NationStates Jolt Archive

Ahh yes, the terrorist attacks of 9/11. About 3000 people dead. One of the worst days in American history. And we here on NationStates General debate over it and talk about it all the time. However, it does not seem to me that many people here have actually been affected by 9/11. So let me ask you two questions:

1. Were you directly affected by 9/11, whether you were in the area where the attacks took place or had a close family member killed in the disaster?

2. Do you think it is fine for people who were not directly affected by the disaster to rightfully talk about it, particulary in denying or in someway saying "it wasn't that bad", without causing great disrespect to those dead?

1) Yes, I was.

2) I tend to believe people can say whatever they damn well want to say. I also believe that although 9/11 was tragic, there are plenty of events that are just as much or more tragic in the world that people seem to pay basically no attention to. In all honesty, trying to put it into perspecitive, it wasn't that bad.

2) I tend to believe people can say whatever they damn well want to say. I also believe that although 9/11 was tragic, there are plenty of events that are just as much or more tragic in the world that people seem to pay basically no attention to. In all honesty, trying to put it into perspecitive, it wasn't that bad.

Ditto.

1. Were you directly affected by 9/11, whether you were in the area where the attacks took place or had a close family member killed in the disaster?

nope did miss the London bombing by a day though

2. Do you think it is fine for people who were not directly affected by the disaster to rightfully talk about it, particulary in denying or in someway saying "it wasn't that bad", without causing great disrespect to those dead?

Yep especially since it wasn’t in comparison

2) I tend to believe people can say whatever they damn well want to say. I also believe that although 9/11 was tragic, there are plenty of events that are just as much or more tragic in the world that people seem to pay basically no attention to. In all honesty, trying to put it into perspecitive, it wasn't that bad.

Heah, heah.

It is the issue that started the series of events that changed me from a slightly apathetic social progressive to a radical libertarian socialist. That is how it most affected me. It's a long story, but that's what started it.

1.) Nope.

2.) Yup, since it really wasn't that bad. A tsunami that kills 300 000, now that's bad. Two buildings collapsing killing 3000? Meh, more people than that starved to death on that day and they didn't get no 24/7 coverage for the rest of what seems to be freaking eternity... move on, already!

I have an uncle, aunty and two cousins who used to own an apartment in Manhatten. Immediatly after 11/9 we couln't contat them to see if they we alright and I took us over a day to get in touch with them.

So, not directly affected but scared nonetheless.

1. Were you directly affected by 9/11, whether you were in the area where the attacks took place or had a close family member killed in the disaster?nope, not that I know of. but does it matter? should we not care about the people starving in Africa because we don't personally know them? should we not care about those in Gitmo because we don't know them?

2. Do you think it is fine for people who were not directly affected by the disaster to rightfully talk about it, particulary in denying or in someway saying "it wasn't that bad", without causing great disrespect to those dead?People will say what ever they want, for what ever reason.

1) Yes, I was.Dam, that sucks.

2) I tend to believe people can say whatever they damn well want to say. I also believe that although 9/11 was tragic, there are plenty of events that are just as much or more tragic in the world that people seem to pay basically no attention to. In all honesty, trying to put it into perspecitive, it wasn't that bad.While I agree that 9/11 wasn't the most Tragic event, it was a shocking event. a very big difference in my opinion.

It actually affected me very directly. I make a very funny joke about ground zero and I get a week long ban from the forums.

So, yeah, it did affect me.

Otherwise, I agree with Fass. 3,000 dead? Pfft ... why is that such a big deal ... because they were Americans? Well ... maybe not all Americans, but you know what I mean.

We barely bat an eyelash when it comes to places like Darfur, Indonesia, or Rwanda ... but we expect the whole world to mourn with us and send their soldiers to die for us over 3,000 people who died in a legitimate military target.

Yah ...

1. Were you directly affected by 9/11, whether you were in the area where the attacks took place or had a close family member killed in the disaster?

No.

2. Do you think it is fine for people who were not directly affected by the disaster to rightfully talk about it, particulary in denying or in someway saying "it wasn't that bad", without causing great disrespect to those dead?

People can say whatever they want, but I find it funny that a large number of conservatives came out after the attacks proclaiming their love and sympathy for the citizens of New York, some a mere day after declaring NYC to be a "filthy cesspool", or a "den of liberalism," and also saying things to the affect that they wouldn't care if the entire city literally dropped off the map.

We barely bat an eyelash when it comes to places like Darfur, Indonesia, or Rwanda ... but we expect the whole world to mourn with us and send their soldiers to die for us over 3,000 people who died in a legitimate military target.

Yah ...

How is a building full of unarmed civilians a legitimate military target?

1. Were you directly affected by 9/11, whether you were in the area where the attacks took place or had a close family member killed in the disaster? Yes.

2. Do you think it is fine for people who were not directly affected by the disaster to rightfully talk about it, particulary in denying or in someway saying "it wasn't that bad", without causing great disrespect to those dead?

I think it's not bad in and of itself; it's the particularly crass way people go about it sometimes that gets under my skin.

Funny enough I get more pissed at morons who weren't here breathing in that crap and losing friends and family beating that drum as justification for every bit of asshattery masquerading as "patriotism" and "security".

but we expect the whole world to mourn with us and send their soldiers to die for us over 3,000 people who died in a legitimate military target.

That statement is so utterly idiotic and offensive that it deserves its own wing in the America-Haters' Hall of Shame.

"Legitimate military target" my ass. :upyours:

And I did know people (not immediate family members but acquaintances) in both the WTC and the Pentagon--fortunately they survived--and on their worst days they were better human beings than you can ever aspire to become.

That statement is so utterly idiotic and offensive that it deserves its own wing in the America-Haters' Hall of Shame.

Whatever you say, chief.

And I did know people (not immediate family members but acquaintances) in both the WTC and the Pentagon--fortunately they survived--and on their worst days they were better human beings than you can ever aspire to become.

So ..... people who went to work and got blown up are better human beings than me? Wow ... you're awesome. Someone dieing makes them better than me! Dahmer died .... is he better than me? Jim Jones died.

None of those people died for their country or in any form of heroics. They were simply at the wrong place at the wrong time. They're no different than the hungover guy who changes lanes at the wrong time and gets hit by an 18-wheeler.

They simply died. Something all humans do. Big freakin' deal.

I wasn't directly affected by the attacks, no, but they did affect me in the sense that they affected the rest of the country.

Jim Jones died.


Jim Jones was brilliant. I wish there were a million more like him out there. He was like chlorine for the gene pool.

Jim Jones was brilliant. I wish there were a million more like him out there. He was like chlorine for the gene pool.

Amen.

How indirect of a connection do you want? If it weren't for 9/11, Bush would have been toast in 2004, and we sure as hell wouldn't be in Iraq or Afghanistan right now. I've been affected by that, directly.

1. Were you directly affected by 9/11, whether you were in the area where the attacks took place or had a close family member killed in the disaster??I wasn't personally effected directly, but I have a second cousin in the Port Authority and he was one of only two people in his entire unit/group(?) not to be killed in it as he was of duty and didn't make it to the scene until after they collapsed.

2. Do you think it is fine for people who were not directly affected by the disaster to rightfully talk about it, particulary in denying or in someway saying "it wasn't that bad", without causing great disrespect to those dead?
I'd be upset about people saying that about any case of mass murder.

It actually affected me very directly. I make a very funny joke about ground zero and I get a week long ban from the forums.

So, yeah, it did affect me.

Otherwise, I agree with Fass. 3,000 dead? Pfft ... why is that such a big deal ... because they were Americans? Well ... maybe not all Americans, but you know what I mean.

We barely bat an eyelash when it comes to places like Darfur, Indonesia, or Rwanda ... but we expect the whole world to mourn with us and send their soldiers to die for us over 3,000 people who died in a legitimate military target.

Yah ...

a legitimate military target????

damn i want some of what your smoking...callous fool.

no one has said the suffering of people in darfur or the tragedy of the tsunami was less or more then the suffering of those that died in 911 or their families..cept maybe you.

maybe if you dropped your blind hatred and hypocracy...you may see americans are people too,and deserve the same respect as anyone else...i care about people in darfur,i care about people everywhere.
you seem to care about everyone..but americans...your a rascist and a hypocrite.

a legit military target..lol...yea all the asians,mexican,americans,germans..etc in suits working in some blah job all were secretly cia and military guys in disguise.

you callous pos hypocrite...you care so much for the suffering of the world,then dismiss this tragedy to further your political agenda..and write off the suffering of those involved by attempting to justify your crap by calling it a legit military target.....pathetic

guess the london subway was a legit target as well,unless your rascism only applies to americans.

newsflash...americans are made up of everyone of every class of every nationality in the world.

you make me sick...typical jerk that cant see past your stupid little political blinders and if it furthers your weak ass argument...dismiss the deaths of thousands...and my uncle.

i wont hold my breath for an apology or an omission that i was perhaps incorrect...people of your ilk never admit when they are incorrect....just like neocons do not,religous fanatics that blow innocent people up never do..see the irony..lol..your no better then a neo con or the crazy terrorist that kills innocents,as long as your blind hatred is fed,and it hurts those you disagree with.

your a real humanitarian!

you probably dont give to shits about darfur..only do cause you can use it as a club to beat up on the u.s.

i am truly sorry your so insecure and feel the need to follow your dogma,and gloat over the deaths of thousands to make yourself feel intellectually superiour or whatever twisted reason you have to justify the horror show your "heroes" perpetrated.

yea your real openminded..hahaahahaah

a legitimate military target????

damn i want some of what your smoking...callous fool.

no one has said the suffering of people in darfur or the tragedy of the tsunami was less or more then the suffering of those that died in 911 or their families..cept maybe you.

maybe if you dropped your blind hatred and hypocracy...you may see americans are people too,and deserve the same respect as anyone else...i care about people in darfur,i care about people everywhere.
you seem to care about everyone..but americans...your a rascist and a hypocrite.

a legit military target..lol...yea all the asians,mexican,americans,germans..etc in suits working in some blah job all were secretly cia and military guys in disguise.

you callous pos hypocrite...you care so much for the suffering of the world,then dismiss this tragedy to further your political agenda..and write off the suffering of those involved by attempting to justify your crap by calling it a legit military target.....pathetic

guess the london subway was a legit target as well,unless your rascism only applies to americans.

newsflash...americans are made up of everyone of every class of every nationality in the world.

you make me sick...typical jerk that cant see past your stupid little political blinders and if it furthers your weak ass argument...dismiss the deaths of thousands...and my uncle.

i wont hold my breath for an apology or an omission that i was perhaps incorrect...people of your ilk never admit when they are incorrect....just like neocons do not,religous fanatics that blow innocent people up never do..see the irony..lol..your no better then a neo con or the crazy terrorist that kills innocents,as long as your blind hatred is fed,and it hurts those you disagree with.

your a real humanitarian!

you probably dont give to shits about darfur..only do cause you can use it as a club to beat up on the u.s.

i am truly sorry your so insecure and feel the need to follow your dogma,and gloat over the deaths of thousands to make yourself feel intellectually superiour or whatever twisted reason you have to justify the horror show your "heroes" perpetrated.

yea your real openminded..hahaahahaah

Since your flaming seems to be a repeated problem, take a 3-day break and cool down.

Feel free to attack your opponent's arguments, but not their character.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia

1. I was about 600 miles from home (St. Louis, MO) on a job site (near Des Moines, IA). I was floored by the news. My company was trying to bring all the off-site employees back and my wife was freaking out.

After discussing it with her, we chose to stick out the job instead of running home. I had a rental car and could make it home in about 5 hours. The attacks hadn't occured near our home, and it seemed unlikely we'd be targeted at that point.

It still affected me greatly. I was sickened by the news. I was nervous things were about to get much worse. I worried I'd have to leave my family and go to war. I had no idea what was about to happen next, or if more attacks were imminent.

We donate our money and time to community service projects and charities. We attend flag dedication ceremonies, veterans ceremonies and celebrations, but none in my immediate family (including myself) have ever served. Yet we all consider ourselves extremely patriotic Americans. I don't know how anyone could NOT have felt directly affected, even if they were living in Southern California.

2. It's not fine for people to denigrate the situation. It's un-American, or in the case of non-citizens, anti-American.

Ahh yes, the terrorist attacks of 9/11. About 3000 people dead. One of the worst days in American history. And we here on NationStates General debate over it and talk about it all the time. However, it does not seem to me that many people here have actually been affected by 9/11. So let me ask you two questions:

1. Were you directly affected by 9/11, whether you were in the area where the attacks took place or had a close family member killed in the disaster?

2. Do you think it is fine for people who were not directly affected by the disaster to rightfully talk about it, particulary in denying or in someway saying "it wasn't that bad", without causing great disrespect to those dead?

1. No, I was not directly affected by it. However, because of it, my country was invaded, my imediate family an I were forced to leave our home, and many of my family and friends were killed.

2. All in all, it wasn't that bad. 3000 Americans were killed that day. In Iraq, a country that had absolutly nothing to do with the attack, 200000 people were killed.

2. All in all, it wasn't that bad. 3000 Americans were killed that day. In Iraq, a country that had absolutly nothing to do with the attack, 200000 people were killed.

More like 600,000+

:(

1. No, I was not directly affected by it. However, because of it, my country was invaded, my imediate family an I were forced to leave our home, and many of my family and friends were killed.

2. All in all, it wasn't that bad. 3000 Americans were killed that day. In Iraq, a country that had absolutly nothing to do with the attack, 200000 people were killed.

I'd say thats pretty directly affected... Where did you live?

Wow, I just read the line about the Twin Towers being a "legitimate military target". That's disgusting. I guess that means the speaker considers his/her place of work a "legitimate military target".

*surely this guy isn't an American...SURELY this guy isn't an American...*

That you believe civilians are fair game makes you evil. Civilians end up getting killed in wars, but no decent society deliberately targets them.

I'd say thats pretty directly affected... Where did you live?

It's a bogus post made by an anti-American leftist trying to make a point, erroneously at that. Shame.

1) No- but I have been affected the Oklahoma City Bombing, which wasn't the question but still thought I'd throw that out there...

2) I think people can say what they want. To me, it's tragic whenever any person dies. Yes, 3000 people isn't the tsunami, nor was it darfur, or Iraq, but it's silly to say that 3000 lives lost for no reason isn't a tragedy. People spend so much time trying to compare tragedy to tragedy, when in reality it's all horrible.

Wow, I just read the line about the Twin Towers being a "legitimate military target". That's disgusting. I guess that means the speaker considers his/her place of work a "legitimate military target".

*surely this guy isn't an American...SURELY this guy isn't an American...*

That you believe civilians are fair game makes you evil. Civilians end up getting killed in wars, but no decent society deliberately targets them.

You're like the fifth person in this thread to get all incensed about this. Let me ask you something. Was Hiroshima a legitimate military target? Nagasaki? Tokyo? Dresden? Berlin? Any of the civilian populations we bombed the hell out of in WWII? Let's bring it closer in time. What about all of those Vietnamese vilages? Or Baghdad? Tikrit? Ramadi? We've hit a shitload of civilians in wartime, so I doubt we've got much moral authority to be bitching when someone hits the financial center of the US. You may not like it, but there it is.

2) I think people can say what they want. To me, it's tragic whenever any person dies. Yes, 3000 people isn't the tsunami, nor was it darfur, or Iraq, but it's silly to say that 3000 lives lost for no reason isn't a tragedy. People spend so much time trying to compare tragedy to tragedy, when in reality it's all horrible.

Well said.

*gives you a cookie*

It's a bogus post made by an anti-American leftist trying to make a point, erroneously at that. Shame.

If you don't agree with the person, fine, but you don't have to accuse the person of lying without any proof.

You're like the fifth person in this thread to get all incensed about this. Let me ask you something. Was Hiroshima a legitimate military target? Nagasaki? Tokyo? Dresden? Berlin? Any of the civilian populations we bombed the hell out of in WWII? Let's bring it closer in time. What about all of those Vietnamese vilages? Or Baghdad? Tikrit? Ramadi? We've hit a shitload of civilians in wartime, so I doubt we've got much moral authority to be bitching when someone hits the financial center of the US. You may not like it, but there it is.
There were actual military reasons behind all of those. The 9/11 attacks were pretty much just because they wanted to kill civilians and to scare people. I don't think the US economy came much into it. That's not a legitimate reason for targeting anything.

What about all of those Vietnamese vilages?

Debateable. Oftentimes, it was impossible to distinguish between friend and foe. Waiting to find out was frequently fatal. The enemy could have been anywhere or anyone. Even a small child or an old lady could strike you down just as easily as a seasoned combat veteran. Some of our men became desperate - some would say pitiless - and adopted a "survive at any cost" mentality. The sweet little six-year-old with a package could easily be a suicide bomber. The old lady could have a booby trap, ready to blow you to smithereens at just the right moment. So many people were also cowed into submission by the enemy's terrorist tactics, that it was often impossible to know who was the enemy. Not that I'm excusing the war - hell, we committed some barbarous atrocities ourselves - but it wasn't as black or white as many people (not you, necessarily, but many people) make it out to be. This wasn't like World War II, where the enemy all wore uniforms and were clearly distinguishable. Here, it was a scary, hostile environment, where it was every man for himself, and some people, in order to survive, did some very pitiless things. Often times, "shoot first, ask questions later" was the only option available if you wanted to survive.

1. Well it depends. When they halted all aircraft traffic after 9/11, I wasn't able to fly. However, I don't think that would really count.

2. People can say whatever the hell they want, it's called the 1st amendment. It's a vital part of our society here in America. People can say the stupidest, most idiotic things they want to and it's all thanks to the 1st amendment. However with great freedom does come great responsibility.

I'd say thats pretty directly affected... Where did you live?

I used to live in Es Sukhne, but I feld to Badanah in Saudi Arabia.

It's a bogus post made by an anti-American leftist trying to make a point, erroneously at that. Shame.Anti-American: Yes, and proud of it. Leftist: No, more left-leaning centrist.
This is one of the reasons I hate your domineering country. You have the impenetrable arrogance to assume that nobody who disagrees with you could ever possibly be telling the truth. Either that or you can't find fault with my actual arguements and are grasping for straws.

*snip*

I hope you don't hate Americans as people. I opposed both this war and the first Gulf War, as well as the sanctions that killed over 500,000 Iraqis.

Ahh yes, the terrorist attacks of 9/11. About 3000 people dead. One of the worst days in American history. And we here on NationStates General debate over it and talk about it all the time. However, it does not seem to me that many people here have actually been affected by 9/11. So let me ask you two questions:

1. Were you directly affected by 9/11, whether you were in the area where the attacks took place or had a close family member killed in the disaster?

2. Do you think it is fine for people who were not directly affected by the disaster to rightfully talk about it, particulary in denying or in someway saying "it wasn't that bad", without causing great disrespect to those dead?
1. Economically, yes. My family's financial situation took a nosedive as my father was unable to get a new job since the job at his old company disappeared thanks to said company going bankrupt due to 9/11. We were evicted from our home and had to live at my Aunt Linda's house for a year thanks to my dad having that hard of a time finding a new job. (He's very specialized and is almost sixty-five. Take three guesses as to why that was hard.) That home was a three person house at the most, and had three large dogs(two were my Aunt Linda's) a cat(my Aunt Linda's) and seven people: my three siblings, my two parents, and my Aunt. I shared the bathroom as a bedroom with my little brother for that entire year.

2. I think people have the right to say whatever the hell they want, regardless of whether it offends me or not.

1. Yes
2. Yes

I hope you don't hate Americans as people. I opposed both this war and the first Gulf War, as well as the sanctions that killed over 500,000 Iraqis.

Ok, I can see how you can oppose the second Iraq War, but why the first, and Saddam killed the kurds by himself, he didn't need sanctions to do that.

1. Yes
2. Yes

ok this is a serious question, but would you mind telling us how you were affected? j/w.

You're like the fifth person in this thread to get all incensed about this. Let me ask you something. Was Hiroshima a legitimate military target? Nagasaki? Tokyo? Dresden? Berlin? Any of the civilian populations we bombed the hell out of in WWII? Let's bring it closer in time. What about all of those Vietnamese vilages? Or Baghdad? Tikrit? Ramadi? We've hit a shitload of civilians in wartime, so I doubt we've got much moral authority to be bitching when someone hits the financial center of the US. You may not like it, but there it is.

To be fair, yes, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, Dresden, Berlin... were all legitamate military targets. Including London, Pearl Harbor, Midway... etc...

However, the WTC was not targeted by a Military, but by an Ad Hoc group acting outside the authority of any Nation's Duley Recognized Military.

Now was Baghdad or Tikrit bombed in the same way as Dresdin, Berlin, London, or even Hiroshima? No. the reason is because weapons became more precise, more acturate. Carpet bombing was no longer needed to insure destruction of Military targets. That's not saying that a misfire or wayward bomb never happens now. but it's less likely to happen than in WWII.

Were charges brought up on those who ordered and participated in the razing of those villiages in Vietnam? Most of em yes. (and I say most because some may have cut a deal to get out of punnishment, and others may have gotten away with it.)

Was the WTC the Financial Center of the US? No. That would be The Treasury Dept and the US Mints. Even if they were guarded against such an attack, the fact that it would've forced us to shoot down our own civilan planes would've also damaged morale.

Did the WTC hold any value outside being a symbol of captialism? No Wall Street has a better value than the WTC and would've caused more damage to the US financially than the WTC.

Ok, I can see how you can oppose the second Iraq War, but why the first, and Saddam killed the kurds by himself, he didn't need sanctions to do that.

It was none of our business. That war largely happened because of us. Our ambassador gave him the green light to invade Kuwait. April something, I forget her name.

why the first,

Congo-Kinshasa's right about it. Killing thousands of people to replace one tyranny with another hardly seems a worthy aim.

Not to mention the fact that the US repeatedly rebuffed attempted settlements, insisting upon unconditional withdrawal.

and Saddam killed the kurds by himself, he didn't need sanctions to do that.

You have your chronology wrong. Hussein's greatest atrocities against the Kurds occurred years before the sanctions.

I used to live in Es Sukhne, but I feld to Badanah in Saudi Arabia.
I'm sorry to hear that.

Anti-American: Yes, and proud of it. Leftist: No, more left-leaning centrist.
This is one of the reasons I hate your domineering country. You have the impenetrable arrogance to assume that nobody who disagrees with you could ever possibly be telling the truth. Either that or you can't find fault with my actual arguements and are grasping for straws.

I hope you don't believe that's true of all Americans. We tend to be a greatly varied people. Although if I were in your position I would probably have a pretty decent hatred of America myself.

There were actual military reasons behind all of those. The 9/11 attacks were pretty much just because they wanted to kill civilians and to scare people. I don't think the US economy came much into it. That's not a legitimate reason for targeting anything.

That's true.

However, let's examine it from a non-biased perspective for a moment. Let's say I was a country at war with the United States. One of the problems with being at war with the United States is the sheer ability of the U.S. to pull together various economic resources to fuel their war machine. Therefore, it would be in my best interest to cripple the U.S. economy. What's one of the best ways to do this?

Attack the World Trade Center. It was, in essence, the center of the U.S. economy, along with Wall Street. Not too sure if it still is at the moment, but I think you see where people are going with this. In this sense, it IS a legitimate military target.

It was none of our business. That war largely happened because of us. Our ambassador gave him the green light to invade Kuwait. April something, I forget her name.

Ok, umm, any proof of this? I mean we would look pretty stupid telling Saddam that he could invade Kuwait and then tell him that he couldn't.

It was none of our business. That war largely happened because of us. Our ambassador gave him the green light to invade Kuwait. April something, I forget her name.
April Glaspie, and it's neither confrimed nor denied that such a "Green Light" was given.

That's true.

However, let's examine it from a non-biased perspective for a moment. Let's say I was a country at war with the United States. One of the problems with being at war with the United States is the sheer ability of the U.S. to pull together various economic resources to fuel their war machine. Therefore, it would be in my best interest to cripple the U.S. economy. What's one of the best ways to do this?

Attack the World Trade Center. It was, in essence, the center of the U.S. economy, along with Wall Street. Not too sure if it still is at the moment, but I think you see where people are going with this. In this sense, it IS a legitimate military target.How was the World Trade Center the center of the entire U.S. economy?

April Glaspie, and it's neither confrimed nor denied that such a "Green Light" was given.

Glaspie, thanks. I'd forgotten. :)

*gives you a cookie*

That's true.

However, let's examine it from a non-biased perspective for a moment. Let's say I was a country at war with the United States. One of the problems with being at war with the United States is the sheer ability of the U.S. to pull together various economic resources to fuel their war machine. Therefore, it would be in my best interest to cripple the U.S. economy. What's one of the best ways to do this?

Attack the World Trade Center. It was, in essence, the center of the U.S. economy, along with Wall Street. Not too sure if it still is at the moment, but I think you see where people are going with this. In this sense, it IS a legitimate military target.the WTC has no Financial power in the US. Nothing happened when those towers fell.

now if they attacked the NYSE or Wall street... or did a simultanious attack on both US Tresury Mints... then the story would be different.

I hope you don't hate Americans as people. I opposed both this war and the first Gulf War, as well as the sanctions that killed over 500,000 Iraqis.

I try not to, but it's very hard to remember that it wasn't the mjority or people who were responible. The only Americans I've ever actually sen were rolling through my village in tanks, shooting everyone they saw. I've met many nice Westerners on the internet, though, and I'm trying to keep my feelings about the country and the people separate.

Ok, umm, any proof of this? I mean we would look pretty stupid telling Saddam that he could invade Kuwait and then tell him that he couldn't.

In a nutshell, he asked if we would do anything if he invaded Kuwait. We told him it was none of our business. So, he invaded. Next thing you know, Bush 1 is ranting about the "Hitler of the Middle East."

To be fair, yes, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, Dresden, Berlin... were all legitamate military targets. Including London, Pearl Harbor, Midway... etc...

However, the WTC was not targeted by a Military, but by an Ad Hoc group acting outside the authority of any Nation's Duley Recognized Military.

Now was Baghdad or Tikrit bombed in the same way as Dresdin, Berlin, London, or even Hiroshima? No. the reason is because weapons became more precise, more acturate. Carpet bombing was no longer needed to insure destruction of Military targets. That's not saying that a misfire or wayward bomb never happens now. but it's less likely to happen than in WWII.

Were charges brought up on those who ordered and participated in the razing of those villiages in Vietnam? Most of em yes. (and I say most because some may have cut a deal to get out of punnishment, and others may have gotten away with it.)

Was the WTC the Financial Center of the US? No. That would be The Treasury Dept and the US Mints. Even if they were guarded against such an attack, the fact that it would've forced us to shoot down our own civilan planes would've also damaged morale.

Did the WTC hold any value outside being a symbol of captialism? No Wall Street has a better value than the WTC and would've caused more damage to the US financially than the WTC.

I generally agree with your assessment.

I would also like to further make mention of the fact that the airliners that were hijacked were not legitimate military targets either.

I try not to, but it's very hard to remember that it wasn't the mjority or people who were responible. The only Americans I've ever actually sen were rolling through my village in tanks, shooting everyone they saw. I've met many nice Westerners on the internet, though, and I'm trying to keep my feelings about the country and the people separate.

Thanks.

By the way, you have my deepest condolences. :(

In a nutshell, he asked if we would do anything if he invaded Kuwait. We told him it was none of our business. So, he invaded. Next thing you know, Bush 1 is ranting about the "Hitler of the Middle East."

Wern't we asked to get involved by the Kuwait government?

In a nutshell, he asked if we would do anything if he invaded Kuwait. We told him it was none of our business. So, he invaded.

It's not clear she knew what she was doing, though. She may have misunderstood his intentions.

Glaspie, thanks. I'd forgotten. :)

*gives you a cookie*

Thanks. *munch!* mmmm chewy... :D

That's true.

However, let's examine it from a non-biased perspective for a moment. Let's say I was a country at war with the United States. One of the problems with being at war with the United States is the sheer ability of the U.S. to pull together various economic resources to fuel their war machine. Therefore, it would be in my best interest to cripple the U.S. economy. What's one of the best ways to do this?

Attack the World Trade Center. It was, in essence, the center of the U.S. economy, along with Wall Street. Not too sure if it still is at the moment, but I think you see where people are going with this. In this sense, it IS a legitimate military target.
Al-Qaida isn't a country, for starters. The WTC may be a legitimate military target, but IMO it should actually be attacked for the reasons that make it a legitimate military target, rather than just to kill lots of civilians. Besides, money is not really an issue in fighting terrorism. We all know how well the War on Terror is going, and even with adequate funding for the troops it would be a hard struggle. It's not like the terrorists are intending to launch a military invasion of the USA. Economic power is needed to fight, but not so much to do the hearts-and-minds thing which is just as important to stop terrorism.

I hope you don't believe that's true of all Americans. We tend to be a greatly varied people. Although if I were in your position I would probably have a pretty decent hatred of America myself.

I know. I've talked to many online who are very nice, reasonable people. I keep reminding myself that I hate America, not Americans.

It's not clear she knew what she was doing, though. She may have misunderstood his intentions.

That would seem to be most likely, Saddam never was a "direct" kind of guy.

It's not clear she knew what she was doing, though. She may have misunderstood his intentions.

Even so, it was pretty stupid, IMO.

I try not to, but it's very hard to remember that it wasn't the mjority or people who were responible. The only Americans I've ever actually sen were rolling through my village in tanks, shooting everyone they saw. I've met many nice Westerners on the internet, though, and I'm trying to keep my feelings about the country and the people separate.OWWW...

sorry to hear that... they actually were shooting everyone they saw... man that sucks.

Hope you got outta there. and I hope you get to go back someday. :(

In a nutshell, he asked if we would do anything if he invaded Kuwait. We told him it was none of our business. So, he invaded. Next thing you know, Bush 1 is ranting about the "Hitler of the Middle East."
you have a transcript of this?

In a nutshell, he asked if we would do anything if he invaded Kuwait. We told him it was none of our business. So, he invaded. Next thing you know, Bush 1 is ranting about the "Hitler of the Middle East."

Actually, April Glaspie told him that the matter seemed to be of little importance, as at the time it seemed to be a mere border dispute that would be settled by the usual means these things are. That in such a dispute over stuff regarding the location of the border, the United States would not take a position. This is the US NOT being an imperialist power, and intentionally keeping its fingers out of other people's shit, on what was viewed as a very minor issue in the greater scheme of things, and an issue that was believed to be unlikely to cause a war.

Furthermore, the Iraqi troops on the Kuwaiti border were widely viewed as being there for little more than the purpose of bluster. That Hussein was trying to scare the Kuwaitis, not invade them.

Instead it wound up being yet another one of America's great diplomatic communications. It probably ranks up there with Acheson's speech, in which he didn't include the ROK in the US Pacific Defense Perimeter, and the NK's viewed it as permission to go after the ROK.

Never, ever make a conspiracy out of incompetence.

Thanks.

By the way, you have my deepest condolences. :(

Thank you.

And anyone who lost soeone they cared about in th 9/11 attacks has mine.

]you have a transcript of this?

The wikipedia article on the Gulf War might have something.

That's true.

However, let's examine it from a non-biased perspective for a moment. Let's say I was a country at war with the United States. One of the problems with being at war with the United States is the sheer ability of the U.S. to pull together various economic resources to fuel their war machine. Therefore, it would be in my best interest to cripple the U.S. economy. What's one of the best ways to do this?

Attack the World Trade Center. It was, in essence, the center of the U.S. economy, along with Wall Street. Not too sure if it still is at the moment, but I think you see where people are going with this. In this sense, it IS a legitimate military target.

Hmm. I'm not convinced. Horrible though area bombing was, it did actually degrade warfighting capability and divert industrial production away from supplying the front and into air defence. Hitting financial 'centers' doesn't really achieve anything much insofar as degrading millitary capacity goes.

You can argue about the whys and wherefores of hiroshima and nagasaki forever, but it probably did save lives on both sides.

In any case, if you accept that the World Trade Center was a legitmate millitary target, then you can't complain about any subsequent civilian casualties on the other side.

It's not clear she knew what she was doing, though. She may have misunderstood his intentions.

She absolutely misunderstood his intentions, because the information she, as well as President Bush, was receiving from the USIC was fundamentally flawed. The opinion of the USIC was that Hussein was just blustering, and didn't actually plan to use his forces.

The wikipedia article on the Gulf War might have something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie

There isn't an exact transcript, but this one has several of the comments that were believed to have been said.

the WTC has no Financial power in the US. Nothing happened when those towers fell.

now if they attacked the NYSE or Wall street... or did a simultanious attack on both US Tresury Mints... then the story would be different.

Yes, that's why my dad's company went bankrupt and all that jazz.

The W.T.C. had more power than we think. It didn't have the traditional power, true, but it did hold important offices for an enormous number of companies, and that, I guarentee you, harmed the economy. Note that I stated it was only part of the picture. Obviously one would attack the U.S. Treasury and the New York Stock Exchange as well as Wall Street and the World Trade Center.

Probably wouldn't hurt to smash the mints while we're at it.

Lacadaemon: I don't complain about civilian casualities. I do, of course, wish they would not occur, and quite frankly if no human ever warred with another human ever again I would be happy as a clam, but I don't complain about civilian casualities. They happen in wars. Rather than spend time complaining about them, let's do what we can to stop the wars that cause them, yah?

OWWW...

sorry to hear that... they actually were shooting everyone they saw... man that sucks.

Hope you got outta there. and I hope you get to go back someday. :(


Yes. I live in Saudi Arabia now. I do miss Iraq, but I doubt very much my family will get to go back for several generations. What people need to realize is that democracy will not work in Iraq, at least not in the short term. It would be nice to have it eventually, but what we need right now is someone who can keep the Sunni and Shi'ites under control like Sadam did, but without being so evil and fascist.

2. All in all, it wasn't that bad. 3000 Americans were killed that day. In Iraq, a country that had absolutly nothing to do with the attack, 200000 people were killed.

Correct. It had nothing to do with the September 11 attacks, instead it had everything to do with a perceived threat to American interests in the region originating from the Hussein regime. In reality there was no threat, but, welcome to the real world. People screw up, and lot's of folks die. That it had to affect you is downright dreadful, and I'd apologize for the actions of my elected government, if I had the ability to vote for them when they came into office, but I didn't.

At least we don't fight world wars anymore.

Al-Qaida isn't a country, for starters. The WTC may be a legitimate military target, but IMO it should actually be attacked for the reasons that make it a legitimate military target, rather than just to kill lots of civilians. Besides, money is not really an issue in fighting terrorism. We all know how well the War on Terror is going, and even with adequate funding for the troops it would be a hard struggle. It's not like the terrorists are intending to launch a military invasion of the USA. Economic power is needed to fight, but not so much to do the hearts-and-minds thing which is just as important to stop terrorism.
I wasn't stating that Al-Queda was a country, nor was I attempting to justify their attack upon the W.T.C. I was merely stating how the W.T.C. could potentially be a legitimate military target.

Catch-All: So you're from Iraq? First, my apologies for my country's invasion of yours. Second, you write English wonderfully(presuming it's not your first language, which might be a bad assumption.) Thirdly, I find it odd that Nationstates would be a legally accessible website in Saudi Arabia. I thought they were rather iffy on free speech and all that jazz.

Yes. I live in Saudi Arabia now. I do miss Iraq, but I doubt very much my family will get to go back for several generations. What people need to realize is that democracy will not work in Iraq, at least not in the short term. It would be nice to have it eventually, but what we need right now is someone who can keep the Sunni and Shi'ites under control like Sadam did, but without being so evil and fascist.

Yes, but the fact that Saddam was evil and corrupted, and that he was able to rule with an iron fist was the reason he was able to keep order. How much talk is going on in Iraq about splitting up the country into three parts?

The wikipedia article on the Gulf War might have something.

you mean this article?

In late July, 1990, as negotiations between Iraq and Kuwait stalled, Iraq massed troops on Kuwait’s borders and summoned American Ambassador April Glaspie for an unanticipated meeting with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Two transcripts of that meeting have been produced, both of them controversial. According to the transcripts, Saddam outlined his grievances against Kuwait, while promising that he would not invade Kuwait before one more round of negotiations. In the version published by The New York Times on September 23, 1990, Glaspie expressed concern over the troop buildup, but went on to say:

"We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late ’60s. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via [Chadli] Klibi [then Arab League General Secretary] or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly."
so the wiki article quotes one part of one Version out of two transcripts and what is quoted is April hoping Saddam uses negoiations to resolve this border dispute.

"No Opinion" means that the US is not going to tell Saddam what to do, but not that they won't react to what he does. Diplomacy... gotta love the double speak. anything else could've been taken as a threat to Iraq or Saddam... even to the point of the US siding with Kuwait.

Saddam, however, probably took the No Opinion to mean "The US is Neutral and would not stand in your way." and we didn't. Saddam invaded Kuwait and we didn't try to stop him. however we, and several other nations at the time, did kick him out of Kuwait... :p

In terms of question number one, no. I literally went to bed on September 11 and the World Trade Center was still standing. I awoke at 6:13am on September 12 and the World Trade Center was gone - it had all happened in my sleep

In terms of question number two, people can, even if they were not directly effected by it, speak about it without causing disrespect. After all, we debate Pearl Harbor, the atomic bombing and so on. Why not the same about September 11.

In terms of this comment

You're like the fifth person in this thread to get all incensed about this. Let me ask you something. Was Hiroshima a legitimate military target? Nagasaki? Tokyo? Dresden? Berlin? Any of the civilian populations we bombed the hell out of in WWII? Let's bring it closer in time. What about all of those Vietnamese vilages? Or Baghdad? Tikrit? Ramadi? We've hit a shitload of civilians in wartime, so I doubt we've got much moral authority to be bitching when someone hits the financial center of the US. You may not like it, but there it is.

Nagasaki was certainly legitimate - it was in that city that the arms that were used on Sunday, December 7, 1941. It was also one of the largest ports in southern Japan (remembering that Operation Downfall was still going to go ahead).

Hiroshima was also a legitimate military target - it was the centre of army operations in southern Japan (again, remember about Operation Downfall), as well as being a minor logistics and supply base.

Berlin was also legitimate - it was the capital of Nazi Germany, and like London, was very symbolic of the enemy.

Also, in terms of people saying that it was minor compared with other disasters. Number one, this disaster was completely avoidable. The Boxing Day Tsunami was not. Also, in one day, disaster records that had stood for at least a decade and a half disappeared. If you include ground casualties, September 11 was the worst aviation disaster in history (took over from Tenerife, 1977), the worst aviation disaster involving a single aircraft (American Flight 11 with over a thousand deaths took over from JAL Flight 123, 1985), the worst attack involving aircraft on US soil (took over from Pearl Harbor, 1941), and no doubt many other horrible records.

Just my ten cents

Yes, that's why my dad's company went bankrupt and all that jazz.

The W.T.C. had more power than we think. It didn't have the traditional power, true, but it did hold important offices for an enormous number of companies, and that, I guarentee you, harmed the economy. Note that I stated it was only part of the picture. Obviously one would attack the U.S. Treasury and the New York Stock Exchange as well as Wall Street and the World Trade Center.

Probably wouldn't hurt to smash the mints while we're at it.
Sorry to sound so Callous, but alot of companies went under when the WTC fell. but on the whole, the US Economy was not affected.

The thing that no one really mentioned, is that alot of the offices in the WTC were also International Companies, so alot of companies overseas were also shut down. thus it wasn't an attack on the US economy, but Global Markets as well. that also diffused the effect on the US economy.

The attack on the WTC was mainly symbolic. Nothing more. it wasn't a military target, but a symbolic one.

that is not to say the loss of life is thus trivialized. no. this is just an argument against the idea that the WTC was a Legitamate Military Target.

Catch-All: So you're from Iraq? First, my apologies for my country's invasion of yours. Second, you write English wonderfully(presuming it's not your first language, which might be a bad assumption.) Thirdly, I find it odd that Nationstates would be a legally accessible website in Saudi Arabia. I thought they were rather iffy on free speech and all that jazz.
Apology accepted.
Thank you. I'm mostly self-taught. My husband dosn't approv, but I already knew it by the time I married him, so there's not much he can do.
In some ways. The media is strictly controlled, but the internet is surprisingly unrestricted.

Yes, but the fact that Saddam was evil and corrupted, and that he was able to rule with an iron fist was the reason he was able to keep order. How much talk is going on in Iraq about splitting up the country into three parts?
I don't know, since I haven't been there for three years.

Yes. I live in Saudi Arabia now. I do miss Iraq, but I doubt very much my family will get to go back for several generations. What people need to realize is that democracy will not work in Iraq, at least not in the short term. It would be nice to have it eventually, but what we need right now is someone who can keep the Sunni and Shi'ites under control like Sadam did, but without being so evil and fascist.

I wonder... How do you feel about this Idea.

what if Iraq was divided like Germany was. into one where the Sunni's live and govern themselves, and the other where the Shi'ites live and govern themselves and so forth and what not.

I am an outsider, thus the specifics of each faction's lifestyles and customs do escape me, but to me, it seems that the Sunni and Shi'ites really mistrust each other. so by seperating them and then slowly, and I do mean slowly... intergrating them seems like a better plan than what's going on now. say keep the country seperated, but have a central seat where all sides can meet to govern Iraq as a whole, while each side maintains their own government. do you think that might work? (like any of us really have the power to put such a plan into action.)

Correct. It had nothing to do with the September 11 attacks, instead it had everything to do with a perceived threat to American interests in the region originating from the Hussein regime. In reality there was no threat, but, welcome to the real world. People screw up, and lot's of folks die. That it had to affect you is downright dreadful, and I'd apologize for the actions of my elected government, if I had the ability to vote for them when they came into office, but I didn't.

At least we don't fight world wars anymore.

That's a little harsh.

1. No
2. Yes

Apology accepted.
Thank you. I'm mostly self-taught. My husband dosn't approv, but I already knew it by the time I married him, so there's not much he can do.
In some ways. The media is strictly controlled, but the internet is surprisingly unrestricted. You go Girl! WHOOOT! :cool:

:D

That's a little harsh.

The world is harsh.

Nagasaki was certainly legitimate - it was in that city that the arms that were used on Sunday, December 7, 1941. It was also one of the largest ports in southern Japan (remembering that Operation Downfall was still going to go ahead).

Hiroshima was also a legitimate military target - it was the centre of army operations in southern Japan (again, remember about Operation Downfall), as well as being a minor logistics and supply base.

Berlin was also legitimate - it was the capital of Nazi Germany, and like London, was very symbolic of the enemy.

A city is never a legitimate military target. Certain sites within a city might be, but not the city as a whole.

Similarly, if al-Qaeda nuked Washington DC, that would not be legitimate however many government buildings there are there.

The world is harsh.

Yes, thats why I only said it was a little harsh. There is probably a bit more sensitive way you could have said that.

A city is never a legitimate military target. Certain sites within a city might be, but not the city as a whole.

Similarly, if al-Qaeda nuked Washington DC, that would not be legitimate however many government buildings there are there.

agreed, but also take into account the accuracy of the weapons during that time period. dropping a bomb on a factory during the 1940's was a lot harder than sending a laser targeted missile to the target.

I'm not saying it's right, but back then, Carpet Bombing was used to insure that military targets were hit.

also targets back then were Identified by the city they were in, and not by the building. again, a testiment to spy tech then and now.


can you imagine today's tech back then? Final Countdown anyone? (for those who never saw the movie, the USS Nimitz is sent back to time to December, 1941. and they have a chance to prevent Pearl Harbor from occuring. F-14's taking on Japanese Zeros.... :D )

A city is never a legitimate military target. Certain sites within a city might be, but not the city as a whole.

Similarly, if al-Qaeda nuked Washington DC, that would not be legitimate however many government buildings there are there.

Now a days? Yes, a city isn't a legetimate target. By the accuracy of the tech of the time? I can see it being a bit more upon to debate, at least in regards to say London and Berlin, don't want this to turn into another debate on teh use of the bomb against Japan.

I wonder... How do you feel about this Idea.

what if Iraq was divided like Germany was. into one where the Sunni's live and govern themselves, and the other where the Shi'ites live and govern themselves and so forth and what not.

I am an outsider, thus the specifics of each faction's lifestyles and customs do escape me, but to me, it seems that the Sunni and Shi'ites really mistrust each other. so by seperating them and then slowly, and I do mean slowly... intergrating them seems like a better plan than what's going on now. say keep the country seperated, but have a central seat where all sides can meet to govern Iraq as a whole, while each side maintains their own government. do you think that might work? (like any of us really have the power to put such a plan into action.)
It does sound good in theory, but I very much doubt the two sides would cooperate enough to organize such a thing. Plus thy would ach be squabbling over who gets what land and who lives in each one, etc.

I'm sorry, but I have to leave now. I'll be back soon.

Yes, thats why I only said it was a little harsh. There is probably a bit more sensitive way you could have said that.

In person I'm nice, quiet and reserved. I'm a generally agreeable fellow. To counter this, and blow off steam, this is where I release the ol' boy. Anonymity is great for that sort of thing, you know?

If I'm not harsh here, the aggression gets pent up and makes me unhappy.

Sorry to sound so Callous, but alot of companies went under when the WTC fell. but on the whole, the US Economy was not affected.

The thing that no one really mentioned, is that alot of the offices in the WTC were also International Companies, so alot of companies overseas were also shut down. thus it wasn't an attack on the US economy, but Global Markets as well. that also diffused the effect on the US economy.

The attack on the WTC was mainly symbolic. Nothing more. it wasn't a military target, but a symbolic one.

that is not to say the loss of life is thus trivialized. no. this is just an argument against the idea that the WTC was a Legitamate Military Target.
Aye, you do present some good points there. I still think it is legitimate enough if combined with attacks upon other sites, however, seeing as how it did still end up putting the U.S. into a recession(though it may have ended up in said recession regardless, due to the business cycle and all that. Forgive me, but my knowledge of economics is high school at best, and as such I am hardly an authority upon the subject.)

The world is harsh.

Lol owned.

Aye, you do present some good points there. I still think it is legitimate enough if combined with attacks upon other sites, however, seeing as how it did still end up putting the U.S. into a recession(though it may have ended up in said recession regardless, due to the business cycle and all that. Forgive me, but my knowledge of economics is high school at best, and as such I am hardly an authority upon the subject.)

what was not known is that a Major Internet Routing Hub is located at the WTC. Had the first attack on the WTC succeeded, then the results would be different. Even we, in Hawaii, had our systems go down because of that first bombing. but because of that failed attack, backup routes and redudnant systems were put into place, minimizing the impact should anything happen to the WTC.

It does sound good in theory, but I very much doubt the two sides would cooperate enough to organize such a thing. Plus thy would ach be squabbling over who gets what land and who lives in each one, etc.

I'm sorry, but I have to leave now. I'll be back soon.

well, that's where the UN/US steps in.

They settle things and puts "Peacekeeping" forces to insure that no one goes "Jihad" on the other.

anyhoo... that's my home brewed solution to the Iraq fiasco... Night!

Ahh yes, the terrorist attacks of 9/11. About 3000 people dead. One of the worst days in American history. And we here on NationStates General debate over it and talk about it all the time. However, it does not seem to me that many people here have actually been affected by 9/11. So let me ask you two questions:

1. Were you directly affected by 9/11, whether you were in the area where the attacks took place or had a close family member killed in the disaster?

2. Do you think it is fine for people who were not directly affected by the disaster to rightfully talk about it, particulary in denying or in someway saying "it wasn't that bad", without causing great disrespect to those dead?
I did not have family or friends in New York for 9/11. I wasn't there myself.

However, I was going to school in Boston at the time, at a school where pretty much every one of my friends was either from NYC or had family there. Indirect, I know, but it was a whole lot of indirect impact. It seemed like I was the only person around who WASN'T mourning the loss of a family member.

This may sound weird, but what I remember the most is that it rained a little while after 9/11, and the rain actually tasted horrible and kind of burned on your face. That freaked me out like nothing else, because I couldn't stop thinking about what was thrown up into the sky to make the rain come down tasting that way.

18 parents from my church were killed.

The only way I was effected by it really, was it sorta chocked the internet up for a while.

1) Yes, I was.

2) I tend to believe people can say whatever they damn well want to say. I also believe that although 9/11 was tragic, there are plenty of events that are just as much or more tragic in the world that people seem to pay basically no attention to. In all honesty, trying to put it into perspecitive, it wasn't that bad.

yes I was, having two friends working for Cantor Fitzgerald.

I believe people should be allowed to express their opinions freely. I do get angry when some people talk about how we should "just get over it." How many people just get over their friends and family being murdered? It takes a long to to reconcile why they died the way they did. Time will heal all wounds but ours are still fresh scars.

1.) Nope.

2.) Yup, since it really wasn't that bad. A tsunami that kills 300 000, now that's bad. Two buildings collapsing killing 3000? Meh, more people than that starved to death on that day and they didn't get no 24/7 coverage for the rest of what seems to be freaking eternity... move on, already!

A Tsunami is a natural disaster that can't be controlled by anyone. Was 9/11 the same as that? Let's see how you would feel if I murdered your family and told you to just get over it. Look, I cut your wife's head off and made your mother jump off a skyscaper to hyer death, ha ha!

It actually affected me very directly. I make a very funny joke about ground zero and I get a week long ban from the forums.

So, yeah, it did affect me.

Otherwise, I agree with Fass. 3,000 dead? Pfft ... why is that such a big deal ... because they were Americans? Well ... maybe not all Americans, but you know what I mean.

We barely bat an eyelash when it comes to places like Darfur, Indonesia, or Rwanda ... but we expect the whole world to mourn with us and send their soldiers to die for us over 3,000 people who died in a legitimate military target.

Yah ...

An office building is a legitimate military target? It was armed with rockets? Soldiers were stationed there or civilians? Stockpiling WMD? I consider your church a legitimate military target, don't be alarmed when I blow it to hell. Hell, your house is my next target, enjoy the smell of your wife's burning flesh as I toast marshmallows.

Yes 9-11 directly affected me, let me give you a few examples:

War on Terror
Iraq
Patriot Act
Fear/war mongering society
A state of constant headache while watching any politician talk(as they refer to 9/11 20,000 in 3 sentences)

An office building is a legitimate military target? It was armed with rockets? Soldiers were stationed there or civilians? Stockpiling WMD? I consider your church a legitimate military target, don't be alarmed when I blow it to hell. Hell, your house is my next target, enjoy the smell of your wife's burning flesh as I toast marshmallows.


Well an economic target would be a legit. target in a war, right? You want to make the enemy suffer economic loss, to halt any further production. So it was a legit. target. Oh and there was the Pentagon too.

I wasn't affected by knowing anyone caught up in the disaster, but i still felt affected. I was in the pub about to start my university degree, came back from the toilet for Dave the barman to tell me that a plane had gone into the World Trade Centre, i looked at the tv to see the second plane hit and watched the rest of the events unfold.

It was a tragedy that has effected many people, regardless of where they live. Many countries have changed their foreign policy, its a knightmare to travel and war has been seen as a legitimate response.

Muslims all over the world are no looked upon with suspicion. But not just muslims, but people that look like the could be.

I therefore believe that people (as long as they have a valid argument/point) should be able to discuss the issue.

I wasn't affected by knowing anyone caught up in the disaster, but i still felt affected. I was in the pub about to start my university degree, came back from the toilet for Dave the barman to tell me that a plane had gone into the World Trade Centre, i looked at the tv to see the second plane hit and watched the rest of the events unfold.

It was a tragedy that has effected many people, regardless of where they live. Many countries have changed their foreign policy, its a knightmare to travel and war has been seen as a legitimate response.

Muslims all over the world are no looked upon with suspicion. But not just muslims, but people that look like the could be.

I therefore believe that people (as long as they have a valid argument/point) should be able to discuss the issue.

Knightmare?
http://physicsgeek.mu.nu/archives/knightmare.jpg

Oh damn,

i always do that.

comes from a terrible programme that i used to watch as a child.

http://www.btinternet.com/~thegreatestquest/links.htm

It was utter gash!

sorry to go away from the serious matter in discussion

http://www.ukgameshows.com/page/index.php/Knightmare

this is a better link to show the terrible graphics

Well an economic target would be a legit. target in a war, right? You want to make the enemy suffer economic loss, to halt any further production. So it was a legit. target. Oh and there was the Pentagon too.

This would only work if your assuption is that they wanted to totally destroy the economic infrastucture of said country or city. Did they do that? Does bombing of a workplace contitute an act of war? Acts of terrorism and war are parrallels in your opinion I presume? If I were to bomb the local factory in your hometown would that be an act of war?

We barely bat an eyelash when it comes to places like Darfur, Indonesia, or Rwanda ... but we expect the whole world to mourn with us and send their soldiers to die for us over 3,000 people who died in a legitimate military target.

Yah ...

Who "rarely bats an eyelash" ? Who expects the whole world to mourn us?

Are you supposing then speaking on all of our behalf ?

The Pentagon was a legitimate military target.

Only a true asshole would state and believe the World trade center was.

yes I was, having two friends working for Cantor Fitzgerald.

I believe people should be allowed to express their opinions freely. I do get angry when some people talk about how we should "just get over it." How many people just get over their friends and family being murdered? It takes a long to to reconcile why they died the way they did. Time will heal all wounds but ours are still fresh scars.

I had one from Cantor Fitzgerald. His name is on the memorial in Brick now.

I'm sure you're familiar with that.

I had one from Cantor Fitzgerald. His name is on the memorial in Brick now.

I'm sure you're familiar with that.

I do indeed as I've viewed that spot a few times. I also weep for the people of Darfur, the people on Indonesia who suffer, the people of the gulf coast, and many others. I do not expect everyone to mourn the loss of my friends in the same way that I do. I do, however, expect them to respect the people who were MURDERED on that day the same they would another life that was taken without provocation. Most Americans are not so ethnocentric that they care only for the lives lost on "our side." However, to hear people proclaim that 3,000 dead in one event is nothing makes me want to vomit. Once again I ask those posters, if I went to your church and bombed your family and friends would you "just get over it?" If I murdered them or left them so in fear they took their own lives would you be raised to anger?

To be fair, yes, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, Dresden, Berlin... were all legitamate military targets. Including London, Pearl Harbor, Midway... etc...

However, the WTC was not targeted by a Military, but by an Ad Hoc group acting outside the authority of any Nation's Duley Recognized Military.

Now was Baghdad or Tikrit bombed in the same way as Dresdin, Berlin, London, or even Hiroshima? No. the reason is because weapons became more precise, more acturate. Carpet bombing was no longer needed to insure destruction of Military targets. That's not saying that a misfire or wayward bomb never happens now. but it's less likely to happen than in WWII.

Were charges brought up on those who ordered and participated in the razing of those villiages in Vietnam? Most of em yes. (and I say most because some may have cut a deal to get out of punnishment, and others may have gotten away with it.)

Was the WTC the Financial Center of the US? No. That would be The Treasury Dept and the US Mints. Even if they were guarded against such an attack, the fact that it would've forced us to shoot down our own civilan planes would've also damaged morale.

Did the WTC hold any value outside being a symbol of captialism? No Wall Street has a better value than the WTC and would've caused more damage to the US financially than the WTC.
Sorry, Junii, but Hiroshima was little more than a civilian target. Same with Nagasaki. And Dresden was a freaking POW camp with Allied prisoners in it.

But since it seems you and others missed my point, I'l spell it out more succinctly.

According to our own Dear Leader, we are at war with al Qaeda--he calls it "terra," but I'm going to be more specific. And depending on who you ask, that war either began on 9/11/2001 or can date back as far as the Beirut embassy bombings during the Reagan administration. But part of the US military doctrine has long been that civilian targets are considered acceptable as long as there's some secondary benefit from the damage. From al Qaeda's point of view, that makes the WTC a valid target. It's ugly, but it's true.

And by the way, you need to stop swallowing the defense industry's crap about accurate bombing systems.

1. Were you directly affected by 9/11, whether you were in the area where the attacks took place or had a close family member killed in the disaster?

Yeah, I had a cousin who died and my father was very, very close to one of the targets.

Which is one reason why I fucking despise assholes using their deaths as an excuse to expound on and push their bullshit American-supremacism, colonial "let's go bomb ragheads" idealogies.

2. Do you think it is fine for people who were not directly affected by the disaster to rightfully talk about it, particulary in denying or in someway saying "it wasn't that bad", without causing great disrespect to those dead?

It's fine in the sense that they have the right to say it.

I do indeed as I've viewed that spot a few times. I also weep for the people of Darfur, the people on Indonesia who suffer, the people of the gulf coast, and many others. I do not expect everyone to mourn the loss of my friends in the same way that I do. I do, however, expect them to respect the people who were MURDERED on that day the same they would another life that was taken without provocation. Most Americans are not so ethnocentric that they care only for the lives lost on "our side." However, to hear people proclaim that 3,000 dead in one event is nothing makes me want to vomit. Once again I ask those posters, if I went to your church and bombed your family and friends would you "just get over it?" If I murdered them or left them so in fear they took their own lives would you be raised to anger?

The Phillipines just got smashed by a tsunami-they are saying about 200 dead so far.

I dont care for only lives lost on our side- I have compassion for people everywhere. I realize most of the true victims are everyday people like me-going about their lives, working,trying to sustain their family and not all caught us in political bullshit. And its unfortunate that a majority of the victims cant bear these hits-their existance was fragile balance to begin with. So-when the house gets demolished, or their workplace destroyed, they are almost back to the stone age.

And thats why my family and I work very actively in charity-we give and we encourage others to give.
Last year,Grenada took a beating in a hurricane. Most people never heard. We sent over 50 boxes of needed supplies/tarps/food/comfort items.
We also worked the same way for The World trade Center (at ground zero), New Orleans and the last major december tsunami.

The same people in here that accuse us of not being concerned about other tragedies are ignorant AND most likely NOT doing anything to help anyone anyway.
They are just yapping mouthpieces. Useless to us and themselves.

a legitimate military target????

damn i want some of what your smoking...callous fool.

no one has said the suffering of people in darfur or the tragedy of the tsunami was less or more then the suffering of those that died in 911 or their families..cept maybe you.

maybe if you dropped your blind hatred and hypocracy...you may see americans are people too,and deserve the same respect as anyone else...i care about people in darfur,i care about people everywhere.
you seem to care about everyone..but americans...your a rascist and a hypocrite.

a legit military target..lol...yea all the asians,mexican,americans,germans..etc in suits working in some blah job all were secretly cia and military guys in disguise.

you callous pos hypocrite...you care so much for the suffering of the world,then dismiss this tragedy to further your political agenda..and write off the suffering of those involved by attempting to justify your crap by calling it a legit military target.....pathetic

guess the london subway was a legit target as well,unless your rascism only applies to americans.

newsflash...americans are made up of everyone of every class of every nationality in the world.

you make me sick...typical jerk that cant see past your stupid little political blinders and if it furthers your weak ass argument...dismiss the deaths of thousands...and my uncle.

i wont hold my breath for an apology or an omission that i was perhaps incorrect...people of your ilk never admit when they are incorrect....just like neocons do not,religous fanatics that blow innocent people up never do..see the irony..lol..your no better then a neo con or the crazy terrorist that kills innocents,as long as your blind hatred is fed,and it hurts those you disagree with.

your a real humanitarian!

you probably dont give to shits about darfur..only do cause you can use it as a club to beat up on the u.s.

i am truly sorry your so insecure and feel the need to follow your dogma,and gloat over the deaths of thousands to make yourself feel intellectually superiour or whatever twisted reason you have to justify the horror show your "heroes" perpetrated.

yea your real openminded..hahaahahaah

when the bloody hell did americans become a race besides he said nothing or made no reference to anything racial , and to those who commited the acts of terrorism thought it was more than a legit military target , what people think about legitimacy of targets varies threw idea's and cultures. simply you look like a right dumbass. If i were a terrorist i certainly would aim for civilian population centres since it has more affect on a nation than a few soldiers and the economic impact inflicted was a added bonus and as what was pointed out it would scare people which is a ultimate bonus.

I do indeed as I've viewed that spot a few times. I also weep for the people of Darfur, the people on Indonesia who suffer, the people of the gulf coast, and many others. I do not expect everyone to mourn the loss of my friends in the same way that I do. I do, however, expect them to respect the people who were MURDERED on that day the same they would another life that was taken without provocation. Most Americans are not so ethnocentric that they care only for the lives lost on "our side." However, to hear people proclaim that 3,000 dead in one event is nothing makes me want to vomit. Once again I ask those posters, if I went to your church and bombed your family and friends would you "just get over it?" If I murdered them or left them so in fear they took their own lives would you be raised to anger?

So what country are you from and how much treasure has your country donated to international famine relief and UN policing and disaster relief and healthcare donations and battling disease?

Everytime somebody's crop fails in some fucking desert it is America's fault, right?

We barely bat an eyelash when it comes to places like Darfur, Indonesia, or Rwanda ... but we expect the whole world to mourn with us and send their soldiers to die for us over 3,000 people who died in a legitimate military target.

Yah ...

How the hell was it a legitimate target?

The WTC was not a legit target, it was pretty much a multi-national building. Their only crime was going to work that day.

I did not lose anyone personally but I knew lots of people who did. Many people lost work or relocated their office.

It was an unprovoked attack pure and simple. That is the idea behind terrorism. To draw attention to some matter of importance. Well they got our attention and now they don't want it.

Dafur is pretty much a civil war with ethnic overtones like Bosnia / Herzegovina, and Rwanda.

hey Keruvalia are you a terrorist or a communist? :mp5: :confused: :eek:

Ahh yes, the terrorist attacks of 9/11. About 3000 people dead. One of the worst days in American history. And we here on NationStates General debate over it and talk about it all the time. However, it does not seem to me that many people here have actually been affected by 9/11. So let me ask you two questions:

1. Were you directly affected by 9/11, whether you were in the area where the attacks took place or had a close family member killed in the disaster?

2. Do you think it is fine for people who were not directly affected by the disaster to rightfully talk about it, particulary in denying or in someway saying "it wasn't that bad", without causing great disrespect to those dead?


1) no thank god i wasnt
2) it was the worst attack on american soil in our history saying it wasnt that bad is just wrong, i dont care who you are and where you're from.

There were actual military reasons behind all of those. The 9/11 attacks were pretty much just because they wanted to kill civilians and to scare people. I don't think the US economy came much into it. That's not a legitimate reason for targeting anything.

Not really. There is much debate as to the actual effect of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as the Soviet had already pretty much decimated Japan's military force.

In Vietnam, many innocent people were indiscriminately killed, and entire villages, which had nothing to do with the war, were burned, and unnarmed civilians killed.

And there truly is nothing much more strategic about carpet bombing than trying to cause wide spread terror in your enemies.

And let me not get started on our involvement with the Contras, and how we supported their terroristic activities in Latin America.

Oh no, America is the land of jolly-good-gum-drops and happy fuzzy bunnies.

Face it, America has done terrible things, we continue to do terrible things, and the only reason why people accept it is loaded bull about how "it is necessary to defeat the enemy" or other such nonsense.

Not only that, but we all-out ignore most other nation's dealing with much greater problems, and YET when we are finally attacked, we expect the whole world to rally behind us? Wow. We are dicks.

1) no thank god i wasnt
2) it was the worst attack on american soil in our history saying it wasnt that bad is just wrong, i dont care who you are and where you're from.

No. No it most assuredly wasn't. I would rate Pearl Harbor up there, as well as any battle during the Civil War, or a few during the 1812.

In retrospect, 9/11 really was not that bad.

Worse atrocities happen every day all over the world. We don't care, they don't involve us. When something rather minimal(In that there was no strategic importance, and that the loss of lives was rather minimal in comparison, but still quite a sad day) happens to us, bam! We want the world to follow us. If we don't help others, how can we even expect others to help us?

hey Keruvalia are you a terrorist or a communist? :mp5: :confused: :eek:

he seems to be something different everytime you see him.

Sorry, Junii, but Hiroshima was little more than a civilian target. Same with Nagasaki. And Dresden was a freaking POW camp with Allied prisoners in it.

But since it seems you and others missed my point, I'l spell it out more succinctly.

According to our own Dear Leader, we are at war with al Qaeda--he calls it "terra," but I'm going to be more specific. And depending on who you ask, that war either began on 9/11/2001 or can date back as far as the Beirut embassy bombings during the Reagan administration. But part of the US military doctrine has long been that civilian targets are considered acceptable as long as there's some secondary benefit from the damage. From al Qaeda's point of view, that makes the WTC a valid target. It's ugly, but it's true.please show where Civlian Targets are considered acceptable if there are no military or strategic gain? If they have a military or strategic value, then they are not civilian targets but Military ones. acceptable losses of civilian lives is a term used, but civilian targets are not choosen unless they have some military value, like hiding missle launchers in schools or putting AAA's on top of "Milk Factories"

there were military value to Nagasaki and Hiroshima, for details, I referre you to the myrads of threads about the atomic bomb being droped on those two cities. (lets not hijack this one.) ;)

And by the way, you need to stop swallowing the defense industry's crap about accurate bombing systems.err... look at the bombing tech used then (WWII) and now. only a mentally blind person won't agree that precision bombing became more accurate from WWII to now.

A Tsunami is a natural disaster that can't be controlled by anyone. Was 9/11 the same as that?

No, as 11/9 was more expected and understandable and killed a comparatively negligible amount.

Let's see how you would feel if I murdered your family and told you to just get over it.

Yeah, half a decade down the line, I'd need someone to tell me to get over it already, especially since people who are stricken with things a lot worse manage to just fine.

Look, I cut your wife's head off and made your mother jump off a skyscaper to hyer death, ha ha!

Sorry, sweetie, but you people have to start letting go. It's getting really stale and pathetic.

No, as 11/9 was more expected and understandable and killed a comparatively negligible amount.

And the tsunami, in comparison to the thousands of years of human history killed comparatively negligible amount. Why should we care about them?

And the tsunami, in comparison to the thousands of years of human history killed comparatively negligible amount.

Actually, it has the second highest fatality number of all disasters in modern times, second only to an earthquake in China that occurred in the 1500s, not to mention that it struck mostly poor countries and poor people who stood to lose a lot more than anyone in the West.

Why should we care about them?

It's obvious that you don't and didn't. You don't then get to bitch when no one cares about your losses, or somehow think your losses are important. Because, really, they're not.

It's obvious that you don't and didn't. You don't then get to bitch when no one cares about your losses, or somehow think your losses are important. Because, really, they're not.

Why aren't they important? What does it take for death to be important? 100,000 deaths, 200,000? Any real cutoff? Numbers > people, right?

You somehow think death should only be measured in quantity,

Well, yes, when it comes to news value more dead people should give more headlines and attention. But, alas, no. The people who died in the tsunami were mostly poor non-Westerners and thus all they got was a few measly weeks. Turn then to those 3000 people who died on 11/9. They were from the US and somehow for some reason more important and have gotten five years and counting.

devoid of any of the real effect it has on people.

11/9 had a comparatively negligible effect. Or at least, it should have, were it not for the self-pitying wallowing of a certain North American country which likes to think 3000 of theirs are so much more important than 30000 or 300000 or 3000000 of anyone else, and that the world should give a fuck.

And the tsunami, in comparison to the thousands of years of human history killed comparatively negligible amount. Why should we care about them?

I happen to care about BOTH the victims of the 9/11 attack as well as those of the tsunami.
And I contributed generously to relief efforts both-with time and money.


The people I dont care about are those who display their psuedo-astute complacency, which is really just veiled bitterness and hatred toward the US.

They'll have you think they have it all figured out, but they dont.

hatred toward the US.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

I was inconvienienced, i was taking a plane down south 2 weeks later and the securities measures.
I had to wait 40 minutes before boarding the plane!

I was inconvienienced, i was taking a plane down south 2 weeks later and the securities measures.
I had to wait 40 minutes before boarding the plane!

Wow. That is inconvenient.

Well, yes, when it comes to news value more dead people should give more headlines and attention. But, alas, no. The people who died in the tsunami were mostly poor non-Westerners and thus all they got was a few measly weeks. Turn then to those 3000 people who died on 11/9. They were from the US and somehow for some reason more important and have gotten five years and counting.



11/9 had a comparatively negligible effect. Or at least, it should have, were it not for the self-pitying wallowing of a certain North American country which likes to think 3000 of theirs are so much more important than 30000 or 300000 or 3000000 of anyone else, and that the world should give a fuck.

I dont recall anyone here or otherwise appealing to you for assistance, pity,advice or support. We dont need it,even if you were able to provide it.
Keep it-you'll need it much more than we ever will.

No one here has said that 3,000 of ours are more important-Thats the words of a pompous asshole trying to paint his own jaded masterpiece to stupidity.

Self pity? No-It was a tremendous shock and we have recovered much quicker than probably anyone expected.
Do we still talk about it- of course we do.

Do we give one flying fuck about the smug,condescending opinions of hopelessly self-loathing and pathetic individuals?
No. Not in the slightest.
And thats whats got your bowels in such an uproar most of the time. We just dont care.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Its useless and insignificant. And sad that it gives you some purpose.

Am European, ergo did not and do not give a shit.

It's obvious that you don't and didn't. You don't then get to bitch when no one cares about your losses, or somehow think your losses are important. Because, really, they're not.

You're not so dense that you missed his sarcasm.

You are actually stating that we didnt care and still dont care about the tsunami victims ?

We dont bitch that no one cares about our loses. We dont care-thats all.

You're not so dense that you missed his sarcasm.

You are actually stating that we didnt care and still dont care about the tsunami victims ?

We dont bitch that no one cares about our loses. We dont care-thats all.

It's not worth even arguing with him. He's so entrenched in anti-American sentiment that any suggestion that not all Americans are inhabited by evil little demons would destroy his world.

It's not worth even arguing with him. He's so entrenched in anti-American sentiment that any suggestion that not all Americans are inhabited by evil little demons would destroy his world.

:D

It's not worth even arguing with him. He's so entrenched in anti-American sentiment that any suggestion that not all Americans are inhabited by evil little demons would destroy his world.
A pity.

I dont recall anyone here or otherwise appealing to you for assistance, pity,advice or support. We dont need it,even if you were able to provide it.
Keep it-you'll need it much more than we ever will.

Sure, that's what all this bellyaching about how stricken and afflicted and innocent you were to get this comes from?

No one here has said that 3,000 of ours are more important-Thats the words of a pompous asshole trying to paint his own jaded masterpiece to stupidity.

Someone doesn't seem to have read the thread and especially the posts that still propagate that 11/9 is somehow still all that bad of an event.

Face it, you come across as a country of wallowers. You still go on and on and on about the Kennedy assassination, sometimes even the Lincoln one, or those space shuttles or even some inconsequential embassy bombing now and again. You seem unable to let go of things as a nation.

Self pity? No-It was a tremendous shock and we have recovered much quicker than probably anyone expected. Do we still talk about it- of course we do.

Actually, you don't seem to have recovered at all. People that have recovered from things don't talk about them constantly, and, well, you need only turn to a US news station or these fora to see "9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11" be iterated and ruminated ad nauseum virtually every day.

The sooner you realise you've become a country of co-dependents of this "tragedy," the faster you will actually start to get over it.

Do we give one flying fuck about the smug,condescending opinions of hopelessly self-loathing and pathetic individuals? No. Not in the slightest.

You keep telling yourself that, only to turn around and bitch like a school girl who ripped her dress when someone tells you "oh, come off it, mate, it wasn't that big of a deal."

And thats whats got your bowels in such an uproar most of the time. We just dont care.

Yeah, that's why this thread has reached 140 posts, and oh, so many of them fauxdignant. Because "you don't care."

Well, we, we aren't aren't buying it. And really, do start getting over it.

Ahh yes, the terrorist attacks of 9/11. About 3000 people dead. One of the worst days in American history. And we here on NationStates General debate over it and talk about it all the time. However, it does not seem to me that many people here have actually been affected by 9/11. So let me ask you two questions:

1. Were you directly affected by 9/11, whether you were in the area where the attacks took place or had a close family member killed in the disaster?

2. Do you think it is fine for people who were not directly affected by the disaster to rightfully talk about it, particulary in denying or in someway saying "it wasn't that bad", without causing great disrespect to those dead?

1: My brother's in Iraq now, and I doubt he would be there if 9/11 hadn't happened.

2: What idiots are saying "It wasn't that bad?" It was a tragedy. It was also a massive blow to our national pride.

Its useless and insignificant.

And yet it keeps wounding you so thread after thread that you keep invoking it as somehow significant, this accusation of yours of "hatred of America." Really, if it's all that insignificant, stop bitching about it, already. Sort of like 11/9 - if you're so over it, shut up about it already.

It was also a massive blow to our national pride.

Really, you've summarized the whole melodrama right there.

Really, you've summarized the whole melodrama right there.

Precisely, and they've been licking their bruised ego ever since.

Sure, that's what all this bellyaching about how stricken and afflicted and innocent you were to get this comes from?



Someone doesn't seem to have read the thread and especially the posts that still propagate that 11/9 is somehow still all that bad of an event.

Face it, you come across as a country of wallowers. You still go on and on and on about the Kennedy assassination, sometimes even the Lincoln one, or those space shuttles or even some inconsequential embassy bombing now and again. You seem unable to let go of things as a nation.



Actually, you don't seem to have recovered at all. People that have recovered from things don't talk about them constantly, and, well, you need only turn to a US news station or these fora to see "9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11" be iterated and ruminated ad nauseum virtually every day.

The sooner you realise you've become a country of co-dependents of this "tragedy," the faster you will actually start to get over it.



You keep telling yourself that, only to turn around and bitch like a school girl who ripped her dress when someone tells you "oh, come off it, mate, it wasn't that big of a deal."



Yeah, that's why this thread has reached 140 posts, and oh, so many of them fauxdignant. Because "you don't care."

Well, we, we aren't aren't buying it. And really, do start getting over it.

The space shuttles? Holy shit what a loose connection.

We're over it. Its part of history. We discuss it. I'm sorry you're so offended by history.
You're really probably more offended because its Friday night and you're home alone, fighting the good fight against us terrible Americans.
A Don Quixote of your hamlet.

Funny comparing me to a school girl,though. I'll give you a point for that.

Maybe cut back on the mushrooms. Something is making you loopy and hysterical.

The space shuttles? Holy shit what a loose connection.

Yes, I think so, too, but US people keep bringing stuff like it up. Just like they keep bringing 11/9 up. Over, and over, and over, and over, and over again. It really is pathological.

We're over it. Its part of history. We discuss it.

You seem to be confusing obsession with discussion.

You're really probably more offended because its Friday night and you're home alone, fighting the good fight against us terrible Americans. A Don Quixote of your hamlet.

I'm not offended at all. I just got home from work, and am not very prone to going out after having been on my feet most of the day. But, do try to console yourself with some sort of sense of self-importance; that's all you have...

Funny comparing me to a school girl,though. I'll give you a point for that.

Well, it was quite apparent.

Maybe cut back on the mushrooms. Something is making you loopy and hysterical.

And something seems to have robbed you of all wit. No, wait, can't be robbed of something one has never had, eh?

And yet it keeps wounding you so thread after thread that you keep invoking it as somehow significant, this accusation of yours of "hatred of America." Really, if it's all that insignificant, stop bitching about it, already. Sort of like 11/9 - if you're so over it, shut up about it already.

No one is bitching. We are just responding to each of your absurd posts.

You're full of hate and emotional. I'm not. I just refuse to tolerate your constant stupidity.

The space shuttles? Holy shit what a loose connection.
Indeed, and yet Columbia "ruined the innocence of a generation of schoolchildren" according to what some people have been saying.

Your national ego must be astonishingly frail.
We're over it. Its part of history. We discuss it. I'm sorry you're so offended by history.
You don't discuss it. You just mock those who do in Europe.
You're really probably more offended because its Friday night and you're home alone, fighting the good fight against us terrible Americans.
As opposed to you, where it's merely Friday evening, eh?
A Don Quixote of your hamlet.
Yes, surprising as this may sound, but we actually have cities in Europe. It's not all quaint villages, you know.
Maybe cut back on the mushrooms. Something is making you loopy and hysterical.
Yeah, it's hard being funny, isn't it?

No one is bitching. We are just responding to each of your absurd posts.

By going all "waah, he hates America and that's bad! Waah!"

You're full of hate and emotional. I'm not. I just refuse to tolerate your constant stupidity.

Yeah, nice example of non-emotionality there, and this obsession you have with accusing me of "hatred of America." You keep doing it thread after thread after thread - it's basically your entire self-comforting mantra, "waah, you hate America, waah!"

I'm starting to worry you're developing some sort of attachment, no matter how twisted. But, first get over 11/9, and then you can work on getting over this one. I can be that self-sacrificing, if need be.

You're full of hate and emotional. I'm not. I just refuse to tolerate your constant stupidity.
That sounds pretty hateful and emotional to me, to be honest...

Yes, I think so, too, but US people keep bringing stuff like it up. Just like they keep bringing 11/9 up. Over, and over, and over, and over, and over again. It really is pathological.




Well then, if thats the case-you'll just have to get used to it or learn to live with it.

Its yet one more aspect of your life we dominate.

Well then, if thats the case-you'll just have to get used to it or learn to live with it.

Or I can tell you that you look like tossers for it. I find that an excellent third option.

Its yet one more aspect of your life we dominate.

Ah, there's that non-emotionality and self-importance of yours shining through again. Astounding your "intellectual" detachment is!

Well then, if thats the case-you'll just have to get used to it or learn to live with it.
Taking a different line now that you realise you've lost the argument, eh?

Noble of you.
Its yet one more aspect of your life we dominate.
The US doesn't really dominate Sweden particularly greatly. Fass is alright, to be honest.

That sounds pretty hateful and emotional to me, to be honest...

CL is president of NSG's "Angry For America!" party.

CL is president of NSG's "Angry For America!" party.
It shows.

Taking a different line now that you realise you've lost the argument, eh?

That's not really fair, as it's not actual argument. It's more like one more opportunity for him (he's been doing this schtick and focusing on me with it for quite some time now - sad, really, but what do you do?) to go "oh, you big old hater of America! You hate America! You do! Well, I don't care! I don't! Just watch me bitch about how much I don't care! Just do! I'll go on and on and on about how I don't care!"

Quite difficult to lose at that endeavour, so give him some credit, at least.

The US doesn't really dominate Sweden particularly greatly. Fass is alright, to be honest.

No need to burst an additional bubble of his. I can pretend that the US is the centre of the universe like he thinks. It soothes that ilk.

Ahh yes, the terrorist attacks of 9/11. About 3000 people dead. One of the worst days in American history. And we here on NationStates General debate over it and talk about it all the time. However, it does not seem to me that many people here have actually been affected by 9/11. So let me ask you two questions:

1. Were you directly affected by 9/11, whether you were in the area where the attacks took place or had a close family member killed in the disaster?

2. Do you think it is fine for people who were not directly affected by the disaster to rightfully talk about it, particulary in denying or in someway saying "it wasn't that bad", without causing great disrespect to those dead?

1) Yes I was.

2) I'm mostly annoyed by Southern Conservatives who use my city's tragedy as an excuse for their political agenda. I think anyone who publicly uses the phrase 9/11 should have to contribute to the 9/11 fund, except for entertainers and newscasters under Fair Use law. If this means that Dubya is officially declared a clown, well that will work fine.

Well, my dad's company lost a lot of money due to the downturn in the airline industry following 9/11 so I would say that we were affected by the attacks fairly directly.

It's important to note that the company manufactures over 80% of the aircraft fuel pumps in the world, so it's not like it was a minor loss. This was a gigantic hit to the company. It's bounced back and is doing damn well now thanks to the airline boom, but that really hurt.

By going all "waah, he hates America and that's bad! Waah!"



Yeah, nice example of non-emotionality there, and this obsession you have with accusing me of "hatred of America." You keep doing it thread after thread after thread - it's basically your entire self-comforting mantra, "waah, you hate America, waah!"

I'm starting to worry you're developing some sort of attachment, no matter how twisted. But, first get over 11/9, and then you can work on getting over this one. I can be that self-sacrificing, if need be.

Maybe because its all text, its easy for you to assume this is emotional for me. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you too.

We've spoken a few times and I'm pretty sure you know I'm not the mantra type. I'm in no need of comforting or assurance.

Attachment-Sure-I'll see a thread where you made the last comment and say "Lets see what Fass has to say".
We both know you're always singing the same song. But-I guess I am too.

9/11 hit closer to me than I'll discuss in here. I still deal with reprecussions of it almost daily.
But-thats not your problem.

I'm not really sure what your problem is. I get tired of listening to your theme, but hey- you're allowed,even if I almost never agree.

So- since I have to go now, I'll try to do so on a civil note. Getting personal usually aint my intention.

Have a good night and be well. :)

Taking a different line now that you realise you've lost the argument, eh?

Noble of you.

The US doesn't really dominate Sweden particularly greatly. Fass is alright, to be honest.

No- I never lose. I'm as right as the next guy that believes he is right. This isnt one of those situations where facts are going to open one party's eyes and make them change their mind.

It pretty much sunk to personal attacks,which for my part, I'm not too proud.

Its been a long week and sometimes you let yourself get dragged down.

I've no problem backing up and sayin gthis isnt how things should go.

Just dont fuck with me,Yootopia. Thats all.

Just dont fuck with me,Yootopia. Thats all.
You yanks and your silly emotions... :)

No- I never lose. I'm as right as the next guy that believes he is right. This isnt one of those situations where facts are going to open one party's eyes and make them change their mind.
*sighs* Then why bother arguing?
Its been a long week and sometimes you let yourself get dragged down.
Same here. I've had about 20 hours' sleep all week. There's blatently no need for this, is there?
I've no problem backing up and sayin gthis isnt how things should go.

Just dont fuck with me,Yootopia. Thats all.
Fair enough.

You yanks and your silly emotions... :)
Hey, let's give it a rest. I think we're all a bit tired on this one. I'm utterly knackered myself, to be honest. I'm probably going to get extra pissed off if this continues. Just leave it.

You yanks and your silly emotions... :)

As you know, the first emotion was invented here in the states in 1841.

The world has never been the same since.

In fact, you should all be thanking us for introducing a whole new facet of the human experience. :p

*sighs* Then why bother arguing?

Same here. I've had about 20 hours' sleep all week. There's blatently no need for this, is there?

Fair enough.

Isnt that the whole point of NS-to argue ?

Get some rest this weekend. They'll be plenty of bullshit waiting for us on Monday.
Maybe even some new stuff.

Have a good one.

Hey, let's give it a rest. I think we're all a bit tired on this one. I'm utterly knackered myself, to be honest. I'm probably going to get extra pissed off if this continues. Just leave it.
Silly humans and your need for sleep. :)

As you know, the first emotion was invented here in the states in 1841.

The world has never been the same since.

In fact, you should all be thanking us for introducing a whole new facet of the human experience. :p
I'll just go on being Vulcan-like whilst the rest of you indulge in these "emotion" playthings. ^^

Silly humans and your need for sleep. :)
I've been spending all of the other time working or cycling to college. With a bit of eating. It gets rather tiring and all ;)

CL is president of NSG's "Angry For America!" party.

Far from that, but will admit-I am not pleased with how the various things we're involved in are going.

I do want to see a stronger,cleaner straighter-shooting America.

1) By about a one in a billion chance, I was not affected directly. My aunt and uncle both worked in the towers, but my uncle was on a business trip, and my aunt's office had moved only a week or two before.

2)Say what you want, I don't have to listen.

You yanks and your silly emotions... :)

And you are... What? a Vulcan? A robot?

And you are... What? a Vulcan? A robot?

...European. ;)

...European. ;)
:)

No. No it most assuredly wasn't. I would rate Pearl Harbor up there, as well as any battle during the Civil War, or a few during the 1812.

In retrospect, 9/11 really was not that bad.


What a moronic opinion. Pearl Harbor was an attack on the military. This was a cowardly sneak mass murder of civilians.

And yet it keeps wounding you so thread after thread that you keep invoking it as somehow significant, this accusation of yours of "hatred of America." Really, if it's all that insignificant, stop bitching about it, already. Sort of like 11/9 - if you're so over it, shut up about it already.

Funny how it's an ENDLESS topic of conversation for you. Almost like you're the one who can't get over it.

Funny how it's an ENDLESS topic of conversation for you. Almost like you're the one who can't get over it.

You noticed that as well. ;)

ok this is a serious question, but would you mind telling us how you were affected? j/w.

Considering some of the comments here; I would rather not.....

Wow. That is inconvenient.
That was precious booze time!

The most tragic fact of 9/11 is that innocent people had to die for the imperialist foreign policy of their government, but since the US administration isnt above such tactics, why should their enemies be?

1 & 2) = who cares?

Maybe 'coz I heard the plaintive cry of some thousands of HIV sufferers dying in South Africa where they give them some Ascorbic Acid for medication, maybe these nasty people are too noisy or too gay to be heard in the rumbling of two miserable us towers.
The us towers?
The prestige of that country was earlier down, that event was of no use... stupid terrorists.

And these stupid infected people are making rich lotta bastards (with the help of a man of god, the guy in Vatican City) when dying, yes they do.

But soon the us will invade the Holy See and place one of their puppet as new pope, just for fun.

1. Were you directly affected by 9/11, whether you were in the area where the attacks took place or had a close family member killed in the disaster?

2. Do you think it is fine for people who were not directly affected by the disaster to rightfully talk about it, particulary in denying or in someway saying "it wasn't that bad", without causing great disrespect to those dead?

1) no. though my uncle's flight departed at roughly the same time from the same airport and was en route to the same city, and was the same airline, as one of the ones hijacked, so my family got to be scared shitless for a little bit, but it was a different flight.

2) rather than answer this directly, I think it's a great disrespect to the millions of people who die around the world constantly for americans to bitch and moan about 3000 well paid, healthy, well fed, and heretofore entirely safe people dying - when around the world millions of people live in horrific poverty, in regions torn apart by civil war - some places where the *majority* of the population is born with AIDS...I mean, it's incredibly egocentric of americans to care more about people just because they were *american*...I remember a turkish jet crashed once. it had 3 americans on it, who got 10 minutes of airtime on the national news devoted to them - as an aside the anchor person mentioned that over 200 other people were killed - she might as well have been talking about so much luggage, for all the sympathy she put into it. 9/11 was awful and all, but in the scheme of things, it's not a fucking big deal.

What a moronic opinion. Pearl Harbor was an attack on the military. This was a cowardly sneak mass murder of civilians.

what's cowardly about staring your own death in the face, and willingly giving your life for a cause, exactly?

don't try to glorify some killers and demonise others. they're all equal.

Otherwise, I agree with Fass. 3,000 dead? Pfft ... why is that such a big deal ... because they were Americans? Well ... maybe not all Americans, but you know what I mean.
Were the first 3,000 victims of the tsunami equally unimportant? I know that you're probably angry about the US Military atrocities that take place using 9/11 as justification (and so am I!) but that should not cloud our view of this event.

We barely bat an eyelash when it comes to places like Darfur, Indonesia, or Rwanda ... but we expect the whole world to mourn with us and send their soldiers to die for us over 3,000 people who died in a legitimate military target.
You may not care about Darfur, Indonesia, or Rwanda, but I and many others do.

Also, the twin towers were not a legitimate target, though the Pentagon was.

People can say whatever they want, but I find it funny that a large number of conservatives came out after the attacks proclaiming their love and sympathy for the citizens of New York, some a mere day after declaring NYC to be a "filthy cesspool", or a "den of liberalism," and also saying things to the affect that they wouldn't care if the entire city literally dropped off the map.
True that. Many conservatives probably say equally vitriolic things about NYC now too.

2.) Yup, since it really wasn't that bad. A tsunami that kills 300 000, now that's bad. Two buildings collapsing killing 3000? Meh, more people than that starved to death on that day and they didn't get no 24/7 coverage for the rest of what seems to be freaking eternity... move on, already!
Aren't you rather xenophobic when it comes to Americans anyway?

Let's bring it closer in time. What about all of those Vietnamese vilages? Or Baghdad? Tikrit? Ramadi? We've hit a shitload of civilians in wartime, so I doubt we've got much moral authority to be bitching when someone hits the financial center of the US. You may not like it, but there it is.
So you think that all the civilians killed by American bombs were "legitimate targets"? That is disgusting, Nazz.

Anti-American: Yes, and proud of it. Leftist: No, more left-leaning centrist.
This is one of the reasons I hate your domineering country. You have the impenetrable arrogance to assume that nobody who disagrees with you could ever possibly be telling the truth. Either that or you can't find fault with my actual arguements and are grasping for straws.
I agree. My country didn't get invaded by America, but their warplanes have violated our land.

what's cowardly about staring your own death in the face, and willingly giving your life for a cause, exactly?

don't try to glorify some killers and demonise others. they're all equal.
It sounds like you're trying to glorify them all. He's legally right - even if not morally so - Pearl Harbour was an illegitimate attack.

2) I tend to believe people can say whatever they damn well want to say. I also believe that although 9/11 was tragic, there are plenty of events that are just as much or more tragic in the world that people seem to pay basically no attention to. In all honesty, trying to put it into perspecitive, it wasn't that bad.

2.) Yup, since it really wasn't that bad. A tsunami that kills 300 000, now that's bad. Two buildings collapsing killing 3000? Meh, more people than that starved to death on that day and they didn't get no 24/7 coverage for the rest of what seems to be freaking eternity... move on, already!

9/11 was a horrible, needless waste of life. It's not something that can easily forgotten. But to bring it up in every single political debate for the next 50 years? Please, do those affected a favour and give them a break. I'm sure that the last thing they want is countless television dramas or films made about it, nor it being mentioned on every political chat show.

I agree that there have been worse tragedies. The problem is that it was in America and that it was a shocking blow to the American public. In one way it was good, in that it made American politicians realise that they are not untouchable. It's a pity that it had to be done in such an obvious way, though.

I think that every country that sees itself in a state of peace gets shocked when this kind of thing happens. In my own country the Omagh bombings are regularly mentioned in relation to the IRA. Less than 20 people died in those, and perhaps the same number were injured. Another waste of life; but put into perspective if the same kind of thing happens in Israel or Iraq it's given 1-3 minutes on the news, and then it's history. Those affected will remember it for the rest of their lives; but nobody else will. It's funny how if you control a huge pile of media you can make your news immortal, and not give other news the time of day.

That you believe civilians are fair game makes you evil. Civilians end up getting killed in wars, but no decent society deliberately targets them.

When you can get certain people to stop saying non-American news stations are valid military targets, as well as various villages/towns/cities with all resident inhabitants suitable for carpet bombing cause you can't be arsed to look for specific people, come back and talk to the other side.

Do we give one flying fuck about the smug,condescending opinions of hopelessly self-loathing and pathetic individuals?

Then why is this thread so long?

People who don't give a fuck don't respond.

Also, the twin towers were not a legitimate target, though the Pentagon was.


The CIA is not a legitimate target?