US Food Aid Propaganda

Tim May tcmay at got.net
Wed Oct 10 10:16:24 PDT 2001


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"





More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list