[Troll]

From the
BBC

the Pentagon admitted its bombs had hit a Red Cross depot by mistake for the second time in 10 days.

The Pentagon has admitted that US Navy fighters and B-52 bombers mistakenly bombed six warehouses used by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).

The bombing on Friday was the second such error since the air campaign began on 7 October.

Red Cross stores and vehicles were badly damaged

"Although details are still being investigated, preliminary indications are that the warehouses were struck due to a human error in the targeting process," the Pentagon said in a statement.

No comment from me. I don't want to get bombed again by the Americans on these boards

[ 10-27-2001: Message edited by: Troll ]

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

I wouldn't at all be surprised if the Taliban were hiding themselves and military weapons in Red Cross warehouses.

These are people who poison the food we send in to feed the Afghan people, in order to have thier own people die so they can say we did it.

Wouldn't surprise me at all, if those bombs are actually remarkably ON TARGET.

But you know, that's really a far-fetched idea I'm sure. I mean, we probably did 'mistakenly' bomb SIX warehouses, and for the second time. Yup, sounds pretty random and entirely accidental to me. No pattern in there that I can discern... nope. It’ll probably be random and accidental the NEXT six or so Red Cross warehouses that get bombed too.

Someone pointed out to me the other day the EXTREME FOLLY of a civilized nation, fighting against a decidedly UNCIVILIZED one (and as far as the Taliban rule is concerned, they are textbook uncivilized). Basically, they play by no rules what so ever, and will use our own need to be 'civil' against us at every turn. They'll play every dirty, nasty, despicable trick against us in the book. Run out of those, and they'll write a new book of dirty tricks.

Yet whenever we try and get a little 'medieval' in return (like figuring out the enemy is hiding in 'off limits' targets like Mosques, Hospitals, Orphanages, Red Cross store houses, etc. and then bombing them anyway) we've got to 'own up' to it, and take the resulting flack on the chin. Civilized people must say 'yup...we fooked up.' And on top of it, not admit that they actually hit what they were after in the first place, because to ADMIT to purposely targeting an off limit target, will go over worse than just saying 'oops, it was an accident'!

At any rate, weather any of this is the case or not, I'll take living in a nation that at least **makes an attempt** to do the right things (even in FUBAR to the MAX situations with hands tied behind our backs while the enemy has use of both--like this one is shaping up to be) over living in a country that poisons it's own citizens using international relief food, in the effort to win some petty propaganda victory.

Stay tuned. All this is gonna get more and more interesting.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
<STRONG>Someone pointed out to me the other day the EXTREME FOLLY of a civilized nation, fighting against a decidedly UNCIVILIZED one (and as far as the Taliban rule is concerned, they are textbook uncivilized). Basically, they play by no rules what so ever, and will use our own need to be 'civil' against us at every turn. They'll play every dirty, nasty, despicable trick against us in the book. Run out of those, and they'll write a new book of dirty tricks.</STRONG>

Stand proud, Sir, for you are a shining example of the true Earth-Citizen, who sees it as his utmost duty to understand his fellowman, and to savor the cultural heritages that make his planet so rich.

Wild West, Middle East - same difference. Injuns is Injuns.

Kill'em all, I say!

Maybe you and them just don't read the same books?


BTW: the implication that these structures were indeed hit INTENTIONALLY opens up a whole world of speculation, especially since all we know about what was in them is
a) what the Taliban press department tells us, and
b) what the Pentagon press department tells us.

And we know they're both full of sh*t.

-chris.

[ 10-27-2001: Message edited by: Spheric Harlot ]

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
[QB]

Stand proud, Sir, for you are a shining example of the true Earth-Citizen, who sees it as his utmost duty to understand his fellowman, and to savor the cultural heritages that make his planet so rich.

Wild West, Middle East - same difference. Injuns is Injuns.

Kill'em all, I say!

All this ranting from a guy whose own country had to be globally bitchslapped not once, but TWICE in the same century for being as barbaric and uncivlized as any nation ever has been.

Basically there's SEVERAL entire VOLUMES of "Man's Inhumanity toward Man" penned expressly thanks to the deeds of your country.

You're a real peice of work.

[ 10-27-2001: Message edited by: CRASH HARDDRIVE ]

[Troll]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
<STRONG>

All this ranting from a guy whose own country had to be globally bitchslapped not once, but TWICE in the same century for being as barbaric and uncivlized as any nation ever has been.

Basically there's SEVERAL entire VOLUMES of "Man's Inhumanity toward Man" penned expressly thanks to the deeds of your country.

You're a real peice of work.

[ 10-27-2001: Message edited by: CRASH HARDDRIVE ]</STRONG>

CRASH, that is completely out of line!!!!!!!!!!

What happened in Germany could have happened anywhere else. If you haven't learned that lesson, then you have learned nothing from WWII. Shame on you!

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by Troll:
<STRONG>
CRASH, that is completely out of line!!!!!!!!!!

What happened in Germany could have happened anywhere else.

Yeah, but it didn't.

If you haven't learned that lesson, then you have learned nothing from WWII. Shame on you!</STRONG>

The lesson you obviously haven't learned is that all your tired old BS about how peace is achieved in this world merely by saying "oh please, play nice everyone!" is pure BUNK. None of your hollow peacenik rantings would have saved the world from Nazism. Just as none of it will stop terrorism. I suggest YOU go do some reading up on what it took to end the nightmare the world was subjected to during WWII.

Talk about having learned nothing from history. How anyone can sit in a country, probably not miles from the murder sites of MILLIONS of people, and then lecture everyone else about how you shouldn't fight against an evil regime... is WAY beyond me!

It's just ironic really, that Spheric is from a country that somehow allowed a system to take power that PERSONIFIED evil and took the barbaric horrors of warfare to lows no one thought POSSIBLE... then come out with this silly attitude that no one (and SPECIFICALLY the US) should ever take up arms to protect oneself against an evil regime! Ironic, and downright weird, not to mention staggeringly naive.

Is any of what happened in WWII his fault directly? Of course not. But is he in any way justified in comparing our military leadership to the Taliban? HA!

Here's a guy whose offended at someone calling the Taliban uncivilized! Sorry, but I find that BIZZARE! The fact that the person comes from Germany, where you'd THINK that with even just a mere SNIFF of the stench of thier own local history, a person could understand just a wee-bit exactly HOW uncivilized people could actually be toward one another... just makes it all the more bizzare!

[Troll]

Stick to the topic. This thread is about American incompetence. It's about how useless the US air force is. Take your "Peace doesn't work. Killing is the answer," to another thread.

[ink]

Originally posted by Troll:
<STRONG>
No comment from me. I don't want to get bombed again by the Americans on these boards
</STRONG>

What are you insinuating?

[nana2]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
<STRONG>
BTW: the implication that these structures were indeed hit INTENTIONALLY opens up a whole world of speculation, especially since all we know about what was in them is
a) what the Taliban press department tells us, and
b) what the Pentagon press department tells us.

And we know they're both full of sh*t.

-chris.

[ 10-27-2001: Message edited by: Spheric Harlot ]</STRONG>

Umm you forget the International Red Cross who said their warehouses were bombed, which the Pentagon later admitted to. But I guess they are full of $hit too

[San Acoustic]

Hey, stop the bickering. There's enough barbarism to be shared by all.

Those won't Nazi planes that spread nerve gas over U.S. and Canadian cities and through the New York subway system n the '50s just for the hell of it, and it wasn't the Nazis who gave smallpox-contaminated blankets to the Indians, and it wasn't the Nazis dressed in white sheets lynching their way down through U.S. history. It wasn't the Nazis that built half the country on slavery. It wasn't Nazis who invented the concentration camp and it wasn't the Nazis who took over a quarter of the world and carved it up from India to Africa and the Mideast that put us where we are now.

Share and share alike.

[Joshua]

Originally posted by Troll:
<STRONG>Stick to the topic. This thread is about American incompetence. It's about how useless the US air force is. Take your "Peace doesn't work. Killing is the answer," to another thread.</STRONG>

Excellent point. Methinks the US should withdraw from NATO; if one of our allies ever needs to invoke that whole Article 5 nonsense, we don't want our incompetent air force hurting anyone.

[sek929]

I'm sure the leaders of our great military are there for a reason and you people aren't in charge of it for even better reasons.

Its not like the red cross warehouses had big red crosses on them. They were probrably as non-descript as every other delapitaded building in that shi**y country.

Mistakes happen, this is war, and war is messy. Deal with it because I assure you the the United States military is not going to withdraw its forces because of disgruntled foreigners on an online bulletin board....

[BRussell]

I think this is a good thread, because it raises a larger point. Obviously, it sucks that bombs don't always hit their targets.

But how do you avoid mistakes more generally? How do you avoid criticism? What type of foreign policy do you have if you want to be liked by everyone, if you hate being nitpicked and criticized and protested against?

Answer: You don't do anything. You don't intervene in the world, you play no active role. You withdraw. That's the driving force behind many nation's foreign policies (France, anyone?): to be disliked by as few people as possible, regardless of principles or larger issues.

It's true that the US probably wouldn't be terrorist targets if we followed the advice of the isolationists, if we were neutral re: Israel/Palestinians, Iraq/Kuwait, etc.

But would the world be a better place? How would WWII have turned out if we decided not to go to war after Pearl Harbor? What would have happened after WWII? How much of Europe and the world would a Soviet dictatorship control now? Where would Israel be right now if we didn't support them?

If you play an active role in the world, you're bound to fvck up sometimes, and then people can criticize you and blame you. But what's the alternative?

[Nile Crocodile]

IMO the GPS guided bombs suck when it comes to "precision" bombing. This time it seem that someone entered the wrong coordinates. Last time it seems they had the wrong coordinates.

[finboy]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
<STRONG>

All this ranting from a guy whose own country had to be globally bitchslapped not once, but TWICE in the same century...
</STRONG>

Damn that's chilly. Go get 'em Crash.

[finboy]

Originally posted by BRussell:
<STRONG>

If you play an active role in the world, you're bound to fvck up sometimes, and then people can criticize you and blame you. But what's the alternative?</STRONG>

The alternative is to stand by and let evil happen. We're a big target for criticism, because we're doing THE MOST around the world, and we have been for many, many years now. The world is much better off due to US intervention, but I sure wish there was some way to make them see it.

[Spliffdaddy]

Americans haven't listened to the advice of other countries for over 225 years. And look where it got us.



But please, I insist, let's hear some more sage advice from the German members out there...

[Sine]

"Oh my civilians being killed at war!?!?" That NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE!

Please name me one war where civilians where not killed. It's a fact of War. War isn't politically correct.
Civilians are going to die. It sucks.. but it's a fact of life. Stop living in your fairy tale world.

This should also do away with the "US only reports Pro US things on the news" BS

[Nile Crocodile]

Originally posted by Sine:
<STRONG>
This should also do away with the "US only reports Pro US things on the news" BS</STRONG>

No it wont. I've been pointing out from the start that the Pentagon has said that "missiles went missing" but dolts like Troll still try to claim that the US government is lying to us. If the Pentagon is trying to cover this stuff up they better stop issuing press release about it

[pfflam]

In contemporary history, post Rennaisance, the war on civilian interests began with the Civil War and Sherman's march. Prior to this there was an idea that war was for soldiers and battles were fought, often, just outside of cities.

The first wholesale targetting of civilians was by Germany in WW1 aws a responce to the perrceived threat of the franques tirreur --locals, Belgians in most cases, shooting with hunting rifles. It escalated quickly, next thing you know Hiroshima. . . which I always have to ask myself, wouldn't a well placed exhibition explosion offshore have had the same desired effect? . . or why didn't we wait and use the bobmb on Iwo Jima unstead of civilians?


Now, in ancient warfare, seiges were a daily affair... just remember Carthage? the Romans were so fed up with Hannibal's brilliant soldiering that they basically burned it and plowed the huge city under, literally(every stone plowed over), then spread it over with salt so nothing new would grow where it stood.

[Sven G]

Perhaps not too much on topic... but something I really don't understand that much is why many of you Americans use we/us instead of I/me when you talk about the war (!): that's a big contradiction for a "people" which traditionally has based its indentity very much on individualism, if not egocentrism. It almost seems like the only "catalyst" for being a collectivity for many US people only comes from catastrophic situations like disasters and war...

Something that should be normal in everyday life (as freely helping each other: see also after the disaster in NY) only becomes possible in emergency situations, and then gets completely distorted in a false and destructive, fake, "we-ness/us-ness" in war situations! Rather incredible, and IMO a symptom of a deep sickness in today's society (across the entire world, of course, but especially contradictory in the US, who - falsely, of course - claim to be the "most democratic" of all countries!)...

[shmerek]

It seems to me the US is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't. Somebody is going to bitch about them no matter what and a lot of those who bitch about them would be phuked without their help.
&lt;generalization&gt;
There wouldn't be such a humanitarian crisis in Afganastan right now if the Taliban had been taking care of its people instead of running around checking to make sure everyones' beard was the right length.
&lt;/ generalization&gt;

[pfflam]

Let me guess, "we' can't be a democracy together? I use we whenever I talk about what the country of the US should or shouldn't do, and when I think that I am talking to other people who could also say the same thing becasue they would be part of the 'we'.

In these boards, there are many people not from the US, so they are not the 'we', and I should take that in to consideration.

But, I was speaking about what the US did, and I am a US citizen. AND, because it is a democracy, I can say 'we' in such a way that implies my part in the whole.

Obviously I don't think that because these other people can say 'we' as well that we sharre much besides a love for Macs and citizenship. . . .besides I am a French citizen (dual) . . . and you, from italy, and I, would be members of a 'we' when speaking of European desicions.


I do agree that the part that I play in the democracy of America is grossly overrated by the spin on our sense of democracy but it exists nonetheless.

Something strange happens in catastrophes. A surface is sheared away and a kind of organismic relationship forms where people alll become less individuals and more a part to a whole. I think that that is a dangerous state of being for a country because it can be taken in many nefarious directions, such as fascism, it can also be a good thing too. However, there is also the simple more colloquial usage of 'we' which is not so fraught with danger.

I do see the merit in refusal of commiunity...I am well versed in the post-modernism of Lyotard and the politics of desent and disagreement, but, I also disagree with him and find that sometimes it's a good thing to acknowledge membership in some form of a community....if not just to get some things done.

Also, I say 'we' when reffering to WW2, because it had a lasting role in my families life: my mother lived in occupied France, very close to the entire town that was rounded up and burned (Oridor Sur-Glan) and my father flew B-17s --both were very impacted by the experience, and so I feel that it really did involve me as well...even though I'm wrong.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Sven G:
<STRONG>something I really don't understand that much is why many of you Americans use we/us instead of I/me when you talk about the war (!): that's a big contradiction for a "people" which traditionally has based its indentity very much on individualism, if not egocentrism.</STRONG>

That's very profound, Sven, but actually try to use 'I/me' in a real sentence in place of 'we/us' and see how it sounds. How about "I'm dropping cluster bombs on Al Qaeda." Doesn't really make sense, does it?

By the way, why do you put "people" in quotes when you talk about Americans? Are "we" not real "people" to "you?"

[pfflam]

Actually, as Nans Haacke has shown the German populace in a recent art-work where he replaced the term 'populace' where it had alsways said 'to the German People' in a public sculpture.

WE in america are not a "people", we are a populace. we are a populace because our sense of "we-ness" is not based on race, as it has been in many other countries, but is based rather on citizenship.


Perhaps that is why he does it? Sven are you that thoughtful?

[ 10-27-2001: Message edited by: pfflam ]

[Sven G]

Of course, "people" wasn't directed only towards Americans: sorry if you understood that...

It was neither a question of "populace" vs. "people" (at least, not intentionally - maybe unconsciously).

I simply often - perhaps too often - put "controversial" (!) terms between quotes when I feel there is some underlying hypocrisy at the base of the current use of that word: here, I simply meant that in *everyday* life there rarely is the concept of being a "people", as it's rather a dog-eat-dog world where a basic sense of (worldwide) community isn't - to say the very least - the first priority; then, of course, the world "people" has also been instrumentalized endless times in history...

[DoctorGonzo]

The world is much better off due to US intervention, but I sure wish there was some way to make them see it.

Ever notice that most of the time, the only people who cheer U.S intervention are those who are so far removed from the actual events their only source of information on the topic is the U.S news media?

Ever notice that the people who were actually there tend to be extremly pissed off?

Think there might be a reason?

The idea that we somehow need to convince masses of people that we have done the right things completely ingores the fact that they have gone from indifferent to extremly angry, all of the sudden and no one cares to ask why.

The U.S has such little respect in Latin America because of it's interventions. Coups, death squads, you name it, we probably did it. The native populations do not need to be convinced that the U.S did the right thing. No one is going to say that they are happy their children were taken away in the night, never to be seen again, by men trained and financed by the U.S. No one is going to say thank you for overthrowing the leader they elected in free and fair elections. Leaders that even U.S government documents show, presented absolutely no danger to the U.S in any way, shape or form.

In Israel, the West Bank and Gaza Strip are currently being occupied in direct violation of international law. Furthermore, Israel has taken it upon istelf to settle the occupied lands. A war crime under international law. Anyone who resists is delt with in the harshest ways possible. Rock throwing children are shot - with U.S purchased bullets. Entire buildings where Israel suspects the bad guys might be, are leveled with missles paid for by the U.S. Their civilillan occupants are not even entered into the equation. Any Arab who might possibly commit an act of terrorism in response to the occupation, can be assasinated.

The acts comitted by Israel are in blatant violation of the law and basic human decency - not to mention over 80 U.N resolutions. They easily meet the criteria for terrorism. Yet, the U.S gives them 3 billion a year to continue the campaign and fight the very enemies their crimes have produced.

Now, I think your suggestion that we somehow convince people that the U.S is helping them, utterly ignores the realities of the situation. I think more people in the U.S need to wake up to what their government is doing in their name. The mass hatred of the U.S around the world is not as result of their envy of our prosperity - that is a cheap cop-out for those who want to ignore the truth. It is a direct result of what we do, which is more often than not criminal, inhumane and utterly inexcuseable.

[ 10-27-2001: Message edited by: DoctorGonzo ]

[Spliffdaddy]

I disagree.

[seanyepez]

Me too.

[MikeM32]

Someone pointed out to me the other day the EXTREME FOLLY of a civilized nation, fighting against a decidedly UNCIVILIZED one (and as far as the Taliban rule is concerned, they are textbook uncivilized). Basically, they play by no rules what so ever, and will use our own need to be 'civil' against us at every turn. They'll play every dirty, nasty, despicable trick against us in the book. Run out of those, and they'll write a new book of dirty tricks.

Your'e right on target. Look at vietnam. They used everything to fight and totally "un-conventional means" of warfare. Not what we expected at all. We just expected a "conventional war" where the good guys were all wearing white shirts and the bad guys were all wearing black ones.

There we were looking for enemy soldiers in uniforms with rifles. Meanwhile they've got women and children hiding bombs in baskets of "food" offering it to our guys (for example).

It's not a war we'll ever win if we fight it by the "book" or by conventional means. But on the other hand if we fight them at thier own game then suddenly we're viewed as the "barbarians" by the entire world.

Meanwhile they've got "operatives" living right here on our own soil. These people were probably given some order a long time ago that they're just now carrying out. How do we find them and what will they do next?

Man, I'll tell you what. I'm sorta putting it all in the back of my mind. It's enough to drive one insane. So I'm just gonna live and try to pretend none of this sh_t is really happening.

Mike

[hmurchison2001]

Who cares? Many Americans don't.

[Sven G]

... Just an addition to the we &lt;---&gt; I argument (sorry, I forgot this important thing...)...

... There is, of course, also the I/we &lt;---&gt; they "evolution" of the same argument: I think that more and more Americans, Europeans, etc. are really beginning to become fed up (at least, "privately", if not publicly) with the arrogance and continuous violence of "their" states and governments - perhaps I am and we are something different and more human than they have (see also E. Fromm's To have or to be, which, while not being completely convincing, is at least interesting...); that is, perhaps we shouldn't anymore trust those (very often billionaires, etc.) who pretend to "govern" the world with their terrorism, of whatever kind it may be - always, of course, "in God's name"!...

Personally, I really don't feel any comfortable with today's situation...

[ 10-28-2001: Message edited by: Sven G ]

[Sven G]

Sorry, double post...

[ 10-28-2001: Message edited by: Sven G ]