Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

YearZero Magazine: Bombing the truth

TinyCrendon

New Member
Well, where do you want to start? The war that seemed so likely is commenced. Various Hollywood straplines and adjectives are applied to the start of the bombing campaign by the media. You know, like, `America Strikes Back` (CNN). And almost without effort the holes, discrepancies and ridiculous geo-political non-starters are presented as fact. To some at any rate.
For a start the `humanitarian` side of the operation is emphasised over and over again. Loyal party stalwarts from the media brush their free market epaulettes and repeat the news they know will keep them their job. Voices may be heard, questions may be asked, but the `war` is still a `war`. The `terror` is still `terror`. The difficult questions are ignored.
So let us take the `humanitarian `effort. The BBC said that “wave after wave” of planes attacked various targets around Afghanistan. General Richard Myers in a press conference shown live on CNN and BBC went on to be questioned by some sceptical journalists. Myers is the serving head soldier of the US military, current spokesman for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He admitted that 37,500 rations were being dropped. It was not all food. Some was medicine. He then went on to admit that the drop method was “pretty similar” to the drop methods used in Bosnia. You remember, the ones that killed people.
The reasons they kill is because they are dropped without parachutes. Great big crates fall from the sky. You might remember the Bosnian pictures. But one change has happened, the planes dropping the rations are now to fly at “high altitude.” One journalist asked how anyone would find the rations and whether or not they would be destroyed on impact. Myers replied by taking another question. Of the “wave after wave” of planes two were set aside for `humanitarian` purposes, two C-17 transporters who made one trip each.
Major Bob Stewart, former commander of the UK forces in Bosnia, called the drops “only a token effort” (BBC News 24) although he supported them. James Rubin (“Tibet is part of China, that’s settled, Tibet is part of China,” BBC Radio 5 Live) the former Whitehouse spokesman and assistant secretary of state under Clinton didn’t agree. He called it “a massive humanitarian effort” (CNN).
But the BBCs Adam Mynott on the ground at the Afghan border had a slightly different tale. “There are hunger related deaths already happening here,” he said before he and presenter Chris Lowe went on to admit that the `humanitarian effort` was only “symbolic” and that indeed “the drops may fall in pretty remote areas” (Mynott) or that Afghans would be unlikely to go near any drops they may see out of fear that “the drops could be bombs,” (Lowe). Mynott then had a rush of honesty pointing out that the drops are “targeted at the outside world.” And he didn’t mean the high altitude crates.
Perhaps the most humanitarian effort the `allies` could now make is to open the borders and let the fleeing, starving, dying, ebola-infected people out of the war zone and into care. But maybe that is just a bit too `humanitarian.`
CNN as you would expect were not in a mood to question anything. What do you think they are, journalists? One guest Robert Sobhani, a Professor from Georgetown university was exultant. “We have to get out there and dehumanise Bin Laden.” As if he hasn’t done a good enough job himself. “We have to get them (muslims) burning the effigies of him. We need to dehumanise that guy.”
But the dehumanising has been done. We see the first sight of smart bombing but we know that B-52s are being flown from Diego Garcia. B-52s are carpet bombers. General Myers tried to miss questions on the use of B-52s but he did end up having to admit their use. “We try to match ordinance with targets.” B-52s also carry a huge tonnage of bombs, far bigger than the B2 stealth bombers. We have yet to hear any concrete statistics on the tonnage of bombs dropped by B-52s. In the Gulf War so-called `smart` bombing was 9% of the total tonnage (Pentagon). The perversity of the fact that these aircraft are leaving from Diego Garcia, a country ethnically cleansed of its entire population by the British Labour Party and secret services in the 1960s, has also gone unmentioned.
BBC Radio 5 Live also lapsed into subtle discrimnation. One guest (whose name I failed to get) did not accept that a civilian life lost in the WTC attacks was the same as a civilian Afghan. Because the WTC attacks were “terror” and the bombing of Afghanistan “is a strategic attack.”
Once again the media is trying to give a shadow show of debate. To try and pretend that ordinary people’s concerns (What are the aims? When does it end? Where is the evidence? Will we make it worse?) are being voiced. But in the end the strapline remains, “America Strikes Back”. And there ain’t no truths enough to stop them.
www.yearzero.org
 
Adam, well done again for many to put in words how many people here are feeling far more eloquently than I ever could. Respect!!!!
 
hey, adam
Now that Bin Laden has come out and admitted he did it, with that end your doubts? A Christian director of a Western bank in Beirut claimed that only "international Zionism possessed the means and the will to undertake this hideous act." These nonsensical views are held by both the man on the street and some in the intelligentsia. It remains to be seen whether the pitilessly aggressive statements by Mr. bin Laden and Al Qaeda spokesman Sulaiman Abu Ghaith will erase such beliefs. "America is full of fear," crowed a jubilant Osama bin Laden, in his taped message anticipating our response to his massacre of the six thousand. "They cry for their children." In a gleeful expression of pride in his guilt of mass murder, the fanatic promised that "nobody in the U.S. will feel safe."

The master terrorist has no conditions. He wants our unconditional surrender. He wants our enslavement. We must avoid justifying, and reject equally the adulateurs of America and the contempteurs, as the particular flaws of American policy are beside the point. The nihilist offensive follows its own logic. The use of force against the Taliban and Osama bin Laden was unavoidable given the terrorist threat

One can only be amazed at the ease with which some people tell us what motivated the terrorists. Guess what? The terrorists didn't leave an explanatory note. Because their deed was their note: We want to destroy America, starting with its military and financial centers. Which part of that sentence don't people understand?
Have you ever seen Osama bin Laden say "I just want to see a smaller Israel in its pre-1967 borders," or "I have no problem with America, it just needs to have a lower cultural and military profile in the Muslim world"? These terrorists aren't out for a new kind of coexistence with us. They are out for our non-existence.

None of this seems to have seeped into the "Yes, but . . ." crowd, whose most prominent "Yes, but" states: This terrorist act would never have happened if America hadn't been so supportive of Israel.
My response is, "Yes, but . . . but . . ."

Yes, there is no question, America's support of Israel — even when Israel builds greedy, provocative settlements in the heart of the Gaza Strip — has produced understandable Muslim anger. But the argument doesn't end there. America has also taken the lead role in trying to reverse this situation. We know the Sept. 11 attack was being planned a year ago — exactly when President Clinton was proposing to Yasir Arafat a Palestinian state on roughly 95 percent of the West Bank and East Jerusalem — with the Israeli settlers uprooted from all but 5 percent. In other words, this terrorism was being planned because America was trying to build Israeli-Palestinian coexistence, not because it wasn't.

Ah, say the "Yes, but" folks, but Arab public opinion has been inflamed by the Arab TV images of Israel suppressing the Palestinian uprising. Yes, at times Israel has used excessive force, and one can understand how that looks to Arab eyes, but Israel has also been responding to Palestinian suicide attacks on Israeli pizza parlors and discos — which isn't highlighted on Arab TV.

Moreover, this uprising by the Palestinians was not their only recourse. There was an active U.S.-sponsored diplomatic track, with a deal on the table, which may not have been fully acceptable to Palestinians but was certainly worth building upon and hardly justified suicide-bombing Israeli civilians. The Arab media and leaders now talk as though the Clinton proposal for a Palestinian state never happened. But it did.

The second "Yes, but" is that the terrorists reflect a protest over Muslim poverty. Yes, poverty can breed desperate people. However, most of the hijackers were middle-class Saudis or Egyptians.

Is it America's fault that the richest ruling family in the world, the Saudis, have citizens who are poor and frustrated? Is it America's fault that Korea had the same per capita income in the 1950's as many Arab states, but Korea has managed its development so much better since that it now dwarfs all Arab economies? Afghanistan is run by a medieval Taliban theocracy that bans women from working or going to school. How could such a place not be poor? And who was the biggest protector of that backward Taliban society? Osama bin Laden and his men.

As for the war itself… The Bush administration has made what are, for an American government, extraordinary efforts to show that the war that began Sept. 11 will not be the war Osama bin Laden wants: a battle between Islam and the rest of the world, particularly the United States. More significantly, 300-400 tons of ordnance (what is expected in Afganistan) is moderate by the standards of aerial warfare. During World War II, for example, the United States dropped 13,500 tons of munitions on one target, the Ploesti refinery in Romania, and pretty much every bomb was needed to reduce this chief Nazi oil installation to rubble. Today's ordnance is much more accurate than that used half a century ago, but even if, say, 90 percent of the Ploesti bombs missed, that still means a single target in World War II was hit harder than all of Afghanistan was hit yesterday. As the Taliban are claiming a total of 20 civilians dead--probably an exaggeration--the first strike also shows incredible American and British effort not to harm the innocent. Even a single Afghan civilian death is a tragedy, of course. But Islamic terrorists struck the United States without giving any warning, and killed at least 5,000 civilians. The United States struck back after 26 days of loud and repeated warnings, and killed 20 civilians or fewer. It would be nice to hear those on the left and in the Arab world, who depict U.S. adventurism as the real problem, admit the huge moral disparity between these two sets of goals, procedures and results. "Don't get mad; get even" is not the furious Western reaction that the fanatics expected. Cool, calm killing is not our way, but adapt we must to accommodate an unnatural enemy that welcomes death. YES, America should look deeper into its policies and actions — BUT, BUT, BUT we're not the only ones who need to look in the mirror.
 
err, Darin, bin laden has admitted nothing. Even if he had, why should that cause Adam to 'chage his view'? Exactly where in Adam's post does it say "I love Osama"? Nowhere. Adamis against the murder of Non-Osama Afghans and whoever has the misfortune of being hit by a stray 'aid parcel'. Boms will not get rid of Bin Laden, on ly the people of Afghanistan can take away his power and those of any successor. They need help, not explosions.
 
This attack on a terrorist camp in Afganistan is not akin to the terror attacks in New York. It is the difference between provocation and self-defense, between criminality and justice.
As the Taliban are claiming a total of 20 civilians dead--probably an exaggeration--the first strike also shows incredible American and British effort not to harm the innocent. Even a single Afghan civilian death is a tragedy, of course. But Islamic terrorists struck the United States without giving any warning, and killed at least 5,000 civilians. The United States struck back after 26 days of loud and repeated warnings, and killed 20 civilians or fewer. It would be nice to hear those on the left and in the Arab world, who depict U.S. adventurism as the real problem, admit the huge moral disparity between these two sets of goals, procedures and results. And if the US did nothing, the attacks would continue. This is a case of stopping a criminal before he kills again, nothing more.
 
crap, darin, both acts are vile, both are murderous and both are wrong. Both have and will result in the deaths of innocents. Your faith in Bush/Blair's desire to exact 'minimum collateral damage' is touching. Try reading Adam's post again. Slowly. He has laid out the FACTS. Not speculated on any 'Terroist motives' (as you criticised others for, then did yourself).
 
Darin, where did you cut and paste that long post from? I've certainly read large parts of it somewhere before. Was it Christopher Hitchens?

You say that "the Taliban are claiming a total of 20 civilians dead ... Even a single Afghan civilian death is a tragedy, of course." So we're talking about 20 tragedies so far, with more to come as America assuages its bloodlust. They are, apparently, tragedies that you're quite happy to stomach. Exactly how many more children need to have their legs blown off before you're satisfied?

You're right with your last sentence though: "This is a case of stopping a criminal before he kills again, nothing more". Except the criminal we're trying to stop on this occasion is George W. Bush.
 
So, Well, er, Red, let me get this straight. You think the real criminal here is George Bush, not Bin laden. I'm no fan of Bush, and don't consider myself an apologist for American Foriegn policy. But this is an act of self-defense. If your country is attacked, if 6,000 innocent people are killed, if the killers grandstand before the world asking for more deaths, if he asks every Muslim in earshot to kill Americans, what would you have America do? Nothing? Is that rational? Do you believe that is a legitimate solution?
 
Look, thicko, how many times do you have to be told this? "Not agreeing with George Bush bombing Afghanistan does not make them an apologist for bin Laden". Jeeeeesus Christ, man.
 
Of course the hundreds of thousands now destitute and starving are nothing to do with the war. 20 + hundreds of thousands + maybe 1'500,000 at risk of starvation this winter does not add up to a few. It adds up to a lot more than you can begin to count. All for 5,000 well fed consumers killed quickly. Starvation is the nastiest form of death. The people in those towers were lucky by comparison.

I don't give a fuck about anyone questioning my moral judgements here OK? The dead are dead. These wankers will use the corpses for ever to get our sympathy and mine is at an end.

edited to say great post Adam. Unlike the cut and paste kings around here.

[ 09 October 2001: Message edited by: kissthecat ]
 
Okay. I am not saying that they are apologists for Bin Laden. If you read my post, you'd see I responded to his specific claim that the "criminal here is George Bush." So, for you, I will repeat. I'm no fan of Bush. But why is it criminal for him to respond to an act of declared war? (In a gleeful expression of pride in his guilt of mass murder, the fanatic promised that "nobody in the U.S. will feel safe.") If one's country is attacked, if 6,000 innocent people are killed, if the killers grandstand before the world asking for more deaths, if the killer asks every Muslim in earshot to kill Americans, what would you have America do? Nothing? Is that rational? Do you believe that is a legitimate solution?

I'm waiting for an answer.

The nihilist offensive follows its own logic. The use of force against the Taliban and Osama bin Laden was unavoidable given the terrorist threat
 
Lets try again.

I ... think ... they're ... both ... scum.

I've tried to use short words for you. It was Christopher Hitchens wasn't it?
 
Okay, kissthecat, the consumers who died included a friend of mine who was working for Greepeace. Do you think that this is about consumers, you silly fool? Do you think that progressives are not first on Bin Laden's target list? Please, you are naive. If you do not see the fundamental difference between killing at least 6,000 civilians in a sneak attack, and retaliating by trying to hit the terrorists after 26 days of loud and repeated warnings, and accidentally killing 20 civilians or fewer, then you are willfully blind, naively stupid, or both. It would be nice to hear those on the left and in the Arab world, who depict U.S. adventurism as the real problem, admit the huge moral disparity between these two sets of goals, procedures and results.
 
And actually, it wasn't Hitchens. It was me. I merely know how to string words together coherently.
 
In a Hitchens stylee.

Strangely enough, I know someone who died in the WTC. I also know Afghanis. Care to explain to me why one of them is more important than the other?
 
I have lost lots of friends I might have known due to your government, so stick it mate. I have no crocodile tears for you or your imaginary mates.
 
One is no more important than the other. Do you really feel I am saying that, or is that the last gasp of a man who chokes on real logic? The difference between the attacks is obvious. One was a provaction, the other an act of self-defense. The first is a madman picking an enemy innocent of everything except failing to disallow every belief but his own; the second is a nation attack someone who has declared war on it, and has killed thousands of its innocent civlians. i ask you again -- what would you have America do? nothing? Is that not an invitation for more attacks?
 
If you do not see the fundamental difference between killing at least 6,000 civilians in a sneak attack, and retaliating by trying to hit the terrorists after 26 days of loud and repeated warnings, and accidentally killing 20 civilians or fewer, then you are willfully blind, naively stupid, or both.
---------

Well Darin me old mate. To watch your children die slowly of hunger and desease because the good old U$A gave them 26 days to clear off into the mountains to starve is far far worse than any suffering I can imagine.

What is NOT sneaky about cruise missiles? You are the idiot.
 
One death is no more important than any other. Do you really feel I am saying that? Or, is that the last gasp of a man who chokes on real logic?

The difference between the attacks is obvious. One was a provaction, the other an act of defense. One is a crime, the other an attempt at self-preservation. The first is a madman picking thousands of "enemies" who are innocent; the second is a nation striking back against someone who has declared war on it, and has killed thousands of its innocent civlians. There are now cases of Anthrax in Florida. I ask you again -- what would you have America do? nothing? Is that not an invitation for more attacks? Just tell me, without insults, or oversimplifications -- what would you have America do? Not prtect herself?
 
. i ask you again -- what would you have America do? nothing? Is that not an invitation for more attacks?
--------------------

a. Follow UN rules and stick them.

b. Get your troops out of the middle east.

c. stop supporting Israel against the wishes of the UN and the International community.

edited to add

d. Become isolationists. The world can do with a break. We can perhaps then develope fair trade between the remaining nations of the world. No bully in the playground allowed.

[ 09 October 2001: Message edited by: kissthecat ]
 
Kiss the cat -- do you feel this attack is justified. That America deserved it?

Or is it maybe that the idea that the US govenrnmetn for once is unequivically in the right seems to offend your sense of the natural order. Maybe if the chemical attack is more deadly next time, or if a nuke is launched against NY -- would you then feel the US is not justified?

Yes, at times Israel has used excessive force, and one can understand how that looks to Arab eyes, but Israel has also been responding to Palestinian suicide attacks on Israeli pizza parlors and discos — which isn't highlighted on Arab TV.

Moreover, this uprising by the Palestinians was not their only recourse. There was an active U.S.-sponsored diplomatic track, with a deal on the table, which may not have been fully acceptable to Palestinians but was certainly worth building upon and hardly justified suicide-bombing Israeli civilians. The Arab media and leaders now talk as though the Clinton proposal for a Palestinian state never happened. But it did.
Is the attack by the terrorists a fair protest over Muslim poverty? Yes, poverty can breed desperate people. However, most of the hijackers were middle-class Saudis or Egyptians.

Is it America's fault that the richest ruling family in the world, the Saudis, have citizens who are poor and frustrated? Is it America's fault that Korea had the same per capita income in the 1950's as many Arab states, but Korea has managed its development so much better since that it now dwarfs all Arab economies? Afghanistan is run by a medieval Taliban theocracy that bans women from working or going to school. How could such a place not be poor? And who was the biggest protector of that backward Taliban society? Osama bin Laden and his men.
 
Many of those things you mentioned may not be directly the fault of the U$A but the U$A has at best been pragmatic and at worst murderous or willing to arm murderers. I feel no moral inferiority to the likes of you.

Whether America deserved it is beside the point. The targets were not nice targets for anyone to celebrate. But then I have not watched my brothers and sisters die of hunger or seen them tortured by CIA paid 'operatives' or been maimed by a landmine with made in the USA written on it.
 
"Get out of the middle east", become an isolationist county." Vague answers, all of which are nice in thought, but how do we RESPOND to an act of war? How do we RESPOND to an attack on our soil? With a promise to "become isolationist." Does that not sound like fucking bullshit to you, too? give me a legitimate alternative. Can we let a mass murderer who promises to do more unpunished? You silly fucking child.
 
I am not here to give you answers to anything mate. You figure it out.

Tut tut cussing now? :p
 
If you are not going to "give answers" -- i.e, not going to engage in any debate that threatens to challenge your position -- then why bother?
But, to engage anyone willing to think abit beyond the sloganeering, I say: In our criticism of the current war fever being nurtured by an unholy alliance of government and media, we should not forget that the attacks were massive crimes against humanity in a technical legal sense, and those involved in carrying them out should be punished to the fullest extent.

Acknowledging this legitimate right of response is by no means equivalent to an endorsement of unlimited force. Indeed, an overreaction may be what the terrorists were seeking to provoke so as to mobilize popular resentment against the United States on a global scale. We need to act effectively, but within a framework of moral and legal restraints.
Any use of force should be consistent with international law and with the "just war" tradition governing the use of force--that is, it should discriminate between military and civilian targets, be proportionate to the challenge and be necessary to achieve a military objective, avoiding superfluous suffering. If retaliatory action fails to abide by these guidelines, with due allowance for flexibility depending on the circumstances, then it will be seen by most as replicating the fundamental evil of terrorism. It will be seen as violence directed against those who are innocent and against civilian society.

And, the political and moral justifications for the use of force should be accompanied by the concerted and energetic protection of those who share an ethnic or religious identity with the targets of retaliatory violence.

So far, I dare anyone to find the US response in violation of these precepts.
The difference betweeen the US and its attackers is one of provocation vs. self-defense.
 
I assume that's supposed to be wit. Juvenile insults don't change the fact that you have no real response.
 
Back
Top Bottom