What did everyone all around the world do today to remember the dead from the attacks on the United States?

The only thing my stupid school did today was to fly the British flag at half-mast. So me and some friends had a minutes silence.

What about you guys?

Wow, Z. It's touching to think that a group of guys in England had a moment of silence for an attack on America. Thank you.

As for what I did today: I took my motorcycle to work so I can get out of town fast if I need to. I have been watching the MSNBC internet broadcast of their 9/11 coverage. There have been several moments of silence for NY, DC, and PA. And I wrote a long screed about what I remember from last year at http://www.jamiedmcdonald.com/blogger.html

Not much have been done here in Norway. Nothing was done at my school, and my friends and I haven't even mentioned it the whole day. It's just another normal day to me right now. Maybe I'll watch a documentary about it on TV tonight, but I have an awful lot of homework.

Solving problems with Enzymatic catalysts, from 8 morning to now. Yes my life at university is dull :1eye:

A lot of public places, shopping centres and the like observed a minute's silence at 1.46pm today in the UK.

There have also been memorial services including a major one in St Paul's Cathedral with lots of dignitaries etc.

BBC also broadcast most of the main services from the US - New York and Washington at least.

I'm not sure about the rest of Europe, but Brits were the second largest number of people killed in the attacks, so perhaps it is not so surprising that it has been marked perhaps more here.

I'm in AFROTC uniform all day and there will be a retreat ceremony in the university commons this afternoon.

The flag is also flying at half-mast. I wasn't sure whether the school would do that or not, wasn't expecting it when I saw it. It hit me a lot harder than I ever thought it would.

Absolutely nothing :grin: :shake: . It's not like I don't care about those people but people die all the time some are just unfortunate to die in such circumstances. But as far as I'm concerned you people can wipe each other out and I still won't do nothing but take a minute of silence. As long as Slovenia survives I'll won't even bother to lift a finger. But if somehow my country is hurt in all this than it becomes personal :flaming: :borg: :flaming: . (I can't believe we have no graemlin soldier :toofar: )

Everytime I leave my house, I get to see the busted out teeth of a skyline that I thought would be eternal.

I've spent today in sort of a funk, refusing to turn on the TV or radio. I don't need stupid memorial services, pins, ribbons, red white and blue paper plates, cheesy advertising slots of dedication, moments of silence, bands playing, flag waving to help me remember. It's still as fresh in my mind today as it was a year ago.

I have permenant mental pictures of the whole ugly thing unfolding. I turned on my TV 6 minutes after the initial crash. I thought I was watching a repeat of the first plane crashing. Turns out it was the second one. Burned into my psyche forever will be the live footage of seeing all the people leap. I will never have to "try" to remember sitting at the foot of my bed, holding my son's face to my chest so he didn't see the repeating over and over constant scenes of death.

Nothing will let me forget the tears and the frantic phone calls being made, to check to see if everyone was alright. Friends making deliveries in that area, my brother in law calling out sick that day (43rd floor First Tower), Roberta's husband who is a systems guy at the Pentagon, neighbor Joe who was a Con-Ed electrician working in the Trade Center. All fine. I don't need to try to remember the relief I felt upon learning that all my friends and loved ones were safe.

That is to say nothing of the utter hopeless sadness I feel for those that I didn't know, that didn't make it, every time I think about it, or turn my eyes over there and pause to reflect.

The acrid dusty ozone smell that filled my lungs every day until around December sometime is still with me as well. I have never smelled anything like it, and I never will again, I hope. It, for me is the defining smell of death. Things like this I try to forget.

Standing on the waterfront, gazing at the impossibly huge pillar of smoke rising from my beloved skyline while fighters circled overhead, drowning out an impromptu group prayer from on September 12th.

All these things and so many more details are indelibly tattooed into my mind.

No. I don't need to do anything to remember.

We had a minutes silence through the whole school and the flag half-mast

We are all pacifists right???
Well i like swinging swords around and archery for some time but i wouldnt like war :toofar: = no internet :eek: :eek:

Most of the politicians are just big kids who dont know what RTS are and then they just want to play it real world ;)

I like war. Before gun powder was invented that is. I was trained in dual wielding (swords of course), using a staff and firing a bow. Not of much use they are now but still...

Gothmog, what are you talking about?...

Shralp: It was a whole 5 mins if that's any better ;)

Keneth, you're telling me you felt NOTHING? Just because it was in another country?... Bah, i'll keep my thaughts to myself :toofar:

I meant politicians are overgrown kids who would LOVE to play strategic games if they had the chance :p Now that they dont know what that is they play a "strategic game" in real world.
Very much like Republic: The revolution = game where you are one in russia and trying to get to power

Like I said It's not like I don't care about those people but people die all the time some are just unfortunate to die in such circumstances. Do you have any idea how many of my own family and friends have I already lost? You don't do you. So don't talk like I should feel something special. I doubt other people would feel anything over me if I died there. Life sux and then you die! and that's a fact that is actually true.

I wonder why you didnt already make suicide if you are such a pesimist :rolleyes:

No, no one other than your family and friends wil give a damn when you die. But, when thousands die from a terrorist attack, it's a reason to remember them. People jumping from god knows how high, to their deaths, just to get away from the heat. Two absoloutley huge towers just crumbling. More buildings around it collapsing. The people in the planes. The people in the pentagon. :mad: How can you not even bother to do a minutes silence.

At my school, we all had a big flag ceremony, some poems were read, national anthem, some speeches from a few people, and moment of silence.

I observed the silence and I respect the tragedy - I have offered my sympathies to those involved and those in my class who have lost to the event though I feel guilty that I don't feel anything about it

Not feeling anything may seem heartless to you but coming from someone who doesn't feel much it is only expected - sorry if I offend, but I respect the incident and those caught and that is all I can do

As easy as goblin pie :D .

I dont think that is such a big deal.
If same number of people would die somewhere in Africa NO ONE would matter about that ;)
But to be hit in the heart of civilization makes some difference even if only a small number of people die(comparing to car crashes, alchocol poisons, suicides,...)

Exactly. That's why I'm not standing on my eyebrows or clapping with my ears if some idiot decides to crash a plane in WTC.

[ September 11, 2002, 21:50: Message edited by: Keneth of the Darkforest ]

You know someone (everyone actualy ;) ) might think all the Slovenians are so EVIL :D :D
So perhaps someone else should improve the impression :)

This is Whatnots forum, but even Whatnots has it's line.
Next statements in this form will die instantly.
So, peace!

I'm sorry guys. No hard feelings?

[I said no more spams. Ok?] - Ex.
[Gee, I was just apologising]

[ September 11, 2002, 22:19: Message edited by: Keneth of the Darkforest ]

I just have to disagree with you Mollusken. Several things have been done.

For example in front of the american embassy they had one torch for every victim that died in the twin towers attack. And both my sisters had one minute silence held in respect of the victims at their schools...

I wore a "PEACE NOT WAR!" shirt to a school tree-planting school assembly.

I just can't believe what i've heard from some people... god can't....understand... the evil.

Nope, sorry

Just like another day at school, except for the fact that some idiot kept screaming "Oh, my god, watch out for the airplane!" and things like that

Good thing he got suspended

Z-Layrex (and some others):

Here is a link for you that might make you understand what some people are saying:

Robert Fisk's article at the Independent (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=332182)

-thanos

Im very sorry about WTC, but the americans aren't saints themselves

----------------------------------------------
In just five days' time, Palestinians will remember their September massacre of 1982. Will a single candle be lit for them in the West? Will there be a single memorial service? Will a single American newspaper dare to recall this atrocity? Will a single British newspaper commemorate the 20th anniversary of these mass killings of 1,700 innocents? Do I even need to give the answer?
----------------------------------------------

[ September 11, 2002, 23:03: Message edited by: jesper898 ]

You ignorant s***. How DARE you criticize Americans in light of the 9/11 attacks. This is the first time I have EVER felt like hurting someone after reading a post on SP.

[ September 11, 2002, 23:03: Message edited by: SlimShogun ]

Jesper is right. While the events of 9/11 (or 11/9) were horrible, let's also take time to discover even worse incidents that should also be remembered, if just for the sake of reminding others of the consequences of hate. 800,000 Hutus dying of Africa of genocide. The Palestine/Israel conflicts. There's still more. Yes, 9/11 was different, because it was an attack on American sovreignity and pride, but let's take time to remember incidents just as bad as, or worse, than 9/11.

Oh, and we said the Pledge of Alleigance twice in day and had a moment of silence. Yeah, that'll leave the memory of 9/11 emblazed in our minds for every waking hour for the rest of our lives.

I watched a little of the ceremonies...But mostly I just enjoyed a beautiful day in my neck o' the woods, took a drive, and listened to music.

I didn't look at today to be a day of sorrow...If anything, a day of remembrance. As an American, I want to remember:

1) There are people in the world that fear despise what they think America stands for; so be wary, be vigilant and try to help in any small way. (I give blood every 60 days)

2) Anyone can make a difference. I think about the firefighters and airline passengers in PA, and how they acted heroically in the face of death - that despite the terrible events, we, all of the United States, are made of much stronger stuff and we will not be bullied by thugs living in holes.

3) Take action. I've noticed ever since that day, I've tried not to be complacent. Sometimes I falter, but I keep in mind why this country was founded, what our deepest beliefs are, and I strive to do a little more to help my fellow Americans each day...Not big things, but little things like: smiling more, greeting strangers more often, and holding doors open for people. it's amazing how often the littlest of gestures have huge results.

4) Stay in touch with the people I really care about. You never know, and I hate to regret things I haven't done.

5) Live each day the way I want. No one will dictate my actions through fear or terror tactics.

So for all my fellow Americans here. Remember the event, but use it to inspire you to greater achievements!

Well, I accually think that the happenings at Chile this day 29 years ago is alot bigger.
But about WTC I remember that I was turning 15 same day, and I had my bracers removed, a nice day it seemed. Then the WTC collapsed, unfortunatly, a very said happening, thoug the consekvenses, for example the terrible war in afghanistan was worse.

Well many of you guys might as well be talking about who has the biggest dick for Christ's sake. :shame:
What difference does it make which national tragedy was the biggest or the worst? Today happens to be the anniversary of the terrorist attacks upon the US. If you want make people more aware of other tragedies, why don't you bring them up on their anniversaries and we can all learn to have a little more compassion for our fellow man?

As for Keneth, I imagine he has not yet come to terms with his own grief over losing loved ones. He's probably stuck somewhere between anger and apathy, which makes his lack of emotion over the people who died here a little more understandable.

I was so incredibly moved by Europe's outpouring of compassion and emotion after 9/11; All the vigil's and makeshift altars. The US has always been so egocentric; That outpouring blew me away. What an opportunity we had to become part of a larger world. Now we want to turn our backs on it and go back to being the big bully on the block.

I went to school. I worked as normal. Life went on. Nothing different happened.

I watched a documentary about the firefighters of NYC and held a short silent moment, but other than that, no one around me seemed to care... and I hated it. When they showed footage of the even it the TV, this utter moron of a 13-year old that is in the same GH called it "Cool". My first reaction was to thwack him on the head, but I did not... he would have just ignored it. Instead, I forced him to look me into the eye and slowly told him how fooolish, how callous, how dumb was to say something like that.

He didn't care.

It made me feel so very ashamed of him, of the people around me... where was their compassion? why no one remembered the importance of the date beforehand?

Ara
(In a state of confusion)

[ September 12, 2002, 10:09: Message edited by: Arabwel ]

Well..Didn't really do much.
Watched a program bout it and started to think a bit.
Then I went to bed.
I think that I first now understand what really happened...
Sad. ;(

Everything went as normal with the exception of a 1 minute silence in me college ...

'Oh yeah and a few live eye witness accounts were read out. After that, i just read some more of the stuff on newspaper where people were questioning wether Bin Ladies is still alive.

I think that this 13-year old deserved a whack, but there are many people, who just do not care.

We had a one minute silence at school.

Personally i took the moment to think about the hundreds of inoccents who have been slaughtered in the middle East. And how many thousands more will be massacred before this Bush crusade ends.

I thought how the individuals and families of those lost must feel now that their pain has been used as an excuse to inflict it on others.

I thought about the fact that the American public recieve biased and not much news about the rest of the world. How they are manipulated to support the budding Hitler who rules over them.

I thought that i should savour the silence, for it will be the last heard for many years...

GOD BLESS AMERICA.... No one else will.

Damn. And I thought we had cured you.

Yes, we're going to go kill everyone. Then we're going to bite the heads off of babies before kicking some puppies.

Grow up, lad.

Well, first our school had a cerimony around our flag at the start of the day. Then, that night I went to my church's youth group and was part of the mass that night and was a candle bearer in the candle light vigil.

On a smaller note, I put three american flags on the dash of my truck.

[EDIT]

Gees Dargorn, give us a break. If you want to disrespect Americans, choose a better time. I doubt that many would respect a comment like that at this time. Like Shralp said, grow up.

[ September 12, 2002, 23:47: Message edited by: jack-of-all-trades ]

I think it's vain.

There are FORTY ACTIVE WARS going on right now in the world. There are countries ready to create a nuclear winter and kill BILLIONS.

Our six thousand dead should've been a wake up call to realize the finity of our mortality and the affinity of humanity.

Instead, it's just an excuse to continue being blindly offended, xenophobic, and internationally tactless. Now not only are we self-righteously nationalistic, we think we've actually got an excuse to be.

I am impressed with all the Europeans being affected by this day. Thanks for setting that idiot straight Ara.

I live very close to where the plane went down in Somerset. Although I knew nobody on the plane, I went and visited the memorial there. It was, quite saddening, to say the least. To see firsthand what destruction hatred can bring, is... not a pleasant experience.

I cried again

In my former job I was beginning to knew this cool guy that worked representing the steel plant on WTC... he was on a business trip to promote Canadian steel imports.

We were beginning a wonderful friendship and her sister even dated me.

(Yes, even if you believe I'm an idiotic ladies-shoe-licker; some one believes I'm worth something... well, before she went to a Psychiatric Hospital after his brother's dead on TV... **** ****** ************ ******** ********** *********** ************ Osamma... you WILL pay for this! You declared war on the entire American continent and the rest of the civilized world including me... you WILL be sorry the day you messed with me!).

He was on the floors that were hit first...

Just to remember... makes me ill.

I remember, three hundred and sixty-six days ago. I was stunned, shocked. I somehow managed to drag myself to school, and there we spent the whole day watching TV and discussing what was going on.

This year...bleh. I can't help but be angry, but just as much at my fellow countrymen as at any foreign terrorist group. By god, three thousand twenty-five Americans died one year ago yesterday, most of them literally melted and burned to nothing, torn apart by shrapnel and millions of tons of steel. And yet, after a month of mourning and a few more of unbridled rage, we simply resumed our narrow-minded, self-centered way of life.

I hate Osama, and Al-Quida, and all these other terrorist groups. But I really can't say I blame them for hating us. I can understand these psychos hating the American leaders who've bombed their people into submission (even before 9-11). That said, there's still no reason for slaughtering three thousand innocent people.

Eh. I'm ranting now, and completely :yot: .

Bah! I'm with the USA all the way now. I've had enough of these stupid Arab leaders running around destroying things and screaming extreme Islamic junk at the whole world. I agreed with attacking Afghanistan. I agree with attacking Iraq, and i'll agree with the next plan. I'm just plain sick of the middle-east. As i saw posted on that site shralp linked to, "America and Britain, shoulder to shoulder, to the last man."

[ September 14, 2002, 19:17: Message edited by: Z-Layrex ]

And how many Afganistan civilists died when americann soldiers "accidently" bombed wedding party. You say that 3.500 civilists died in WTC i heard 2000 died there. Bush is using this Islam threat to increase his popularity. His screaming that war should be made against all those Rogue-countries and that bull**** only got him a bounch of enemies.
I bet at least 10x more people died in Afganistan than in america. Mostly civilians of course.
Itsnot a war against terorism but for revenge and to be predominant in the world in most aspects.

Also i dont like american politics: just see what they did in Kyoto. Most other (smaller) countries agreed to decrease polution in the next years but not america, no they are THE jacks. They should be setting an example - they share in poluting our atmosphere is bigger than any other country.

Greatness of the country is not measured by ecomomical and military power but how to control all this. All bush wants to do is to asimilate the world to his ideas and values.

Being confronted with mortality is always a shock.

I understand the attacks on America, I just don´t justify them.

Do you mean Afhanistan Morgoth? Methinks your mind was wondering ;)

Well, at my school we had a prayer, then we listened to a song by Garth Brooks (the song was kinda brutal, but the lyrics actually got me all choked up) and we finished off with a moment of silence...
To be honest, I don't think people really need to do anything to "remember 9/11," since the images of that day are likely engraved in everyone's mind.

Shralp, respect for you man but also sympathy. you live in the very heart of America. Of course i cannot expect you to understand. you are right at the base of the corruption.

Personally i will be watching the oncoming war with interest. It will be intrigueing to see who wins and how many more lives will be lost to justify the loss of 6000.

'Two wrongs don't make a right'

I am sorry i sound blunt but i am totally void of emotion about the whole event. I think some people have a problem realising that the towers were destroyed for a reason. Maybe it is time for Bush to look at what he and his predessesors have done to upset the Arab community.
America is suposed to be good and the middle east (Iraq especially) to be evil. Personally i am finding that the definition between the two is becoming less clear everyday.

But back on topic: I was saddened the day it happened. But i don't believe in being mournful of the past. I don't remember the anniversary of the death of family. Because it only hurts me more. I get on with my life.
I think maybe some Americans are more upset with the ideal of what happenened and not actually thinking about the families. This whole thing has been reduced into some sort of melodrama and i think it is disrespectful to the families of those who have been lost to to turn any soul lost into a romantic heroic idol who represents and excuse for bloody revenge.

That is why i did not remember The two towers disaster.

No Dargorn Arabia is evil. Nothing justifys those attacks, NOTHING. Obviously they had a reason, they wouldn't have just done it. I think it's all down to jealousy. Lets face it, i think all world leaders are jealous of America really. It's always great to be part of the wealthiest nation. Most people in Europe, Australia and Canada live equal lives to Americans but these Arabs, Africans, S.Americans and many Asians, don't come close to our quality of life. TS i say.

[ September 16, 2002, 16:34: Message edited by: Z-Layrex ]

Arabia is evil What exactly does this propose to mean? That Arabia is evil in itself - ie there's something inherently evil in the lands? Should the people move out and become gooder (oops sorry meant better, didn't I)? Or it's the people who live there that are evil and we should exterminate them and populate the land with other people who are good?

Or do you mean to say that Arabs are evil - and wherever they live is evil as well (Munchen or London for instance?)

Or do you mean that the governments of the countries on the Arabic peninsula are evil?

Well, I'll tell you what, what with you being a paladin and all, sworn to fight against evil - sword in hand and get chopping on some towelheads eh (sure - there are some good arabs (there must be right?) and they might get hurt, but hey - it's for a higher purpose, right?)?

And while you're at it may I suggest you take Bush's notion of a pre-emptive war to its logical conclusion and get something organised against those other ones you mentioned that might envy us with our comfortable life-styles. You know:

these Arabs, Africans, S.Americans and many Asians ***********************************

My apologies to everyone for using this topic for my rant. I needed to say it and I am getting sick of demagogues using the death of so many people to propagate their petty hatreds.

I...

- Lit a candle
- Prayed
- Cried a lot
- Thought about it a lot

But I couldn't bring myself to watch the Docu because I wouldn't be able to stand it.

I understand you people hating them, I did too. And I wasn't even directly affected by it.
I watched a small bit of some documentary, but it wasn't that interesting, so I went on SP instead.
At school we had prayer (though I didn't offer one, falling on deaf ears if you ask me) and had a minutes silence.

i celebrated more than Elminister is wise and Drizzt is good at fighting. I do NOT like USA att all.

No, i don't think all Arabs are evil, but i think many are. Didn't you see the thousands celebrating on 9/11?! I was watching a program about some ultra rich Arabian kid coming to live in Britain. This guy was loaded (and when i say loaded i mean billionare) he saw a t-shirt he liked, but when he turned it round and it had a little American flag on the label, he would'nt buy it, he through it down and said something in whatever language he speaks. This is why i think Arabia is evil. This kid was richer than most Americans, he had no reason to act like that.

[ September 16, 2002, 20:20: Message edited by: Z-Layrex ]

In whatever language he speaks. Quite clearly Z-Layrex you have very little comprehension of what life is like in the Arab countries and nor do you clearly understand the word 'evil'.
True evil is a person who will kill for the sake of it, who enjoys the suffering of others or who uses vindictive means for his own good.
A boy stamping on a T-shirt is not evil.
A boy stamping on a T-shirt is someone who has a statement to make. someone who has a purpose to do what he does. Someone who wants to draw attention to his act because he believes the Flag is Evil !

What many of you fail to understand is that although you rant about how evil the arab states are you fail to realise that they think exactly the same about us.
And with good reason. America and Britain in the last tw centuries have turned the world upside down. First the British empire swept across the world destroying many countries and taking millions of slaves. Then the Americans go through an economic boom and instead of letting everyone else catch up they drive poorer states down even further. The 3rd world debt for example. These countries borrow money from people who have dictated their lives for years and then are told that they must pay soon or be in big trouble?

And now America, Britain and the so-called (spit) peacekeepers run around the middle east butting in on their wars when not so long ago these 1st world countries had been doing much worse.
The fact is that America has asked for what it got. It butted itself into foreign affairs and claimed to be all wise and peaceful and then gets angry when someone tells them to sod off.

And as for the disaster itself...Yes it was bad. But only to us. Life in Arab countries is totally different. People see violence and death everyday. Bombs go off and militant groups struggle against each other. Life is very tough and disease is much more common. If they thought that the death of 6000 people would bring millions of them a better quality of life then they would do it!
I don't understand the way they think. You don't understand the way they think. but they don't understand us!
Diplomatically the middle east is powerless. Terrorists take the task of getting their voices heard into their own hands and things like the two towers disaster are their way of saying 'Give us our lives back!'

And as for dancing on the streets. Well they did it because they are made to believe that the western world is a great evil. They are brainwashed. But then so are you. everyday you are told about how evil Osama is and that America is only trying to rid the world of evil.
Personally i think both places are as bad as each other. I stay on the neutral ground and so do most of my friends.
In my opinion anyone who believes in blasting the hell out of an entire sub-continent in retaliation for one terrorist act, is just as evil as those who hijacked the planes. You have both been brainwashed and you both think people should pay with their lives simply because you are told they are evil.

Z-Layrex. If i were you i would keep your racist remarks to yourself, Take a step back, learn both points of view. See what the western world has inflicted on the Middle east and then take the neutral ground.
Anyone who supports this oncoming slaughter in any way is a brainwashed moron.

Demographic note: Arabia is not a place anymore.

Poodle i am not racist. I don't hate blacks, Asians, Arabs (although their whole culture is wrong), Latinos or any other type of person. I will never understand these people's culture, and yes i think it is evil HOWEVER... many of these people obviously arn't. In MY OWN OPINION, I think their way of life is screwed. It's just what i think and you giving me some history lesson on the big bad super powers isn't going to change my mind. America and Britain would likely leave them alone if they'd for one freaking minute stop blowing themselves and others up!

[ September 17, 2002, 16:02: Message edited by: Z-Layrex ]

Wow! Strong words. I'm an American and I don't believe that Arab culture is evil. I believe that their rulers are evil and the ones who get the publicity are. The average Arab citizen couldn't care less what goes on outside their own country, the same as anybody else in the world.

Their rulers have been brainwashing them with so-called Islamic rhetoric. No, I am not a Muslim, but I have read parts of the Koran, and nowhere in it are any of their acts against America justified. They simply believe that we live a decadant lifestyle, despite the fact that we are their livelihood.

Poodle i am not racist. I don't hate blacks, Asians, Arabs (although their whole culture is wrong) Talk about self-contradiction...

Sir Dargorn: Amen bro. Well said.

-thanos

(although their whole culture is wrong), Z-Layrex, that statement is so not true. I believe what you meant was that you disapprove the fundamentalist islamic culture? If not, well, in that case my opinion of you just took a nosedive...

Ara
(Mathematics is fun... especially when the teacher doesn't realize that you're asleep..)

Yes Ara i dissaprove of the extereme way they are ruled and made to work. I have very little against Islam itself. Hell it means 'peace' in Arabic (though it seems a bit ironic now that the crazy rulars have ruined Islam forever).

Sir Dargorn,

You choose to single out Britain for destroying much of the world during the last two hundred years. While this may be true, you fail to mention the other Europeans that were right there with them. The Dutch specifically come to mind.
As for America, yes we are paying the price for misguided diplomacy. But you fail to mention Russia. They were the main competitor with the US and did at least as much damage. Much of US international policy since 1945 has been based on thwarting the (now defunct) USSR.

The fact is that America has asked for what it gotReally? 3000 civilians asked to be killed? I missed that.

On topic:
I mourned.

[ September 17, 2002, 16:10: Message edited by: Jack Funk ]

Sorry Jack funk but what you have quoted of me is something i regret typing. I said the right thing in thw wrong way.
I do not think those civilians deserved to die i just believe that after all those years of western domination it is not so shocking that they got bitten back.

And i know that Russia and the Dutch have done things.........and a lot of other countries too, but they are not involved in this latest dispute so i left them out.

Sir Dargorn,

Thanks for clarifying. You never seemed that callous in the past.
As for the other countries, wouldn't it be nice if they got involved in cleaning up the the mess they helped make in the first place? Not just in the Middle East, but Africa as well.

Claiming moral equivalency like Dargorn does is the sign of a sick age. Only someone willfully blind could compare the societies of the UK and the US with the Middle East countries and be able to say that each is equally evil.

For every debt that you whine about, the US and UK have forgiven as much or more in foreign aid. When is the last time you heard of Iraqi foreign aid?

For every backing of the wrong side in a foreign conflict, the US and UK have kept the peace in twice as many regions. When is the last time you heard of Syrian peacekeeping troops?

It's ridiculous (and evidence that socialist theories of economics live on) to think that the US and UK raised their standards of living by trodding on 3rd World countries. We have enriched them. China is becoming an economic powerhouse because of the US and UK. Other countries have lifted themselves out of poverty before because they rode the coattails of the Western powers.

There is no moral equivalence here. Even if, a point I do not concede, great evils have been done in the past by the US and UK, that does not give you license throw up your hands and walk away.

The important part is that here, today, now you must decide who is in the right. You seem to want to roll over and surrender -- to just declare that the question is too difficult for you to answer so you don't have to face the fact that very bad things can happen to you and those you love because a fight against evil is imminent.

That, my friend, is pure cowardice.

[ September 18, 2002, 15:45: Message edited by: Shralp ]

I couldn't agree with Shralp more. I don't see how you can be so anti against your own country poodle?.. :confused:

[ September 18, 2002, 17:10: Message edited by: Z-Layrex ]

http://www.uni-kassel.de/fb10/frieden/themen/Embargo/sponeck.html (it's german)
Ever heard about Embargo?
http://www.geocities.com/iraqinfo/index.html?page=/iraqinfo/sanctions/sanctions.html
(it's english)

I didn't do anything to remember 9/11. Everybody in Holland should have had one minute of silence, but I forgot. We had a few minutes of silence last year, I would have been silent out of respect for the people who died, if I had remembered. Do Americans have one minute of silence to think of the millions of Dutch and other Europeans who died in the Second World War?

Yes. :p Not sure what the date is. Is it the same as over here?

Shralp. Sorry man. But it is my opinion. America is becoming corrupted by it's politicians and especially it's redneck gun toting president.
Shralp i thought you were journalist. Surely you should be able to understand how different cultures work.
The true evil in this case is purely a matter of opinion. Both can be seen to be bad if looked at in the right respect.
The Middle Eastern culture believes us to be evil and vice versa. But who is right? no one is actually right!
You are just brainwashed by a constant barrage of media of obvious jubious reliability, in which you are TOLD that the middle east is the den of evil. i am sorry but in my opinion. Both Saddam AND Bush need to be thrown off their thrones.

@Z-Layrex. i am patriotic with my own country. But only if it is in my opinion, right. The government is in my opinion wrong and i refuse to be, like you, a sheep following the shepard that is propaganda and blatent biase.

[ September 18, 2002, 22:08: Message edited by: Sir Dargorn ]

The day you're thinking of Z is Veteran's Day. In common wealth countries and various others it's called Rememberance Day: the 11th day of the 11th month. As with every other nation that remembers, that day was originally set aside to remember the lives lost in the Great War. Unfortunately, remembering doesn't seem to have done all that much good. The day has since been officially adopted for veterans of WWII, and more recently for vets of the Korean War and in the US the Vietnam war - these last two have only been officially included during the last few years. - "Lest we forget"

I couldn't agree with Sir Dargorn, he seems like a wise man. Z-Layrex is a fool, I feel sorry for him.

Please, don't forget about Chile.

The true evil in this case is purely a matter of opinion. Both can be seen to be bad if looked at in the right respect.
Looked at in the "right respect" but definitely NOT the same respect. The US has done bad things in the past (slavery comes to mind... but that is neither here nor there, along with Hiroshima and Nagasaki) but those are scattered events, occurring in very different times and very different circumstances. Iraq has shown rather evil tendencies in the present as well as in the past.
On the other side of the coin though, the US has shown an annoying (and dangerous) tendency to stick its nose in most other countries' affairs. Do the ends justify the means? Depends on who you ask.

i am patriotic with my own country. But only if it is in my opinion, right. The government is in my opinion wrong... -I know you directed that comment at Z-Layrex, but hopefully you'll forgive me for answering, but I have always believed a patriot to be someone who strongly supports their country. Do you, or do you not support your country's actions?

...and i refuse to be, like you, a sheep following the shepard that is propaganda and blatent biase. Just because someone supports their government, doesn't mean that they are following it blindly. There is a fine line between loyalty and blind loyalty.

Z-Layrex is a fool, I feel sorry for him. There is absolutely no need for you to insult Z-Layrex. He is loyal to the US government, one that he likely thinks is right. You may disagree with him, but you should NOT insult him for having a different opinion.

Dargorn, that's sheer arrogance.

Have you ever read American media? I make a challenge to you: Go to the Washington Post's website, www.washingtonpost.com, (http://www.washingtonpost.com,) every day for a week. It's a very mainstream paper from the nation's capital. Count how many articles cover those who do NOT want us to go to war against Iraq. Heck, there's one on the front page today.

Your ridiculous claims that I'm just regurgitating what I'm force-fed by the media doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

I recently had an Irish guy tell me the same thing -- we in America only her one side of the story, blah, blah, blah. He sent me an interview with Nelson Mandela in order to "enlighten" me. It was from MSNBC. (And I'd already read it.)

Oblate, I read that English link you sent. While I agree that economic sanctions do not usually work, the page you linked to was pretty light on facts and heavy on wild accusations. And let's remember that most sanctions (all, as far as I know) against Iraq were put there by the UN, not the US.

[ September 19, 2002, 14:42: Message edited by: Shralp ]

Facts? c'mon Shralpie. That would ruin the wonderfull verbal-igniting poodle image. :1eye:

[ September 19, 2002, 14:54: Message edited by: Nobleman ]

Fankly I didn't do a thing to remember 11/9 because I get sick and tired of this whole 11/9 thing. And even more of the advantage the USA has taken from this event (either your with us or against us). True a lot of people died, but so did a lot of japanese people who lived in hiroshima, or a lot of innocent people living in vietnam!

aegron;

How many times should it be pointed out that The bombs in Japan was to stop a war, the WTC attack was to start/continue/ignite one. This is a very fundamental difference in the thoughts behind the two acts. Why is that so hard to acknowledge?

I know intentions and logic is one thing. The consequences, etics and suffering is they grey aftermath of warfare analasys. But please keep them seperated.

[ September 19, 2002, 15:06: Message edited by: Nobleman ]

Amazing how many Europeans are willing to bring up Hiroshima and Nagasaki when bashing the US.
Should we open season on Germany for Auschwitz, Treblinka, et. al.?
The high and mighty Dutch and English. Have you considered the effects of your colonialism worldwide? Africa has still not recovered.
What about Japan (the "victim" according to many here)? Why not have a discussion on Nanching?

While Americans are accused of being brainwashed by the press (the most open press in the world, IMO, and very critical of the government), I believe that many Europeans have been brainwashed to be anti-USA. Proof? Read this entire thread.

Edit: Added IMO to appease Thanos

[ September 19, 2002, 19:03: Message edited by: Jack Funk ]

There is absolutely no need for you to insult Z-Layrex. He is loyal to the US government, one that he likely thinks is right. You may disagree with him, but you should NOT insult him for having a different opinion. Thanks alot Faerus, but i'm British actually (but i love the US very much). But i still get what you mean. I am not a fool for agreeing with an action by the goverment Turandil, I think you might be the fool for not accepting someone else's opinion. I am sick to death of the "oh let's give them another chance" opinion that we all had a few years ago. I just can't take watching a maniac fire a gun into the air to celebrate, or see a troop of evil Extreme Islamic morons gunning down a street for no reason other than religion. I just want them dead.

the most open press in the world Jack:

Please define 'world'. Also, how do you know that? Did you go to every place in the planet and saw what their media were?
True, media here are quite open compared to (some countries in) SE asia/middle east/africa (and a handful of countries in Europe). But, for the most part, european press is rather open, IMO.

It is my personal opinion that Americans tend to sometimes abuse the word 'world' (not always with bad intentions, but sometimes they are there). It is such a generalizing word.

-thanos

Thanos,

Nice try. Is that all you've got?

It is clearly opinion. I will be more precise.

Very convenient how you ignored the rest of the post.

[ September 19, 2002, 19:02: Message edited by: Jack Funk ]

Shralp and Nobleman. I don't make things up. I base my opinions on things i read in books and newspapers not by pure speculation. For god's sake the text i read is Biased too!

But tell me this then Shralp. If your media is so fair in its depiction of this latest event and even in some cases trying to prevent it, then why does the American public support Bush's actions more than any other state.
If the media is fair then it cannot be that which stirs them. 99% of the population did not see the Two towers disaster so they must have relied on media for their knowledge.
And i refuse to believe that any half intelligent man like yourself would follow their government through sheer blind Patrionism.
Why is America so pro war when in other countries the enthusiasm is much less?

(Nobleman please don't be nasty, i have grown up a lot, i ONLY use the facts now.)

I love your posts poodle. Your ingenious wordings and way to make dimmed grey arguments lighten up. I apologize for teasing you. I don't think you lie. You are just a very impulsive writer and you're eager to say a lot and solve a lot. You make a difference in each post. Now thats interesting.

Please don't call it lie. At hardest to yourself call it adapting the truth. Which is what everyone does. Me included :)

Jack:

I didn't ignore the rest of the post. I just didn't have time to comment on all of it. But the excessive use of the word 'world' is sometimes annoying.

Anyway, now, with more time in my hands, I can answer some of those things.

Let me put it this way, for my fellow Europeans:
'If you are going to criticize the US, at least do it for the correct reasons'.

It is pointless to bring the A-bomb thing over and over again. THAT was a different time, and you have to put things into perspective (the perspective of THAT time, not now). And in any case, the british leveling of German cities was quite as bad. Bloody Sunday was also a terrible thing (and that was in the 70ies, IIRC).

Jack: you say than you have the most criticizing media. Pray tell, how many of the *mainstream* media are criticizing Bush after 9/11? Anyone that DARED criticizing the government about its actions after 9/11 was deemed as a 'terrotist symapthizer', 'unpatriotic', 'anti-Semetic' (funny how that pops up all the time) etc. You want proof? The host of "Politically Incorrect" (the show, don't remember his exact name). And that's just ONE instance.

Now, if you are referring to some little-known (at least to me) newspaper, or some TV station with local coverage, criticizing the government, that I cannot know. But it's rather pointless.And in any case, I can say that (part of)the Greek media is heavily criticizing the government. Same goes for some British media (the Independent comes to mind). So I stand by my opinion that your claim (even if it is a personal view) is flawed. Unless of course you have lived in various parts of the world and know better.

Seriously, you (and most Americans) should stop seeing every word of criticism coming from Europe as 'anti-americanism', and start seeing it for what it is: criticism. I am sorry, but some (actually, most) of the actions of your government are not popular in Europe-and we all have our reasons for that (and most of them are pretty good reasons, mind you-I could elaborate on that if you wish). I agree that there are certain posts/articles/shows/whatnot that are indeed blatatly bashing the US for everything and then some. BUT, there is an equivalent amount that does just the opposite: praises the US for everything and then some.

So I guess what I am saying is, maybe you should stop being so uni-lateralist and give some people a chance to express their thoughts, even when you don't like them (the thoughts, not the people). This is exactly why I brought the notion of 'freedom of speech' in that other post. At least Blackthorn contradicted those claims (although he didn't convince me, but at least he was civilized: didn't call the poor guy an idiot, or a moron, or say that his post was full of crap).

Some people are so quick to pass judjement on other countries, but get infuriated when someone else does the same to their own country...

I am all for civilized discussions. So I wish we could all stick to that.

-thanos

Thanos,
Once again you put words in my mouth:

At least Blackthorn contradicted those claims (although he didn't convince me, but at least he was civilized: didn't call the poor guy an idiot, or a moron, or say that his post was full of crap). Show me where I made any statement resembling the above.

As far as criticism. I am all for it. If it is constructive. Rhetoric is not criticism. If you read my posts, you will see that I want dialog (see the Moment of silence thread). I am continually asking people why they feel the way they do. Why the post what they post. Most of the time, I get no response. I don't believe that my country is right in everything it does. Quite the contrary. I just don't see where broad generalisations, backed by questionable figures, are useful in any debate.

So I guess what I am saying is, maybe you should stop being so uni-lateralist and give some people a chance to express their thoughts, even when you don't like them Until the rhetoric is removed, there can be no honest dialog.

About the press. Yes after 9/11, being critical of the government was unpopular. It didn't last long, did it? I think it is a good thing that the press is critical of the government, when the motive of the criticism is not political (ie. Liberal press being critical simply because the leader is conservative).

The simple answer: America is threatened. America wants to respond. It's hard for countries not so threatened to get motivated enough to get involved. This is why I give full props to Blair (whom I always thought was merely a toady Clinton clone before). And then there's the cowardice factor I mentioned before.

The complicated answer: Many people want threats to America like Saddam Hussein to be preserved. The Russians want him around because he's an important trading partner. The French and Germans want him around because they sell him weapons. The Chinese want him around because they want ALL threats to the US to remain. Resentment of America's wealth and power sparks a little bit of joy in a lot of people. That as well as misguided concepts of justice lead people to think that everything done on the international stage must be done through the UN, and as we've indicated that we'll go it alone to defend ourselves if the UN doesn't step up to the plate, that causes more resentment. People on the left are often willfully blind and see nothing but white people preparing to attack brown people or a rich country attacking a poor country instead of the real issues behind it. Many others with chips on their shoulders realize dimly that America is in the right to defend herself, but because of grudges over past wrongs they cheer against us.

A lot of Americans felt similarly in the past. But a sneak attack on American soil does a lot to clear away the nonsense of political correctness and liberalism and forces people to get down to brass tacks.

Oh, and I missed it: Did you just concede that the American media is not as biased as you claimed?

Sharlp:
"Many people want threats to America like Saddam Hussein to be preserved. The Russians want him around because he's an important trading partner. The French and Germans want him around because they sell him weapons. The Chinese want him around because they want ALL threats to the US to remain."

Even if what you say is true, this does not expain why Saddam is a threat for USA. In my country we use to say "a dog, who barks, does not bite". After the Gulf war Saddam is screaming that he will destroy USA. What has he actually done? Absoluty nothing. Saddam has never been connected with Bin Laden. If there are evidence that he is training terrorists, why the USA goverment has not presented them?

Also, even if he has nukes and biological weapons, where is the threat for USA? Do you think that he is an idiot? Do you think that he does not know that if he bombs USA with a single nuke, Iraq will become a nuclear graveyard? In addition, as far as I know, his missiles can not reach USA. so where is the threat for the american people?

Jack:

I didn't say you called the guy an idiot, that was Z. And you are right, you never said those things. I had you mixed up with someone else and I apologize.

Back to the point: yes, there is rhetoric. FROM BOTH SIDES. If you accept that, it's great-it means we have a promising basis for further discussion.
And as I pointed out in the previous post, I don't agree with all the blame thrown at the US. But I agree with some. And if you want to hear that part, and my reasons as to why I don't like ASPECTS of the US (foreign) policy, I will be happy to oblige. But yes, blaming everything on the US is as bad as the (pathetic) attempts of part of the US government to convince the world that Saddam is the Devil Incarnate( mind you, he is prerry bad), and that therefore they are justified to do whatever the hell they feel like doing.

And one last thing about rhetoric etc (again, from BOTH SIDES). I think it partially has to do with the average age in these forums. Young people (especially teenagers, since I consider myself young as well:)) tend to be impulsive, over-reactive, dogmatic, short-tempered etc. I guess it could be one of the reasons we are seeing all this behavior. But then again I could be wrong.

-thanos

Yes i did Shralp. Because unlike you i am perfectly willing to accept i am wrong if shown the evidence to prove so.
But i am not left wing in my view. I couldn't care less about wether they are black or white or brown or green. The fact that i try desperatley to get across is that in my opinion America is just as bad as the middle east. Iraq is going to be attacked soon so that it cannot be capable of making nucleaur weapons. Yet America is allowed nucleaur weapons.
Ok you could say that Saddam is more dangerous with them and that he is under sanction. And for good reason as they invaded neighbouring countries.
But America intervened in it. A matter which was nothing to do with them. I didn't see the middle eastern countries mosey on in and help out vietnam!
So both countries go to war for no just cause and yet America is instantly trusted with weapons but Iraq is not? Where is the logic? (Go on go mad at me i have a follow up argument)

Because unlike you i am perfectly willing to accept i am wrong if shown the evidence to prove so.Heh. If you've given any evidence that prove anything, I've missed it. Are you referring to something in particular, or are you just generally slandering me?

The fact that i try desperatley to get across is that in my opinion America is just as bad as the middle east. And that is exactly why I call you a coward. You try so desperately to say that George Bush and Saddam Hussein are moral equals when it is obvious to one and all that they are not.

Iraq is going to be attacked soon so that it cannot be capable of making nucleaur weapons. Yet America is allowed nucleaur weapons. Ok you could say that Saddam is more dangerous with them and that he is under sanction. And for good reason as they invaded neighbouring countries. Ah. You start to catch on. I think.

But America intervened in it. A matter which was nothing to do with them. I didn't see the middle eastern countries mosey on in and help out vietnam!Wrong again. The United Nations intervened. America led, but it was the entire international community that joined, and it included several Middle Eastern countries. You would have the world look the other way when Iraq invades Kuwait because we shouldn't "intervene"? Coward.

Thanos,
Rhetoric from both sides. This is true. While I try to keep it out of my posts, it is certainly present from some of the pro-US posters.
Your comments about age are interesting. I have believed that this is true for a long time. I did not want to offend anyone by pointing it out.

Just so everyone understands me, I love my country, I am patriotic, but I do not agree with everything that my government, the American media, or American athletes (see the Olympics. Puke) do. Too many people who represent the US on the national stage do a poor job of it. I recognize that this is what the rest of the world sees. I try to do a good job of representing my country here. By trying to be open minded, fair, and accepting. I don't do this because of the way America is viewed. I do it because this is how I try to live my life. I frequently fail. But I will keep trying.

About Iraq. I don't believe Saddam. If he was honest, he would not have kicked the inspectors out 4 years ago. If the UN had any balls, they would have held him to the agreement that he made ending the Persian Gulf war. I think Bush comes off like a cowboy, but I think his interests are in the right place. Saddam is a threat to the world and needs to be dealt with. At least Bush is willing to. Clinton is a fool. Al Queda attacked the US several times during his presidency. What did he do? Lobbed some cruise missles at Afghanistan and the Sudan.
If Clinton had dealt with them appropriately (and not slashed the US intelligence community and military) we could have avoided 9/11. Alot of people claim that young Bush is trying to complete a vendetta started by old Bush. I disagree. He is cleaning up the mess that Clinton made after 8 years of doing nothing to deal with threats and attacks.

the british leveling of German cities was quite as bad.They started it. :lol: :p

Just to note, the UN weapons inspectors were not kicked out of Iraq. They left on their own accord in protest of Iraq's uncoorperativeness and for fear of their own safety. The UN tried to regain admittance later on but Iraq would not permit it.

And Z - is that comment really necessary or even appropriate? It's pretty tasteless to laugh at horrific events like that - any such events.

Shralp calling me a Coward because i have a different opinion than you is just the sort of childish response i expect from a kindergarten student. So until you actually have anything polite to say then don't say anything at all.

And yes the UN did intervene. But then as you say they were led by the United States. But then i wouldn't argue with a man like clinton with his finger on the Trigger. The UN follow America because they are afraid of the US (bit like a dictatorship isn't it?). That is why it is such a shock that they have put their foot down this time.

It's all Clinton's fault!!!

Amazing, he's not even President anymore and the Republican's still can't get over their seething anger/jealousy toward him.

How someone can blame 9/11 on Clinton just goes to show how blinded by party politics people can be.

No, I name you coward because you refuse to look closely at the situation and come to a conclusion.

You obviously have not looked closely at the situation, as I was able to refute your point about American media bias when a simple Internet search would have shown you the same thing.

[ September 20, 2002, 18:51: Message edited by: Shralp ]

Gnloyn. I was making a joke about it because they deserved it. Actually, they deserved more.

Scamparella,
You clearly disagree with my assessment of Clintons performance. However you don't comment on any of the points I made:
1. his response (or lack there of) to attacks made by Al Queda
2. his crippling of the intelligence and military capabilities of the US.

Instead, you imply that I am a Republican. You are wrong. I attempt to be objective. Had you made this attempt, you would have at least addressed the above statements, either disputing the statements themselves or the impact of his actions.

Any comment?

I can tell you one thing...

Last year, after the 9/11 I went to school only to find out that we was going to have a silent minute the day after. The next day i skipped the school totally, listening to a song that is named Ett fritt Palestina by EAK - Eld Attack Krossa which in english is A Free Palestina by FAC - Fire Attack Crush...

I am a commmunist and I am proud of it. just don`t say that we are evil it was just Stalin that spread **** about us killing innocents people. I am a supporter of Fidel Castro - the saviour of Cuba, I am from Sweden and one last thing.

Remember that many people that died have maked their caarers on the expence of others...

"One mans bread is the other ones dead"

Do not care about my other post i was very angry that day... I am having seriously family problems.

I do not even think that Hitler was evil. He was just mad, thinking that white was the superior race. There is only one race: Humans.

[ September 20, 2002, 22:49: Message edited by: AssWooper the ÜberSpammer ]

Holy crap. Wow. Oh, geez.

Hitler did NOT think that "white was the superior race," unless if by "white" you mean Aryan. The majority of Jews killed by the Nazis were "white" [Caucasian.] i.e. Hitler killed 12 MILLION "whites" [6,000,000 Jews, 6,000,000 non-Jews.]

[ September 21, 2002, 16:09: Message edited by: SlimShogun ]

For every debt that you whine about, the US and UK have forgiven as much or more in foreign aid. When is the last time you heard of Iraqi foreign aid?

The biggest problem is that yoo and many other countries send aid, but the deptd they got to the USA is so much higher, why not just put a X over the whole damn debts? And your economic system makes it very hard for the to sell yheir warez, and most of the biggest companies are owned by americans making mony on the poor people.

It's ridiculous (and evidence that socialist theories of economics live on) to think that the US and UK raised their standards of living by trodding on 3rd World countries. We have enriched them. China is becoming an economic powerhouse because of the US and UK. Other countries have lifted themselves out of poverty before because they rode the coattails of the Western powers.

Hell no! The capitalim you are spreading does not improve the conditions of the 3d world, more the opposide. Ok, you give many jobs (sucking jobs) American buisness men are using people in the 3d world by letting them workd for so much less income then they should. Capitalism is an unspeakable failure, the rich are getting richer and the poor is starving.

BTW, I beg your forgiveness Z-Layrex, I didn't mean to insult you before, it was dumb of me.
Though I still dont share your opinions :)

[ September 22, 2002, 00:57: Message edited by: Turandil ]

I thought about and mourned the lives lost. And wished (in vain probably) that there would be no more, here or elsewhere.

I stayed away from media coverage, it was just too overwhelming.

I have strong opinions on US foreign policy, but this topic has degenerated into a flame war. So I am going to keep them to myself. We agree that we are intelligent and can have a rational discussion, most of you say that in almost every post, then turn around and twist someone else's words around a little bit, or don't think carefully about what the other person is saying, or throw a little insult to the other person when you reply.

I move that this thread be closed. It's not proving anything, and while I think it's good for people to air thier differences and discuss them in a rational matter, that's not what's happening here. The emotions are spilling over, and it's pretty much down to people questioning each others sanity because they have a different opinion, and can't for the life of them understand why. No more, please!

The worlds problems will not be solved on these boards. There are always going to be problems in the world, there are always going to be different points of view on exactly what the problems are and exactly how they got started, and how they could be solved, and who should have done what. Everyone here is trying to convince the others that they are right. And it's not going to happen because everyone else feels as strongly as you do.

This topic has given me much food for thought, but
no one has the right to take an innocent life, for any reason. Let's leave it at that.

Peace :)

[ September 22, 2002, 04:19: Message edited by: Nutrimat ]

Jack- I will comment on just a few of the things you just brought up.
To begin with, I purposefully did not use your name in my post because I do not know whether you are republican or not and it does not matter. My post was in response to the blame you placed upon Clinton which is something the Republicans have done from day one; I meant it to be a general comment, not a direct one at you. I personally think it is absolutely ridiculous for anyone to try and pin 9/11 on Clinton.

Although I did express my amusement in regards to your Clinton bashing, I really don't want to get involved in the banter going on here. I don't have all the articles and news programs I have listened to over the last decade right here in front of me to 'support' my opinions, so I can't argue facts. Clinton did what he could given a Congress full of Republicans who were hell bent on making him look bad and blocking his every move. IMO we spend more than enough money on the military so I disagree with your description of his cuts in spending.

It is completely logical to think that eight years of a presidency can have an effect on foreign policy.

Criticizing as mindless "Clinton bashing" is disingenuous.

Personally Shralp, I think blaming anyone other than the terrorists and their leader is somewhat akin to blaming the victim in a rape or the murdered instead of the murderer.

Having said that, if you really need to blame any president blame George Bush. He is the one who put troops in Iraq in the first place which if I recall correctly, was the main reason Bin Laden was pissed off at us; He didn't like having infidels in holy land.

Oh, I agree that Clinton is not to blame for the attacks. But I don't think Jack was laying all the blame at his feet either.

That was a UN coalition that entered Iraq, BTW. And UBL was ticked about American troops in Saudi Arabia; you'll have to go a lot farther back than Bush to criticize that one.

Regardless, the Clinton Administration might have recognized that UBL was a threat early on. And no one realized how great a threat he really was, so I don't criticize him for that. But the ineffectual, half-assed bombing of a Sudanese medicine factory (and the other site in Iraq (?)) right when it was most politically convenient for Clinton -- that is an episode that is justly criticized.

I agree, that seemed just a little too well timed politically.

The problem is, how can we the people blame the politicians for doing stupid things to up their standing in the polls when the general public are such suckers for that kind of stuff?

This is an interesting 'infinite loop' (aka chicken & egg) problem:

-The general public (or 'average X/Y/Z') likes some stuff.
-Politicians are happy to oblige
-The not-so-general public (i.e. people that have an advanced ability to croticize, that can see past pretexts etc) don't like this stuff and criticize it. But this brings them at odds with the 'will of the people', so to speak.

I think the solution to the above is to strive, as a society, to produce smarter people. Unfortunately, in most cases, politicians DONT want smarter people (they ask too many questions for one thing), so they are determined to create dumber and dumber people-and we are back to square 1. And for the most part, moves and TV are great tools for accomplishing that.

This is not a phenomenon found only in the US-it can be found in Europe as well (although to a smaller extent).

-thanos

Heh. Scarampella, I blame the public too. :1eye:

"Each society gets the government it deserves."

Scamp,
The failure is with the whole system. At the time of the attacks previous to 9/11, Clinton was in charge and had the opportunity to do something about it.
My implication is that if Clinton had been more responsive to the attacks by Al Queda during his presidency, we MAY have been able to avoid 9/11. He chose not to. Why? I don't know. My guess is that the polls indicated that terrorist attacks were not a major concern. Clinton has been accused more than once of governing by the polls (I tend to agree with this).
The problem with going by the polls is that the public does not have all of the information. Much of the intelligence regarding Al Quedas actions and plans was not made public.

Yes, educate the masses!

I too believe politicians rely upon an uninformed, ill-educated populace. They are much easier to manipulate. And as well, the media does not provide the public with much information: only what the few moguls who own them want us to read. The media has great power over what is a public issue and often sets the tone for how the public will react.

Clinton, I believe, had to contend with all the negative branding by the Republicans over his actions in the 60's when he rallied against the US involvement in Vietnam. Republicans would like to maintain an exclusive association with the military for obvious reasons. Even though many of them avoided military service, they painted Clinton as unpatriotic simply by virtue of the fact he was excersizing his rights as a citizen. Ultimately, Clinton did not have the support he needed to do something militarily for an extended amount of time. He tried to keep all action to a minimum. To turn around and fault him for the atmosphere created by a party that wants to be the only ones using the military - well, I say its their bed, let them sleep in it.

[ September 24, 2002, 17:34: Message edited by: scarampella ]

Scarampella,
The president is the commander of the military. While he cannot wage a prolonged war without congressional approval, he can take more action than Clinton did.
I find it remarkable that you entered this debate by accusing me of partisan politics, yet, that is all that you have added. You seem compelled to make excuses for Clinton by blaming the Republicans.
My contention is that they all dropped the ball, but since Clinton was in charge (yes, in charge) he gets the most blame. He didn't even TRY to promote real military action against Al Queda even after the attack on the USS Cole. American sailors died in that attack. What did Clinton do? Lobbed some cruise missles. What did that tell Al Queda? That the US was not serious about defending itself.

Excuse me, but I never accused anyone of anything.
I am a die hard liberal with no shame for saying so and yes I will argue partisan politics because I hate the way republicans do politics.
I am not trying to say Clinton did the right thing or say he is immune to criticism. The USS Cole is not the only military failure on Clintons part. I just assert once again, regardless of whether he was commander in chief, the republicans did their best to say he was not fit to be commander of the armed forces because he abandoned them in the 60's. You cannot deny the effect that has upon his capacity to use them with full support. Are you forgetting the public reaction to the soldier dragged thru the streets in Africa?

"Each society gets the government it deserves." WOW - Shralp involved in America-bashing! I never thought I'd see the day.

Hmmm.... On a bit morbid note, uit seems that the SuoLi mailing list, the one for the Finnish LARP association, died as well on 11/9, seein as after the date only posts have been about the deadness of the list.

Ara
(Life sucks and then you die)

Scarampella,

You posted:
How someone can blame 9/11 on Clinton just goes to show how blinded by party politics people can be. This was three posts after my comments about Clinton. No one up to that point even brought him up. Perhaps accuse was to strong a term, but it was clear you were referring to me.

I'm not sure why being a liberal has anything to do with this. Just because you are a liberal does not mean that you have to follow the Democratic party to the grave. Try to be objective about Clintons performance.
It seems that you are saying that because of his behavior in the 60's, the military would not have carried out his orders. They sure carried them out when he told them to fire cruise missles. Why would they have not followed through with other types of military action?

Your comments about the public reaction to Somalia are curious. But I don't understand what you are trying to say.

For the record, I align myself with neither party (I'm an independent). I hate the general policies of the Republicans when it comes to the environment. I hate the general policies of the Democrats when it comes to social engineering (welfare, affirmative action, gun control, etc.). Both parties play the partisan politics thing to the detriment of the entire country.

[ September 25, 2002, 15:57: Message edited by: Jack Funk ]

Jack:
OK, maybe I was making an assumption based upon your statement. But I will say it again, I wanted to reply to the comment which is one many people on the right would make. I mean, how far of a stretch is it really to respond to a Clinton bash as something typically partisan?

For someone who is disturbed by assumtions you make quite a few.
I am liberal but I will not "follow the party to its grave". I happen to be very dissapointed with my party, and have been for decades. Don't assume I am incapable of looking objectively at Clinton.

You tend towards black and white thinking which makes trying to communicate difficult. If you can't see how the media and public sentiment affected Clinton's use of the military, I'm afraid explaining myself further will be to no avail.

I understand that the media and public affected Clintons use of the military. The media and public affected practically everything that Clinton did when he was in office. That's the problem. Clinton was privy to knowledge that the media and public did not have. He could/should have acted on that knowledge.
According to Dick Morris (Clintons chief political advisor) in his book "Behind the Oval Office: Getting Reelected Against All Odds", the polls indicated that terrorism was not high on the list of concerns of the average American. So despite having knowledge that the public was not aware of, Clinton chose to do nothing about it.
As far as I am concerned, Clinton failed in his job as Commander and Chief (the primary job of the President). You don't make military decisions based on popular sentiment. You base them on threat assessment, intelligence, military readiness, troop strength, etc.

I apologize for any assumptions that I made about you. If you review your posts, it is easy (for me anyway) to see how I came to the conclusion that you were a party-line Democrat. Your last post clears that up. I will try to not make any assumptions in the future.

[ September 25, 2002, 23:02: Message edited by: Jack Funk ]

I did nothing special to remember 9/11 (note that we europeans have adapted the american way of writing dates in the wrong order, if I should be correct it should be written 11/9).
But I did give it some thought and what concluded was that western lives are alot more valuable than people that live in other parts of the world, atleast in our minds. We all agree that it was a terrible thing and that the individuals should be hunted down and put to trial (not put in a koncentration camp on Cuba with no legal council and no rights whatsoever, not prisoners of war nor captured criminals but humans that have been bereft of all their rights. Not even the most ruthless criminal get such a treatment, heck not even the nazis got it and the only crime the people in Guantamo Bay is guilty of is having an opionion of something that most of here disagree with and that they fought in a war on the wrong side. Reminds me how Hitler and Stalin treated their prisoners of war. None of them flew a plan, I doubt it if anyone of them even knew about it, they were naught but products of a horrid society, brainwashed and without no hope at all. Is that how the US treat their POW's? Or is it not a war? I am confused here? When is someone a prisoner of war,a criminal or someone to just be put in a koncentration camp?)

On the iraque matter so is the only reason to attack Iraq paranoia and imo a way for Bush to fire up the masses with another holy crusade. Saddam is a dictator and a genocide, he should have been removed a long time ago, prefarably when they had the chance during W's dad. But the US kept him, ni my opinion was it because he was needed, the US needed a ghost to scare their populace and justify their huge military budget and to keep the wheels in the arms industry rolling, but that is my personal opinion. But today there is no reason to attack Iraq, he isnt athreat to the US atleast, he have nothing at all in common with Bin Laden and the Al Qaida, Saddam is a secular leader and not at all liked but the religous fantatics that the Al Qaida rely on, I think they would just as gladly kill each other as attack the US, same with Iraq and Iran. Saddam doesnt have more weapons now than what he had a few years ago, all reports stating that he has bio and chem weapons are old and suspicouns. And what if he has them? He cannot use them, he is already a paria. Attacking Iraq would only serve to gather the nation behind him just aas the sanctions have, after teh guld war there was a big opposition ready to dispose him if they got the proper support from abroad, they didnt. Instead the world showed the iraqi that we care nothing for them with sanctions and now threats fo a new war, who can they turn to? The answer is Saddam Hussein...
The US with their great experience of disposing unwanted goverments should work for an internal solution to the Iraq problem instead of bombing a piece of desert to smithereens because you dont think the US dare to go in with troops and risk a single valuable american life when they can let their planes rain inscrutiable destruction from the skies?

Hey you guys know the real solution to all these world problems? Listen to "Imagine" from John Lennon. Now theirs a role model for peace. :hippy:

Totaly agree with Joq.

Joacqin - The US doesn't want war with Iraq. What the US wants is for Iraq to abide by the terms of surrender that were agreed to as well as the UN resolutions they have defied.

It seems the only way to do that is to get rid of Hussein, because he keeps making promises and then changing his mind to buy more and more time.

The cycle just started again. Hussein promised to let the inspectors back in and give them unrestricted access. Not more than a week later, he begins to place restrictions: the palaces are off limits. This has happened before; the list of off limit places grows and grows.

All that has to happen is for Iraq to do what it has said it will do and there will be no need for the UN (or perhaps just the US) to force compliance, and the UN sanctions will also come to an end.

[ September 25, 2002, 23:34: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]

I'm glad we have reached a middle ground here.

" So despite having knowledge that the public was not aware of, Clinton chose to do nothing about it."

This is true, about many areas of conflict around the world. Clinton did much to try and create a world of discourse, unification and peace i.e. China, Russia, Israel and Arafat. In many ways he did not fulfill his desired end, but he brought us much closer to world peace than we might have expected. How our relations with China, Israel, and Europe have changed within such a short period of time since he left office. All that he built has been torn down within months. I am especially concerned about China.

Clinton wanted to focus upon internal issues. As 'democrat' as they may seem, welfare, healthcare, social security are issues we cannot deal with entirely as individuals as the Republicans would have us think. How many people can afford medicine that costs a minimum $2.00 a pill? How may people can count on their 401K's when crooked boards and CEO's are left to plunder stockholders without some kind of oversight?

When people are not able to afford insurance, every one else picks up the tab. We cannot go it alone and ignore what is happening. Maybe the gov't is not the answer; they seem to fail at many things they try to do. The FBI failed to handle the information they had readily available about Al Qaida and possible attacks upon the World Trade center. As far as I'm concerned, our system will fail if we do not balance out the wealth soon. God, it was only 25 yrs ago that we could have single income families. Now two incomes are hardly enough to survive. That is not right. Especially since many families are single parents.

Maybe if Clinton had done something earlier we would not be where we are now, but my feeling is the public would not have supported any action on his part. OBL would have seen this lack of public support as a weakness and would have continued his attacks. Basically, the public needed some kind of first hand evidence closer to home to respond with any kind of fervor. No one put flags on their cars after the USS Cole.

i've thanks uncle bin :D

Kovsky, that is NOT funny

On the iraque matter so is the only reason to attack Iraq paranoia and imo a way for Bush to fire up the masses with another holy crusade. holy crusade, hmm? What on Earth are you talking about? Did Al-Qaeda kill thousands of Americans or not? Yes, they did. Was America's response self defense, and designed to prevent AQ from attacking it again? Yes, it was. So explain to me how that qualifies as a holy crusade. The American people didn't need political BS to hate OBL: like Hitler, his actions took care of that.

Saddam doesnt have more weapons now than what he had a few years ago, all reports stating that he has bio and chem weapons are old and suspicouns right. So he obstructed the inspectors and prevented them from doing their job for no reason at all-just because he enjoys being contrary. Yeah, that makes sense to me.

And what if he has them? He cannot use them, he is already a paria. Are you willing to bet your life on that? I'm not. You miss the point: we aren't as worried that HE will use them as we are that he'll give them to someone else who will. He's been a pariah for over a decade, and hasn't bothered him yet.

i am sorry SlimShogun i didn`t know what the name was... of course i didn`t mean white i ment Aryan...

and USA just startes wars to make more taxes that just goes to the presidents pockets...

What I have done? When I drove past our FireDepartement, and noticed the flag half-mast, I stopped, and stood there for a moment. A moment in which I reflected on the past year, and what has changed.

My conclusion? Not all that much has changed. Mankind is still FUBAR. :(

AMaster you didnt answer to a single thing I said. On the holy crusade I meant that the basicly that the much of the rhetorics used by the Bush admistration is very religous in its wording, 'with god by our side', 'god will protect us' and the whole good vs evil thing. The rhetorics sounds very similar to the their oppononts that claim to have a jihad, therefore I used the world crusade. The other reason for that sentence is that there is no collaboration at all between WTC and Al Qaida and Saddam and Iraq. Those things are not connected. You are mixing up the Afganistan war with the possible iraqi war and on a sidenote I do not think the afganiwar was selfdefence, it wasnt the nation Afghanistan that attacked you. But I can agree on it perhaps being nescessary.

On your second issue so have you completely misunderstood me, what I meant was that he has no more weapons now than what he had a few years ago, ie probably something but no one can be sure. But the info we have today is old. Nothing ground shaking has come up this last months to even more justify an attack on Iraq, the threat image is the same as it was several years ago. What I meant is that for some reason it is comfortable to attack now, even though nothing new has happened in several years. Why now? Why not 3 years ago if he is that terrible terrible dangerous?

On the third issue, are you willing to bet several thousands of lives that he will use them? On who will he use them? And I do know that we arent talking american or even western lives here if the UN decides to go along with it is the civilians, it is always the civilians. Why hasnt he used them before? Or given to them to someone? There is no proof that he has anything, according to one of the top inspectors all Saddam has is worthless goo. We do not know, we may suspect.

Not quite, joa.

We simply don't know what he's got now. There have been no inspections, remember? And we do know that he's bought equipment for enriching uranium and tried several times to get fissionable material on the black market. We also now know that there have been all kinds of construction at his nuclear facilites (in violation of UN regulations, if that matters to you).

Regardless, even if he has no more weapons now than he did three years ago, the difference is that now the world has woken up and has regained the will to act. All of these things (removal of the Taliban, reinstatement of inspections in Iraq, etc.) should have happened before. But we, quie frankly, didn't care to deal with it because of all the flack we'd have to take from that wonderful international community.

IMO, the UN handling of the weapons inspections proves that the organization is useless for its primary mission and is only capable of foisting unwanted birth control on third world countries and trying to redefine gender as one of five options.

Oh, and the chief weapons inspector you refer to is Scott Ritter, who was the most critical of the Iraqis because they wouldn't let him go anywhere to inspect. He finally declared that they should just pull out because they couldn't inspect the sites. Now he's suddenly claiming to be an authority on the state of Iraqi arms. How exactly does "I was once in Iraq but couldn't look at anything" qualify him to do so?

Joaquin this is long, forgive me,

(1) Why hasn't Saddam used weapons of mass destruction before? He really hasn't advanced his weaponry since the war? "From 1983 on there were credible reports that Iraqui forces were using them in the war with Iran. Then in 1988 there came clear confirmation that Iraqui government troops had unleashed chemical weapons on the town Halabja in Iraqui Kurdistan. At least 3,000 people were killed by Sarin gas in one incident. Some Gulf War veterans associations claim Iraq used chemical weapons during the 1991 Gulf War but this has never been conclusively prooved.

In the inspections programme, Iraq has acknowledged production of more than 200,000 chemical weapons.

UNSCOM itself has destroyed over 40,000 chemical weapons and nearly 500 tonnes of chemical warfare agents. This is an astonishing amount given that a couple of drops - or a few grams - of some of these agents is enough to kill.

The main facility for CW research and production was the Al-Muthanna State Establishment, but there were other plants in the Fallujah area, south-west of Baghdad.

There are still some gaps in the knowledge of Iraq's chemical warfare programme from the end of its war with Iran in August 1988 until the end of the Gulf War in 1991. It was during this period that Iraq tried to convert many of the short-range weapons it possessed into long-range strategic weapons.

For years, Iraq denied that it had any biological weapons programmes at all. Then, in 1995, it was forced by the defection of Saddam's son-in-law Hussein Kamel to acknowledge that it had been developing germ warfare. But it still has not accounted for all of the 'growth media' it imported - meaning that it could retain both biological weapons and the means to produce more.

Iraq is known to have imported 38 tonnes of growth media for agents such as anthrax and botulimun in 1988 - when it was still preferred by industrialised countries to its radical Islamic neighbour Iran. Of this, 22 tonnes is estimated to have been used up in making weapons which have now been destroyed and UNSCOM destroyed another 11 tonnes in 1996. That leaves seven tonnes unaccounted for.

Along with the growth media, UNSCOM also destroyed Iraq's main known biological weapons factory at Hakam, 60 km south west of Baghdad in the desert. Iraq had originally claimed the facility - which stretched over 18 square kilometres and made an astonishing 600,000 litres of biological agents - was a plant to make animal feed.

Iraq is also known to have produced and put into weapons aflatoxin, which causes liver and kidney failure and cancer and genetic disorders leading to birth defects, and ricin, a toxin causing lung damage when inhaled.

"It is clear now according to our preliminary analysis all the growth culture, the complex growth culture have not been accounted for. We take it that there is at least a range of five tonnes, 5,000 kilos growth culture which has so far not been accounted for," Rolf Ekeus, UNSCOM head, said back in 1995. Although the agents themselves have been destroyed, the missing tools to produce them have not been found since.

During the 1980s, Iraq imported about 800 Scud missiles from the Soviet Union to use in its war with Iran. This started a phase of missile attacks on both sides known as the 'War of the Cities' in which Iraq began to build up a knowledge of using these long-range weapons in action.

In the late 1980s, Iraq began to try and develop its own long-range missiles in programmes with other Arab countries including Egypt. The Badr 2000 series of weapons were designed to have a range of about 1,000 km - far enough to carry into Israel from the western borders of Iraq - and to be capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

Baghdad has continued to develop these weapons since the end of the Gulf War - even while under surveillance from the United Nations. In 1995, a shipment of gyroscope components used to make Scud missiles was intercepted on its way to Iraq. There was an earlier successful shipment in 1991.

Rolf Ekeus has told the U.N. Security Council UNSCOM is not confident of having tracked and destroyed all of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

"In that respect, we are concerned that at least six such missiles, maybe up to fifteen, sixteen missiles still not accounted for. We cannot give reasonable assurances to the Security Council that we have accounted for all weapons in that respect," he said in 1996. Nothing has changed since.

The latest row over American participation in inspections is only one in a long series, as Iraq has tried to obstruct the mission since it began. Here's a brief list of past incidents:

September 1991

A team from the International Atomic Energy Agency was besieged in a car park for several days, after emerging from a suspected nuclear facility with documents.

July 1992

UNSCOM personnel tried to enter the Iraqi Ministry of Agriculture in Baghdad without warning for an inspection. They were blocked and so began a 24-hour observation of the building. They were forced to abandon it and leave the country after they were attacked by a series of mobs in the street outside.

July 1993

UNSCOM was prevented from installing monitoring cameras at two missile test stands at Al-Rafah and Yawm Al-Azim, about 60 km south and south-west of Baghdad. The Baghdad government eventually backed down under the threat of international military action.

June 1996

UNSCOM inspectors were denied access to a series of sites associated with the Republican Guard and Special Republican Guard, and which were believed to be involved in the concealment of proscribed weapons. Iraq denied the inspectors access to four out of six sites, saying they were 'presidential areas' and therefore beyond inspection. Despite numerous rounds of negotiations, inspectors were not able to enter most of these areas and Iraq was condemned as a result in August 1996 for gross violations of U.N. resolutions.

It can be estimated that Iraq would have had a capability to acquire couple of useable nuclear weapons well before 1995, had the Security Council not intervened with Resolution 687", Rolf Ekeus, head of UNSCOM, told the magazine Arms Control this year.

(2) Iraq is not tied to al-Qaida? From reporter Jeff Goldberg, who has been there: "There has been a certain amount of discussion this week in Washington about one particular point I raised, which concerns allegations that Saddam is more closely tied to al-Qaida than we had previously thought. I had actually gone to Iraqi Kurdistan in late January not expecting to learn anything new about terrorism (post-Sept. 11 terrorism, that is, not state terror against the Kurds). But when I was in Kurdistan, I started to hear stories about an al-Qaida-style terror group formerly known as the Jund al-Islam, or Soldiers of Islam, which recently changed its name (for the most naked of PR reasons, I believe) to the Ansar al-Islam, or Supporters of Islam. This group controls about 10 villages near the Iranian border, and its membership consists of typical Islamist mayhem-makers; these people kill in various nasty ways and want to impose sharia, Islamic law, on Free Kurdistan (the parts of Kurdistan under the American no-fly zone), which is problematic because the Kurds are, in the main, secular, progressive, and pro-American.

It's not much of a surprise that this group would be run by so-called Afghan Arabs—Arabs who cycled through Afghanistan over the past 20 years to fight against the Soviets or for Osama. But what I learned—and I'm not going to give away the whole story here—is that Saddam's intelligence agency may jointly control this group with al-Qaida. If this is true, well, the implications are quite serious, which is why people in Washington who don't want the United States to do anything about Iraq have been (unsuccessfully) trying to discredit this aspect of my article. I will tell you, in a later round, about a ridiculous attempt by CNN's Aaron Brown to shoot down the story.

Let me move quickly to another main point of the piece. In 1988, Saddam used, as you know, chemical weapons against the Kurds of the north. He killed thousands with these weapons (and killed thousands more with conventional tools), and today the survivors of these attacks are suffering in terrible ways. Despite the fact that the people of northern Iraq make up the largest single population of chemical-attack survivors in the world, our government has never bothered to study this population and its problems in a systematic way. This is obviously a humanitarian issue, but it is also a national security issue for the United States. The Kurdish doctors I spoke to thought we had lost our heads over the anthrax scare of last fall, in which a handful of people died. We obviously weren't ready for even a small-scale attack, so the question arises: Why hasn't our government ever bothered to explore the long-term medical implications of Saddam's chemical attacks on the Kurds?

I will end what could quickly devolve into a rant by posing this question to you: Does it in fact even matter if Saddam is connected to al-Qaida? In other words, why look for a smoking gun when a dozen already exist? This is a man who has attacked, unprovoked, four of his country's neighbors; a man who has committed genocide and used chemical weapons on civilians; a man who is clearly obsessed with the development of weapons of mass destruction; and a man who uses homicide and rape as a tool of governance. Isn't he worthy, by these deeds alone, of removal?

Or am I just naive?

Best,
Jeff"

I seem to have been slightly misunderstood, but that is to be expected as I am not all too clear most of the time. Basicly what I meant on the iraqi issue that there is not reason enough to go to war, not imo. But my opinion is based on how I perceive the world, just as yours are based on how you perceive it. My main gripe is that I find war to be truly horrible and I think it takes more than suspicouns about possible weapons to go to war, I do think that Saddam should be deposed but as I wrote in my post I think it should have been done a long time ago and by internal dissidents perhaps with western support.

I would just like to ask why no one have commented on my prison rant? The iraqi thing isnt new, what I say and what you say have been said before on these boards.

Mostly because no one gives a flying f!ck about the rights of people who were fighting for the Taliban.

(deep breaths... deep breaths... calm Shralp... go to your happy place)

Ok, so of course it would be wrong to summarily execute them, torture, etc. But do we really need to give them all the rights of an actual prisoner of war under the Geneva Convention? Heck, no.

What rights in particular do you think that they should have?

[ September 26, 2002, 16:40: Message edited by: Shralp ]

According to Amnesty (I am quite sure you dont give much for them) so borrowed the US a few torture experts from Pakistan and brought them to Guantanamo Bay so I atleast am not sure about the torture thing.
I think firstly that someone should decide what they are, if they are criminals they should have the same rights as all other criminals. And if they are prisoners of war they should have the same rights as other POW's. Would you think it right if american soldiers were kept with no rights at all somewhere in Afganistan? Or like they were kept in Vietnam. The US is all too often threading very close to acting like the things they are claiming to fight, when that truly happens the terrorist and other enemies win. That is one of their main goals.
Show the world that you are better than them.

The situation of the detainees in Guantanamo Bay is somewhat unique. What are they exactly?

Are they POWs? Perhaps, but what war are we talking about? If we're talking strictly the recent war in Afghanistan, then no, they aren't POWs, because their war is not over. If we were to release them, they would simply rejoin their bretheren and continue their war.

Are they criminals? Not really, because as you said they were combatants fighting for what they believe in.

So what are they? "Unlawful Combatants" is the term I believe the government has chosen, and continues to detain them because they are still a danger to the United States. As I said above, if they were released, they would continue their fight; their war is not over.

[ September 26, 2002, 17:01: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]

Ah, joa. The question was "what rights in particular should they have?"

Should they have the right to an attorney? Are you talking about the right to observe their religion while in captivity? The right to humane treatment? The right to party like it's 1599?

I just want to say that i did nothing to remember the 9/11.

Addendum:

I just read the Geneva Convention on the rights of POW's. I don't see any rights there that are being denied to those at Guantanamo.

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/1899b.htm

I do, however, see that they should not, under the Geneva Convention, be considered prisoners of war. For one, the GC only applies to soldiers who are wearing insignia. There's also the fact that there was no declaration of war.

Add in the fact that U.S. Constitutional rights don't apply to foreign combatants, especially those who've never set foot on American soil, and I have a hard time seeing what the complaints are about.

[ September 26, 2002, 17:45: Message edited by: Shralp ]

I will respond to your comment about the prisoners in Guantanamo.

America is doing more harm to itself than anything Bin Laden could have dreamed. We are dismantling our constitution, throwing aside justice and the right to privacy. I don't understand how people who fight so hard to maintain the right to bear arms aren't yelling and screaming about these changes. But then again maybe that crowd is more into vigilan