NationStates Jolt Archive

Honestly, It was 5 years ago, we should stop being obsessed with putting up these memorials, and realise that it happened. yes you may consider it a tragedy and all that, I'm not saying you should no, I'm just saying it should stop taking over your life.

Yes, I know that 3 thousand people die. but 4 thousand people die each day in africa because of starvation. you don't continue crying about that after 5 years like you are with 11/9, and the death toll from the resulting wars was much greater, yet you don't have that much of a problem. And what about the 2004 tsunami? and hurricane katrina? i'm not seeing special tributes for that. and I refuse to take that racist "it happened outside of my country" excuse for seing the tsunami as less of a tragedy.

lastly, many people as a result do not complain when there freedoms aretaken away from them because of this. You cannot protect something by destroying it. if the terrorist "hate freedom" why are people worldwide being drained of them. hello its what the terrorists wanted, we should not be their bitch. you may be saying "its not the terrorists who are doing this" but thats not what terrorism is. terroism is about using fear to get people, groups of people, or even entire countries do a specific thing. why els do you think its called terrorism.

:confused:

I thought 11/9 was only 2 or 3 years ago...

Because they need to remind everyone why their pathetic war could be justified.

I think you're expecting too much too soon. For heaven's sake, people can't survive a week when their favorite football player twisted his ankle and may not be able to play! How can you expect them to move on when something important happens! And then for something of the magnitude of 11 Sept. It's going to take a much longer time to heal than you think.

:confused:

I thought 11/9 was only 2 or 3 years ago...

Nope, 2001. We forget about it again till 2011, then 2026, then 2051. 2101 is possible, but I doubt it.

Three minutes and there'll be DK, Marry K, DM, and five others attacking you.

It doesn't take over my life. It's a day to be remembered and respected, just like Pearl Harbor or any other major day in American history; I don't think of terrorism when I get on a plane, and I'm not afraid to travel where I want when I want. 9/11 was a reminder that we are part of a larger world, and there are people out there who hate us and our way of life and are willing to murder innocent civilians to achieve it; it was hardly the first shot of the war or the end of some pre 9/11 "belle epoque" but rather a reminder that Islamic extremism was alive, is alive, and will be alive well in to the future.

9/11 was a disasterous tragedy, but we do need to move on; I think the most encouraging sign is the beginning of the new skyscrapers at the WTC site. The US and the city of New York have come back economically strong and optimistic about the future, and I think that is a true sign that the goals of the hijackers have been thwarted.

It's because when all the people die around the world we can classify them because we can't relate to them. But when we see something happen and think wow, it could have been me they do react. First they may think of the rest of the world and not be so interested in what Paris Hilton has in her... umm. They realise hey life is short. Those are the immidiate effects. Then long term effects: the paranoia insues and that is where we are now.

(Isn't there a spellcheck on this forum?)

Three minutes and there'll be DK, Marry K, DM, and five others attacking you.

I think it was insensitive and rather trollish myself. How long did it take the US to get over 12/7/41? Jews are still upset(and should be) about the holocaust. Some muslims are still PO'ed about the crusades....

Nope, 2001. We forget about it again till 2011, then 2026, then 2051. 2101 is possible, but I doubt it.

...Never mind, I was thinking of a seperate event (the Madrid bombings... which were 3/11)

Edit: Correction: London bombings, 11/7/03. Dammit, I'm really off tonight...

Whetever...
Here is how i see it.
By your location. You arent in the US.
Quit worrying about it.
Why do you care?
Does it do you a great inconvenience?
If it does interrupt your daily life and makes it hard for you to support your family of 4, then you can complain.
But otherwise shut up.
Those people were murdered you jackass.
They werent killed by a natural occurance.

You point out all this hype bullshit but you dont
seem to know the difference between a murder and a
natural disaster.

Go back to school,
then come back and post meaningful arguements here.

Nope, 2001. We forget about it again till 2011, then 2026, then 2051. 2101 is possible, but I doubt it.

In AD 2101 war was beginning...

I'm sorry, I had to say it.

Why are we still bothered about 11/9/2001?

I'm not.

In AD 2101 war was beginning...

I'm sorry, I had to say it.
Myrth.

Yeah...

We still do memorials and retrospectives every December 7th for Pearl Harbor, and that was over 60 years ago.

So, uh, good luck with that.

It comes around on the calender, it was a big event, and yes there are big events all the time, but this one did change things. It's not controlling your life if when the time rolls around again on the calender to remember it.

To use it as a blank check for a political agenda or silence criticism, yeah, that's shitty. But to mark the day on the calender, that's pretty much the way things have happened since the invention of calenders, so take it up with that guy.

Whetever...
Here is how i see it.
By your location. You arent in the US.
Quit worrying about it.
Why do you care?
Does it do you a great inconvenience?
If it does interrupt your daily life and makes it hard for you to support your family of 4, then you can complain.
But otherwise shut up.
Those people were murdered you jackass.
They werent killed by a natural occurance.

You point out all this hype bullshit but you dont
seem to know the difference between a murder and a
natural disaster.

Go back to school,
then come back and post meaningful arguements here.

just cause i do not live in the US does not mean i have no say. America is NOT the only country making political turns in the wrong direction because of this.

Pearl Harbor was over 50 years ago. Yet I still hear stuff about that.

Myrth.

For great justice.

I'm not.

many people are though.

If it does interrupt your daily life and makes it hard for you to support your family of 4, then you can complain.
But otherwise shut up.
Those people were murdered you jackass.
They werent killed by a natural occurance.

You point out all this hype bullshit but you dont
seem to know the difference between a murder and a
natural disaster.

Go back to school,
then come back and post meaningful arguements here.


But what about the people around the world who are dieing of hunger and inactivity on our part (we are unwilling to help them) we barely remember them and they're dieing everyday and then 9/11 and a couple thousand die 5 years ago and we care, and we should but in proportion to how much we care about the rest of the world... it's gotten too much attention in comparison.

Honestly, It was 5 years ago, we should stop being obsessed with putting up these memorials, and realise that it happened. yes you may consider it a tragedy and all that, I'm not saying you should no, I'm just saying it should stop taking over your life.

Yes, I know that 3 thousand people die. but 4 thousand people die each day in africa because of starvation. you don't continue crying about that after 5 years like you are with 11/9, and the death toll from the resulting wars was much greater, yet you don't have that much of a problem. And what about the 2004 tsunami? and hurricane katrina? i'm not seeing special tributes for that. and I refuse to take that racist "it happened outside of my country" excuse for seing the tsunami as less of a tragedy.

lastly, many people as a result do not complain when there freedoms aretaken away from them because of this. You cannot protect something by destroying it. if the terrorist "hate freedom" why are people worldwide being drained of them. hello its what the terrorists wanted, we should not be their bitch. you may be saying "its not the terrorists who are doing this" but thats not what terrorism is. terroism is about using fear to get people, groups of people, or even entire countries do a specific thing. why els do you think its called terrorism.



Have you noticed the attacks have not stopped since then ?

I'm undeciced if this was a very stupid question or a question of naivete.

its the purpose and the goal behind the terrorism and those willing to do whatever it takes to advance those aims including killing themselves along with as many innocent people possible using whatever means they can aquire , that makes it VERY relevant.

I think it was insensitive and rather trollish myself. How long did it take the US to get over 12/7/41? Jews are still upset(and should be) about the holocaust. Some muslims are still PO'ed about the crusades....

Despite what some people would have you believe, its not the same.

Millions died in the holocaust, hundreds of thousands in the Crusades, and WW2...well, thats another monologue into itself.

To use it as rallying cry to support this god-awful stupid war is completely assinine.

Remember the victims, learn from our mistakes, and move on.

It WAS a tragedy, but lets not make martrys out of those who would resent it.

Obviously, you're not an American. If you don't care about 9/11 that's your business, but I'm tired of hearing people like you complain every year because we're still affected by it.

You mention other tragedies around the world. I bet the people in SE Asia haven't forgotten the tsunami, NOLA is still a wreck, and I'm the Pakistanis haven't forgotten their earthquake.

It's easy to gripe about a tragedy that you weren't a part of. It's also very insensitive.

Edit: Just marking my 666th post. :)

Despite what some people would have you believe, its not the same.

Millions died in the holocaust, hundreds of thousands in the Crusades, and WW2...well, thats another monologue into itself.

To use it as rallying cry to support this god-awful stupid war is completely assinine.

Remember the victims, learn from our mistakes, and move on.

It WAS a tragedy, but lets not make martrys out of those who would resent it.

I'm not pro-war, I think the war in Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11

I'm not pro-war, I think the war in Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11

Good.

I was just saying that as sad as it may have been, 9/11 was nothing like the human tragedies like the Crusades, or especially the Holocaust.

Obviously, you're not an American. If you don't care about 9/11 that's your business, but I'm tired of hearing people like you complain every year because we're still affected by it.

You mention other tragedies around the world. I bet the people in SE Asia haven't forgotten the tsunami, NOLA is still a wreck, and I'm the Pakistanis haven't forgotten their earthquake.

It's easy to gripe about a tragedy that you weren't a part of. It's also very insensitive.
However, the tusanimi was (almost) 2 years ago, the earthquake (almost) 1 year ago, but 11/9 5 years ago. see the difference?

Maybe if people would stop F*cking having children people wouldnt starve.
Its not our jobto police the rest of the world
Out government has its head up so many other people's asses
it doesnt even even see whats wrong with America.

Now as for the US needing to help other nations...
Lets take care of ourselves first, then what we have left use for
aid to other countries.

I have no problem with helping as long as the nation doing the helping can actually make sure it's own tax-paying citizens are taken care of.

But what about the people around the world who are dieing of hunger and inactivity on our part (we are unwilling to help them) we barely remember them and they're dieing everyday and then 9/11 and a couple thousand die 5 years ago and we care, and we should but in proportion to how much we care about the rest of the world... it's gotten too much attention in comparison.

I don't think they're the same; 146,000 people die every day from a variety of causes yet it doesn't have any real bearing on us other than as a statistic. However, 9/11 was significant because it represented the clash between ideologies brought to our very door; Islamic extremism was seen by most people as a problem occuring in a far off part of the world that had little bearing on us, and they saw the values of the West as an invincible force of social change that would transform the world overnight.

This attack was a strike by the forces of extremism against these symbols of free-market capitalism, American dominance, and the globalization of Western values and practices including democracy, religious acceptance, civil rights and social freedom. It was a strike right at the core of our values, and it showed that there were people who hated us, who hated our values, and who would like nothing more than to see us killed and our beliefs destroyed in favor of hatred.

Romanar--------
Deadly--------

Join Date: Feb 2006---------
Posts: 666 ---------------

Nice...
666 posts

Maybe if people would stop F*cking having children people wouldnt starve.
Its not our jobto police the rest of the world
Out government has its head up so many other people's asses
it doesnt even even see whats wrong with America.

Now as for the US needing to help other nations...
Lets take care of ourselves first, then what we have left use for
aid to other countries.

I have no problem with helping as long as the nation doing the helping can actually make sure it's own tax-paying citizens are taken care of.

Wich is a very nice sentiment, but quite off-topic.

Romanar--------
Deadly--------

Join Date: Feb 2006---------
Posts: 666 ---------------

Nice...
666 posts



um... you shouldent be talking about that here as it has nothing to do with the thread, thats called hyjacking, which is a type of spam, and spam is not allowed, and can get you deleated.

Wich is a very nice sentiment, but quite off-topic.

:headbang: Damn off topic again!

Maybe if people would stop F*cking having children people wouldnt starve.
Its not our jobto police the rest of the world
Out government has its head up so many other people's asses
it doesnt even even see whats wrong with America.

Now as for the US needing to help other nations...
Lets take care of ourselves first, then what we have left use for
aid to other countries.

I have no problem with helping as long as the nation doing the helping can actually make sure it's own tax-paying citizens are taken care of.
so what. I'm talking about how many people are crying about the 3000 deaths on 11/9, but don't care about the 4000 deaths every day that are caused by starvation.

um... you shouldent be talking about that here as it has nothing to do with the thread, thats called hyjacking, which is a type of spam, and spam is not allowed, and can get you deleated.

Sorry. Yours is also off topic by telling me im off topic.
See the correlation?
Funny eh?
Thats what PM is for i guess.
And learn to spell 'deleted'.
Its not hard.

And to put this back on topic.

9/11 is a day that America will never forget.

Maybe if people would stop F*cking having children people wouldnt starve.
Its not our jobto police the rest of the world
Out government has its head up so many other people's asses
it doesnt even even see whats wrong with America.



But the reason that they're fucked in because of our imperialism and us pulling out and fucking them up. We in part caused the problem so we should try and help them. And even if we didn't and humans we still need to help out and feel sad about 9/11 but move on and open your eyes.

However, the tusanimi was (almost) 2 years ago, the earthquake (almost) 1 year ago, but 11/9 5 years ago. see the difference?

I like how your post title is "why are we still botherd about 9/11" when you aren't even american. In the long run the things that matter most 50-75years down the road are not the number of people killed or who was killed. The things that have a lasting affect are the changes in economy and foreign policy of countries. The tsunami cost many more lives than Pearl Harbor but Pearl Harbor changed the world much more than the tsunami. The same can be said about 9/11. It hurt the world economy and more importantly, changed the way all countries handle foreign policy and will handle foreign policy for decades to come.

so what. I'm talking about how many people are crying about the 3000 deaths on 11/9, but don't care about the 4000 deaths every day that are caused by starvation.

Are you doing anything to solve this problem?
Exactly...

There is a differnece between starving and murder.

Sorry. Yours is also off topic by telling me im off topic.
See the correlation?
Funny eh?
Thats what PM is for i guess.
And learn to spell 'deleted'.
Its not hard.

And to put this back on topic.

9/11 is a day that America will never forget.

but i'm just telling you what rules you should follow if you wan't to still have the membership. and the mis-spelling is intentional. its a joke, so you should laugh.

back on topic:

only because pof a little thing called "recording history" otherwise the world (including USA) will forget one day.

But the reason that they're fucked in because of our imperialism and us pulling out and fucking them up. We in part caused the problem so we should try and help them. And even if we didn't and humans we still need to help out and feel sad about 9/11 but move on and open your eyes.

Sorry... your sentence structure was horrible. I was lost after the first 8 words.
Can you explain better plz?

Are you doing anything to solve this problem?
Exactly...

There is a differnece between starving and murder.

but they both lead to deaths. so the difference is quite small and used to be ignored.

Sorry... your sentence structure was horrible. I was lost after the first 8 words.
Can you explain better plz?

Yes. after the distraction is gone. Give it ten minutes,

but i'm just telling you what rules you should follow if you wan't to still have the membership. and the mis-spelling is intentional. its a joke, so you should laugh.


LoL! I actually did laugh. :D

Ok back on topic :
It may be forgotten about... but that will take a long time

However, the tusanimi was (almost) 2 years ago, the earthquake (almost) 1 year ago, but 11/9 5 years ago. see the difference?

No, I don't. The children of the dead people haven't recovered after 5 years. They'll still be suffering after 10 years.

In my city, there was something on the news a couple months ago, commemorating the anniversary of the collapse of a skywalk in a local hotel. The death toll: somewhere between 100 and 200. It happened July 17, 1981, a whopping 25 years ago! If you were involved, tragedy doesn't have a time limit.

I like how your post title is "why are we still botherd about 9/11" when you aren't even american. In the long run the things that matter most 50-75years down the road are not the number of people killed or who was killed. The things that have a lasting affect are the changes in economy and foreign policy of countries. The tsunami cost many more lives than Pearl Harbor but Pearl Harbor changed the world much more than the tsunami. The same can be said about 9/11. It hurt the world economy and more importantly, changed the way all countries handle foreign policy and will handle foreign policy for decades to come.
because the whole world is bothered. its not american politics. its that the world is going downhill.

What wil be far more frightening than 9/11, is when a terrorist manages to set off a dirty-bomb in a major city.

That will give us something else to concentrate our media inspired fear, and Muslim-o-phobia on.

What wil be far more frightening than 9/11, is when a terrorist manages to set off a dirty-bomb in a major city.

That will give us something else to concentrate our media inspired fear, and Muslim-o-phobia on.

what if the terrorist isn't a muslim?

because the whole world is bothered. its not american politics. its that the world is going downhill.

Now address the rest of the post.

but they both lead to deaths. so the difference is quite small and used to be ignored.

The deaths aren't what makes 9/11 so horrific; it's the hatred and violence used by extremists that makes it so horrifying. There are people in this world who hate us simply because we aren't like them and they are willing to use any means necessary to achieve their ends and to impose their hateful ideology on all of us.

It's the hatred and repression that the attackers stood for and their willingness to kill innocent people for no reason other than ideology that makes it so atrocious.

what if the terrorist isn't a muslim?

Dunno. The only people considered to be terrorists are muslims because the Western world is good at creating images that stick, no mater how false they are.

its mostly targeted at americans, because they are the most bothered.

Dunno. The only people considered to be terrorists are muslims because the Western world is good at creating images that stick, no mater how false they are.

Depends what part of the "western world" you live in.

Depends what part of the "western world" you live in.

I guess so... im just saying on average this is what the 'west' is good for.
hype... not much more.

The deaths aren't what makes 9/11 so horrific; it's the hatred and violence used by extremists that makes it so horrifying. There are people in this world who hate us simply because we aren't like them and they are willing to use any means necessary to achieve their ends and to impose their hateful ideology on all of us.

It's the hatred and repression that the attackers stood for and their willingness to kill innocent people for no reason other than ideology that makes it so atrocious.
which brings the qeustion: why does it not bother you when as a response your government is trying to adopt a hateful ideology?

No, I don't. The children of the dead people haven't recovered after 5 years. They'll still be suffering after 10 years.

In my city, there was something on the news a couple months ago, commemorating the anniversary of the collapse of a skywalk in a local hotel. The death toll: somewhere between 100 and 200. It happened July 17, 1981, a whopping 25 years ago! If you were involved, tragedy doesn't have a time limit.

Yes it does, kinda.

Check out the film "The Mushroom Club".

Short little documentary about Hiroshima, and how that city is today.
Most people barely acknowledge it anymore, yet is is ingrained upon thier culture.
One man, (whos name I cant remember, let alone pronounce) is an artist, and makes films and comics about the bombing.
He survived the blast as a child, only becuase he happened to bend down to pick up a rock, and thus was not instantly flash-fried.

People are rather fed up with him, and wish not to be reminded about the event.
It seems that 60 years is enough time for people to get over it, and try not to dwell upon it anymore.

Mind you, its not just the survivors, its the people who were affected after the bombing.
Radiation posioning, mass birth defects, retardation, etc...

So, eventually, people get tired of carrying the torch, and forget.

If this were not the case, we would have people still bitching about Wounded Knee, and I'll betca not too many people here even know what that was.

Dunno. The only people considered to be terrorists are muslims because the Western world is good at creating images that stick, no mater how false they are.

Timothy McVeigh.

American Terrorist.

what if the terrorist isn't a muslim?

Then many people will have to reassess thier tiny little views on what terrorism is...

Wouldnt that be a shame.

Honestly, It was 5 years ago, we should stop being obsessed with putting up these memorials, and realise that it happened. yes you may consider it a tragedy and all that, I'm not saying you should no, I'm just saying it should stop taking over your life.
Because there aren't even memorials put up at the scene to remember those who parished in the attacks. The site is still a deep gash in the City of New York and the event has deeply impacted on its inhabitants. The FDNY has put up its own memorial, but all those people affected by it, especially those who have lost friends and family, don't have a place to go. Remember, please, that many have not had anything to bury - because there was nothing left of them. So how do you deal with something if you don't even have anything like a burial to deal with you pain and loss? Explain me that, please.

Yes, I know that 3 thousand people die. but 4 thousand people die each day in africa because of starvation. you don't continue crying about that after 5 years like you are with 11/9, and the death toll from the resulting wars was much greater, yet you don't have that much of a problem. And what about the 2004 tsunami? and hurricane katrina? i'm not seeing special tributes for that. and I refuse to take that racist "it happened outside of my country" excuse for seing the tsunami as less of a tragedy.
If you take a close look at the global response to the tsunami, and even at the offers of help when Kathrina hit N.O., you know that those disasters have brought the world a little closer together. Not seeing special tributes? Open your eyes and you'll see'em!
If you honestly believe that those 3,000 people who have died instantly during the attacks are the only victims - think again.
Have you ever heard of the WTC cough? Take a close look at the smoke/debris/powder clouds - including asbestos etc. - that I don't know how many people inhaled and you know that those 3,000 dead are only the tip of the ice-berg.
The difference this makes from people dying in Africa is that, while those are people as well, the attack on the WTC was hideously planned, using commercial airliners on civil buildings at the heart of one of the world's greatest cities. Something that no sane person would have thought of. And yet, the unthinkable happened none the less.
That, in combination with the instant media coverage, surely did and does have a different impact than 3,000 people dying of hunger (note that I don't see a difference between any of them - a life lost is a life lost; only that I feel those lives lost in NYC are closer to me, I can relate to them better, because I am part of Western society and my links to the city, to the place).
And not only the people who have suffered directly from the attacks are influenced - I've seen it live on the tellie, on the other side of the earth, and I could feel that the world has changed. My world had changed.
Flying will never be the same, and I can't even take a look at tall buildings without being remembered of the burning WTC.
I'm very sensitive to all things in general - and I can't and don't want to imagine what people feel like who were direct witnesses to the towers being hit, people jumping from the buildings, the towers collapsing etc. - I'm most certain that all of those people have Post-traumatic stress disorder of some degree, and they need help, too.
lastly, many people as a result do not complain when there freedoms aretaken away from them because of this. You cannot protect something by destroying it. if the terrorist "hate freedom" why are people worldwide being drained of them. hello its what the terrorists wanted, we should not be their bitch. you may be saying "its not the terrorists who are doing this" but thats not what terrorism is. terroism is about using fear to get people, groups of people, or even entire countries do a specific thing. why els do you think its called terrorism.
Yes, while the Patriot Act is something I wouldn't want applied to my country - it's what the American people have not resisted strongly enough.
But I can tell you, especially with the additional attacks in England and Spain, and I don't know how many attacks were forestalled (like the one in Germany out of sheer luck) - it surely had a greater impact than anyone could have intended or anticipated. Terrorism as a concept works - that's the problem. And while I don't think of it all the time, days like 9/11 have burned themselves into the common historical memory.
Ask your parents where they were when Kennedy got shot - it's the same thing. They know - everyone does. So while 9/11 has become part of history, it still is part of the presence as well.

which brings the qeustion: why does it not bother you when as a response your government is trying to adopt a hateful ideology?

Why do you keep pointing fingers?
You say 'Your Government' like ... it actaully belongs to Vetalia.
What is your government doing about it?

And ill be the first to admit that the US government which i live under is very biased and doesnt approve of anyone that isnt christian.
Myself... I dont believe in religion.
Its just puzzling to me that as 'Christian' groups bring in billions of dollars that isnt taxed a year... and they always need a little more...
These people cartainly dont help anyone but themselves.
Religion is a business IMO.
I just done believe in an invisible man who would send you to hell...
but remember... he loves you....

But the reason that they're fucked in because of our imperialism and us pulling out and fucking them up. We in part caused the problem so we should try and help them. And even if we didn't and humans we still need to help out and feel sad about 9/11 but move on and open your eyes.

Who's this we, and what nations are you talking about specifically, please.
Are we talking about Africa, which every member of the UN pretty much ignores? The poverty in India, a former British colony? South Korea, which Kim Il Jong is destroying on his own?

because it gives justification for the Oil wars.

In the long run the things that matter most 50-75years down the road are not the number of people killed or who was killed. The things that have a lasting affect are the changes in economy and foreign policy of countries. The tsunami cost many more lives than Pearl Harbor but Pearl Harbor changed the world much more than the tsunami. The same can be said about 9/11. It hurt the world economy and more importantly, changed the way all countries handle foreign policy and will handle foreign policy for decades to come.

its mostly targeted at americans, because they are the most bothered.

Well, sure, because most of us go on with our daily lives only to be poked at regularly by people in the rest of the world telling us to get over it and not be bothered by it.

If you want the subject to come to a close, try not bringing it up incessantly.

Good.

I was just saying that as sad as it may have been, 9/11 was nothing like the human tragedies like the Crusades, or especially the Holocaust.

I was merely saying that a tragedy like 9/11 should never be forgotten, regardless of how it stakes up against other tragedies, fatality-wise.

However, using such a tragedy as an excuse to wage an illigetimate war is unethical and is dishonoring those that died.

I was merely saying that a tragedy like 9/11 should never be forgotten, regardless of how it stakes up against other tragedies, fatality-wise.

However, using such a tragedy as an excuse to wage an illigetimate war is unethical and is dishonoring those that died.
It will become meaningless and forgotten after X0 years

Yes it does, kinda.

Check out the film "The Mushroom Club".

Short little documentary about Hiroshima, and how that city is today.
Most people barely acknowledge it anymore, yet is is ingrained upon thier culture.
One man, (whos name I cant remember, let alone pronounce) is an artist, and makes films and comics about the bombing.
He survived the blast as a child, only becuase he happened to bend down to pick up a rock, and thus was not instantly flash-fried.

People are rather fed up with him, and wish not to be reminded about the event.
It seems that 60 years is enough time for people to get over it, and try not to dwell upon it anymore.

Mind you, its not just the survivors, its the people who were affected after the bombing.
Radiation posioning, mass birth defects, retardation, etc...

So, eventually, people get tired of carrying the torch, and forget.

If this were not the case, we would have people still bitching about Wounded Knee, and I'll betca not too many people here even know what that was.

The Japanese may choose not to dwell on it, but I'm sure they haven't forgot. And I suspect they wouldn't appreciate some foriegner telling them to "get over it".

And I'm sure there are still people bitching about Wounded Knee to anyone who gives a damn, and some who don't, just as there are people who not only bitch about the Crusades, but use them as an excuse to fly planes into buildings.

At least 9/11, the Holocaust, and Hiroshima/Nagasoki happened in the lifetime of living people.

People still remember 9/11 (as they should) because it was a horrific event in history. Not only did 3,000+ people die, but it inspired fear across the United States; it was after all terrorism. People should continue to remember this event very well because as soon as it starts to fog over, 9/11 will be used as an excuse for something. There's a headline from the satirical newspaper the Onion called "Misremember the Alamo". In it, the author laments the fact no one misremembers the Alamo in the way that the United States wished people to remember in the Mexican-American War. The same thing will happen to 9/11.
Of course, there are other, less pessimistic reasons to remember 9/11. As stated above, 3,000+ people were killed, for no other reason than living in the wrong 9.8 million square kilometers. It's the same reason we remember the Holocaust, or any history for that matter. Think of the history of civilization as a person's life. Imagine a person that learned nothing from their mistakes. When they touch a stove, they burn themselves but keeping touching it. They eat a berry that makes them feel sick, but they keep eating it. This person won't last for much longer. If we don't remember our history, neither will we.
Of course we should not ignore the tragedies that happen every day. And there have been worse human tragedies, e.g. the Holocaust. But I think that is not a call to forget 9/11, but to remember more.

The deaths aren't what makes 9/11 so horrific; it's the hatred and violence used by extremists that makes it so horrifying. There are people in this world who hate us simply because we aren't like them and they are willing to use any means necessary to achieve their ends and to impose their hateful ideology on all of us.

It's the hatred and repression that the attackers stood for and their willingness to kill innocent people for no reason other than ideology that makes it so atrocious.

Is it better to kill people in hatred or without hatred? Does it really make a difference to the dead persons?

Considering how Iraq was justified by 9/11 purely on rhetoric and the American governments willingness to consider them "terrorist" just because they aren't like us... and how it had its government replaced by our own type -- I.E, we imposed our ideology on them, not the other way around - and how innocent people in Iraq were killed ten times as many as in the US -- can it not be said of everything you said, but for the US against the entire Middle East in general?

which brings the qeustion: why does it not bother you when as a response your government is trying to adopt a hateful ideology?

I can get my government out of office and they can't stay for more than their term allows. That's unlike Islamic extremism, which flourishes in places where the slightest criticism of the government can get you whipped to death and the power is concentrated in the hands of an elite that have no intention of leaving any time soon.

It's the hatred and repression that the attackers stood for and their willingness to kill innocent people for no reason other than ideology that makes it so atrocious.

Is killing people for greed preferable to killing people for ideology?

Is it better to kill people in hatred or without hatred? Does it really make a difference to the dead persons?

No, because they're dead...any difference it makes is going to only be in the afterlife, or not at all if you believe consciousness dies along with us. The importance is for those of us still alive; it shows us what we are facing and how those deaths show the danger posed to the rest of us and the need to fight that danger in order to keep more people from dying.

Considering how Iraq was justified by 9/11 purely on rhetoric and the American governments willingness to consider them "terrorist" just because they aren't like us... and how it had its government replaced by our own type -- I.E, we imposed our ideology on them, not the other way around - and how innocent people in Iraq were killed ten times as many as in the US -- can it not be said of everything you said, but for the US against the entire Middle East in general?

In some ways yes and in some ways no. We have to remember that the people killed in Iraq were mostly killed by fellow citizens; the US killed people, but many of them were fighting us and would have killed our soldiers if they didn't fight back. The 9/11 hijackers took control of civilian aircraft and used them to murder civilians with the full intention of doing so; they didn't try and target soldiers, they tried to target innocent people.

Also, the American people don't condone murder; our solidiers don't wantonly kill civilians (with a few exceptions, but those murderers were dealt with and didn't act on higher orders) and we don't espouse the hatred and repression that radical Islam does. Iraq is, at least currently, a terrible decision, and the use of 9/11 to justify it asinine, but it is not morally equivalent to the attacks against us on 9/11.

Is killing people for greed preferable to killing people for ideology?

No, killing is not preferable to anything.

No, because they're dead...any difference it makes is going to only be in the afterlife, or not at all if you believe consciousness dies along with us. The importance is for those of us still alive; it shows us what we are facing and how those deaths show the danger posed to the rest of us and the need to fight that danger in order to keep more people from dying.

Fighting seems to be what leads to the dying.


In some ways yes and in some ways no. We have to remember that the people killed in Iraq were mostly killed by fellow citizens; the US killed people, but many of them were fighting us and would have killed our soldiers if they didn't fight back. The 9/11 hijackers took control of civilian aircraft and used them to murder civilians with the full intention of doing so; they didn't try and target soldiers, they tried to target innocent people.

Many were fighting us, because we were invading their nation. I think you will find if the situation was reversed we would have fought back too. Then our conquerors would pin our deaths on ourselves.

Terrorist are terrorists because being conventional soldiers doesn't work in their situation. It's just another means of waging war. I'm sure if they had the power to send in tanks and planes to destroy armies AND kill civilians by 'accident' they would. Personally I see next to no moral superiority for invading a nation and killing its people on accident, and attacking a nation and killing its people on purpose. When you invade you are purposefully and knowingly being destructive and you are responsible for killing innocents, whether you 'target' them or not.

Also, the American people don't condone murder; our solidiers don't wantonly kill civilians (with a few exceptions, but those murderers were dealt with and didn't act on higher orders) and we don't espouse the hatred and repression that radical Islam does. Iraq is, at least currently, a terrible decision, and the use of 9/11 to justify it asinine, but it is not morally equivalent to the attacks against us on 9/11.

Many of us DO condone murder, and many of us DO espouse hatred. Remember the days after 9/11? Nuke the towelheads? Turn the Middle East into glass? And its not like certain people have exactly improved since then.

And what about the 2004 tsunami? ... i'm not seeing special tributes for that. and I refuse to take that racist "it happened outside of my country" excuse for seing the tsunami as less of a tragedy.

I don't disagree much with you except for this. I don't care much about what happens outside my country, nor should I. I barely care about what happens in the next prefecture, much less Phuket Thailand.

No, killing is not preferable to anything.

So why focus so much on 9/11?

Let's talk about the Gulf War, the Iraq War, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, the US Vietnam War, the French Vietnam War, the coup against Allende (9/11/73), the terrorist death squads in Central America, World War I, World War II, the Holocaust, the Spanish Civil War, every dictatorship in the history of the planet, the genocide against the Native Americans, the genocide against the Armenians, the ethnic cleansing of the Kurds, the destruction of Chechnya, the crimes of Stalinism, the crimes of Maoism, the crimes of Pol Pot... hell, pretty much every war ever fought by any state in the history of the planet, plus the crimes of every empire, plus the endless casualties of class oppression and economic deprivation, and on and on and on.

Why is it that 9/11 gets so much attention? Why are so many US citizens infected with the notion that our lives, our security, are so much more important than those of everyone else's - even though the situation is far more severe in many parts of the world?

Why is it that 9/11 gets so much attention? Why are so many US citizens infected with the notion that our lives, our security, are so much more important than those of everyone else's - even though the situation is far more severe in many parts of the world?

9/11 had the best marketing techniques. Honestly.

That and situations in which America is threatened by foreigners in that way are so rare they are instantly memorialized by our society. Remember the Alamo. Remember Pearl Harbor. Remember 9/11. Hence to us it might be a great tragedy when to, say, Lebanon, a similar death count might just be a bloody but not outstandingly unusual situation.

That and situations in which America is threatened by foreigners in that way are so rare they are instantly memorialized by our society. Remember the Alamo. Remember Pearl Harbor. Remember 9/11.

And "Remember the Maine."

Is it just my cynicism that makes me note that every one of those "remembers," justifiably or not, was used to justify mass slaughter?

Why is it that 9/11 gets so much attention? Why are so many US citizens infected with the notion that our lives, our security, are so much more important than those of everyone else's - even though the situation is far more severe in many parts of the world?

Americans tend to see 9/11 as important because it was an attack against the US rather than someone else; for most people, hearing about an attack in some distant country is nothing more than an obscure piece of news. But when you see that attack carried out against your country, against a landmark in you country and against your fellow citizens, it hits home a lot harder and you're much more likely to dwell on it.

It's a common belief in the US (and much of the world) that the security of our citizens comes before the security of other countries' citizens; regardless of whether that is valid or not, that is the way most people feel. And that sentiment doesn't just exist in the US; it's an almost universal feeling that the security of one's own country and your fellow countrymen comes before that of the rest of the world.

Patriotism and the concept of nationality goes a long way to explaining why people see 9/11 as so serious, especially when the enemy who did is totally hostile to what we percieve as "our way of life.".

So why focus so much on 9/11? Why is it that 9/11 gets so much attention? Why are so many US citizens infected with the notion that our lives, our security, are so much more important than those of everyone else's - even though the situation is far more severe in many parts of the world?
I think one part of it is that it's been the World Trade Center. It's not like it only affected U.S. Americans, but people from nations all around the globe.
Another thing is that the U.S. were always considered "safe" - after all, with all their military strength, who would dare, but more importantly, who is able to attack them?
But you do raise an interesting point - the "America first" attitude. Changing that might be one of the lessons that people should and could really learn down the road, in the long run. But, like with anything else, it will take time and (the world's) patience.
Let's talk about the Gulf War, the Iraq War, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, the US Vietnam War, the French Vietnam War, the coup against Allende (9/11/73), the terrorist death squads in Central America, World War I, World War II, the Holocaust, the Spanish Civil War, every dictatorship in the history of the planet, the genocide against the Native Americans, the genocide against the Armenians, the ethnic cleansing of the Kurds, the destruction of Chechnya, the crimes of Stalinism, the crimes of Maoism, the crimes of Pol Pot... hell, pretty much every war ever fought by any state in the history of the planet, plus the crimes of every empire, plus the endless casualties of class oppression and economic deprivation, and on and on and on.
I see your point, but would like to remind you that those topics are not on this thread. And many of them are discussed here on a regular basis. Everything has its time and place - and today is 9/11. Even if it's 5 years later.

Is it just my cynicism that makes me note that every one of those "remembers," justifiably or not, was used to justify mass slaughter?

It's not cynical if it's a fact...after a major attack, a lot of people are going to die in the eventual war and hardship that follows for the places where the war is fought.

The US does have a very strong fortress mentality that is ingrained culturally by centuries of comparative isolation; when someone gets inside that seemingly impenetrable fortress and manages to hit two of your most powerful symbols and destroy one of them as well as kill thousands of people, it can be a huge shock.

Americans tend to see 9/11 as important because it was an attack against the US rather than someone else; for most people, hearing about an attack in some distant country is nothing more than an obscure piece of news. But when you see that attack carried out against your country, against a landmark in you country and against your fellow citizens, it hits home a lot harder and you're much more likely to dwell on it.

The loss of security, I can understand; I felt it too at the time.

The anger, the obsession, the fury that they hit us, emphasis on "us" rather than "hit" - that I find more bothersome.

It's a common belief in the US (and much of the world) that the security of our citizens comes before the security of other countries' citizens; regardless of whether that is valid or not, that is the way most people feel. And that sentiment doesn't just exist in the US; it's an almost universal feeling that the security of one's own country and your fellow countrymen comes before that of the rest of the world.

Patriotism and the concept of nationality goes a long way to explaining why people see 9/11 as so serious, especially when the enemy who did is totally hostile to what we percieve as "our way of life.".

"Patriotism and the concept of nationality" are two of the most vile, despicable, and perverse notions ever introduced to the human species, ranking up there with bigotry and religious fundamentalism. That sort of irrationalist tribalism has gotten us little but mass death and destruction, and it is past time we do away with it.

Every human being, wherever they may have been born, is neither superior nor inferior to any other, and every human life taken unjustly is a crime. The artificial borders crafted by statist power schemes are irrelevant to moral consideration.

I think it was insensitive and rather trollish myself. How long did it take the US to get over 12/7/41? Jews are still upset(and should be) about the holocaust. Some muslims are still PO'ed about the crusades....
Still being upset about Pearl Harbour is ridiculous and the crusades even more so.

It's not cynical if it's a fact...after a major attack, a lot of people are going to die in the eventual war and hardship that follows for the places where the war is fought.

The US does have a very strong fortress mentality that is ingrained culturally by centuries of comparative isolation; when someone gets inside that seemingly impenetrable fortress and manages to hit two of your most powerful symbols and destroy one of them as well as kill thousands of people, it can be a huge shock.
Another interesting point raised by you - 9/11 was not only about the WTC, but striking at the very heart, the center of its military might: The Pentagon.

The focus (was) shifted fairly early to New York, away from Washington. Nevertheless, 9/11 did also hit the U.S. HQ. Not to forget the plane that didn't reach Washington, but could have very easily hit other strategic targets in D.C.

It's not cynical if it's a fact...after a major attack, a lot of people are going to die in the eventual war and hardship that follows for the places where the war is fought.

Yes, but the events mentioned have never been the actual reasons for the wars, and have served mostly as propaganda points to excuse them. They are cues for whipping people up into a frenzy of barbarism, tools to getting us to disregard our natural altruism and empathy and see the enemy as the Other, unworthy of respect and consideration - all so that we may better serve as killing machines in the service of whatever cause statist mass slaughter is supposed to advance.

The US does have a very strong fortress mentality that is ingrained culturally by centuries of comparative isolation; when someone gets inside that seemingly impenetrable fortress and manages to hit two of your most powerful symbols and destroy one of them as well as kill thousands of people, it can be a huge shock.

If that's the reason, well, I'll have to go with the starter of this thread and echo the call to "get over it."

Concern over loss of life is one thing. Shock at having your false perception of invulnerability destroyed (while passively ignoring the murderous policies of your government elsewhere) is another, and far less excusable.

Another interesting point raised by you - 9/11 was not only about the WTC, but striking at the very heart, the center of its military might: The Pentagon.

The focus (was) shifted fairly early to New York, away from Washington. Nevertheless, 9/11 did also hit the U.S. HQ. Not to forget the plane that didn't reach Washington, but could have very easily hit other strategic targets in D.C.

True. A lot of people miss the symbolic nature of these attacks; the goal wasn't to kill a specified number of people or to simply kill for the sake of doing so, it was to try and bring down the most prominent symbols of US economic and military hegemony. They saw the WTC, the Pentagon, and (most likely) the Capitol Building/White House as the three symbols of the US they hated the most; the last one was most likely a strike against our form of democracy, while the previous two are economic and military hegemony.

This was an attack planned and carried out with the intent of having as much psychological impact as possible; even if these attacks had not been thwarted but rather crashed like Flight 93, the world would be a good deal different than it is now. It just goes to show the psychological impact of these attacks.

I think one part of it is that it's been the World Trade Center. It's not like it only affected U.S. Americans, but people from nations all around the globe.

Yes, but so did the London bombings, and the tsunami, and the Pakistani earthquake, and so on. Do you see us moaning over them, and exclaiming over how "the world has changed"?

Another thing is that the U.S. were always considered "safe" - after all, with all their military strength, who would dare, but more importantly, who is able to attack them?

That's true.

But you do raise an interesting point - the "America first" attitude. Changing that might be one of the lessons that people should and could really learn down the road, in the long run.

YES! If anything, that is what we should learn from 9/11; that we are not unique, we are not better than everyone else, we are not God's chosen people here to fulfill His greatest mission. We can die just like everyone else - and we can kill just like everyone else, too.

I see your point, but would like to remind you that those topics are not on this thread. And many of them are discussed here on a regular basis. Everything has its time and place - and today is 9/11. Even if it's 5 years later.

Fine. Remember 9/11 - on 9/11. Don't repeat it incessantly, unless you will do the same for all other atrocities.

Still being upset about Pearl Harbour is ridiculous and the crusades even more so.

What about people today who are killing each other simply because of ethnic identity or religious faction because of something that happened hundreds of years ago?

Or sixty years ago, for that matter?

Yes, but the events mentioned have never been the actual reasons for the wars, and have served mostly as propaganda points to excuse them. They are cues for whipping people up into a frenzy of barbarism, tools to getting us to disregard our natural altruism and empathy and see the enemy as the Other, unworthy of respect and consideration - all so that we may better serve as killing machines in the service of whatever cause statist mass slaughter is supposed to advance.

That is true in many ways. Unfortunately, the nature of the beast is that world politics are not seen in terms of morality but rather practicality; we work to expand our interests worldwide, if necessary at the expense of others. This, when taken to extremes, will lead to aggression, war, and quite possibly atrocities like the Holocaust.

The only way this will change is if our governments shift from a nationalist to an internationalist outlook; this has happened in some cases, but the "white man's burden" still lives on and it will last until the people decide that cheap raw materials, with oil in particular, are not worth the death, war and destruction they bring. I believe that this attitude will change, either with expansion in to space, the development of alternatives, simple conservation and recycling or a combination thereof. Unfortunately, given that our government sees conservation as "virtue" rather than necessity, our petrodiplomacy and resource wars will continue.

Ultimately, our international relations have one overarching priority: expand our access to natural resources, and eliminate the competition whenever necessary through whatever means necessary. Until this changes, our governments' penchant for war and oppression as means of projecting power will not diminish.

If that's the reason, well, I'll have to go with the starter of this thread and echo the call to "get over it."

Concern over loss of life is one thing. Shock at having your false perception of invulnerability destroyed (while passively ignoring the murderous policies of your government elsewhere) is another, and far less excusable.

Well, look at the decade prior to 9/11, in particular the period following the first attack on the WTC in 1993; most people honestly only focus on events that impact them directly, and they fail to see the bigger picture until it smacks them in the face. They had, and many continue to have, no problem with the US intervening in order to protect its interest; that's not a good thing, but it is a common one that underscores how vulnerable we all are to events happening in the outside world.

If you simply looked at the Western nations and the US in particular, you'd see everything as wonderful: the economy boomed, stock markets took off, oil was at $10/barrel, incomes were soaring the US was living in a period of total dominance and relative peace and everyone was heralding a new belle epoque* driven by technology and globalization as everyone cast aside their repressive regimes and embraced market driven capitalism and Western-style democracy.

If you look at it from the outside, the world is a lot darker: the former USSR is facing economic depression and people are facing hunger, disease, and starvation in many places while Yugoslavia fragments in to economic chaos and a genocidal and brutal civil war. Chechnya is turning in to a slaughter pen where innocent people are dying as Russia tries to quell its sepratist activities. In 1997, the Asian economies collapsed, Japan slid further in to its stagnation and Africa remained mired in stagnation, hunger, instability and poverty. Islamic extremism is rising alongside falling oil prices, as the hordes of unemployed begin to swell and radical Islam gains strength alongside the faltering economies of the Middle East.

*If you notice, I use the term "la belle epoque" frequently and ironically in 9/11 threads when describing the period of 1993-2001 to show the clear cultural and economic similarities between post-Cold War America and the pre-WWI French Republic.

But the reason that they're fucked in because of our imperialism and us pulling out and fucking them up. We in part caused the problem so we should try and help them.
Are you for real...?

Do you have any proof to try and back up this neo-leftist postmodernistic bile?

However, the tusanimi was (almost) 2 years ago, the earthquake (almost) 1 year ago, but 11/9 5 years ago. see the difference?

All I see is a immature pompous ass that doesn't know what he's talking about, because you are talking out of yer arse.

Yes, but so did the London bombings, and the tsunami, and the Pakistani earthquake, and so on. Do you see us moaning over them, and exclaiming over how "the world has changed"?
And Spain. Yes, I know.

And yet, those "just" followed. I probably can't convey how 9/11 has changed me those five years ago. Especially because so much else was going on in my life (in the course of which I had been traumatized, but that's off topic).

Point is - if it can happen there, in the U.S., in Washington D.C., at the Pentagon, in NYC at the WTC - it could happen everywhere. So I take it the point got carried across.

Because no ordinary person even considered an attack like that possible, the "shock and awe value" of that, literally, the attack out of the blue had more of an impact than "mere" car or train bombings which followed. London had been targetted before by the IRA, so I can't really say that is something completely new (although bad is bad, don't get me wrong, please).
Yet, turning a regular airplane, those each of us might have been on, into a weapon is completely different from a "simple" plane crash or train accident (like the one in Germany, summer of 1998 which killed about 120 people IIRC).

As for earthquakes and tsunamis - those aren't deeds of evil, planned by masterminds of terror. Those are natural disasters, no matter the scale.

The media coverage has had an impact on both 9/11 and the Tsunami - for the first I saw happening live on TV (even if by chance, I did see it) and the other one with all those amateur videos portraying the might of nature.

If nature strikes like that, we humans are usually humbled by it and stick together, help and support each other.

If man strikes like that, humans are usually heavily divided by their sense of belonging, their allegiance, their alliances. An almost natural reaction would be to lash out and strike back, and my first thought was that the U.S. will be using nukes to retaliate, and I'm glad they did not.

Tragic is the loss of life in any circumstance. It's with which aims those deaths occur that makes the difference, and natural disasters do not have aims. [Whether draughts, a bad harvest, or overpopulation should be considered a natural disaster is up for discussion in another thread].

That is true in many ways. Unfortunately, the nature of the beast is that world politics are not seen in terms of morality but rather practicality; we work to expand our interests worldwide, if necessary at the expense of others. This, when taken to extremes, will lead to aggression, war, and quite possibly atrocities like the Holocaust.

That is indeed the "nature of the beast."

I say we hunt down this twisted "beast" and kill it. Forever.

The only way this will change is if our governments shift from a nationalist to an internationalist outlook;

Or if we get rid of our "governments," those shameful excuses for decent institutions that have a sea of blood and a river of corpses behind them.

this has happened in some cases, but the "white man's burden" still lives on and it will last until the people decide that cheap raw materials, with oil in particular, are not worth the death, war and destruction they bring. I believe that this attitude will change, either with expansion in to space, the development of alternatives, simple conservation and recycling or a combination thereof. Unfortunately, given that our government sees conservation as "virtue" rather than necessity, our petrodiplomacy and resource wars will continue.

They will continue for eternity, unless we make them stop. There will always be scarcity, and as long as there is scarcity, there will be people who want more of that which is scarce.

Ultimately, our international relations have one overarching priority: expand our access to natural resources, and eliminate the competition whenever necessary through whatever means necessary. Until this changes, our governments' penchant for war and oppression as means of projecting power will not diminish.

That is a fair description.

Well, look at the decade prior to 9/11, in particular the period following the first attack on the WTC in 1993; most people honestly only focus on events that impact them directly, and they fail to see the bigger picture until it smacks them in the face. They had, and many continue to have, no problem with the US intervening in order to protect its interest; that's not a good thing, but it is a common one that underscores how vulnerable we all are to events happening in the outside world.

If you simply looked at the Western nations and the US in particular, you'd see everything as wonderful: the economy boomed, stock markets took off, oil was at $10/barrel, incomes were soaring the US was living in a period of total dominance and relative peace and everyone was heralding a new belle epoque* driven by technology and globalization as everyone cast aside their repressive regimes and embraced market driven capitalism and Western-style democracy.

If you look at it from the outside, the world is a lot darker: the former USSR is facing economic depression and people are facing hunger, disease, and starvation in many places while Yugoslavia fragments in to economic chaos and a genocidal and brutal civil war. Chechnya is turning in to a slaughter pen where innocent people are dying as Russia tries to quell its sepratist activities. In 1997, the Asian economies collapsed, Japan slid further in to its stagnation and Africa remained mired in stagnation, hunger, instability and poverty. Islamic extremism is rising alongside falling oil prices, as the hordes of unemployed begin to swell and radical Islam gains strength alongside the faltering economies of the Middle East.

*If you notice, I use the term "la belle epoque" frequently and ironically in 9/11 threads when describing the period of 1993-2001 to show the clear cultural and economic similarities between post-Cold War America and the pre-WWI French Republic.

That is exactly what I was trying to get at, but did not express as well as you do here.

This "smack in the face" might generate a reaction that is understandable in its depth, but eventually, as with the child who realizes that the world does not suit her dreams, there comes a time when we must recognize that we [i]are part of the world, we must pay attention to it and its welfare, and that it will not stay away from us simply because we do not care.

http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/7186/648703yx9.jpg

http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/1884/010916n7479t501ll9.jpg

Why do I choose to remember the day? Because 343 of them, 37 PAPD, 23 NYPD, and 2,602 ordinary men and women died so that between 16,000+ could live to see 9/12/01. I remember it because those selfless individuals gave their lives for others. Yeah so people do it everyday throughout the world, yeah there are greater disasters in terms of life and loss, but to me, this one hits home the most. To you it might not and that's your own but don't come down on me because I want to spend one day a year giving honor and respect to those who died for others to live, for others to go home to their children, their wives, their husbands, their mothers, their fathers, etc.

Honestly, It was 5 years ago, we should stop being obsessed with putting up these memorials, and realise that it happened. yes you may consider it a tragedy and all that, I'm not saying you should no, I'm just saying it should stop taking over your life.

Yes, I know that 3 thousand people die. but 4 thousand people die each day in africa because of starvation. you don't continue crying about that after 5 years like you are with 11/9, and the death toll from the resulting wars was much greater, yet you don't have that much of a problem. And what about the 2004 tsunami? and hurricane katrina? i'm not seeing special tributes for that. and I refuse to take that racist "it happened outside of my country" excuse for seing the tsunami as less of a tragedy.

lastly, many people as a result do not complain when there freedoms aretaken away from them because of this. You cannot protect something by destroying it. if the terrorist "hate freedom" why are people worldwide being drained of them. hello its what the terrorists wanted, we should not be their bitch. you may be saying "its not the terrorists who are doing this" but thats not what terrorism is. terroism is about using fear to get people, groups of people, or even entire countries do a specific thing. why els do you think its called terrorism.

wow...

Concern over loss of life is one thing. Shock at having your false perception of invulnerability destroyed (while passively ignoring the murderous policies of your government elsewhere) is another, and far less excusable.

#1 The US doesnt have any muderous policies anywhere. Period. #2 Its perfectly human and PERFECTLY understandable that a nation that hadnt been attacked on home territory since most had ever been born, to express shock when they are attacked on home soil. No excuses are needed nor required.

#1 The US doesnt have any muderous policies anywhere. Period.

Thank you for proving my point.

#2 Its perfectly human and PERFECTLY understandable that a nation that hadnt been attacked on home territory since most had ever been born, to express shock when they are attacked on home soil. No excuses are needed nor required.

They should realize that we do not, and never have, lived in a world that is paradisical, and the privilege they enjoy should never have let them forget this fact.

The Japanese may choose not to dwell on it, but I'm sure they haven't forgot. And I suspect they wouldn't appreciate some foriegner telling them to "get over it".

So, whos doing that?

Certainly wasnt me.


And I'm sure there are still people bitching about Wounded Knee to anyone who gives a damn, and some who don't, just as there are people who not only bitch about the Crusades, but use them as an excuse to fly planes into buildings.

Not many left to do the bitching.

Know why?

Becuase we tried to kill them all.
Thats right, it was nearly a genocide.
From about six million, to a tenth of that in less than a half a century.

Point is, people move on.
The best thing to do is honor the dead, learn the lesson, and get on with living.
Dwelling on tragedy, and wallowing in the misery of it doesnt do anyone any good.

The Japanese seem to have done rather well after thier particular tragedy, and thiers ushered in an entirely new age of mankind.

The Atomic Age.

Tragic as 9/11 is, it has less significance.


At least 9/11, the Holocaust, and Hiroshima/Nagasoki happened in the lifetime of living people.

In a few years, you will be able to go to the exact spot where 9/11 took place, and stand on the same ground where 3000 innocents lost thier lives.

You'll never even know it, by looking at it.

The bombing left a permanent scar on the land, and the people of Hiroshima, and resulted in hundreds of thousands dead, and dying.

I dont have any sort of problem with anyone paying thier respects to the victims of any tragic loss of life.
I dont have any problem with honoring brave sacrifices of the people who died in the attempt to save others.

I DO have an issue with anyone who uses that event as a banner, for carrying on a political agenda.

Because they need to remind everyone why their pathetic war could be justified.

In this post 9/11 world where WMD's were so inconsideratly absent, where a nation once ruled by a bloodthirsty dictator so obstinatly refused to be better off run by a money hungry one, and democracy has failed to spread like a venereal disease across the Middle East, the one thing that the Bush Administration can be sure of is that today falls some time after September Eleventh 2001. And if physicists at Brookhaven National Laboratory announced that January 2007 was in fact going to fall before 9/11, I would not be the slightest bit surprised.

Americans remember becasue Americans died. Face it, We care more for our own than we do for others. Just like everyone else on the planet. It is human nature.

Or if we get rid of our "governments," those shameful excuses for decent institutions that have a sea of blood and a river of corpses behind them.

Yes, instead we should establish a government of all the people, dedicated to the principle of the common good. Nevermind that particular mode of thinking lead directly to the greatest genocides of all time, killing tens of millions in Stalin's Russia, Cambodia and China.

Our current system is the worst system except all the other ones that have been tried. Winston Churchill said that, and it's still as true now.

Our current system is the worst system except all the other ones that have been tried. Winston Churchill said that, and it's still as true now.Of course, Churchill wasn't exactly all that innocent on the genocide roster...

Yes, I know that 3 thousand people die. but 4 thousand people die each day in africa because of starvation. you don't continue crying about that after 5 years like you are with 11/9, and the death toll from the resulting wars was much greater, yet you don't have that much of a problem. And what about the 2004 tsunami? and hurricane katrina? i'm not seeing special tributes for that. and I refuse to take that racist "it happened outside of my country" excuse for seing the tsunami as less of a tragedy.

You are looking at this the wrong way round. It is not improper that we remember the deaths of thousands of people in the slightest. What you should be asking is 'why do we not remember the deaths of those in poverty stricken Africa everyday?'

We don't want people to care less about terrible deaths to solve the worlds problems; we want them to care much, much more.

Of course, Churchill wasn't exactly all that innocent on the genocide roster...

Well, Germany was still there, last time I checked. Assume you're talking about Dresden and that other one, ya?

Well, Germany was still there, last time I checked. Assume you're talking about Dresden and that other one, ya?Hamburg, Berlin, Dresden... Churchill was rather disappointed when the bombs didn't manage to ignite a firestorm that would soffocate anyone that managed to survive in the shelters. The main point of that bombing campaign was to kill as many Germans as possible. Sounds like genocide to me.

Hamburg, Berlin, Dresden... Churchill was rather disappointed when the bombs didn't manage to ignite a firestorm that would soffocate anyone that managed to survive in the shelters. The main point of that bombing campaign was to kill as many Germans as possible. Sounds like genocide to me.

I thought Dresden was essentially a scientific experiment to find out if a firestorm could be generated deliberately, much like Hiroshima and Nagasaki were essentially atomic tests? Either way unpleasant in the extreme, but still, doesn't mean he was wrong about democracy being the least-worst system of government.

I thought Dresden was essentially a scientific experiment to find out if a firestorm could be generated deliberately, much like Hiroshima and Nagasaki were essentially atomic tests? Either way unpleasant in the extreme, but still, doesn't mean he was wrong about democracy being the least-worst system of government.Dresden was perhaps the worst hit with the least military value. Firestorms were going on long before, Hamburg being the best example of that. The British were much more effective at killing Germans than vice versa. There's about 8 or 9 Germans that died due to Allied bombing for every Brit killed by German bombs or rockets.

Yeah, Churchill is quite right with that quote. Democracy sucks, but I can't think of any plausible alternatives.

Dresden was perhaps the worst hit with the least military value. Firestorms were going on long before, Hamburg being the best example of that. The British were much more effective at killing Germans than vice versa. There's about 8 or 9 Germans that died due to Allied bombing for every Brit killed by German bombs or rockets.

Well, that would be because Britain won, yes, and because unlike the Luftwaffe which lacked true heavy bombers the allies had Lancasters and B-17s out the wazoo. You only have to look to Russia to see what Nazi Germany at full ruthlessness was capable of, and it makes everything the allies did in Europe seem positively trivial by comparison.

And no, that's not an attempt to excuse the largely pointless saturation bombings of the later war against targets with little to no military value, repeated bombings of non-industrial areas of Tokyo, or the two nuclear attacks that ended the war. We shouldn't have done it, but it's easy to say that when, unlike our grandparents, we don't have desire for revenge gnawing at us after seeing London, Bristol, Plymouth and the other southern cities in flames during the blitz, and don't have fresh in our minds the horror that Japan unleashed on China and others while carving out their 'co-prosperity sphere.'

It's easy to look back and say we were wrong [it's easy because we were, for a start], but I find it a little harder to say with any certainty that if I was there at the time I'd feel any different.

Well, that would be because Britain won, yes, and because unlike the Luftwaffe which lacked true heavy bombers the allies had Lancasters and B-17s out the wazoo. You only have to look to Russia to see what Nazi Germany at full ruthlessness was capable of, and it makes everything the allies did in Europe seem positively trivial by comparison.I know. I have to keep reminding some people on here of that quite often.

And no, that's not an attempt to excuse the largely pointless saturation bombings of the later war against targets with little to no military value, repeated bombings of non-industrial areas of Tokyo, or the two nuclear attacks that ended the war. We shouldn't have done it, but it's easy to say that when, unlike our grandparents, we don't have desire for revenge gnawing at us after seeing London, Bristol, Plymouth and the other southern cities in flames during the blitz, and don't have fresh in our minds the horror that Japan unleashed on China and others while carving out their 'co-prosperity sphere.'

It's easy to look back and say we were wrong [it's easy because we were, for a start], but I find it a little harder to say with any certainty that if I was there at the time I'd feel any different.Definitely.

Honestly, It was 5 years ago, we should stop being obsessed with putting up these memorials, and realise that it happened. yes you may consider it a tragedy and all that, I'm not saying you should no, I'm just saying it should stop taking over your life.

Yes, I know that 3 thousand people die. but 4 thousand people die each day in africa because of starvation. you don't continue crying about that after 5 years like you are with 11/9, and the death toll from the resulting wars was much greater, yet you don't have that much of a problem. And what about the 2004 tsunami? and hurricane katrina? i'm not seeing special tributes for that. and I refuse to take that racist "it happened outside of my country" excuse for seing the tsunami as less of a tragedy.

lastly, many people as a result do not complain when there freedoms aretaken away from them because of this. You cannot protect something by destroying it. if the terrorist "hate freedom" why are people worldwide being drained of them. hello its what the terrorists wanted, we should not be their bitch. you may be saying "its not the terrorists who are doing this" but thats not what terrorism is. terroism is about using fear to get people, groups of people, or even entire countries do a specific thing. why els do you think its called terrorism.

And it's your duty to tell people when they should stop showing grief?

Quit your' bitching and go mind yourself.

Apparently that and not making use of caps either.

9/11 was the largest terrorist attack in history, so it stands out. (Listed on the "Guiness Book of Records" website, along with the usual encouragement "Break this record?") It's a nice, large example for the terrorists to say "We got you good that time". Equally it's an emotive enough issue for Bushy-boy to say in response to most accusations "But they did this to us ..."

The key point is that all the death was in one place, centred around two buildings. The people died in the course of a very short period of time. You can point and say "Look how many died."

What about the terrorism of the IRA during the 1970s? Many hundreds died then. What about the Lockerbie bombing, where 270 people died? Nobody, aside from those directly related to the incidents, could care less.

What about the years before the Iraq conflict when over 300,000 Kurds were "cleansed" by Saddam's regime? The world knew of the killing, but did not move. Only when America is hurt, did America suddenly point at Iraq and decide to attack. What about Stalinist Russia, where almost a million people were executed for political crimes? What about China under Mao Zedong, where millions died? No one cares.

Yet one big incident in the US, and it becomes a symbol. An excuse to start wars, torture people, to gradually limit and deconstruct the freedoms we enjoy, and to vilify an entire culture.

Yes, 9/11 was a tragedy. No, I do not think it should have happened, and I feel sad that so many (or indeed any) died. But it was one event. A death toll of around 3,000 people. That cannot excuse all the things that have been done as a result.

9/11 was the largest terrorist attack in history, so it stands out. (Listed on the "Guiness Book of Records" website, along with the usual encouragement "Break this record?") It's a nice, large example for the terrorists to say "We got you good that time". Equally it's an emotive enough issue for Bushy-boy to say in response to most accusations "But they did this to us ..."

The key point is that all the death was in one place, centred around two buildings. The people died in the course of a very short period of time. You can point and say "Look how many died."

What about the terrorism of the IRA during the 1970s? Many hundreds died then. What about the Lockerbie bombing, where 270 people died? Nobody, aside from those directly related to the incidents, could care less.

What about the years before the Iraq conflict when over 300,000 Kurds were "cleansed" by Saddam's regime? The world knew of the killing, but did not move. Only when America is hurt, did America suddenly point at Iraq and decide to attack. What about Stalinist Russia, where almost a million people were executed for political crimes? What about China under Mao Zedong, where millions died? No one cares.

Yet one big incident in the US, and it becomes a symbol. An excuse to start wars, torture people, to gradually limit and deconstruct the freedoms we enjoy, and to vilify an entire culture.

Yes, 9/11 was a tragedy. No, I do not think it should have happened, and I feel sad that so many (or indeed any) died. But it was one event. A death toll of around 3,000 people. That cannot excuse all the things that have been done as a result.

I am not arguing for any of the things that have been done since the attacks, nor anything like that. Have more horrible things happened in history? Certainly yes, but when someone chooses to grieve over such a moment, or remember such a moment, they should not be met with derision and scorn being told "Get over it because there are worse things". That's an inappropriate and undecent attitude.

All I see is a immature pompous ass that doesn't know what he's talking about, because you are talking out of yer arse.

i do not care what some guy with yust 3 posts says about me.

I agree wholeheartedly that people should be allowed to grieve for what they want, how they want. I'm not in any way trying to suggest otherwise. I just want them also to retain some sense of proportion between 9/11 and other deliberate death in history.

And it's your duty to tell people when they should stop showing grief?

Quit your' bitching and go mind yourself.

Apparently that and not making use of caps either.

whwre do you see mis-use of the caps-lock button in that. I never even touch that button.

i do not care what some guy with yust 3 posts says about me.

7/16ths of an inch down and to the left. Down, and to the left. Down, and to the left. Down, and to the left.

whwre do you see mis-use of the caps-lock button in that. I never even touch that button.

More like the almighty shift key. I never said caps lock. I said caps.

Why do we remember 9/11? Because the Chicken Hawks and what we laughingly refer to as the media in this country make sure we're still afraid after 5 years.

Why do we remember 9/11? Because the Chicken Hawks and what we laughingly refer to as the media in this country make sure we're still afraid after 5 years.

How dare you accuse our "Fair and Balanced" media of intentionaly perpetuate a state of fear to increase thier own ratings, in spite of there being no actual news to report.

Are you attempting to insinuate that the events of 9/11 were played over and over, ad nauseum, and that such networks ratings went thru the roof becuase of all the hype and attention any tiny little event received?

For shame!

Why do you hate America?

We know why the rest of the world is 'bothered'; we have the largest, loudest news services. But here's the beauty of freedom, you can do something else if you don't give a rat's ass anymore. Any way you look at it, you're still going to run into people mourning over this. A good chunk of our population lives in the city/commutes to the city, and for us, this will always be a painful subject. Friends and family DIED. (And the rest is psychological.)

Basically, though, it all comes down to who has the bigger mouth in the world. And America wins that hands down.

As a side note, Bush may be using this to justify his war, but us common slobs who lost friends and family are just mourning. So please, think before you complain. There's more to us than Fox News and Bush, I promise.

Well lets see, i have to compared an attack on the worlds strongest nation which includes the destruction of a international landmark and an act of terrorism to 3000 people who cant find food....

Im not saying that 3000 people who cant find food is not terrible but as i said its not a terrorism attack that shocked the world, its 3000 people who cant food.

Of course else where more terrible things are happening like the Burudi-Rwanda War or the Liberia Civil War. Anyway your way of thinking is like this

"Oh well my grandmother died, but its been 5 years lets just forget her like it never happened and stop putting mermorials for her"

Tell me do you hate your grandmother or something?

How dare you accuse our "Fair and Balanced" media of intentionaly perpetuate a state of fear to increase thier own ratings, in spite of there being no actual news to report.

Erm, isn't that what newspapers have always done in every country? It's hardly unique to 9/11.

Yea, but American ones usually did it about 4 fonts bigger than everyone else.

Because us Americans don't forget an attack like that. We'll remember 9/11 until we fall.

Because us Americans don’t forget an attack like that. We’ll remember 9/11 until we fall.
Well, remember to tie your shoelaces then.

For great justice.


Take off every zig.

Because us Americans don't forget an attack like that. We'll remember 9/11 until we fall.

There's a difference between remembering it and dwelling on it. Mourn it by all means, but don't use it as a rallying cry. Honour the memories of those lost, but let the attack pass into history.

Yea, but American ones usually did it about 4 fonts bigger than everyone else.

Still, the first world war was used to justify the second world war, and had less people killed. Does that mean we should stop remembering the people who died entirely pointless, agonising deaths, or the tragedy of meaningless battles where hundreds of thousands died in a day to advance a near-static line perhaps a dozen feet? Does that mean we should hold in less regard some of the most brutal battles in history, just because even more people died as a result of the treaty that ended that war?

The idea that the level of grief we should show for a tragedy is solely dependant on the number of people who died in it is ridiculous; by taking this to its logical conclusion, nobody should be allowed to grieve for anything at all except those killed in Soviet Russia, since every other tragedy and atrocity in history pales in comparison to the millions upon millions who died under Stalin.

There's a difference between remembering it and dwelling on it. Mourn it by all means, but don't use it as a rallying cry. Honour the memories of those lost, but let the attack pass into history.

That will happen when people are ready. They will not be ready until they are ready, and it is unwise to call for people to do so until that is the case.

Mourn it by all means, but don't use it as a rallying cry.

Why shouldn't the criminal death of almost 3,000 people and the destruction of two of the largest buildings in the world be used as a rallying cry to track down the criminals responsible and bring them to justice? Would you go up to the family of a murdered man and tell them to 'let the murder pass into history' and not get the police to try to track down and punish his killer?

@GMC: Except China.

I was not suggesting that we should forget the attacks, or that grief should only be accorded to the biggest tragedies. I was merely citing some examples of great loss in history that were as bad, if not worse, than 9/11, but that far fewer either remember or give thought to.

As I said, I do not see it as silly to mourn those who died. But equally, I don't see such an event as any greater a loss than many others like it. I don't live in America, so I am distanced from the event. I know that I can't tell what it must have been like for those the event happened to. But in my country, Britain, we too have had attacks. Very few, if any, other countries really are concerned about this. So why should 9/11 be different? It it, as you say, simply scale that makes the difference?

Edit: Yes, I would seek justice. But I wouldn't seek to kill him, or to impose my grief on others, or to cry that his death gave me reason to attack all people from his hometown.

Edit: Yes, I would seek justice. But I wouldn't seek to kill him, or to impose my grief on others, or to cry that his death gave me reason to attack all people from his hometown.

And if it turned out the authorities from his home town had supported him and therefore were complicit in the murder as well, you wouldn't also seek to have them removed from their positions? Particularly if they happened to already be murderous gits who had gone unpunished for dozens of other terrible crimes?

Debateable, and I really don't know what I would do in those circumstances. However if I did choose to have such men removed, and this was then done, I would not then decide to move on to another "bad" town for an entirely unrelated reason.

Debateable, and I really don't know what I would do in those circumstances. However if I did choose to have such men removed, and this was then done, I would not then decide to move on to another "bad" town for an entirely unrelated reason.

That's not the point of the matter. The misbegotten Iraq project is not at debate.

Why not? 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc are all tied up in the same debate, that of the "War on Terror".

Debateable, and I really don't know what I would do in those circumstances. However if I did choose to have such men removed, and this was then done, I would not then decide to move on to another "bad" town for an entirely unrelated reason.

Well, Iraq was nothing to do with 9/11 and everything to do with the fact that the coalition should have removed Saddam's govenment at the end of the first Gulf War when it had overwhelming support in Iraq and every reason to do so.

I think it was insensitive and rather trollish myself. How long did it take the US to get over 12/7/41? Jews are still upset(and should be) about the holocaust. Some muslims are still PO'ed about the crusades....

I do not think we truly got over December 7, 1941. Just like I do not think we will ever get over 9/11.

However, the tusanimi was (almost) 2 years ago, the earthquake (almost) 1 year ago, but 11/9 5 years ago. see the difference?

Nope.

The magic numbers - 9/11. I hate how the Bush cabinet has turned those numbers into some type of a warcry. As if the american troopers haven't already killed dozens of times more people in Iraq by now....

But I understand the tragedy of that day, especially the flight 31 (did I get the number right? It has been some time now since I read about it).
What I don't understand is how the politics can transform or even pervert that day into such hatred and, frankly, lies.
Especially since the goverment knew about the attempt before it happened. And how Bush's first question was "can we link this to Hussein?"

Why shouldn't the criminal death of almost 3,000 people and the destruction of two of the largest buildings in the world be used as a rallying cry to track down the criminals responsible and bring them to justice? Would you go up to the family of a murdered man and tell them to 'let the murder pass into history' and not get the police to try to track down and punish his killer?

You ask rather tricky questions. Can you justify murder with murder?
Thousands died in the 9/11 bombings. Tens of thousands have died in Iraq by now. When does the limit come? Or is there one?

The magic numbers - 9/11. I hate how the Bush cabinet has turned those numbers into some type of a warcry. As if the american troopers haven't already killed dozens of times more people in Iraq by now....

But I understand the tragedy of that day, especially the flight 31 (did I get the number right? It has been some time now since I read about it).
What I don't understand is how the politics can transform or even pervert that day into such hatred and, frankly, lies.
Especially since the goverment knew about the attempt before it happened. And how Bush's first question was "can we link this to Hussein?"



You ask rather tricky questions. Can you justify murder with murder?
Thousands died in the 9/11 bombings. Tens of thousands have died in Iraq by now. When does the limit come? Or is there one?

Is it just me, or have we already forsworn the Iraq situation? Iraq has nothing to do with September Eleventh, so, why are you bringing it up?

its mostly targeted at americans, because they are the most bothered.

Well maybe you should have used that as a title instead of including yourself inside the title.

which brings the qeustion: why does it not bother you when as a response your government is trying to adopt a hateful ideology?

Now this is very funny.

This event bothered certain Americans - personally, I don't give a damn. It was a tragedy, financial and vital, but it's in the past now. It didn't and doesn't affect me, so I am indifferent.

Thousands died in the 9/11 bombings. Tens of thousands have died in Iraq by now. When does the limit come? Or is there one?

Since when was Iraq about the 9/11 bombing? The casualties in Iraq have nothing to do with the hunt for Osama bin Laden and everything to do with Bush Jr.'s apparent desire to do what his father failed to do in the first Gulf War. Also, the 'tens of thousands' figures come from biased sources and are very much disputed.

because it gives justification for the Oil wars.

:rolleyes:

If you think that Iraq has nothing to do with Spetember the Eleventh, 2001, then you need to look again at the timeline where Iraq is concerned.

First Gulf War: Iraq invades Kuwait, and gets pushed back. Coalition stops short of Baghdad.

Iraq shows keen interest in chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Saddam does nasty things to the Kurds. Then keeps doing it. When he says "Jump", most of the country asks "How High?". Throughout all this, America does nothing.

UN Weapons Inspectors try to examine what Saddam has, but get blocked or otherwise obstructed. The USA still does nothing.

September the 11th happens. Huge fuss. Afghanistan gets invaded. And then, after so many years of doing nothing, the US suddenly decides to invade Iraq on fabricated charges.

Not related to 9/11? Like hell it's not related.

Not related to 9/11? Like hell it's not related.

It's not related in any meaningful sense. It's related to the more aggressive foreign policy that was adopted after Afghanistan appeared to be over so quickly, and more directly related to Bush Jr.'s desire to finish what his dad started. Sure, you can relate it to 9/11, but you can just as easily relate it to Kosovo [when the world decided it actually did give a shit about hideous ethnic clensing, just far, far too late], the first Gulf War, or any of a dozen other things.

People who want to complain about 9/11 memorials like to have Iraq to fall back on, because the casualty counts for the Afghan war aren't nearly high enough for their tastes.

An what about a memorial for the day gw bush was elected?

Sad day for the planet Earth...

Oh, I think it's a little bit more related than Kosovo.

Words from the man himself:

"Bush justified the war against Iraq by directly linking it to 9/11:

The use of armed forces against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

Still disagree with me?

Still disagree with me?

And we know Bush is always right, so his word is cast-iron proof. Which means it's time for the human race to enter the solar system.

But whether he was right or not, it was still one of the justifications that was used to support the invasion. Thus, justified or not, the invasion was tied to 9/11.

For great justice.

Take of every zig.

But whether he was right or not, it was still one of the justifications that was used to support the invasion. Thus, justified or not, the invasion was tied to 9/11.

Except for the somewhat important fact that the wording doesn't actually support your claim.

The use of armed forces against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

This doesn't say that Iraq is one of those who 'planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks,' only that 'The use of armed forces against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations.' The 'including' doesn't mean Iraq is one of them, only that they're included too.

Erm, actually the use of the word "including" does mean that Iraq is a part of the group of "nations, organizations or person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001".

Your logic is frankly bizzare in this case.

Erm, actually the use of the word "including" does mean that Iraq is a part of the group of "nations, organizations or person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001".

No it doesn't. 'Including' in that point means it is not solely restricted to that group, because it does not specify it is limited to that group.

Bush said the US viewed military action against 'international terrorists' and 'terrorist organisations' as justified, and that was why he was going against Iraq. The fact that he said this included a specific group doesn't mean Iraq was part of that group. If I say I'm going to cut down everything on a street including trees, that doesn't mean I believe everything on that street is a tree.

Okay then, how about this statement of a link?

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/zunes.php?articleid=3783

Still unconvinced?

Hamburg, Berlin, Dresden... Churchill was rather disappointed when the bombs didn't manage to ignite a firestorm that would soffocate anyone that managed to survive in the shelters. The main point of that bombing campaign was to kill as many Germans as possible. Sounds like genocide to me.

Welcome to war. We firebombed Osaka, Tokyo, Yokohama and other Jap cities. As a wise man once said, never start a fight but always finish one. The same can be applied to war. If you are going to start a war, make sure you will win it before launching it because if you lose, you are screwed.

Still unconvinced?

Yes. The bill itself (http://www.gop.gov/Committeecentral/bills/hres757.asp) doesn't actually say what they claim it does. It says the Iraqi government was a 'terrorist regime' and makes no claims linking it to either 9/11 or al-Quaeda.

Erm, isn't that what newspapers have always done in every country? It's hardly unique to 9/11.

Now that's a true statement.

Fine, let's try another few quotes then.

"There's overwhelming evidence there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I am very confident that there was an established relationship there." - Vice President Cheney, 1/22/04

“You can't distinguish between al-Qaida and Saddam.” – President Bush, 9/25/02

“There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties.” – President Bush, 9/17/03

“There was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda.” – Vice President Cheney, 9/14/03

I don't know how much more specific I can get, but if you need more, I'm sure I can find it.

Take the Iraq war debate elsewhere and stop threadjacking the thread please.

I don't know how much more specific I can get, but if you need more, I'm sure I can find it.

Absolutely none of which say that Iraq was being invaded because of these supposed al-Quaeda ties, you'll notice. Hell, all but one of them are from after the invasion, so how can they possibly be proof of what was being thought before it?

Perhaps, despite of the wrongs and rights of any war pursued by any party against any other party, the reason we remember 9/11 is because it was a day when we all watched the unimaginable on TV. Perhaps that by seeing it we were changed somehow.

Numbers are unfortunately irrelevant. A drunk drowned in a pool is less shocking than one child shot outside its school. Numbers the same but shock value is hugely different. The shock value of 9/11 was immense - especially on the american perception of homeland security.

Personally still find it hard to believe the a large proportion of the world are still engaged on fighting over who has got the best imaginary friend...

So you're implying that they thought of, and voiced, their opinions on ties to Al'Quaida only AFTER they invaded? Okay ...

"According to the Washington Post, "six days after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush signed a 2-and-a-half-page document marked 'TOP SECRET'" that "directed the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq." This is corroborated by a CBS News, which reported on 9/4/02 that five hours after the 9/11 attacks, "Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq." [Source: Washington Post, 1/12/03. CBS News, 9/4/02]"

Funny that Iraq should be on the agenda DIRECTLY after the attack.

And here's another page where the link between Al-Quaida and Iraq is discussed:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1577

So you're implying that they thought of, and voiced, their opinions on ties to Al'Quaida only AFTER they invaded? Okay ...

"According to the Washington Post, "six days after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush signed a 2-and-a-half-page document marked 'TOP SECRET'" that "directed the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq." This is corroborated by a CBS News, which reported on 9/4/02 that five hours after the 9/11 attacks, "Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq." [Source: Washington Post, 1/12/03. CBS News, 9/4/02]"

Funny that Iraq should be on the agenda DIRECTLY after the attack.

And here's another page where the link between Al-Quaida and Iraq is discussed:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1577

In the late 90s, President Bill Clinton signed into law a bill mandating regime change in Iraq.

“You can't distinguish between al-Qaida and Saddam.” – President Bush, 9/25/02


The only pre-war statement, and this could be easily taken to mean many different things.

The bill was made in 1998. It sits for 3 years. And then, only a very short while after the attacks on the world trade centres, suddenly Iraq is back on the active agenda? Heck of a coincidence.

So you're implying that they thought of, and voiced, their opinions on ties to Al'Quaida only AFTER they invaded? Okay ...

Since none of them stated that was why the invasion took place, sure. After all, your quotes happen to all be from after the attack, except a highly ambiguous one from Bush before it that states you can't 'distinguish' between al-Qaeda and Saddam. Which could potentially just be Bush saying they're as bad as each other.

Funny that Iraq should be on the agenda DIRECTLY after the attack.

Yeah, because they thought it was Iraq, maybe, and later realised it wasn't, hence the reason the US didn't invade Iraq immediately after 9/11? You think it's unreasonable that they believed it was a nation that had repeatedly called for the downfall of the United States?

There's a difference between remembering it and dwelling on it. Mourn it by all means, but don't use it as a rallying cry. Honour the memories of those lost, but let the attack pass into history.



When every last one of the bastards who supported or planed and helped excecute the attack is dead and buried , then there will be peace but the memory will NEVER " pass into history " . It was a wake up call and it will be used as a rallying cry to fight Islamic terrorist until they are the ones that "pass" into history .

The bill was made in 1998. It sits for 3 years. And then, only a very short while after the attacks on the world trade centres, suddenly Iraq is back on the active agenda? Heck of a coincidence.

Try 5 years. The point remains though that it has been on the books for years before we actually did something about it. Besides, Iraq has always been in the news even prior to our invasion in 2003 and even before 2001.

You really need to get updated on the past.

When every last one of the bastards who supported or planed and helped excecute the attack is dead and buried , then there will be peace but the memory will NEVER " pass into history " . It was a wake up call and it will be used as a rallying cry to fight Islamic terrorist until they are the ones that "pass" into history .

So once you've killed everyone connected to the attack, there will be peace? Yea ...good luck with that. Meanwhile, back on Earth where the terrorists have friends, and families who would probably then want to avenge their loved ones, war will continue even after they are dead. As Ghandi siad "An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind".

So once you've killed everyone connected to the attack, there will be peace? Yea ...good luck with that. Meanwhile, back on Earth where the terrorists have friends, and families who would probably then want to avenge their loved ones, war will continue even after they are dead. As Ghandi siad "An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind".

Not if we poke out all of their eyes first.

And now a page from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda

Discussing both sides (link or no), and very clearly stating that the link was one of the original reasons for war.

@Andaluciae: You're not getting me. To give an example: If you kill a terrorist, his brother will want revenge. If you kill him too, his other brother will want revenge. Kill him, and his friend will want revenge. Kill him and another friend will want revenge. Kill him ...

You will never kill all those who are angry with you, as the act of killing creates more enemies. And if even one of them kills one of you, then you will have a whole new group (assuming he didn't act entirely alone) to get YOUR revenge on.

In the end, it's a simple way to kill lots of people while still getting nowhere. Now tell me how that serves anyone.

And now a page from Wikipedia:

Wikipedia is the last refuge of he who has lost the argument.

@Andaluciae: You're not getting me. To give an example: If you kill a terrorist, his brother will want revenge. If you kill him too, his other brother will want revenge. Kill him, and his friend will want revenge. Kill him and another friend will want revenge. Kill him ...

You will never kill all those who are angry with you, as the act of killing creates more enemies. And if even one of them kills one of you, then you will have a whole new group (assuming he didn't act entirely alone) to get YOUR revenge on.

In the end, it's a simple way to kill lots of people while still getting nowhere. Now tell me how that serves anyone.

Take a moment. Realize I am not serious. I just found the image of poking everyone else's eyes out funny.

@Andaluciae: At no point in either of your two posts was it clear that you were being anything less than serious.

@GMC: There was a recent report done on Wikipedia. It stated that although there were innacuracies on the less well considered articles, it can no longer be dismissed as a bad factual source. Most of the articles are well-written and backed up, and so simply saying "Oh it's Wikipedia, it must be rubbish" is no longer a valid excuse.

I could equally say that your dismissal of my source out of hand indicates that you yourself have lost the arguement through being unwilling to even discuss the veracity of the article.

@Andaluciae: At no point in either of your two posts was it clear that you were being anything less than serious.


I thought that that was just generally assumed about every post I make, and that it is not to be considered serious unless I specifically mention it. Of course, you're new, so you don't realize that I often play Satan's Attorney around here, just to liven it up.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, I'll bear that in mind in future.

Honestly, It was 5 years ago, we should stop being obsessed with putting up these memorials, and realise that it happened. yes you may consider it a tragedy and all that, I'm not saying you should no, I'm just saying it should stop taking over your life.

Wow! Five years is sooo frakking LONG! [ eye-roll ] What? YOU don't consider it a tragedy?

Get real.

There was a recent report done on Wikipedia. It stated that although there were innacuracies on the less well considered articles, it can no longer be dismissed as a bad factual source.

Ah, the infamous Nature Magazine survey? It was completely dishonest and unscientific, treating serious errors, trivial errors, and even differences of opinion as the same level of black mark. It deliberately edited the Brittanica entries sent to the experts to be evaluated: for example, only sending the 350 word introduction to Brittanica's 6,000 word article on Lipids.

All in all, entirely unimpressive.

I could equally say that your dismissal of my source out of hand indicates that you yourself have lost the arguement through being unwilling to even discuss the veracity of the article.

The article's talk page is over 100 kilobytes with ten archives and includes dozens of complaints about the POV stance of the article in question. It's fair to say such a heavily disputed article is a godawful source for proving anything.

Meh, people are still bitching about El Alamo and those were just a tad more than a hundred over 150 years ago, so I don't think this will go away any time soon.


And it shouldn't.

No, I'm not talking about "Nature Magazine". I'm talking about "The Economist" which does count as a somewhat reliable source.

Yes, and a lot of the POV complaints are due to people on both sides going out of their way to misunderstand or creatively misinterpret what is said in the article.

Nothing I say will actually convince you, will it?

No, I'm not talking about "Nature Magazine". I'm talking about "The Economist" which does count as a somewhat reliable source.

How do you square that with Wikipedia's own founder, Jimbo Wales, warning students not to use Wikipedia as a source?

Yes, and a lot of the POV complaints are due to people on both sides going out of their way to misunderstand or creatively misinterpret what is said in the article.

Which implies what is in the article is easily misinterpreted and / or highly contentious, making the article itself a poor source.

Nothing I say will actually convince you, will it?

Well no, because you're wrong.

The reason that he warned students not to use it as a source was that the content can't be moderated by an independant source. Published documents and reports can. That doesn't mean that it's innacurate.

Just to clarify, we're discussing if 9/11 dierectly lead to the Iraq war, yes?

Just to clarify, we're discussing if 9/11 dierectly lead to the Iraq war, yes?

No, we're discussing if you can directly attribute the inflated 'ten of thousands' alleged death toll to actions solely stemming from 9/11 so you have some kind of platform to compare that to the 3k dead figure from the WTC bombing itself.

Because for some reason, that matters to you.

What? I never said that tens of thousands have died in Iraq. I seem to remember that I entered this thread wanting people to have some sense of proportion about 9/11 compared to any other deliberate deaths in the past. And somehow we got onto this topic.

Now as far as I see it, the events of 9/11 started a chain of events that lead pretty directly to Iraq via Afghanistan. I thought that was the point I was putting forward, that Iraq would never have been invaded without 9/11.

Now as far as I see it, the 9/11 started a chain of events that lead pretty directly to Iraq via Afghanistan. I thought that was the point I was putting forward, that Iraq would never have been invaded without 9/11.

It would also never have been invaded without Bush becoming President, without Afghanistan, without Kosovo, without the first Gulf War, or without Britain creating Iraq as an entity in the first place.

The chain of events that led to the invasion of Iraq started a long time before 9/11, given Clinton was already signing into law a bill mandating a forced regime change in Iraq in 1998.

You can follow the trail back to the beginning of the universe if you really want ...

I mean that, had the terrorists not attacked the world trade centres on September 11th, 2001, we would almost certainly not be at war with Iraq (or Afghanistan for that matter).

I mean that, had the terrorists not attacked the world trade centres on September 11th, 2001, we would almost certainly not be at war with Iraq (or Afghanistan for that matter).

There would have been a war with Iraq sooner or later regardless of whether 9/11 had happened or not. 9/11 just made it sooner rather than later.

In AD 2101 war was beginning...

I'm sorry, I had to say it.

*snicker*

Thank you....

I'm inmature, and was trying very hard not to say it myself.

There would have been a war with Iraq sooner or later regardless of whether 9/11 had happened or not. 9/11 just made it sooner rather than later.


[quote]US State Department
November 4, 1998
Bin Laden, Atef Indicted in U.S. Federal Court for African Bombings

New York -- Usama bin Laden and Muhammad Atef were indicted November 4 in Manhattan federal court for the August 7 bombings of the US embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and for conspiring to kill Americans outside the United States.

Bin Laden's "al Qaeda" organization functioned both on its own and through other terrorist organizations, including the Al Jihad group based in Egypt, the Islamic Group also known as el Gamaa Islamia led at one time by Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, and a number of other jihad groups in countries such as Sudan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Somalia.

Bin Laden, the US Attorney charged, engaged in business transactions on behalf of Al Qaeda, including purchasing warehouses for storage of explosives, transporting weapons, and establishing a series of companies in Sudan to provide income to al Qaeda and as a cover for the procurement of explosives, weapons, and chemicals, and for the travel of operatives.

According to the indictment, bin Laden and al Qaeda forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in Sudan and with representatives of the Government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah with the goal of working together against their common enemies in the West, particularly the United States.

"In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq," the indictment said.

Beginning in 1992, bin Laden allegedly issued through his "fatwah" committees a series of escalating "fatwahs" against the United States, certain military personnel, and, eventually in February 1998, a "fatwah" stating that Muslims should kill Americans -- including civilians -- anywhere in the world they can be found.

http://usinfo.state.gov/is/Archive_Index/
Bin_Laden_Atef_Indicted_in_U.S._Federal_Court_for_African_Bombings.html






1998...Clinton...the President BEFORE Bush....ummm whats worse...the revisionist or the stupid tools who go along with them ?


If Bush was President do you THINK for a second that the US wouldn't have been at war with terrorist BEFORE 9/11 ?

"His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region, and the security of all the rest of us.

What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made?

Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.

And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."

President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/


Why didnt he follow his own advice ?


America is threatened by an "unholy axis":

"We must exercise responsibility not just at home, but around the world. On the eve of a new century, we have the power and the duty to build a new era of peace and security.

We must combat an unholy axis of new threats from terrorists, international criminals, and drug traffickers. These 21st century predators feed on technology and the free flow of information... And they will be all the more lethal if weapons of mass destruction fall into their hands.

Together, we must confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons and the outlaw states, terrorists, and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."

President Clinton
State of the Union address
January 27, 1998

http://clinton5.nara.gov/textonly/WH/SOTU98/address.html

http://www.usemb.ee/union98.php3



All this time I thought it was the neo Cons ........



At any rate it seems to me that by their own words they new a threat existed to the US from Al-queda and other rogue nations....in 1998 and sooner.


We had to wait until we were actually attacked AND had a President with BALLS before we believed it or did anything about it .


All this BULLSHIT about Bush and Neo cons and other conspiracy tripe from left wingers is ANOTHER reason to heed the lessons of 9/ 11 ..

the next attack wont be so nice and tidy .

Three minutes and there'll be DK, Marry K, DM, and five others attacking you.

and rightfully so

we had to wait until we were actually attacked before we believed it or did anything about it .


All this BULLSHIT about Bush and Neo cons and other conspiracy tripe from left wingers is ANOTHER reason to heed the lessons of 9/ 11 ..

the next attack wont be so nice and tidy .

There was no political will before 9-11 to actually do something about it, that is, the people didn't really think it was a serious threat, nothing to get too worked up about, and without the people's support the politicians won't engage in what can be a prolonged military action. Just remember the outrage at losing just a handful of people in Somalia.

The "neocon thing" steems not from the actions in Afghanistan, but the occupation of Iraq and other actions that have contributed to instability in the Middle East and radicalization of Islam. After 9-11 the entire world stood behind the US, it only took GW a couple of years to throw all that out.

What? I never said that tens of thousands have died in Iraq. I seem to remember that I entered this thread wanting people to have some sense of proportion about 9/11 compared to any other deliberate deaths in the past. And somehow we got onto this topic.

Now as far as I see it, the events of 9/11 started a chain of events that lead pretty directly to Iraq via Afghanistan. I thought that was the point I was putting forward, that Iraq would never have been invaded without 9/11.




"Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them."

President Clinton
National Address from the Oval Office
December 16, 1998

http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/19981216-3611.html

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html




If this guy had the balls we would have .

The original post is deliberately aggravating.
Make a thread about something you care about, not something you claim not to.

Get used to hearing about 9/11. You're going to hear about it for a long, long time. On that date,as well as weeks preceeding it.

If you dont like it, tough shit.

Why are you so keen to wage war and kill people? "They got us first" is not a good reason for such drastic measures. "To stop them doing it as they were going to anyway." This smacks of pre-crime, and also goes against the UN charter (All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.). "Because they're bad people." Since when did America taking exception to a nation give you grounds to invade it?

Why are you so keen to wage war and kill people? "They got us first" is not a good reason for such drastic measures. "To stop them doing it as they were going to anyway." This smacks of pre-crime, and also goes against the UN charter (All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.). "Because they're bad people." Since when did America taking exception to a nation give you grounds to invade it?

The UN Charter is a class A joke.

The UN Charter is a class A joke.

The only " charter" the UN needs is for the BUS or Plane to get it the hell out of here.

The UN Charter is a class A joke.

Must be why the US pushed so hard for it and fought so much to get the UN going.

The original post is deliberately aggravating.
Make a thread about something you care about, not something you claim not to.

Get used to hearing about 9/11. You're going to hear about it for a long, long time. On that date,as well as weeks preceeding it.

If you dont like it, tough shit.

LMAO! :D

Must be why the US pushed so hard for it and fought so much to get the UN going.

And now it has been a big mistake. Like the league of nations, it is worthless. They do not do what needs to be done. They rather run away from a fight instead of confronting one it seems lately.

It is still a good idea but really...if people cared so much for this charter then why isn't the UN enforcing their own charter?

It is still a good idea but really...if people cared so much for this charter then why isn't the UN enforcing their own charter?
Because they weren't given any teeth to begin with. God forbid they having enough strength to enforce a resolution that effects one of the big powers!

And now it has been a big mistake. Like the league of nations, it is worthless. They do not do what needs to be done. They rather run away from a fight instead of confronting one it seems lately.

It is still a good idea but really...if people cared so much for this charter then why isn't the UN enforcing their own charter?


Because it was designed not to be able to. Why not name and shame the one who trys to undermine the small power they do have? The one who ignores the will of over 180 nations to its own ends.

Because it was designed not to be able to. Why not name and shame the one who trys to undermine the small power they do have? The one who ignores the will of over 180 nations to its own ends.

Because the UN is not a world government, nor is it even remotely democratic.

Because it was designed not to be able to. Why not name and shame the one who trys to undermine the small power they do have? The one who ignores the will of over 180 nations to its own ends.

Seems like people want to do something about Sudan but yet China and Russia don't seem to want to do anything about it. People complain about human rights violations elsewhere but when called upon to do something about it, they don't.

Like susan sontag wrote

"Where is the acknowledgment that this was not a 'cowardly' attack on 'civilization' or 'liberty' or 'humanity' or 'the free world' but an attack on the world's self-proclaimed superpower, undertaken as a consequence of specific American alliances and actions? How many citizens are aware of the ongoing American bombing of Iraq? And if the word "cowardly" is to be used, it might be more aptly applied to those who kill from beyond the range of retaliation, high in the sky, than to those willing to die themselves in order to kill others. In the matter of courage (a morally neutral virtue): Whatever may be said of the perpetrators of Tuesday's slaughter, they were not cowards."

The original post is deliberately aggravating.
Make a thread about something you care about, not something you claim not to.

Get used to hearing about 9/11. You're going to hear about it for a long, long time. On that date,as well as weeks preceeding it.

If you dont like it, tough shit.

its not about hearing about it. this thread is meant to be a wake-up call to get people out of their states of perpetual fear and moaning.

Like susan sontag wrote

"Where is the acknowledgment that this was not a 'cowardly' attack on 'civilization' or 'liberty' or 'humanity' or 'the free world' but an attack on the world's self-proclaimed superpower, undertaken as a consequence of specific American alliances and actions? How many citizens are aware of the ongoing American bombing of Iraq? And if the word "cowardly" is to be used, it might be more aptly applied to those who kill from beyond the range of retaliation, high in the sky, than to those willing to die themselves in order to kill others. In the matter of courage (a morally neutral virtue): Whatever may be said of the perpetrators of Tuesday's slaughter, they were not cowards."

Bah. Killing random civilians is cowardly. If they wanted to express their courage, they'd go toe-to-toe with the US military, or even the militaries of one of our proxies in the region. Instead they attacked unarmed bystanders, who had no way to fight back, save their own fists. Who had no idea what they were planning on doing. That is not courage.

That, my friend, is cowardly.

Bah. Killing random civilians is cowardly. If they wanted to express their courage, they'd go toe-to-toe with the US military, or even the militaries of one of our proxies in the region. Instead they attacked unarmed bystanders, who had no way to fight back, save their own fists. Who had no idea what they were planning on doing. That is not courage.

That, my friend, is cowardly.
I'm sure that thousands of Pashtun and Iraqis agree with you right there, as well as Vietnamese people still suffering from the mutations and devastion caused by Agent Orange.

It should be remember as a time when the pity of the world was utterly and dissapointingly misused to create more hatred, and nothing more.

its not about hearing about it. this thread is meant to be a wake-up call to get people out of their states of perpetual fear and moaning.

No-its a piece of trash to incite anger.

What "people" are you referring to? We dont need a "wake-up call"- there is no perpetual "fear and moaning" aside from what you've conjured in your imagination.
Its business as usual, people have gone on with their lives-they are more vigilant- but there is no fear. And no attacks since.

You're trying in vain to create trouble where there is none.

Today will forever be known as 9/11. Get used to it.

Like susan sontag wrote

"Where is the acknowledgment that this was not a 'cowardly' attack on 'civilization' or 'liberty' or 'humanity' or 'the free world' but an attack on the world's self-proclaimed superpower, undertaken as a consequence of specific American alliances and actions? How many citizens are aware of the ongoing American bombing of Iraq? And if the word "cowardly" is to be used, it might be more aptly applied to those who kill from beyond the range of retaliation, high in the sky, than to those willing to die themselves in order to kill others. In the matter of courage (a morally neutral virtue): Whatever may be said of the perpetrators of Tuesday's slaughter, they were not cowards."

Another twisted piece of shit, able to express her warped ideas by the very society she bangs her open mind against. Oddly, this wasnt written and published by an Iraqi before we chased sadaam into a hole, huh?

I'm sure that thousands of Pashtun and Iraqis agree with you right there, as well as Vietnamese people still suffering from the mutations and devastion caused by Agent Orange.

Not deliberate targetings of civilians, quite unlike the attacks on the World Trade Center.

its not about hearing about it. this thread is meant to be a wake-up call to get people out of their states of perpetual fear and moaning.

As the owl said, ORLY?

I see commemoration and sadness, not fear and moaning. A lament for those who were lost on this day five years ago.

Not deliberate targetings of civilians, quite unlike the attacks on the World Trade Center.
Please explain to me how Agent Blue was ever, ever not going to kill a whole bunch of civilians.

Or another example - the firebombing of Tokyo.

A deliberate attack on civilians that tens hundreds of thousands of people to "demoralise" the opposion.

You cannot do that and think that the US should ever be allowed to rest for one minute in happiness afterwards, after what it did.

Like susan sontag wrote

"Where is the acknowledgment that this was not a 'cowardly' attack on 'civilization' or 'liberty' or 'humanity' or 'the free world' but an attack on the world's self-proclaimed superpower, undertaken as a consequence of specific American alliances and actions? How many citizens are aware of the ongoing American bombing of Iraq? And if the word "cowardly" is to be used, it might be more aptly applied to those who kill from beyond the range of retaliation, high in the sky, than to those willing to die themselves in order to kill others. In the matter of courage (a morally neutral virtue): Whatever may be said of the perpetrators of Tuesday's slaughter, they were not cowards."

It was one of many attacks that radical Islamists have made against countries all over the world for decades. Or are we to assume that radical Islamists waging jihad in southern Thailand are a response to bad Thai foreign policy, radical Islamists waging jihad in southern Philippines are a response to bad Philippine foreign policy, radical Islamists bombing markets, buses, and the national congress in India are due to bad Indian foreign policy, radical Islamists waging jihad against black Sudanese are due to bad black Sudanese foreign policy, radical Islamists placing bombs in Cape Town back in 1998 was a response to bad South African foreign policy, radical Islamists planting bombs on Paris subways in 1995 was a response to bad French foreign policy, and it continues.... Is everyone else but Muslims to blame?

Please explain to me how Agent Blue was ever, ever not going to kill a whole bunch of civilians.

Or another example - the firebombing of Tokyo.

A deliberate attack on civilians that tens hundreds of thousands of people to "demoralise" the opposion.

You cannot do that and think that the US should ever be allowed to rest for one minute in happiness afterwards, after what it did.

Does this mean the UK should never be allowed to rest for one minute in happiness due to it's bombing of German cities in WW2, gassing of Iraq in WW2, support for apartheid in South Africa, and participating (along with the French, Spanish and others) in the near-extermination of the indigenous people of the Americas?

It was one of many attacks that radical Islamists have made against countries all over the world for decades. Or are we to assume that radical Islamists waging jihad in southern Thailand are a response to bad Thai foreign policy, radical Islamists waging jihad in southern Philippines are a response to bad Philippine foreign policy, radical Islamists bombing markets, buses, and the national congress in India are due to bad Indian foreign policy, radical Islamists waging jihad against black Sudanese are due to bad black Sudanese foreign policy, radical Islamists placing bombs in Cape Town back in 1998 was a response to bad South African foreign policy, radical Islamists planting bombs on Paris subways in 1995 was a response to bad French foreign policy, and it continues.... Is everyone else but Muslims to blame?

Yeah-its all the rest of us that are "cowardly".

"jihad"...more like sick,twisted hatred in primitive brains.

Ahh, this is so tired. Hardly anyone is "obsessed" with 9/11. I don't think it completely takes over anyones lives except from the people who study it and the people who were involved. It is respectful to remember those lost in the worst terrorsit attack to ever hit america.

The thing about 9/11 is, it shook the western world. It made people realise their vunrability. It was an incredibly important event, where the most important building in america was destroyed completey reshaping new york.

Does this mean the UK should never be allowed to rest for one minute in happiness due to it's bombing of German cities in WW2, gassing of Iraq in WW2, support for apartheid in South Africa, and participating (along with the French, Spanish and others) in the near-extermination of the indigenous people of the Americas?

The British Empire laid a hurting on many people for a long time, but dont try to use that logic with him. He loathes himself more than enough already.

Please explain to me how Agent Blue was ever, ever not going to kill a whole bunch of civilians.

Or another example - the firebombing of Tokyo.

A deliberate attack on civilians that tens hundreds of thousands of people to "demoralise" the opposion.

You cannot do that and think that the US should ever be allowed to rest for one minute in happiness afterwards, after what it did.

Agent Orange was a defoliant. It was designed to take away the cover that the VC and NVA used to hide their troop movements. That civilians died as a side effect is a tragedy, but it was not used for the purpose of killing civilians.

The firebombing of Tokyo was during the Second World War, which was the last war of the Great Powers. It was a Total War, in which victory could not be achieved by tactical means alone. That the firebombing of Tokyo, and the nuclear strikes against Hiroshima and Nagasaki occured, are tragedies is not in dispute. The majority of the people of Japan were willing to fight to the death for their God-Emperor, and short of denying them the ability to fight by striking from untouchable heights, they would have.

Another twisted piece of shit, able to express her warped ideas by the very society she bangs her open mind against. Oddly, this wasnt written and published by an Iraqi before we chased sadaam into a hole, huh?

You mean back before the iraqis learned how much worse things could be under the americans than under saddam?

Does this mean the UK should never be allowed to rest for one minute in happiness due to it's bombing of German cities in WW2, gassing of Iraq in WW2, support for apartheid in South Africa, and participating (along with the French, Spanish and others) in the near-extermination of the indigenous people of the Americas?
Yes.

In fact, Agent Blue is used extensively on lawns throughout the US. Is Chemlawn trying to exterminate Americans? I think not.

I completely forgot what day it was until someone mentioned it. Afterwards, I was like "oh..that sucks"...of course, that was more aimed at the fact that I had no clue what today was, besides Monday. Til about 3pm, I forgot it wasn't August anymore,lol

Yes, I'm terribly out of it.

I completely forgot what day it was until someone mentioned it. Afterwards, I was like "oh..that sucks"...of course, that was more aimed at the fact that I had no clue what today was, besides Monday. Til about 3pm, I forgot it wasn't August anymore,lol

Yes, I'm terribly out of it.

Is it still summer for you? Because that's how I am during the summer.

You mean back before the iraqis learned how much worse things could be under the americans than under saddam?

I'm not sure where you're looking, but you wont find an Iraqi saying its worse with Americans allowing them to set up an actual government and a constitution and vote and all that.
Not too many being "purged" these days. No too many watchin gtheir wives raped and babies killed before they are snuffed and dumped in the desert.
Not too many new mass graves. Not too many soccer players being punished for losing-I guess you forgot about the charming hussein boys snatching women off the street for an evening of rape then murder-On video tape?

Yeah- Things are worse in Iraq for the scumbag fucktard syrians and jordanians slipping accross the border to blow up markets and policemen.

The majority of Iraqis are glad we're still there. And they are glad sadaam ws dragged out of his shit hole socieopath sons are dead.
How about "chemical ali" ? Did we kill that fat fuck, or just catch him?

Honestly, It was 5 years ago, we should stop being obsessed with putting up these memorials, and realise that it happened. yes you may consider it a tragedy and all that, I'm not saying you should no, I'm just saying it should stop taking over your life.

Yes, I know that 3 thousand people die. but 4 thousand people die each day in africa because of starvation. you don't continue crying about that after 5 years like you are with 11/9, and the death toll from the resulting wars was much greater, yet you don't have that much of a problem. And what about the 2004 tsunami? and hurricane katrina? i'm not seeing special tributes for that. and I refuse to take that racist "it happened outside of my country" excuse for seing the tsunami as less of a tragedy.

lastly, many people as a result do not complain when there freedoms aretaken away from them because of this. You cannot protect something by destroying it. if the terrorist "hate freedom" why are people worldwide being drained of them. hello its what the terrorists wanted, we should not be their bitch. you may be saying "its not the terrorists who are doing this" but thats not what terrorism is. terroism is about using fear to get people, groups of people, or even entire countries do a specific thing. why els do you think its called terrorism.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42075000/jpg/_42075698_ap_muslim203.jpg
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5336596.stm

Jan Sobieski kept Europe safe from forced conversion to Islam. I would have thought you, a Pole, would know better.

Please explain to me how Agent Blue was ever, ever not going to kill a whole bunch of civilians.

Or another example - the firebombing of Tokyo.

A deliberate attack on civilians that tens hundreds of thousands of people to "demoralise" the opposion.

You cannot do that and think that the US should ever be allowed to rest for one minute in happiness afterwards, after what it did.

Ah yes... because lord knows, the Americans were treated so well with Pearl Harbor and Bataan. :rolleyes:

War is not a nice, clean game of Risk. Get over it.

Yes, instead we should establish a government of all the people, dedicated to the principle of the common good. Nevermind that particular mode of thinking lead directly to the greatest genocides of all time, killing tens of millions in Stalin's Russia, Cambodia and China.

It must be a strange sort of mentality that translates an attack on statist brutality into an endorsement of statist brutality.

Our current system is the worst system except all the other ones that have been tried.

Then perhaps it is time to try something new?

Is it still summer for you? Because that's how I am during the summer.

Nope, I've been back in classes for a month!

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42075000/jpg/_42075698_ap_muslim203.jpg
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5336596.stm

Jan Sobieski kept Europe safe from forced conversion to Islam. I would have thought you, a Pole, would know better.

Holy God! I'm not the only one around here acquainted with the Battle of Vienna?!?!?!

Holy God! I'm not the only one around here acquainted with the Battle of Vienna?!?!?!

Indeed. Thus why those unfamiliar with history are doomed to repeat it. :(

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42075000/jpg/_42075698_ap_muslim203.jpg
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5336596.stm

Jan Sobieski kept Europe safe from forced conversion to Islam. I would have thought you, a Pole, would know better.

yes. but there was massive armies. now is just isolated terror attacks. its a huge difference.

Indeed. Thus why those unfamiliar with history are doomed to repeat it. :(
Question is - will the winged Polish knights arrive in time to save the day again?

I've seen a great documentary on that last week - very interesting, high quality.

The only " charter" the UN needs is for the BUS or Plane to get it the hell out of here.
QFT! x 100 ^^^

Question is - will the winged Polish knights arrive in time to save the day again?

I've seen a great documentary on that last week - very interesting, high quality.

Nice!

They only come out when Poland is in very, very dire need and didn't sell itself out via the Librum Veto.

My guess is that GROM http://www.specialoperations.com/Foreign/Poland/Unit_Profile.htm will get the special uniforms when the first mosque shows up in Krakow...

http://www.cloud9photography.us/hrk/HRK000006_PolishknightPM.jpg

yes. but there was massive armies. now is just isolated terror attacks. its a huge difference.

"If you do not change with the times, it is all likely to go up in flames."
-- Otto von Bismarck


Isolated? What, you mean the attacks in Moscow, London, Madrid, Rome, New York, Washington DC, Ridyah, and the several thousand other places over the last thirty years (ie: USS Stark, the entire states of Israel & Iraq & Afghanistan) are okay because they're "isolated incidents"?!?

What's next, "just a little Holocaust" is okay? "Never mind Katyn Forrest", it was no big deal?

Please explain to me how Agent Blue was ever, ever not going to kill a whole bunch of civilians.

Or another example - the firebombing of Tokyo.

A deliberate attack on civilians that tens hundreds of thousands of people to "demoralise" the opposion.

You cannot do that and think that the US should ever be allowed to rest for one minute in happiness afterwards, after what it did.

Given that I was born nearly 40 years after the Tokyo firebombings occured, then yes, I think I ought to be obviated of guilt and responsibility for it.

Additionally, you don't seem to consider that 1) we didn't exactly start out the war with the Tokyo firebombings, only escalated to it in an effort to force Japanese unconditional surrender, and 2) in a total war, civilians are a legitemate military target, but we and Al Queda were not in a state of warfare, much less total warfare.

Like susan sontag wrote

"Where is the acknowledgment that this was not a 'cowardly' attack on 'civilization' or 'liberty' or 'humanity' or 'the free world' but an attack on the world's self-proclaimed superpower, undertaken as a consequence of specific American alliances and actions? How many citizens are aware of the ongoing American bombing of Iraq? And if the word "cowardly" is to be used, it might be more aptly applied to those who kill from beyond the range of retaliation, high in the sky, than to those willing to die themselves in order to kill others. In the matter of courage (a morally neutral virtue): Whatever may be said of the perpetrators of Tuesday's slaughter, they were not cowards."
And why should we care about what some moronic/post-modist/neo-leftist has to say? It sounds almost like it was coming right from some PC islamophile...

Edit: susan sontag! Then everything I said before (^) plus racist, sexist bitch! and 'x100'

Nice!

They only come out when Poland is in very, very dire need and didn't sell itself out via the Librum Veto.

My guess is that GROM http://www.specialoperations.com/Foreign/Poland/Unit_Profile.htm will get the special uniforms when the first mosque shows up in Krakow...

http://www.cloud9photography.us/hrk/HRK000006_PolishknightPM.jpg
Oh, the great part of the documentary was that the makers spiced it with live action scenes, too - not only those maps, military maps, stills, and whatnot.

Seeing them charge downhill really looked like the Lord's angels were riding into battle. Great scene!

[Is there a typical "brand" name for that kind of historical documentary? It's not a docu-drama, because it is solely based on historic accounts and facts - not simply the setting. Or is it docu-drama? I'm totally lost for words...]

Oh, the great part of the documentary was that the makers spiced it with live action scenes, too - not only those maps, military maps, stills, and whatnot.

Seeing them charge downhill really looked like the Lord's angels were riding into battle. Great scene!

[Is there a typical "brand" name for that kind of historical documentary? It's not a docu-drama, because it is solely based on historic accounts and facts - not simply the setting. Or is it docu-drama? I'm totally lost for words...]

Sounds cool! Do you have a link or know the title? Perhaps Amazon has it...

Yeah, docu-drama sounds the most likely.

Thats a good question actually. You would think people would move on and stop using to try to win elections with it or use it as an excuse to kill Arabs. Then again the jews still use the holocuast to kill Arabs I suppose I shouldn't be shocked. meh, the world's a crazy bitch, ain't it.

Sounds cool! Do you have a link or know the title? Perhaps Amazon has it...

Yeah, docu-drama sounds the most likely.
Here's what I could find on it:

Film by Judith Voelker und Christian Feyerabend; part 2 of a 3-part series.

Tag X - Wendepunkte der Geschichte (Day X - Tourning Points of History)

I. The Demise of the Aztecs
II. The Turks ante Vienna
III. The Assault on the Bastille

http://www.3sat.de/3sat.php?http://www.3sat.de/specials/90280/index.html
http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde/inhalt/27/0,1872,2392507,00.html
(I guess this one even has some videos on the right side...)

http://www.amazon.de/Tag-X-Wendepunkte-der-Geschichte/dp/B000FSLLUA/sr=8-1/qid=1158022601/ref=pd_ka_1/302-7463859-6481610?ie=UTF8&s=gateway

It's only available in German, though... Sorry if I got your hopes up - I had hoped it might have been one of those BBC productions, but apparently, it's German TV... Good for us, bad for you. But maybe they've sold it elsewhere? I mean, there are history channels all over the place, right?

http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde/img/45/0,1886,2593453,00.jpg

(BTW, they do call it a docu-drama. Ever heard of the term "histainment", though? Pretty much à la infotainment about history, I guess. Found it while looking for it.)

[Checked amazon.co.uk as well - guess what I found there?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0009P5YYI/ref=amb_link_22878865_2/026-0858300-9554008

Unbefuckingleavable!]

Here's what I could find on it:

Film by Judith Voelker und Christian Feyerabend; part 2 of a 3-part series.

Tag X - Wendepunkte der Geschichte (Day X - Tourning Points of History)

I. The Demise of the Aztecs
II. The Turks ante Vienna
III. The Assault on the Bastille

http://www.3sat.de/3sat.php?http://www.3sat.de/specials/90280/index.html
http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde/inhalt/27/0,1872,2392507,00.html
(I guess this one even has some videos on the right side...)

http://www.amazon.de/Tag-X-Wendepunkte-der-Geschichte/dp/B000FSLLUA/sr=8-1/qid=1158022601/ref=pd_ka_1/302-7463859-6481610?ie=UTF8&s=gateway

It's only available in German, though... Sorry if I got your hopes up - I had hoped it might have been one of those BBC productions, but apparently, it's German TV... Good for us, bad for you. But maybe they've sold it elsewhere? I mean, there are history channels all over the place, right?

(BTW, they do call it a docu-drama. Ever heard of the term "histainment", though? Pretty much à la infotainment about history, I guess. Found it while looking for it.)

[Checked amazon.co.uk as well - guess what I found there?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0009P5YYI/ref=amb_link_22878865_2/026-0858300-9554008

Unbefuckingleavable!]

Crap. My DVD player is only regions 1 & 4. :(

S'ok, I don't mind not understanding everything (No English or Polish subtitles?!) ...

Daleks! Still scarier than vampires!! :D

Thats a good question actually. You would think people would move on and stop using to try to win elections with it or use it as an excuse to kill Arabs. Then again the jews still use the holocuast to kill Arabs I suppose I shouldn't be shocked. meh, the world's a crazy bitch, ain't it.

The Israelis have killed Arabs because Arabs have tried to kill plenty of Israelis. Let's make the distinction clear, not all Jews live in Israel and not all Israelis are Jews. Perhaps the situation would be a bit different if the Arab powers in the region hadn't tried to drive the Israelis out on the first day of their Independence.

The Israelis have killed Arabs because Arabs have tried to kill plenty of Israelis. Let's make the distinction clear, not all Jews live in Israel and not all Israelis are Jews. Perhaps the situation would be a bit different if the Arab powers in the region hadn't tried to drive the Israelis out on the first day of their Independence.

perhaps the situation would be a bit different if the jews hadn't tried to drive out all the arabs in the region since the 1st day of their arrival in Palestine.

perhaps the situation would be a bit different if the jews hadn't tried to drive out all the arabs in the region since the 1st day of their arrival in Palestine.

Drive out. That's amusing. Last I checked the Arabs were advised to flee before the "advancing and inevitably victorious" armies of the Arab powers. Those that did so fled to refugee camps that they live in until this day. Those that didn't heed the advice of Egypt, Jordan and Syria, on the other hand, are full citizens in Israel, with all the rights and responsibilities that accompany Israeli citizenship. There are Arab MPs, there are Arab soldiers, there are Arab businesspeople. They have a higher quality of life than their ethnic bretheren in the surrounding countries.

The Israelis never tried to drive out the Arabs, the Arabs drove themselves out.

Drive out. That's amusing. Last I checked the Arabs were advised to flee before the "advancing and inevitably victorious" armies of the Arab powers. Those that did so fled to refugee camps that they live in until this day. Those that didn't heed the advice of Egypt, Jordan and Syria, on the other hand, are full citizens in Israel, with all the rights and responsibilities that accompany Israeli citizenship. There are Arab MPs, there are Arab soldiers, there are Arab businesspeople. They have a higher quality of life than their ethnic bretheren in the surrounding countries.

The Israelis never tried to drive out the Arabs, the Arabs drove themselves out.

Not quite there sport. Arabs only flew after hearing of slaughters committed by the Jews. When they tried to return home the jews denied them and took their homes.

Swilatia, you just don't get it. While it is a tragedy that so many die every year in Africa, that is a result of the constant in fighting going on there. When the Tsunami hit, the United States sent the 7th fleet to the area. They used the vast kitchens aboard their aircraft carriers to make bread for the people who survived, and used their generators to de-salinate, and then bottle water for the people.

9/11 was a direct, deliberate attack against a civillian structure with no millitary value. On that day, a group of mad men took a plane ful of innocents and turned it into a weapon. 9/11 was the biggest case of mass murder in the history of the planet. In less then four hours, 4 thousand people died. Not even Hitler could match that brutal effeciency.

That is why we remember, that is why we wage war against those responsible. That is why we seek to build a memorial.

Not quite there sport. Arabs only flew after hearing of slaughters committed by the Jews. When they tried to return home the jews denied them and took their homes.

What massacres? Besides those of Arab troops, who were clearly the aggressors, if you are to believe the US, the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom.

Oh, wait, it's just more of that same old 'J00's dR1nK aR48 b4b1E5 bL00d!!!!!11!!!!!!;