Author Topic: What kinda food is in those packs being dropped by the C-17s? (Read 1279 times)

Dowding · « **Reply #15 on:** October 17, 2001, 02:34:00 PM »

People used to pray for me at uni. At first I found it strange.

Surprisingly, I had alot of friends in the Christian Union there and many of them were of the zealous 'new born' variety. We had some interesting, heated discussions in the early days, but after a couple of years it kind of became irrelevant. I had my viewpoint, they had theirs and although they repeatedly tried to get me to go along to their meeting things, I guess we respected each other's beliefs.

Sentiment appreciated, anyway.

Cobra · « **Reply #16 on:** October 17, 2001, 02:56:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dowding:
Dropping aid like they are doing is not only ineffective and a waste of money, but also endangers the neutrality of NGOs working in the region.

Those yellow bags have done more for the Afghan black market than for the children eating grass around the refugee camps.

Aid should be distributed through the NGOs in a disciplined way to minimise the chance that hawkers and their ilk will get their dirty hands on it. I also think alot of it is getting passed to Taliban fighters.

It's a cornerstone of all religion, IMO.

Dowding,

The UN announced today that the Taliban forcibly took over all of the UN's warehouses that held food and other supplies.

So much for NGO's and the Taliban's respect for them.

Cobra

Dowding · « **Reply #17 on:** October 17, 2001, 03:22:00 PM »

Well, dropping bombs on aid warehouses is also... how shall I put it... counter-productive?

As far as I know, the stores seized were in Kabul and Khandahar, and both are Taliban strongholds. There are other distribtion near the borders, which are the real crisis areas. Refugee camps in Iran and Pakistan are bordering on collapse.

"In accordance with international law, the borders must be open to civilians seeking refuge. At the same time, the international community must send swift and generous help, so that refugees do not become an impossible burden on the neighbouring States."

- Secret.-Gen., UN

john9001 · « **Reply #18 on:** October 17, 2001, 03:28:00 PM »

i agree with voss, the kids have to be fed

kill the terrorists ...feed the afgans

Hangtime · « **Reply #19 on:** October 17, 2001, 03:30:00 PM »

Quote

Well, dropping bombs on aid warehouses is also... how shall I put it... counter-productive?

Yep saw film of the warehouse.... one; maybe 2 pallets mighta got scorched.

The sacks on the pallets said USA.

The USA giveth; the USA taketh away.

War is Hell.

Gadfly · « **Reply #20 on:** October 17, 2001, 04:00:00 PM »

I doubt that much of the food is going to the Taliban(they are dropping them on refugee camps, not cities), but I would wager that a good percent is going to the black market.

Those are "battle meals", extremely high in fat content and calories, to say nothing of the sugar. Not good for someone on a regular diet(can you say, "the runs"), but in lieu of other food, they are a good thing.

Eagler · « **Reply #21 on:** October 17, 2001, 04:00:00 PM »

times change...

don't recall being buddy buddy with the citizens of Tokyo or Berlin while we were dropping bombs on their pointie heads..

if/when the citizens of the gov we are at war with get sick and tired enough, maybe just maybe they'd do something about it themselves...
UN screaming for a cease fire to feed em. Sorry they are starving but they have been starving way b4 9/11. we aren't out to fix global starvation, just to kill a couple thousand crazed towel headed nutcases..

weird way to conduct a war..I know we are bombing you but we are really your friend. sheesh..

Dowding · « **Reply #22 on:** October 17, 2001, 05:01:00 PM »

So the American policy over there is the targetting of the civilian population? You see nothing wrong with that, Eagler?

If that is what you are saying, perhaps we should emulate the shelling of Grozny by the Russians. Why bother with all this great, laser guided, hit a window in the dark on a foggy day, zero casualty crap and just nuke the entire place? They're just a bunch of heathen infidels after all.

Hangtime/Eagler - the repeated use of the word Raghead, Towelhead etc is a classic case of de-humanising an ethnic group. The Nazis were very much into it, for example. It's a great motivator for hatred and a brilliant way to justify just about anything you like. After all, 'the only good raghead is a dead raghead'. Right?

The ironic thing is that the Islamic fundamentalists do the exact same thing via the word 'infidel'. 'The only good infidel is a dead infidel' probably has an arabic equivalent.

[ 10-17-2001: Message edited by: Dowding ]

Toad · « **Reply #23 on:** October 17, 2001, 05:23:00 PM »

Obviously, we are NOT deliberately targeting civilians.

You are just stirring the soup... again.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #24 on:** October 17, 2001, 06:41:00 PM »

Comrade Commisar Dowding is a classic.

I suppose you also want the war to stop for a few days so your precious UN/UNICEF/REDCROSS and Stupid Western Idealist College Student Volunteer Peace/Aid-Groups (read: neo-commie studmuffingots) whatevers can go in a feed the "people". Cuz surely the folksy and wholesome Taliban share their views and would respect them. You seem like a reasonably intelligent fellow and I apologize for some of the name calling, but you leftists are so naive sometimes.

And now you go insinuating that the US deliberatly targets civilans.

Unbelivable......

Eagler · « **Reply #25 on:** October 17, 2001, 06:42:00 PM »

Dowding
an individual who wears a towel on his head and screams "death to america" is a towel head / raghead in my book. Not all Muslims fall into that category just as all germans were not Nazis in WW2. I can make the distinction without any problems. We have a muslim family that lives 6 houses down on our street. Nice family, quiet, keeps the house up, no problems. They are not ragheads. If they burned an American flag in their yard, they'd be ragheads.

Is that clearer?

sorry it bothers you so

AKSWulfe · « **Reply #26 on:** October 17, 2001, 06:48:00 PM »

Nevermind

-SW

[ 10-17-2001: Message edited by: SWulfe ]

Wobble · « **Reply #27 on:** October 17, 2001, 07:40:00 PM »

You people have done gone and made dirty butt love to my topic

can we just mfocus our contempt on the Taleban for now.. bush/clinton/whoever else will be here longer than they will... hehe.

Dowding · « **Reply #28 on:** October 18, 2001, 10:41:00 AM »

I was taking the piss, for a start, Toad. I thought that was blatantly obvious - of course the US/UK forces aren't targetting civilians. There is no set of circumstances in which that would occur, as far as I can see.

Stirring the soup? A relative term. Some people would consider any deviation from unanimity just that.

Come on Eagler. So now Raghead is a technical term with a conditional definition all of its own? I'm sorry I missed that. Perhaps you have two definitions for the word 'cupcake', also? Both slurs fall into the same category, as far as I see it.

Feel free to use them. I'll feel just as free to voice my derision.

Grunherz - that is a bizarre apology. If you are going to keep calling names, then why apologise?

[ 10-18-2001: Message edited by: Dowding ]

Eagler · « **Reply #29 on:** October 18, 2001, 11:15:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dowding:

Come on Eagler. So now Raghead is a technical term with a conditional definition all of its own? I'm sorry I missed that. Perhaps you have two definitions for the word 'cupcake', also? Both slurs fall into the same category, as far as I see it.
[ 10-18-2001: Message edited by: Dowding ]

Well, now that you mentioned it, there are. The "N" word means one thing when an African American says it to another African American vs johny reb redneck saying it to an African American...straying abit off topic, sry.