Hi Rog
On 14 Sep 2002 at 20:33, RISKYBIZ9@aol.com wrote:
> I couldn't resist...
Me neither :^)
>
> HORSE:
> While we're on the subject of national (in)efficiencies, one year on from
> September 11, the killing of thousands of Afghanies and the so called war on
> terror (?)
>
> ROG:
> I thought it was the LIBERATION of Afghanistan?
Lost me there Rog. The original deal was to hand over Bin Laden, nothing about
liberation until the Taliban refused. If they'd handed him over they would've stayed
unliberated.
> And what should the war on terror be called?
How about the pointless gesture that could've been avoided if the US hadn't vetoed the
previous war on terror suggested 10 years or so ago?
> How about borrowing from the recent pro-radical Islam
> posters used at the recent down-with-the-US rally in the UK. What was that
> motto they used..." 9/11 -- A TOWERING Day for History!" (complete with photo
> of the plane flying into the building and about to exterminate a few thousand
> people guilty only of being American.
...and various other nationalities and I think the figure was closer to 2 thousand (which is
still 2 thousand too many).
>
> HORSE
> 1) exactly how many of those responsible for that attrocity have been brought
> to book?
>
> ROG:
> I thought it was a coalition which included your countrymen and women? And I
> thought it was the most lopp-sided victory ever? (At least since the noble
> struggle for the Faulklands)
I think you mean the pointless struggle for the Falklands which was more about boosting
Thatchers poll ratings than liberating the islanders!
Is this the coalition previously mentioned who wished to have a war on terror some
years back which the US wanted no part of or the coalition that isn't too happy with the
US plans to invade Iraq.
The answer to my original question is none then?
>
> H:
> 2) Where is Bin Laden?
>
> R':
> I have most of him in a trunk in my basement. I think Platt has the rest of
> him.
He must whiff a bit by now then!
>
> H:
> The answers don't exactly inspire thoughts of US efficiency.
>
> R:That's right, when we were involved it took an ignominous 10 weeks and 10
> casualties to do what the British and Russians did so much more effectively
> on their own. Perhaps you could share the secret to your country's efficient
> Colonial successes in Afghanistan with the rest of us.
And Bin Laden is still at large - which was the original point of the Afghan action. And
why do the thousand of dead Afghanies not count as casualties - after all most of them
weren't soldiers but innocent civilians.
Several thousand dead and no Bin Laden - what a model of efficiency.
Horse
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:33 BST