Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Indymedia)   Department of Defense admits to bombing Red Cross on purpose   ( divider line
    More: Cool  
•       •       •

7470 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Nov 2001 at 11:57 AM (15 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

116 Comments     (+0 »)

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

2001-11-08 02:36:37 PM  
MacV, Gangstead:

Food exists for one purpose. And I think you all know exactly what it is:


At the *bare minimum*, the taliban won't be consuming locally produced food. Regardless of the situation, they're not just taking it to throw it into a landfill or anything. Demonizing the Taliban is one thing, but pretending they're just going to trash the food is preposterous. Regardless of the situation, we just took 80,000 year's-supplies of food out of service, which translates to many deaths. No mater who is in control of it, period. Its amazing how you can pretend that we did the world a service by blowing up 80,000 pounds of food because "it was in the wrong hands". BTW, the taliban has been on-again, off-again cooperating with relief agencies. BTW again, there never was *any* confirmation that the people taking food - a few jeep's full , mind you - were even taliban soliders. BTW, on the way to that attack, we accidentally bombed yet another civilian neighborhood. BTW, a few days before the attack the government assured the Red Cross that they would not attack any of their compounds.

But lets not let any of these make us loose sight of the only thing that this accomplished (well, apart from hitting a civilian neighborhood when a bomb missed - confirmed by our military, btw, one of many). We destroyed 40,000 tons of food in a place where people are starving to death, regardless of who was in control.
2001-11-08 02:36:44 PM  
I for one appreciate different takes on the news. A wide variety of views provides a more rounded basis for an informed opinion. It doesn't surprise me at all that we're being lied to, as they say, "the first casualty of war is truth." It's just good to get a reminder now and then not to believe everything that CNN or authority figures tell us without putting some critical thought into it.
2001-11-08 02:37:31 PM  
BTW, lets not laugh and joke about cluster bombs.
Those things are sickening.
2001-11-08 02:41:22 PM  
Gee, Gangstead, looks like you have better information than the ICRC itself, which for some reason is laboring under the delusion that it was distributing that food to 55,000 disabled and otherwise vulnerable persons. The ICRC must deplore the bombing because they don't realize that they were taken over by the Taliban. Unless you're saying the Red Cross is in league with the Taliban, which just makes all kinds of farking sense when you think about it. Wow, there are so many smart and informed people on this board.
2001-11-08 02:41:59 PM  
That food would have sustained, by my calculations, 80,000 people's lives for one year. We spent taxpayer's money to kill 80,000 people because of a vague ascertain that the taliban might be taking it. Taking 80,000 tons of food out of circulation in a region like that should be considered a war crime, regardless of who currently was in control of it. That's worse than our bombing of Nagasaki. (naturally, we never were held responsible for that... )

PS: the standard, accepted spelling of yggdrasil in modern world has two g's. Just in case you didn't spell it that way on purpose.
2001-11-08 02:43:38 PM  
2001-11-08 02:48:57 PM  
"The ICRC reiterates that attacking or occupying facilities marked with the red cross emblem constitutes a violation of international humanitarian law."

Oh but I forgot - we're the United States and we can decide what laws we follow and what laws we totally disregard.
2001-11-08 02:50:31 PM  

1) "Deny the Taliban food and weapons" - excuse me, but they already have weapons. That means that if there's food anywhere, they have it. The poor will *always* be the first to suffer. Of course I support denying them weapons. But I also support denying the other jehadi (the "Northern Alliance") thugs weapons too... I'm not sure which group sickens me worse. When the taliban came to power, for example, government-sponsored beatings of women increased notably, but government-sponsored rapes of women notably decreased. Dotsum was famous for marching his troops through hazari districts with orders to rape every woman in sight. Many threw themselves out of the upper stories of buildings, to their deaths, to avoid the soldiers.

2) The Red Cross reported only occasional, periodic siezures by the somewhat schizophrenic taliban leadership. When we bombed them, they reported the warehouses as being under their control - they had told the US, several days beforehand, not to attack their warehouses.

3) Nice job pretending that we're actually dropping a measurable amount of food into afghanistan. Our attacks are stopping the shipment of real amounts of food. Mazar e Sharif has run out of food. Kandahar is getting low. There are currently 500,000 people in the mountain passes in afghanistan trying to get out of the country that will be trapped there this winter - 500,000!. And we're not letting measurable aid shipments in. This is criminal-levels of neglect we're looking at.
2001-11-08 02:53:13 PM  

What's next, do you support the taking out of two UN mine clearing operations we've done also? Let me guess, they've fallen into taliban hands too....
2001-11-08 03:13:29 PM  
The intuitive cat:
You're completely missing the point. It's not about comparing some big media machine with powerful CEO's to some obsure media outlet that few people have heard of. It's about a journalist's obligation to state the facts in an unbiased manner, something this "journalist" cleary failed to do. If you want to have an opinion in the news, then you write an editorial. If you write an editorial, then you let people know that it is, in fact, an editorial (newspapers, for example, have an editorial section with the word "Editorials" printed at the top). This was the first lesson I was taught in my photojournalism class.

Now, since I could not see any references to this article being an editorial, then we must assume that it is a regular news item. If that is indeed the fact, there are several things wrong with this article. Namely;

1) The author uses the word "I". A real article should never be seen from the viewpoint of the author. It presents bias towards the topic.

2) His sources are based on hearsay (the NBC guy told me that a Defence official told him that....). If you want to quote a source, then you get it straight from the horse's mouth.

3) He provides links to articles that are similar to his topic, but he never provides any links that support his main idea; That the defence department purposely bombed the Red Cross buildings.

4) Capitalizing words like "ADMITTED" and "BURIED" can do nothing but present the idea that the author is right, and everybody who doesn't agree with him is wrong. Once again, this show total bias towards the topic.

I've often read articles where I see the author slip up from time to time, but never to the extent of this author. Which leads me to another point. Who is this author? Does he have any special interests that we should know about. For example, has he ever worked with the Red Cross and feels angered by the (accidental?) bombing, or does he have any anti-government views? I'm surprised that few people ever ask this question when they read an article. This is one of the disadvantages I see to news on the Internet. Anybody and their dog can have an article published and passed off for news. At least with big media corporations, they have editors who are responsible for making sure their reporters have no conflict of interest. Otherwise, their integrity might go down, and they would be out of the job.

Anyways, you may have a different point of view on this, and if you do, then I'd be greatful to hear it. I didn't mean to rant for so long, but you seemed to have touched a nerve with me.
2001-11-08 03:20:04 PM  
Please let this not be true. Please let this guy be crazy. Please not have us be bombing the Red Cross. Otherwise, we are going straight to hell.
2001-11-08 03:22:17 PM  
I'm confused about one thing that's reported. Not about the red cross warehouse, but about the cluster bombs. I'm no military expert, but aren't cluster bombs mainly used against vehicles and people? What are we doing dropping cluster bombs on top of a city?
2001-11-08 03:28:26 PM  
Dropping food is like dropping a cluster bomb. We're not trying to feed everyone. It's propaganda directed at the Afghanistan people.
2001-11-08 03:28:40 PM  
Nice perception of the Taliban. Unfortunately, its wrong. They deserve to be demonized for many things (I could send you a video of a Qasas, for example), but deliberately tossing food to rot instead of letting the millions of people - at the very least, the Pashtun - in Kabul have it is not one of them. Of course, you don't hear about the non-demonic things they do, like the sections of Kabul that they've evacuated because they're close to military bases or other high-risk targets, or the fact that they've moved most of their equiptment out of the cities, or many other things. Compared to the "Northern Alliance", in many ways they're saints.

This is an editorial. The author never states otherwise. Again, we don't want this to turn into a nitpicking-about-typos-and-grammar debate - I've been in one of those before, they don't accomplish anything.

The point is the information linked to. (well, one of the links has since been broken, but its not their fault, MSNBC did that...). The links summarize as follows:

1). No, this was an accident, we'd never do anything like this.

2). Oh, yeah, btw, we did bomb that, because the taliban was taking a few jeeps full of food away from it.

Both links are from about as respectable sources as you're going to find. So, again, where is the person's point incorrect?

Also, as a side note, they quoted from the msnbc link (again, which has since died):

"Acknowledging the strong concern from U.S. allies, Rumsfeld maintained that "responsibility for every single casualty in this war - be they innocent Afghans or innocent Americans - rests at the feet of Taliban and al-Qaida." Meanwhile, new information came forward on why Red Cross warehouses were bombed repeatedly last week. NBC's Miklaszewski said a senior U.S. military official now says they were bombed on purpose because the food was being stolen by Taliban troops."

That *is* their main point, and it came right from MSNBC (I've read the same thing elsewhere... but the author was right, it was really skimmed over, and not brought to the forefront. I don't share the author's view that its some kind of conspiracy or anything, I think the sad fact is, most americans don't seem to care if we cause mass starvations deaths in Afghanistan, and news agencies only have the goal of getting an audience).
2001-11-08 03:28:44 PM  

It is not enough to claim bias on the part of a news reporter. If one genuinely wishes to get at the truth, one must go looking for the facts. What facts does the article itself get wrong, if any?

Did the Dept. of Defence not actually issue the statement referred to by the author? While none of the big media organizations seem to be reporting on it, there are certainly ways of finding out if the statement was issued. It's certainly not difficult to find quotes issued previous to this statement that say the bombing was 'in error'.

News needs to be judged by the facts presented. Anything written by a human cannot be proven to be completely objective.

2001-11-08 03:33:30 PM  
there is no left or right. we live in a society of CLASSES.
anyway, labels are for the simple minded.
true wisdom comes with being able to figure out what the truth is regardless of the source. there is no monopoly on the truth, and sometimes even those we despise can inform us of very important truths. to shut your mind off because of a few words or terms (i.e. an athiest dismissing an arguments validity because it includes the word "god", etc. etc.) shows a supreme lack of any type of real openness to anything other than your own narrow point of view, and it's really is nothing more than fascism.
and for anyone interested in watching the zapatista vid. i mentioned in my earlier post, here's the link
2001-11-08 03:40:17 PM  
This is a bit odd. They make quotes in that article, and reference the full story here:

Yet there quotes are not found in that article. Did anyone else read this earlier and see their quotes in those URLs? Did MSNBC change it, or did these writers simply make it up the whole time?

This is simply a curiosity, I think the whole thing is stupid. Bomb the red cross if the Taliban is taking food from it. Gotta do it.
2001-11-08 03:40:29 PM  
There've been two cases where the US has confirmed using cluster bombs inside various towns and villages, and a number of other accused cases. One didn't leave any survivors - they followed it up by levelling the city with gunships (US reporters dug through the wreckage, didn't find anything of military value, only things like women's clothing, children's toys, etc). The other case, we missed our target by a little over a mile, and dropped it in the middle of a village. It killed 8 on impact, left its typical failed-bomblet rate of 20 bomblets. A 9th person was killed shortly after, by venturing outdoors and disturbing a bomblet (these things can pierce through 5 inches of steel with their shrapnel, they're nasty). Last I heard, the people were still holed up inside their houses, afraid to leave, and the UN was requesting information on how they're supposed to get rid of them (there isn't any - they're one of those weapons we've been dropping without any sort of followup plan - there are still unexploded bomblets in vietnam that pose a health risk). Bomblets literally become mines (mines being of greatest risk to children - I've got several pictures of afghan children who've lost limbs to mines - many thousands get killed each year due to them). The UN has currently been placing sandbags over the bomblets, in hopes that if they explode, it'll at least slow down the shrapnel, but there are serious doubts as to how effective that will be.

The author is correct, from the articles I've read elsewhere. The problem is... have you ever heard the term "tank plinking"? It was a common term during the gulf war... we'd have a huge expanse of desert, and in the middle of it, a big metal object baking in the sun, giving off a huge IR signature and standing out like a sore thumb... and we'd shoot them left or right. In here, our pilots are already referring to it as "jeep plinking", because they're having such a hard time finding real targets. The military is being pushed to bomb nonstop, and to get everyone, and they really don't have targetting information. I've read a lot about afghanistan, and its conditions are really appalling, especially in the winter. In the winter in the Hindu Kush, you could *walk* right past someone a few feet away, not hiding, and not see them. Assuming you could walk in the several yards deep snow... we're talking, upper mountain peaks of 20,000 feet, constant, very strong wind and blowing snow at all times, half-mile dropoffs... the lowest trails in the mountains are at 12,000 feet.

So... in short... yes, we are targetting places like the red cross. We're targetting villages because we heard taliban troops stayed the night there. We're targetting anything that we can get any remote sort of clue about. Because we're desparate for targets, and under strong pressure to get rid of them quickly. Its just like what happened in Vietnam.
2001-11-08 03:47:09 PM  
Quoting a famous blonde I know: "Well, duh!"

Why is this a surprise to anyone? Of course we bombed it deliberately. War is a dirty business, legally and morally.

For that matter, does anyone really think we "accidentally" hit the Chinese embassy in Belgrade? Anyone else notice that the Serbs suddenly seemed to do very poorly in predicting NATO attacks afterwards?
2001-11-08 04:04:46 PM  
"Why do people think it is cool that we intentionally destroyed a humanitarian relief station?"

That's the point, it was no longer being used as a humanitarian relief station. I'm sure out military watched the site continuously and saw more than a couple guys in a jeep take stuff. And no, I don't think the Taliban are able to take food packets dropped in Northern Alliance held areas. You do?

Deny food and weapons to the Taliban means taking out their supplies, tanks, artillery, guns, amunition and whatever else they need to sustain war.

Northern Alliance guys aren't Saints either. That's why we won't let them control the country either.

So the only war you would ever support is one that does not kill civilians? I guess WWII was worthless in your view. we should have never fought Hitler, because it would have meant the death of an civilian by Allied bombing. Never mind that Hitler killed 6 million Jews and would have killed many more. It is a tragedy when civilians get killed. You should always try to minimize it whenever possible, but since the Taliban won't all stand together in the middle of the desert and instead hide behind women and childern, it happens.

The faster you get the war over with, the faster you will end the suffering. You might not be able to understand this(and that is probably the problem), but the heavy bombing of the country will, in the end, save many more lives than it kills.

If we could end the war next week, would that not make us able to now feed the people who are there? If we let the Taliban resupply tenmselves and not bomb and delay the war, more civilians will suffer and more civilians will die every day. If we could have ended WWII in 1943 instead of 1945, how many innocent civilians would have survived? We didn't start WWII and we didn't start this war, but we are going to finish it.
2001-11-08 04:22:03 PM  
MacV: We're still waiting for taht thing we like to call 'proof' about the Taliban being in control of the Red Cross building at the time it was bombed (both times, actually), and for taht matter than the Taliban's sole interest is in starving the Afgan people to death. And proof that the Red Cross' statement that they had told the US that they were in control of the compound and not to bomb it was a fabrication. You've repeated yourself several times already without producing such proof.
2001-11-08 04:31:49 PM  
Attention US Government and Armed forces: Please hand over all satelite photos and intelligence regarding the bombing of the Red Cross building to SpaceCoyote. Please consult SpaceCoyote before taking any military action and make sure you prove your case in a court of law and have more than a 50% vote and every country in the world sign up before bombing any future target in Afghanistan.

Thank you,
2001-11-08 04:38:14 PM  
They bombed the RED CROSS!! The RED FARKING CROSS!! This is bad enough by accident, but shiat, deliberatly bombing the Red Cross?? That's just plain farked..

"Rumsfeld maintained that "responsibility for every single casualty in this war - be they innocent Afghans or innocent Americans - rests at the feet of Taliban and al-Qaida." "

And this is a load of shiat too. "You destroyed our buildings and killed 6000 thousand of our citizens, now whatever we do, absolutly anything at all it's all completley YOUR fault!! Yep, even if we bomb the Red Cross while they try to help your citizens, that's your fault too!!"


I can hardly see public opinion of the USA getting any better after this..
2001-11-08 04:40:09 PM  

Deny food and weapons to the Taliban means taking out their supplies, tanks, artillery, guns, amunition and whatever else they need to sustain war.

Logic Train! Dingdingdingdingdiingdiiingdiiiiinnnnggg... (doppler effect of a train passing by)...

Please, do enlighten me how denying the taliban the food from the red cross (which the red cross states they were in control of):

a) prevents them from taking it from civilians - with the united states bearing the blame, since they're forbidding most incoming food aid and not dropping in taliban-controlled territory
b) How blowing up food prevents them from having tanks, guns, etc

I would greatly appreciate that bit of enlightenment ;)

Northern Alliance guys aren't Saints either. That's why we won't let them control the country either.

Aaah... so, when they turn to infighting, we're going to put semi-permanent ground troops in for peacekeeping, in the middle of areas we just bombed? Heeeelooooo, vietnam!

So the only war you would ever support is one that does not kill civilians?

Who said that?

The faster you get the war over with, the faster you will end the suffering. You might not be able to understand this(and that is probably the problem), but the heavy bombing of the country will, in the end, save many more lives than it kills.

Ah, and we're doing a wonderful job of ending it right away, eh? Our strategy so far has almost *exactly* mirrored vietnam.

a) Have a reason to attack (Sept 11th vs. Tonkin Gulf)
b) Launch a massive aerial assault (Enduring Freedom vs. Rolling Thunder (which dropped more bombs than all of the bombs we dropped during WWII and Korea combined - the largest portion being before we even set ground troops down))
c) Realize that while you had no problem getting air superiority, you haven't even stopped antiaircraft fire, let alone ridded of heavy equiptment, let alone the major fighting force - individuals with hand-held, low maintaince weapons.
d) Notice an increasing need for ground troops. Notice public support worldwide trickle down a few percent each week. Notice that you're losing the battle for the "hearts and minds of the locals"
f) Steadily start to trickle in more special forces.

Next, we'll go to part (g) - Send in a good number of marines. Do I need to keep going through the list?

We aren't, with our unrestrained bombing, coming even remotely *close* to ending it right away. Rumsfield has been trying to put a spin on it, but the statements of military commanders leaked out has made this quite clear. The taliban is enjoying some of their most widespread internal support in years.

If we could end the war next week, would that not make us able to now feed the people who are there?

I'd be willing to make a bet with you that in 2 years time we're going to have more troops on the ground in afghanistan than we do now ;)

f we let the Taliban resupply tenmselves and not bomb and delay the war, more civilians will suffer and more civilians will die every day.

Nice wishful thinking; unfortunatly, unfounded. Amazing how you can delude yourself into thinking that a two-week pause - with still tightly regulated borders - will magically restock the taliban, make the support for the US attacks dissapear (instead of continuing constantly), and save lives - when in that two weeks we could at the very least get winter supplies to the half million people that will be trapped in the mountain passes before they freeze up. That someone can consciously weigh a two week pause in bombing as equivalent to many thousands of people starving/freezing to death just in the mountains alone, is beyond imaging.

If we could have ended WWII in 1943 instead of 1945, how many innocent civilians would have survived?

The problem is, we *couldn't* - and we can't here. There's a case of diminishing returns that we're looking at. There are clear, easy, painless targets, and there are targets that have a high probability of killing a good number of civilians/causing them to starve, and, well, our quota here is making it so we have to hit *all* of them, because their targets are hidden - and, despite what you may believe, mostly not in cities, but in the almost impassible mountains outside Kabul. Even the most diminished returns. And you better believe we're doing it. And you'd better believe it is *really* making many people outside the US very mad at us.

Oh, but we're here to *stop* terrorism....
2001-11-08 04:42:18 PM  
whoops, left out 'e' :)
2001-11-08 04:44:56 PM  

If some innocent people die, too bad.

I am sure that is what the WTC bombers were thinking as well. Congratulations on such an amazing leap of understanding, you can now consider yourself their equal.
2001-11-08 05:09:34 PM  
You're right! I think the US intentionally bombed the Red Cross for the sole purpose of starving civilians. I think our military was upset when they heard that red cross donations were not going to victims of 9-11. I also think you are right about our government wanting to start up another Vietnam war. They liked the last one, so why not start again. Of course you know those generals, they just want a big body count. Who cares if they are civilians or military as long as they kill people.

I have been enlighten! You are right!

I didn't say blowing up food prevents them from having tanks. Where did you get that? That was a stretch even for you.

"If we let the Taliban resupply tenmselves and not bomb and delay the war, more civilians will suffer and more civilians will die every day.
Nice wishful thinking; unfortunatly, unfounded. "

Amazing how Vietman came to an end after Nixon started the unrestricted bombing of the North. But, I guess you forgot that part of history.

I didn't say we were going to end it next week, but the sooner we end it the better they will be. What you want to do will turn Afghanistan it into another Vietnam politically screwed up war.

The other crap you said was just so far from reality or anything I said I won't even comment on it.
2001-11-08 05:17:41 PM  
MacV, you idiot, where do you pull this information from? Your ass? Have you been listening? The RED CROSS ITSELF states that the RED CROSS ITSELF were using the warehouse for food they were distributing to the disabled. Now, unless you're saying that the RED CROSS ITSELF is in league with the farking Taliban, and therefore we are at war with the Red Cross, which no one in the US government is saying, then you need to crawl back into whatever Rush-Limbaugh jerkoff fantasy occupied you before you posted this lame ass gibberish.
2001-11-08 05:18:38 PM  
Incidentally if the US have deliberately bombed the red cross then it is the responsibility of every sane country to oppose them.
2001-11-08 05:19:16 PM  
Tell me again why this gets a "COOL" tag???
2001-11-08 05:21:17 PM  
"Amazing how Vietman came to an end after Nixon started the unrestricted bombing of the North. But, I guess you forgot that part of history."

Um... Vietnam ended with America bowing out. The North won the war. Are you saying we should continue bombing the hell out of the Taliban until all of Afghanistan views the US as an evil empire?
2001-11-08 05:24:56 PM  
AND another damn thing... whether or not they did it on purpose (oops, we bombed the warehouse with the huge red cross on it, from a low-flying, slow-moving plane, TWICE, after the Red Cross warned us) my big argument is with the 10 or so people here who are saying go ahead and bomb the Red Cross. There are no words for this kind of insanity. Yes, it's exactly the Bin Laden mentality.
2001-11-08 05:32:24 PM  
We seem to think that the govenment, during a time of war, should hand over not only to us, but the enemy, everything it's doing and knows on a daily basis while we sit in our La-Z-Boy wondering wether to have KFC or Taco Bell for dinner. The Afghans have been starving and freezing to death in the desert for the last 20 years. The US has helped them more in the last 3 weeks than any country has been allowed to help them by the Taliban in the last 2 decades. OMG some civilians were killed! Welcome to war, kids. Good thing you wern't around for WW2 or else my German would be alot better than it is now.
2001-11-08 05:32:47 PM  
It's cool that the military admitted it.

However, it's not cool that they first denied it. Not that we could ever trust them before, but this is blatant proof that they will flat out lie to the world.

What else are they lying about? That this isn't like Vietnam? That we have air superiority? That we're winning the war?
2001-11-08 05:33:23 PM  
Wow, looks like Rei can tell exactly how this war is going after a month.
And it's obvious it was Taliban members taking from the warehouse... Afghanistan is so poor, you think they're civilians can afford jeeps to drive around the city. I'm not saying that Taliban controls all the automobiles in the country, but it's a pretty safe bet those Jeeps weren't driven by starving civilians.
I wish I had the patience to sit here and annoy everyone with verbose, long-winded post like Rei, so I could get to everything she's said that doesn't make sense. Then people would see my posts and skip them to avoid the rant.

Rei blather here >
2001-11-08 05:38:18 PM  
Gadreel: Telling the truth about accidentally bombing the Red Cross isn't an example of giving top secret info to the enemy.
2001-11-08 05:38:45 PM  
Damn those traitors in the Red Cross! Imagine, housing food in a warehouse where just anybody might take it because they are hungry! Blow them up! It doesn't matter, it's war! We can write off anything in time of war! Tell the US troops it's open season on Afghani women, after all it's a war... if they are incovenienced, tough shiat. And go ahead and shoot any man you see, it doesn't matter... it's war the US population will understand, he was probably a damned muslim anyway, and we all know muslims are all terrorists. Use it as an excuse for any possible crime you have ever dreamed of, it's ok.

Oh yeah.... who are we at war with again?

Does it matter?
2001-11-08 05:56:04 PM  
-=This has been another leftist threadjack, had there been rational posts you would have been prompted to employ logos=-

That's it, you bleeding hearts are giving me cramps. I'm outta here. One last thing, the Red Cross said they were in control of it. Our military needs to start coordinating our intelligence with the Red Crosses', because apparantly they've got some pretty reliable communication to the area. That's it, I'm done. You may continue to abuse logic in long sermonic tirades.
2001-11-08 05:59:33 PM  
Wow, the point is flying over so many heads here it might as well be Superman. Yes, the government will lie to us. Sometimes it's for the good, sometimes to cover their ass. So do I. They're human. Also, the Taliban doesn't NEED our help killing their women. They've been doing fine on their own over the last twenty years. Also, it's not just the mean US involved in this. I think a few other countries are helping. But yeah, you're right. Civilians are getting killed in a bombing campaign. Funny how nobody was worried about this on Sept. 12th.
2001-11-08 05:59:48 PM  
I think bombing the Red Cross and then saying it was an accident is brilliant military strategy. If I was a stupid Taliban, and fell for the bait, I'd be dead.

We're not going to find out the truth for ten years, but I wouldn't be surprised if that was the plan. I wonder if they called and warned them. :-)
2001-11-08 06:04:29 PM  
Oh yeah, not bombing the Red Cross, that's how you tell a guy's a leftist. I'm sure if you asked a bunch of conservatives, they'd say, sure, we're for bombing humanitarian relief agencies! I'm sure it's somewhere in the Republican Party platform. This sure is one of those partisan litmus tests.

Gangstead, the Red Cross DID tell the Pentagon they were hit, and gave precise coordinates, the first time. Plus there is a big farking red and white cross on the roof. How much "intelligence" do you need not to bomb it?

Bleeding hearts. Oh that's rich. We should stand up to pain better, as long as it's other people's.
2001-11-08 06:14:12 PM  
Rei: "Oh, but we're here to *stop* terrorism...."

Apparently, you don't buy that. What's the REAL reason, Rei? Comparing Rolling Thunder to the missions flown here is just a bit of a stretch...wouldn't you agree? Will a two week pause in the bombing be sufficient to get the food to the civilians? If the Red Cross was in control of the food, why were those "two people in jeeps" allowed to cart off the food? Who drives those "jeeps"? Were the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima war crimes? Really? Is the destruction of an enemy's food supply a war crime? Intentional or otherwise? Otherwise, because the links said NOTHING like the author suggested.

No, you don't need to go through the list. The Vietnam analogy is irrelevant and flawed.


What's the answer?
2001-11-08 06:21:01 PM  
Rei, the US has air supremacy in Afghanistan, not superiority. Small point, I know.
2001-11-08 06:38:31 PM  
Boorite: Just curious...

What type of "low-flying, slow moving plane" was it? Small point, I know. One of the armed drones? I missed the report.
2001-11-08 07:13:08 PM  
Most of this is just commen sense. I guess you don't have any. You should try pulling your head out of your ass. You might think better.

Do you honestly think the US would blow up a Red Cross facility for fun or there own amusement? Do you think they might actually have a ligitimate reason for doing it? They might not have put out a white paper on the issues surrounding it, but I don't belive they would have ever done this if they did not have a very good reason.

Now go back to your Monica Lewinsky wanna be life.
2001-11-08 07:44:50 PM  
i think most of you can't see the forest for the trees
2001-11-08 08:32:51 PM  
what a pussy
2001-11-08 09:28:21 PM  

Just so you get your facts straight, the idea that oil has a lot to do with the present situation has nothing to do with Afghanistan's reserves. Its the Caspian Sea region that has all the oil, and a pipeline to carry it to us (though friendly intermediaries) would cross Afghanistan. But the region is too unstable for this to work at present. We'd need to establish a stble regime to access the riches of the Caspian.

From the same site you mentioned:

More details on the proposed pipeline:

Some more info:

This is what Unocal had to say about it in 1998:
A second option is to build a pipeline south from Central Asia to the Indian Ocean.

One obvious potential route south would be across Iran. However, this option is foreclosed for American companies because of U.S. sanctions legislation. The only other possible route option is across Afghanistan, which has its own unique challenges.

The country has been involved in bitter warfare for almost two decades. The territory across which the pipeline would extend is controlled by the Taliban, an Islamic movement that is not recognized as a government by most other nations. From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of our proposed pipeline cannot begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders and our company.

I'm not saying the oil theory is correct, but theres some serious smoke -- and maybe some fire to go with it.

2001-11-08 09:34:08 PM  

We never targeted the Red Cross.

We targeted the Red Cross we've always stated we target it for military reasons.

Cool! I am so happy to be in the US.
2001-11-08 10:14:40 PM  
Leftist propaganda site....what shiat!

if the Red Cross had been GIVING the food to the people who are supposedly STARVING instead of HOARDING it in a warehouse, maybe the Taliban wouldn't have seen fit to take it. If the Red Cross wasn't acting as the Taliban's cafeteria, maybe we wouldn't bomb them.
Displayed 50 of 116 comments

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.