was forced to withdraw 10 years later by anti-Communist mujahidin forces supplied and trained by the US, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and others. Fighting subsequently continued among the various mujahidin factions, giving rise to a state of warlordism that eventually spawned the Taliban. Backed by foreign sponsors, the Taliban developed as a political force and eventually seized power. The Taliban were able to capture most of the country, aside from Northern Alliance strongholds primarily in the northeast, until US and allied military action in support of the opposition following the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks forced the group's downfall. In late 2001, major leaders from the Afghan opposition groups and diaspora met in Bonn, Germany and agreed on a plan for the formulation of a new government structure that resulted in the inauguration of Hamid KARZAI as Chairman of the Afghan Interim Authority (AIA) on 22 December 2001. The AIA held a nationwide Loya Jirga (Grand Assembly) in June 2002, and KARZAI was elected President by secret ballot of the Transitional Islamic State of Afghanistan (TISA). The Transitional Authority has an 18-month mandate to hold a nationwide Loya Jirga to adopt a constitution and a 24-month mandate to hold nationwide elections. In December 2002, the TISA marked the one-year anniversary of the fall of the Taliban. In addition to occasionally violent political jockeying and ongoing military action to root out remaining terrorists and Taliban elements, the country suffers from enormous poverty, a crumbling infrastructure, and widespread land mines.

Beowulf

07-16-2003, 05:09 AM

I think that this is essesntially a question of foreign policy in terms of to what extent should a nation be involved in another nation's internal politics.

There is clearly some involvement b/c trade/commerce affects internal policymaker's decisions. So that will always be there.

So the real question is should a government be attempting to place someone in power in a nation that will favorably affect said government's position in global politics. Well that question is probably beyond my means to answer w/o more though and research.

That being said, a lot of nations do that to varying degrees and not just the US. Also understand the political climate during that time. Communism was America's greatest threat and everyone was terrified of that. This shows in the policy making. One of you said sarcastically "oh communism well that makes it okay then..."

Well in that time yeah, that was the rational. The spread of communism was viewed as the greatest threat to Us interests and national security for a long time. So of course we're gonna pay the Muj to fight the commies, and help the South vietnamese etc etc.

But remember most democratic governments do not slaughter their people and destroy the inherent human rights as well as the typical commmunist regime. I believe preventing the spread of communism is part national security, part human rights issue. This is, however, another issue.

The point is that you must understand why at the time the US supported the Muj. The underlying question is as I said in another thread "To isolationize or not to isolationize" (yes I made up a word.)

All best
beowulf

martinexsquaddie

07-16-2003, 07:55 AM

How about uzibeckistans so called leader.
he is going the right way to be deposed by an islamic goverment.
Why should people who have had Tyrant forced on them be friendly to the US.
Maybe the alternate september 11 a coup in chile where a democractily elected goverment was overthrown led to over 3000 disappered.
But thats ok they were not americans Murders still murder.
Overseas Americas not really been good at spreading Liberty not that the British have been any great shakes either.
America killed off the first leader of the congo and helped to keep a kleptomanic Tyrant in power for nearly 40 years so that country become a basket case. Unita in anglola that was a brilliant plan too.
Apratheid was just plain Evil the US goverment was wrong.
what the point of defeating communism if you just get a diffrent tyrant?
communism may be bad but anti-communism is even worse

spier

07-16-2003, 08:08 AM

martinexsquaddie, you don't even know what communism is.

GazB

07-17-2003, 04:08 AM

"The spread of communism was viewed as the greatest threat to Us interests and national security for a long time. So of course we're gonna pay the Muj to fight the commies, and help the South vietnamese etc etc. "

I am sure you believed that and thought that was right. But from my perspective giving china most favoured trading nation status showed it really wasn't absolutely about communism. You made temporary allies with the commies to fight Nazis... who were obviously worse, and later with China you showed you were prepared to get along with commies... for what? Because Russia and the Soviet Union was a threat. A physical, and economic. If it was a political threat then why cosy up to the commie Chinese?

"But remember most democratic governments do not slaughter their people and destroy the inherent human rights as well as the typical commmunist regime."

But dictators do, and you have certainly supported your share of them. If innocent lives were so important then Saddam would never have been treated like a friend... even if he did keep the Iranians in check for a while.

"I believe preventing the spread of communism is part national security, part human rights issue."

Yet in saving Afghanistan from communism you inflicted far more human rights abuses on the Afghans through the Taleban (even if you assume you had nothing to do with the Taleban). Girls were treated worse than animals. There were seperate parts of each house... the kitchen and bedrooms were for the females... places not guest was allowed. They weren't allowed any education or to get any sort of job. Boys learnt enough to be able to read... read the Koran that is. Under the Evil commies women could work and go to university, roads and schools were built. They didn't get a vote every 4-5 years but then the people in the country have never had a vote before anyway.

Instead of ridding the world of communism perhaps you should have just looked at what life was like for the people and what it is like now and used your judgement. The vast majority of the equipment the Muj used was chinese made and payed for by outside countries. Half of that money spent on food or warm clothing and then ignoring the commies would have resulted in a much better result for everyone.

"The point is that you must understand why at the time the US supported the Muj."

Revenge for Vietnam?

"America killed off the first leader of the congo and helped to keep a kleptomanic Tyrant in power for nearly 40 years so that country become a basket case."

Actually it was the Belgians that killed him. I have seen a doco by the BBC where the CIA guy tasked with the assassination just threw the poison he was given in a river. The Belgian government simply payed the Congo army (that hadn't been payed in 6 months) about 2 years worth of pay. They took their leader and 2 or three ministers out in front of a tree and shot them.

Seiyuuki

07-27-2003, 02:03 PM

spier

07-27-2003, 03:24 PM

I'm against the death penalty, I personally prefer torture much more. A quick death should only be reserve for the honorable, criminals who inflict pain and suffering upon others should know and understand that before they depart this plain of existence. Empathy can be a great teacher...or better yet, bring back PUBLIC FLOGGING!!!!!!!!How civilized.

If we did not care about civilian casulties, then we're evil and damn. Though if we did care about civilian casulties, then we're force too and we're still damn. First of all; WTF? Second:WTF!?

Technically, the U.S. didn't lose in Vietnam, they "withdrew" completely in 1972, South Vietnam failed to the North 3 years later (fault of Congress).Technically, the US lost Vietnam on the Homefront thanks to the carpet bombing of civilians, which in turn caused them to lose popular support. Strategically, they did a good job, I don't think you can say they won it, but they did a good job at killing things that moved.

Saranof

07-27-2003, 03:53 PM

ibstolidude

07-27-2003, 04:45 PM

as addressed in another post...to say that the US funded the taliban is a joke....the mujihadeen that were primarily funded by the US in afghansitan were run off and or killed by the TB after the soviet departure...the tb were not in existance during that the time frame of us support to the Muj... the territoral warlord system the mujihadeen (that the US backed predominately) were counter to the aims of the a taliban controlled nonsecular singular government state....that is actually a current bitch of the afghan people - you booted out the taliban and then put the warlords back in charge which actually ultimately gave rise to the taliban in the first place....

if you wish to critique the foreign policy of nations at least get the facts straight.

BigKahuna

07-27-2003, 08:08 PM

Rumsfeld shaking Husseins hands:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm

Rumsfeld 'offered help to Saddam' :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4574918,00.html

Condoleezza Rice - Chevron-Texanco
Donald Rumsfeld - Occidental Petroleum
**** Cheney - Halliburton

Have a nice and deep sleep America!

ibstolidude

07-27-2003, 10:50 PM

I should hope the US did offer to help the IRaqi forces during the IRan IRaq war - technically it proved invaluable to our succes in countering Iraq military during the gulf war 1

As a predominant surplier of technical equipment and parts we were able to not only effectively counter act their anti-aircraft defense, but also disrupt and intercept their communications...we also had the opportunity to cease suppling them with the access to the repair/supply network needed to keep those systems viable, forcing htem to turn elsewhere for assistance, costing them time, money and effectivenss...And we got them to put a hurting on Iran to boot.

thanks for pointing out that effective piece of strategy... If only the US could "create" those type of self sustaining embargos else where.

too busy swinging the stick at the policy rather than looking into the reasons....the above tactic was a not uncommon one used during the Reagan years

Seiyuuki

07-28-2003, 12:38 AM

Holy City of Islam is Mecca. Mecca is in Saudi Arabia. Iran are extreme Muslims. Extreme Muslims love to have Mecca. Saudi Arabia see secular Iraq as a buffer to Iran's fundamentalism. Middle East tolerated Saddam. So does the US.

Iran-Iraq War. So Iran win the war. Physically double its size. Double its resources. Double its population. Eventually, Double its military. Become Middle East's "SUPERPOWER." Middle East's "SUPERPOWER" don't like America and the West...!!!

Prior to the fall of the Shah, Carter send an envoy to the then exile Khameni...the man was, of course, full of rhetorics on peaceful existence between Middle East and West, peace for all, Israel's right to exist, etc....Carter, not one of our brightest president, bought Khameni's rhetorics and help him gained power.

Now, if you were the president, not knowing then that Khameni was merely acting earnest...what would your course of action be? Hope the man was truly earnest and bring a better future to the region...or not help him and let the Shah remain in power.

It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat.

BigKahuna

07-28-2003, 04:29 AM

As budanski wrote on page 1: If it walks like a duck,...

Some people don't want to see the truth and are able to justify everything.
Start thinking yourself and don't believe the hype.

http://www.whitehouse.org/initiatives/posters/be_afraid.asp

ibstolidude

07-28-2003, 10:45 AM

You say as you post a link to more Hype..
And in reference to my original post about Aghanistan - it isn't hype from media, I saw it first hand.

It is amazing the way many claim anyopne who disagrees with them is a product of propoganda of the media and other sources...they prove this by posting media links and other like sources...