Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Grizzly on September 10, 2007, 11:23:42 am
-
Just that you are reminded. Myself, I don't see 9/11 as a memorial day for the kamikaze attacks on the WTC, but more as an day to think about everyone who has died/lost relatives in religous disputes (wich date back several millenia) and suicide bombings.
So... 9/11 discussion thread?
-
You can try, but I foresee with my magical eye that nothing good will come from this thread.
-
My old thread about 9/11 was locked. Opening another thread is a bad, bad idea :blah:
-
What? Expecting intellectual comments? Oh no. This is going to be another VTech thread.
Anyway, if you want to discuss, I'm AMERICAN ;7 and I'm not going to do anything special on 9/11. So the fact that this topic hasn't been recieved warmly probably a sign that most of the people on this board are non-Americans and could hardly care less. Even notice the anniversary of the Madrid bombing? It was another 11, I just can't remember which month... let me think...
-
warmly probably a sign that most of the people on this board are non-Americans and could hardly care less.
This is wrong. I cared when I creating the thread, some stupid comments made it a stupid Flame War. The closure was expectable.
It was another 11, I just can't remember which month... let me think...
11 September + 6 months = :P
-
Sorry, Mobious. I didn't read the last thread. Don't really keep up with forum stuff as much as I... should?
-
This sounds like a really American thread. Yes, even I was a bit sad when the towers broke, even though I usually resent the unnecessarily huge size of the human population on this planet. But the event concerns mostly American people, especially those who lost family or loved ones there.
If I started a topic for March 13th, the anniversary of the end of the Winter War, American members would probably feel the same way about it as I do about this thread.
But don't mind me. If you've got something to say about 9/11, please, speak.
-
If I started a topic for March 13th, the anniversary of the end of the Winter War, American members would probably feel the same way about it as I do about this thread.
Which is unfortunate, although I at least would be interested. If only "we" had some basic knowledge of history and geography we'd be a lot less tied to our mass media's dictated point of view. A Winter War topic would actually be a good idea, I think. We have a few Finnish members here, and it's a just plain interesting war whether you're emotionally attached to the subject or not.
-
Sorry, Mobious. I didn't read the last thread. Don't really keep up with forum stuff as much as I... should?
Typical American misspelling. The seventh one so far. The first one on HLP. Congratulations! :blah:
This sounds like a really American thread.
Again, it is wrong. What happened in London and Madrid, what was about to happen in Italy and Germany...well, I can't consider it an "American matter".
The point is...that there's nothing to say. We discussed the subject to death. We did it at school, we did it with our friends, we did it with our relatives. There's nothing more to say. I'm discussing the subject in an Italian forum(where I can use my eloquence :P), people who continue to think that "everything was planned by Bush" and/or "No airplane hit the Pentagon, it was a missile" make me angry :mad:
-
It's time to get over it.
-
Besides, it's actually 11/9 tomorrow. Why on earth do you people insist on writing the month before the day anyway? I mean, in this case it could make for some jokes, like "Who do you call if you're in the WTC on 9/11? 9 11!", which is nice, but it's really confusing to the rest of the sane world. But maybe that's on purpose :p
[PS] Yes. I made a 9/11 joke. It was a bad one, too. Terrible even. But seriously, it's been years. If anyone can take offense at that sorry line after this long, though, then I apologize.
[PPS] The fact that I even felt I had to write the above disclaimer to (hopefully) avoid offending anyone too badly makes me sad. You gotta be able to joke about these things, otherwise the terrorists really win.
-
[PPS] The fact that I even felt I had to write the above disclaimer to (hopefully) avoid offending anyone too badly makes me sad. You gotta be able to joke about these things, otherwise the terrorists really win.
I didn't find the joke itself terribly funny, but you do make a good point.
-
This sounds like a really American thread. \
Again, Like I said in the first post, American wasn't the only place wich got bombed. Just want to turn your attention to what is actually happening in the world.
ANd, Why would I create pro-american threads if I am dutch?
-
Failure to care imminent.
-
Again, Like I said in the first post, American wasn't the only place wich got bombed. Just want to turn your attention to what is actually happening in the world.
ANd, Why would I create pro-american threads if I am dutch?
:yes:
As I said, however, there's nothing much to say. We can only discuss about the matrix of those events. Bush or Bin Laden(or both of them)?
-
To be honest I think 9/11 should be a day to point out the fact that it's a ****ing national disgrace that six years later no one in America has still figured out what the hell to do with Ground Zero.
If you still can't figure it out by the 10th anniversary I say give up and just rebuild them. :rolleyes:
-
I remember when it happend, I was in first grade; we watched it in horror on TV.
Boy that was a bad day for America.
And kara, I agree, ever since it happend, I was like "Frigging build something there you idiots!".
-
It's still a carcinogenic zone. The substructure that remains is still unstable. The powergrid is also still ****ed up. It's gonna take a damn long time before the mess is cleaned up enough to be able to build over it.
-
They are going to build a commemoration structure, aren't they?
-
Six years? Come on. You're kidding right?
-
According to Scuddie, Ground Zero is still...a problem. I read a few articles about possible commemoration buildings, though I think we'll have to wait.
-
ANd, Why would I create pro-american threads if I am dutch?
I didn't state that this was a pro-American thread. At least it wasn't my intention. I was just saying that particularly the WTC strike is more a concern for Americans than for the rest of the world. In a similar manner it would have been a tragedy for the French if they had crashed into the Eiffel tower. Or to the Finns if a plane had crashed into Näsinneula.
I wasn't aware that you're Dutch (I rarely check profiles), but obviously you're more interested in the US than me.
-
What? Expecting intellectual comments? Oh no. This is going to be another VTech thread.
Linky?
-
Does it matter which nationality you are in terms of being able to discuss this? If you want to discuss this from a country other than the U.S., go ahead. On the other hand, don't pretend that the U.S. should have more interest in this than other countries. People thinking too much about other countries is the reason the U.S. currently finds itself in Iraq. *Getting off topic* Also, people who act like the Iraq war is all Bush's fault are idiots. A USA Today/Gallup Poll indicated that 75% of Americans felt the U.S. did not make a mistake in sending troops to Iraq in March 2003. Also, don't give that "no WMD" bull****. A Gallup poll made on behalf of CNN and the newspaper USA Today concluded that 79% of Americans thought the Iraq War was justified, with or without conclusive evidence of illegal weapons. Even politicians supported the war. In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions. In other words, blame yourselves for the war, not the people that represent you.
-
Does it matter which nationality you are in terms of being able to discuss this? If you want to discuss this from a country other than the U.S., go ahead. On the other hand, don't pretend that the U.S. should have more interest in this than other countries. People thinking too much about other countries is the reason the U.S. currently finds itself in Iraq. *Getting off topic* Also, people who act like the Iraq war is all Bush's fault are idiots. A USA Today/Gallup Poll indicated that 75% of Americans felt the U.S. did not make a mistake in sending troops to Iraq in March 2003. Also, don't give that "no WMD" bull****. A Gallup poll made on behalf of CNN and the newspaper USA Today concluded that 79% of Americans thought the Iraq War was justified, with or without conclusive evidence of illegal weapons. Even politicians supported the war. In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions. In other words, blame yourselves for the war, not the people that represent you.
Is this a typo?
I think that the US is too forceful in solving problems. Canada, on the other hand, is the world leader in peacekeeping. Sept 11th is a national event, not a world event. Like Mustang said, most people probably don't know the details of the Madrid bombings. The only reason that 9/11 is known is because of Fox and the massive size of the US.
-
First, I wish people would remember that it was Afghanistan that was invaded post 9/11, the Iraq War was completely removed from the event.
Secondly, it was a terrible day, both for the families of the victims and for the US in general, I don't have a problem with those who wish to discussing the issue, but flame-wars will swiftly lead to action, regardless of what direction they are going in.....
-
Yeah but Flipside it's hard to separate Iraq and 9/11 when the American government put so much energy into entwining them.
In other words, blame yourselves for the war, not the people that represent you.
True but can you really blame them when the media pretty much refused to actually do their job and inform the electorate?
Can a country in which 1 in 3 people think that Iraq had a connection to 9/11 really make an informed decision?
-
I think that the US is too forceful in solving problems. Canada, on the other hand, is the world leader in peacekeeping. Sept 11th is a national event, not a world event. Like Mustang said, most people probably don't know the details of the Madrid bombings. The only reason that 9/11 is known is because of Fox and the massive size of the US.
Depends. Just remember what filo-nazists said about 9/11. Read articles about a "devil shaped smoke" coming from the towers...and conspiracy theories.
There always is something interesting to say, something that attracts the attention. Furthermore, remember that the attack on the WTC was intended as an attack against Christians. It's enough to make 9/11 a world event.
First, I wish people would remember that it was Afghanistan that was invaded post 9/11, the Iraq War was completely removed from the event.
Secondly, it was a terrible day, both for the families of the victims and for the US in general, I don't have a problem with those who wish to discussing the issue, but flame-wars will swiftly lead to action, regardless of what direction they are going in.....
:yes:
-
*Cracks knuckles menacingly*
I'll agree with Flipside on the point about flaming. Anyone I see doing it is spending a week with a monkey avatar.
-
Why would this thread end with a Flame War?
-
There always is something interesting to say, something that attracts the attention. Furthermore, remember that the attack on the WTC was intended as an attack against Christians. It's enough to make 9/11 a world event.
No it wasn't. It was an attack against americans.
-
(http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/371/tomorrowis911zv3.png)
Wow...Hot topic!
-
You call that hot? I've seen threads about anal leakage that had more viewers than that.
-
Why would this thread end with a Flame War?
Remember the Vtech thread? Remember the space shuttle columbia threads? Remember the last few WTC threads? Thats why. While American bashing technically isn't Racism, it is just as bad.
And thanks, Kara and Flipside (and any other admods) for keeping an eye on the thread :).
-
colecampbell666: looks kinda Patriotic too.. er, well, the colors are in the order of the French flag though.
I don't know about memorials, but like many other people who have lived through some major world-turning event, I still remember well the day of the 'bombings.' I don't know that you can technically call them bombings, but I digress. I've heard similar stories from people that remember the Kennedy Assassination, or when the Apollo 11 LEM touched down on the moon. Or when the Berlin Wall fell.
Still, I remember being at my desk and hearing someone say that they just heard on the radio that a plane hit the WTC. Cynic that I am, I figured it was some idiot in a Cessna trying to pull off some tower-buzzing like I used to do in MS Flight Simulator and went on with work. 30 minutes later, after a couple of (work related) phone calls, I found out the first one was a 747 (not knowing about the 2nd hit yet). I thought, 'a friggin 747? No way in hell is a 747 going to hit a WTC tower, even assuming some major mechanical problems. It'd be kinda hard to NOT point a plane away from that.'
My office is very near our (international) airport, so we hear planes constantly and have some busy roads. I remember how eerie it was, when heading out for a smoke break and discussing the issue with co-workers, noticing not a sound. Nothing. No one was driving on the normally busy street, no planes flying overhead. Nothing. That was unnerving.
-
Somewhat similar for me Diablo. I was working that summer as a soccer referee and allot of the soccer fields are fairly close to the flight lines for the international airport around here. We're not in the immediate vicinity of the airport but just on the lines...it was quiet for the three (or four?) days that they shut down air travel. It WAS unnerving for sure...something that was so common place.
That was quite a day...everyone was just shocked and the news reports kept streaming in. I remember CNN, CBC, BBC, and all of the other major news sites were basically inaccessible too. Lots of strange things happened those couple of days..first time I had ever spotted a pair of CF-18s flying past and looking quite well armed over Canadian airspace. Hard to be sure but they didn't look stripped down like they normally do.
-
Sorry for bringing Iraq war into the discussion. I realize they are not officially connected, but the criticism between the two events does have some connection. Also, like Karajorma pointed out, the United States tries to connect them.
Back on topic, why do people not like to talk about 911. By having a fear f merely the mention of the event we are giving terrorists credibility. Also, don't act like the U.S. in innocent and was attacked for no important reason. While the magnitude of the attack was unjustified, the U.S. has been meddling in the affairs of the Middle East for more than 50 years.
-
Also, don't act like the U.S. in innocent and was attacked for no important reason. While the magnitude of the attack was unjustified, the U.S. has been meddling in the affairs of the Middle East for more than 50 years.
That's one of the major thing that irks me about 9/11. So many people try to make it out as an 'unprovoked and wholly undeserved attack', when history states otherwise. While the people in the towers were more or less innocent, the United States as a whole is about as innocent as an 48-year old porn star.
Another thing that irks me is how many people will think (and react) as if i'm trying to say those 3000+ people 'deserved it'. :doubt:
-
Maybe not the 3000 people in particular, but you did just imply that the US deserved the attack itself because 'history states' it.
Ok, I just killed about a page of text... You're all right, this thread isn't going to go anywhere but bad.
-
the Iraq War was completely removed from the event.
9/11 was used (and to some degree still is) as justification for Iraq and the continuence of the occupation. The US government took great lengths in early 2003 to connect 9/11 to Iraq, and a lot of people in America believed it.
9/11 was a tragedy, but what was also more of a tradgedy was how it was ruthlessly exploited to pass legislatation (PATRIOT Act) that several political leaders in the Republican party had planned to do as well as use it as justification to persue militaristic policies.
-
You're all right, this thread isn't going to go anywhere but bad.
The thread will only go bad if we make it so. So don't. Back on topic:
Undeserved, yes. Noone deserves attacks aimed at civilians. Unprovoked, though? Hardly. The United States as a country is definitely not innocent.
The thing is though, the attacks were not the act of a state that was feeling threatened, in which case the Pentagon part of the attacks might actually have been "legit" according to current US policy since it's a military target. And it would have been just as legit for the US to retaliate with overwhelming force afterwards. But rather, they were the act of terrorists, doing it not out of a need to defend themselves but simply out of a desire to cause as much harm as possible. And that is never justified, even though the US has indeed done some extremely shady things in its past that had provoked them (and in the case of these guys, trained and armed them).
As I see it, it comes down to the difference between military action and terrorism. Military action against military targets is called war, and it goes on between two or more countries. And the aim of military action is not to kill as many people as possible, but just to destroy the other party's ability to make war on you and/or gain some land/resources/advantage, which in some twisted kind of way makes it "ok". We'd prefer it never happens of course, but that's utopian given the state of the world today.
But terrorism is not aimed at military targets. It's not aimed at preventing danger to yourself, your country, your family. and it certainly does not gain you any benefits. Hell, it does the opposite on all those counts. It's just aimed at causing as much pain and grief as possible to the most vulnerable target available. And that is what makes it so very, very wrong, regardless of what reasons the perpetrators may be citing for their acts. Reasons, in this case, just don't matter, because the only true reasons are hatred and revenge - Neither of which are ever brought to bear on the actual objects of said hatred and revenge, but on whoever happens to be an easy target.
-
Maybe not the 3000 people in particular, but you did just imply that the US deserved the attack itself because 'history states' it.
He implied that the US has been sticking its nose in to other countries and starting coups, financing revolutions and in some cases flat out trying to assassinate the leader of the country.
Why should they be surprised if someone tries to do it them?
While I disagree with both the methods and the motives (trying to bring down a democratically elected government) of the 9/11 attack the simple fact is that US has used different methods to achieve the same goal and probably has more blood on its hands as a result of these methods. So no one can claim it's completely innocent.
-
*Snip*
War has nothing to do with the military, it's just one guy smacking the other. When you get right down to it, that's all there is.
Who decides what a military is, anyway? Are you a solider when you wear a uniform? When you have a gun? Or are you a soldier when you merely want your side to win and the other side to lose?
You don't have to be defending yourself, you don't have to be organized, you play by the rules. All you need is an enemy, howsoever you perceive it, and you've got yourself a war. Terrorism is war, and it's a highly somewhat effective way of conducting war. It's a sad truth, but a truth nonetheless.
-
It's not that effective. Unless it's backed up by larger military actions it takes decades before it even gets close to achieving its goals. In fact it tends to have the opposite effect of hardening the resolve of the people being terrorised into not giving in, even to the reasonable requests from the other side.
-
It's not that effective. Unless it's backed up by larger military actions it takes decades before it even gets close to achieving its goals.
Terrorism isn't an objective in and unto itself, it's only a means to an end. Using terrorism to conquer has proven quite effective if the 'Shock & Awe' doctrine is anything to go by, and using it to inspire fear and gain notoriety seems to have worked quite handily with Al Queda and 9/11. Regardless, you still make a good point.
-
RIP Joseph and Nick. You are missed.
-
Off topic, but...
you know what.
Its my sisters birthday today....
-
My friends wife's birthday is today. She lost her brother, Nick, in the towers.
Imagine how that feels.
-
Hell of a birthday
-
My friends wife's birthday is today. She lost her brother, Nick, in the towers.
Imagine how that feels.
I dont have to imagine, Im a soldier. I louse a family member to violence almost every day.
And if some of you think the Iraq war is for no reason, thats fine, I dont. I wont accept the idea that my brothers are dieing for nothing.
-
I'm sorry to hear of your friends' wife's loss Inq, especially on a day that should be cause for celebration.
People were killed that day who shouldn't have died, that's what it boils down to for me. I know there's far reaching 'scope' to the whole story, but that doesn't bring them back. I was in a tube train about a mile from one of the Tube bombs in London when it went off.
One thing that has occured to me over the years is that 'we' or 'you' apply to the living, the options for these people are over, their opinion gone, they can never say whether what 'we' or 'you' were doing was right or wrong in their opinion. For now I choose to mourn the deaths for what they are, someone's family.
Of course there's more, there are far more lives to mourn, regardless of where, when, how or why they died, but these deaths were symbolic to everyone in some way, and it is terrible that people died.
-
Friend's wife.
-
Sorry, fixed....
-
No worries.
-
My friends wife's birthday is today. She lost her brother, Nick, in the towers.
Imagine how that feels.
I dont have to imagine, Im a soldier. I louse a family member to violence almost every day.
And if some of you think the Iraq war is for no reason, thats fine, I dont. I wont accept the idea that my brothers are dieing for nothing.
Sometimes people die for nothing, it is not his their fault, but the fault of those who sent them there to begin with.
-
Sometimes people die for nothing, it is not his their fault, but the fault of those who sent them there to begin with.
NO!
It's the fault of the people that pull the trigger.
It's the fault of the people that create the IED.
It's the fault of the people that can't stop blaming someone else for their woes and move past ignorance and hate.
-
Um, as I recall it was US who invaded THEM, a sovereign state. Truth hurts sometimes.
-
It's the fault of BOTH. Never forget it.
The fact that US soldiers should be on Iraqi soil doesn't give the insurgents the right to kill them. Lets not forget that they'd have packed up and gone home a couple of years ago if the insurgents had just sat on their hands and done nothing. The insurgents want to fight for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with getting American troops out of Iraq.
-
There always is something interesting to say, something that attracts the attention. Furthermore, remember that the attack on the WTC was intended as an attack against Christians. It's enough to make 9/11 a world event.
No it wasn't. It was an attack against americans.
So the Jihad had nothing to do with it?!? How can you claim it? The kamikaze pilots were martyrs, martyrs for the Jihad...
-
I prefer war over terrorism any day...
"Normal" war has at least SOME semblence of rules, or guidelnies... you got conventions and foreign ambassadors that look at your every action, so civilian casualties are avoided and frawned upon.
With terrorism there are no rules...there is no safe place or safe group...you're either with them or against them...no neutrality. They kill and destroy whatever they can in a mad attempt to gain recogition. :doubt:
-
But a conventional war against the USA is impossible, they have an incredible number of soldiers and weapons. Guerrilla actions are more favorable in this case.
-
terrorism is what you need to resort to when your enemy uses cowardly tactics like saturation bombing.
nobody can really fight the US army on equal terms, since nobody in the world puts that much cash into new and inventive ways to kill people. the result is that they must fight the US on their level, the level where they kill the troops with hidden bombs and by hiding and running.
as for killing civilians, yeah, not really possible to justify that. we need to go back to fighting wars with swords. it's kinda hard to knock out a school with collateral damage when you charge in, find the bad guys, and run them through.
-
Iraq = guerrilla.
Any other country = terrorism.
Look at this:
http://www.forumgwtilea.it/forum/index.php?showtopic=24965
Locked shortly after the first post! :lol:
-
With terrorism there are no rules...there is no safe place or safe group...you're either with them or against them...no neutrality.
However, people need to also accept that it does not necessarily mean the equally opposite of the USA and its allies, it is possible for someone to be against Terrorism, but still not support the US approach towards dealing with it. Terrorism may be a 'for or against' issue, but support of the Coalition's response is a far more complex one, I think.
-
Um, as I recall it was US who invaded THEM, a sovereign state. Truth hurts sometimes.
Who knows to which 'them' you are referring, but let's analyze the two most obvious answers so maybe you'll learn something that didn't come from the mouth of a propagandist.
The Taliban condoned and funded Al Qaeda operations from their position as the 'government' leaders in Afghanistan. They were a direct link to the 9/11 attacks, which were then considered an act of war, and as such, the US responded in kind by forcibly removing them from power. They attacked the US (a sovereign state) FIRST. Now, why did they hate the US in the first place? Had the US, the United Kingdom, West Germany and the rest of the middle-eastern states, not armed and trained the Mujahideen within Afghanistan in the first place, they would have become part of the USSR in the early 1980's. Since the failed invasion, the US and it's partners did indeed 'leave them out to dry.' Deplorable? Certainly. A good enough reason to preach hate for a generation, culminating in an ever-more deplorable attack? I don't know, how badly would someone need to hurt you in order for you to hate and kill them for it? You tell me, IS IT JUSTIFIED!? Are the deaths of Soldiers trying to do their jobs and the 'right thing' JUSTIFIED because of what the US and a few other NATO members did (or didn't) do for the people fighting the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan that happened before these Soldiers were even BORN!? The only human answer, of course, is 'no.'
In Iraq, which I am sure is what you are trying to reference, it was Saddam and his regime that continually refused UN inspectors' access to facilities believed to be producing weapons of mass destruction. Given Saddam's track record of producing chemical weapons to purge his own perceived dissenters, the refusals of access did not require a great deal of faith to expect that they were being developed and hidden from the inspectors. Due to the UN's complete inaction, the US 'picked up the ball' as it were, and threatened invasion. Saddam called the 'bluff' by continuing to refuse and quite plainly lost his head. Only since Saddam's iron fist was removed, have we seen the extremists blowing things up, which have filtered in from neighboring countries and been recruited by the already-present charismatic religious extremists that are now free to speak their (however unfortunate for the US) beliefs. The US, UK, Australia, and Poland were willing to do the UN's dirty work for the intended benefit of everyone everyone else. Now look at the global perceptions of the US and to a lesser degree, the UK and Australia. That'll teach them for trying to do the right thing, by George!
You also seem to believe that the forces left in Iraq are attempting to subjugate the entire populace while it fights back in whatever manner it can. Considering the anti-war propaganda some morons (especially those in the US) are spewing from their collective rectums, that probably shouldn't be entirely surprising. It could not be, however, any further from the truth. These new mujahideen and jihadists only care about having their cause, because of typical human greed for wealth, power, and the opportunity to hurt the US on the whole as much as possible because of their past betrayal. While the insurgents themselves may have had their ignorance preyed upon by anti-US and religious extremists, the puppet masters aren't bloody stupid. If they truly only wanted the US soldiers to leave, they would stop the attacks. They quite obviously like the troops being there, otherwise they would have no easy access to an enemy to rally against other than other Muslims or their own government, not that the distinction truly matters to some of them.
-
do you watch FoxNews DiabloRojo?
btw, Saddaam didn't produce the weapons of mass destruction, he bought them. from the US.
see, the US didn't like Iran's (democratically elected) government, so they assassinated the leader and planted in a new guy. the result of this is that Iran (the government at least) does not like the US very much.
as for why the rest of that area despises the US?
ISRAEL.
(also relevant, the US cut funding for Palestine's democratically elected government, and is backing the other faction. way to export Freedom to the world right?)
-
as for killing civilians, yeah, not really possible to justify that. we need to go back to fighting wars with swords. it's kinda hard to knock out a school with collateral damage when you charge in, find the bad guys, and run them through.
Like as not, that's not true. Haditha was nothing compared to the kind of violence commited against civilians then. Combat, man to man, face to face, where you see the other guy sweat and his blood gets on you when he dies, produces a different kind of mindset. On a scale of psychological impact of physical violence, shooting someone ranks a lot lower than running them through. Draw your own conclusions.
I've heard it often observed that the First Gulf War was the first war in the history of mankind where it could be proven military casualities outnumbered civilian. We developed the ability to kill on a scale unheard of previously during the Second World War. The Blitz; RAF Bomber Command's part of the Combined Bombing Offensive; and 8th Air Force flew a number "area" missions too. It was justified on unique grounds then, much as the first and so far only use of atomic arms was. However in the end, at that last extremity, the nations of the industrialized world looked at what they had done in horror. Never since have they come remotely close to duplicating the actions they took then.
In a way, we are not brutal enough. We tend to look in askance at the Israelis for bulldozing houses and the like, but they have the greatest experience with insurgency in the world; perhaps we should learn from them.
-
In a way, we are not brutal enough. We tend to look in askance at the Israelis for bulldozing houses and the like, but they have the greatest experience with insurgency in the world; perhaps we should learn from them.
Honestly, I'd find a better teacher to learn from :P
-
The Taliban condoned and funded Al Qaeda operations from their position as the 'government' leaders in Afghanistan.
You've got to be kidding me. It was the other way round. Al-Qaeda was funding the Taliban government. Which makes the rest of that statement dubious at best.
-
Unsourced claims FTW! Viva la Internet! ;)
-
do you watch FoxNews DiabloRojo?
Let's not get into ad hominem attacks here. Prove the argument wrong.
-
Don't know how much you should praise Israel politics. Several older people that i know participated to the UN mission (UNTSO) mainly to the Golan Heights in 1982 - 1984 and practically every one stated rather sarcastic and ironic manner that Jews had learned the 'crowd control methods from best'. I let you to decide what they meant with that.
-
Learned from the best? Seems harsh but they have a point.
Anyhow, even if the US dropped Isreal I'm pretty sure they would hang on for quite a while... in a horrible kind of way they impress me.
-
If the US dropped Israel, it would prove to the world that the US are one of the good guys.
-
From a purely realpolitik standpoint, the US has no reason to drop Israel. It's one of the few democracies in the Middle East and "our" best ally in the region.
-
if we drop them, there's a good chance we'll gain 6 or 7 allies in the region.
they are also the ones who have oil.
-
And look at the reputation it has, and rightfully so. We need to separate ourselves from Israel more than Brittany Spears needs to separate herself from Paris Hilton.
Don't ask me why I used that comparison :p.
-
if we drop them, there's a good chance we'll gain 6 or 7 allies in the region.
Like who? Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Iran sell us oil whether they officially want to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth or not. Israel gives us military and intelligence support- more than any other 3rd world Middle Eastern nation could- and the common Arab is still going to hate us anyway whether we drop Israel or not.
And look at the reputation it has, and rightfully so.
Not saying that I endorse Israel. Just saying that, from a nationalist point of view, you get no brownie points for being the good guy in international politics.
-
Damnit, I can't keep up with all this at work... (so I shouldn't!)
Turambar:
I watch any and all news channels. Fox is just as chock-full of BS as the rest of them. The art of it is gleaning the facts from the tripe. My mindset and perspective are my own, from the facts I have. On that note, assuming someone watches Fox News, coming from the 'popular' belief that the channel is conservative, because the person's perspective appears to originate from the conservative end of the spectrum is quite cliché.
Yes the US did sell chemical weapons to Iraq during the Iran crisis. The NATO countries' military backing in Iraq was intended to win that military conflict 'by any means necessary.' Thin line? I'm not sure if a line really exists there. STILL, it doesn't excuse the fact that Saddam was willing to use such weapons on [his own] civilians, but I highly doubt the allies supplying Iraq with war materials at the time had any idea he would eventually commit such an atrocity. In hindsight, do you think it would have helped that their contract had a clause that the weapons may not be used on civilians? It was a [bad] means to and end that backfired, spectacularly. After all the US had installed nuclear weapons in Turkey and similarly the USSR in Cuba. Aside from Kennedy's posturing, not much came of those situations. Why not chemical weapons, eh?
To the rest, I have no argument because you're simply correct. I was more focused on Afghanistan in the previous post since dealing with them was the start of this mess. I never implied (or meant to) that many people in the middle east have no reason to dislike the US for the tactics used in the 70's and 80's.
You've got to be kidding me. It was the other way round. Al-Qaeda was funding the Taliban government. Which makes the rest of that statement dubious at best.
Crap no, you're right. I haven't been proofreading. The point I was trying to make is that Al Qaeda was primarily based in Afghanistan, tied to the ruling party, and therefore the the most logical target for military retaliation against a body that proved willing an able to attack the US.
-
Yes the US did sell chemical weapons to Iraq during the Iran crisis. The NATO countries' military backing in Iraq was intended to win that military conflict 'by any means necessary.' Thin line? I'm not sure if a line really exists there. STILL, it doesn't excuse the fact that Saddam was willing to use such weapons on [his own] civilians, but I highly doubt the allies supplying Iraq with war materials at the time had any idea he would eventually commit such an atrocity.
What other use is there for chemical weapons?
-
any war that starts between any major powers is a sure anahilation of the entire race, so you better settle with peace ....
-
Crap no, you're right. I haven't been proofreading. The point I was trying to make is that Al Qaeda was primarily based in Afghanistan, tied to the ruling party, and therefore the the most logical target for military retaliation against a body that proved willing an able to attack the US.
Maybe but 6 years later the US still don't have Osama Bin Laden do they? Ironic considering that they might have done had they actually done what the Taliban had asked and provided evidence Bin Laden was behind the attack. And if they provided the evidence and the Taliban still didn't hand him over it would only have strengthened their justification for an invasion.
-
About ground zero, I just heard today that they are going to build a tower called I think "The Freedom tower.( :ick:)
It will be the largest building they said.
They started in 2006. :shaking:
-
God dammit.
It would be one thing to call it the WTC Memorial, but The Freedom Tower? **** me in the anus, I'm leaving this wretched country.
-
IDC about the name
It's not going to be any taller than the WTC towers
-
any war that starts between any major powers is a sure anahilation of the entire race, so you better settle with peace ....
AH, somebody who can't type english worth a ****, how lovely.
I'd love to see some proof that a war between the major powers = humanity instantly dies off.
-
I suspect his Estonian is better than yours somehow though.
-
What other use is there for chemical weapons?
Please read that again, and if necessary google the Iraq-Iran War. The weapons sold were for use AGAINST MILITARY FORCES IN THEIR WAR WITH IRAN. Mustard Gas was a WW1 staple, after all.
Maybe but 6 years later the US still don't have Osama Bin Laden do they? Ironic considering that they might have done had they actually done what the Taliban had asked and provided evidence Bin Laden was behind the attack. And if they provided the evidence and the Taliban still didn't hand him over it would only have strengthened their justification for an invasion.
Do you think they really would have just handed him over, even if they could have? I can't imagine they would have ever honestly cooperated with the US even when it was to save themselves, with Jesse Jackson and Jimmy Carter there to promise them the world. We know the things of which these people are (or were) capable and they hate(d) the US as much as Bin Laden which is why they let him operate there in the first place. Yes, this is all speculative, but you opened that door. ;)
I hate that I'm posting this now that this has gone back to a 'happier' tone, but eh, you guys deserve responses.
-
It's not a quesiton of "handing him over". It's doubtful that Bin Laden would be that cooperative. The US just wanted the Taliban to cease supporting Al Qaeda. Even then, Bush would have invaded anyway so that he wouldn't be percieved as sitting on his hands; Bin Laden had a strong organization set up in Afghanistan and the Taliban was no position to oppose it.
Al Qaeda provided a lot of support to the Taliban in its fight against the NA. Most of the Taliban's foreign fighters, the reliable ones who were more than just tribal militias, were supplied by Al Qaeda. So whether the US provided "proof" or not that Bin Laden was responsible, the Taliban wouldn't cooperate anyway, as a matter of survival.
I think Karajorma just needs some coffee. So do I. My monitor is roasting my eyeballs right now.
-
What other use is there for chemical weapons?
Please read that again, and if necessary google the Iraq-Iran War. The weapons sold were for use AGAINST MILITARY FORCES IN THEIR WAR WITH IRAN. Mustard Gas was a WW1 staple, after all.
Isn't any use of chemical weapons considered an atrocity?
-
Well, pretty much only since they were banned by the Geneva Convention. I don't think Iraq and Iran had accepted that at the time, leaving a lovely little loophole.
But hell, I ignore the Geneva Convention on a daily basis during commutes.
-
do you watch FoxNews DiabloRojo?
btw, Saddaam didn't produce the weapons of mass destruction, he bought them. from the US.
see, the US didn't like Iran's (democratically elected) government, so they assassinated the leader and planted in a new guy. the result of this is that Iran (the government at least) does not like the US very much.
as for why the rest of that area despises the US?
ISRAEL.
(also relevant, the US cut funding for Palestine's democratically elected government, and is backing the other faction. way to export Freedom to the world right?)
I'd like to point out that the Iran Iraq war, the period of time in which the U.S. sold Saddam weapons, was in the 80's. Shortly after that, in 1991, the U.S. fought the Gulf War against Saddam. Which means, that for at least 16 years, we haven't given any weapons to Saddam. Also, even accordind to Iranian sources, the US was not a leader in loaning checical weapons to Iraq.
Also, although Israel is a factor, many of the countries in the Middle East do not like us simple bacause of our continued meddling in their affairs.
-
any war that starts between any major powers is a sure anahilation of the entire race, so you better settle with peace ....
Hrmm....well...in the last century there was two major wars between most of the major powers on the planet and the end result was a population boom that you might sometimes hear about called the "baby boom". Lots of people who are about 16-27 right now are the echo of that boom time after WWII. Wars are absolutely terrible and destructive things and yet out of the ashes often rises even more people.
The concern since the 1950s is the use of nuclear weapons which could lead to planetary devastation...fortunately nobody really feels compelled to use strategic nuclear weapons as the end result is always bad for everyone. The major powers of the day feel pretty good about fighting wars by proxy through local combatants and never in direct opposition to each other. Prime examples of this are Korea, Vietnam, and the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 80s. These again, were terrible, but largely regional and not impacting the entire world in any sort of population way.
Even if we did manage to nuke ourselves...it would probably end modern civilization but I doubt that it would end the human species. There are too many of us in too many corners of the globe that would survive, in some cases despite all odds, and eventually we'd be back where were before. I hope never to see that come to pass but I have some faith that life will go on one way or another...people and life in general on this planet are resilient to most things save total planetary destruction or utter ecological failure.
-
Failure to care imminent.
-
Appearently there is a special day just for this-----"Patriot's Day"
http://www.hardocp.com/news.html?news=Mjc5ODksLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdCwsLDE=
Today is Patriot Day, the sixth anniversary of September 11th, 2001. We have not forgotten the impact those attacks had on our country and our lives. Please, take a moment today to remember those who lost their lives on that day, their families and loved ones. Also, make sure that you give thanks to the men and women of the military, law enforcement and emergency services that are laying their lives on the line every day to make sure we are not attacked again. They are true patriots and this day belongs to them.
As we remember September 11, 2001, we reaffirm the vows made in the earliest hours of our grief and anger. As liberty's home and defender, America will not tire, will not falter, and will not fail in fighting for the safety and security of the American people and a world free from terrorism. We will continue to bring our enemies to justice or bring justice to them. This Patriot Day, we hold steady to this task.
EDIT: forgot to reply to this
It's the fault of BOTH. Never forget it.
The fact that US soldiers should be on Iraqi soil doesn't give the insurgents the right to kill them. Lets not forget that they'd have packed up and gone home a couple of years ago if the insurgents had just sat on their hands and done nothing. The insurgents want to fight for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with getting American troops out of Iraq.
The insurgency certainly is more than just going after Americans, but considering that there never was a plan to remove US soldiers to begin with I highly doubt they would be home by now, especially considering the large number of military bases being built (and that fortress of an embassy).
But really, what do you expect when you walk into a room full of gunpowder and start smoking?
-
Hrmm....well...in the last century there was two major wars between most of the major powers on the planet and the end result was a population boom that you might sometimes hear about called the "baby boom". Lots of people who are about 16-27 right now are the echo of that boom time after WWII. Wars are absolutely terrible and destructive things and yet out of the ashes often rises even more people.
One of the things that people tend not to realize is that, speaking from a practical standpoint, the use of nuclear ordinance was not in fact necessary for the US to have inflicted the kind of massive, millions-dead-conservatively damage normally associated with mushroom clouds. Russia undertook several massive hydroelectric power projects, resulting in series of large dams.
The US developed the Tomahawk and B-2 for very specific targets intially. In the event of a general war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, the only thing that would have stood between millions of Russian citizens and being drowned in a flash-flood when those dams broke was the possiblity that loss of life on that scale might trigger a nuclear response...and realistically speaking, NATO could not have reached all the Soviet ICBM/SLBMs in time.
This scenario is alive and well, by the way. China has undertaken similar projects...and unlike Russia, China's strategic nuclear deterrent is small enough to kill it all before it can retaliate. Should the People's Republic ever decide Taiwan would look better with some black glass, this is probably a more likely, but no less devastating, scenario then a US nuclear response.