On Wednesday, October 10, 2001, at 10:07 AM, James B. DiGriz wrote:
John Young wrote:
Peter Trei foolishly wrote:
The US airdrops replaced, at the very maximum, less then 2.5% of the food whose delivery was prevented by the bombing.
I'm reminded of the recent corporate ad from RJ Reynolds, where they made of deal of delivering some amount (less then 10 tons, I think) or aid to Kosovo. That amounted to a single truckload. They then spent many times the cost of the aid on airtime to trumpet their humanitarian efforts.
This is the kind of statement that deserves reporting among the 250,000 tips the FBI has received on its finger-a-terrorist website hotline. Fucking traitors always disclose the classified bottom line math behind the body counts.
If a result of the bombing is to make humanitarian aid both easier and ultimately less necessary then it'll have been worth it. Not that that's the reason for it.
You think? Wiping out the airfields, knocking out the lines of supply, all of this is essential to getting several million Afghanis to flee onto the mountain trails, where the snows will soon get them. This is essential to rooting out terrorism by reducing the terrorist breeding grounds by several million. But, cheer up! 15,000 more orange food packlets are being scattered from 15,000 feet. And, I hear, at least 400 emergency tents are being dropped along the Khyber Pass. Operation Final Solution should be successful by, say, January 20th. We won't be able to do Bomb Damage Assessment until the spring thaw, however. --Tim May "Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound"