9/11

Castiel · 12 Sep 2010 at 00:26

Robboftw said:
Alright, two of the largest buildings in the world then.

Put it how you want, and yes people need to move on, but as stated, the repercussions of the attacks are still having an effect to this day.

Surely it isn't hard to understand.

I remember watching it on the news with my wife. My wife said to me, "I'd better sort out your kit, it looks like you'll be going to War". She was right, a couple of months later there I was. And there we still are.

The real tragedy is that the US was led by a relatively naive President when it came to foreign policy, and we are still paying the price for that.

I will admit that I didn't have an overly emotional response to the attack and still don't, it didn't happen to me although I was directly and adversly effected by it's aftermath I suppose, I find it difficult to see it with anything other than objective curiosity much like I would WW2 or similar historical acts.

Much like Diana's death, I dont really understand people who have no direct connection to the attrocity who have an overt emotional response to it.

godinman · 12 Sep 2010 at 00:27

R.I.P to all who lost their lives. And burn in hell all who seek to profit from their suffering.

Narj · 12 Sep 2010 at 00:27

cm1179 said:
i often wonder if the USA were so hell bent on getting rid of hussain because he was a dictator (with WOMD), why they didn't show an interest in robert mugabe, oh wait, yes i do, because he wasn't sat on oil

anyway, apologies, this is going way off topic

Well, I was going to post that as well but refrained - and the UK is just as guilty. So... *tips hat*

regulus · 12 Sep 2010 at 00:28

Castiel said:
I remember watching it on the news with my wife. My wife said to me, "I'd better sort out your kit, it looks like you'll be going to War". She was right, a couple of months later there I was. And there we still are.

The real tragedy is that the US was led by a relatively naive President when it came to foreign policy, and we are still paying the price for that.

I will admit that I didn't have an overly emotional response to the attack and still don't, it didn't happen to me although I was directly and adversly effected by it's aftermath I suppose, I find it difficult to see it with anything other than objective curiosity much like I would WW2 or similar historical acts.

Much like Diana's death, I dont really understand people who have no direct connection the attrocity who have an overt emotional response to it.

Well said. The 'me too, me too' factor comes to mind.

Castiel · 12 Sep 2010 at 00:32

PianoBasher said:
Well, I was going to post that as well but refrained - and the UK is just as guilty. So... *tips hat*

The reason is simply, Mugabe doesn't pose any threat to either the West or the West's economy.

It's a fact of life that wars are expensive, and Hussein was a threat to the West simply because Iraq sits on so much oil and it's geographical position and these factors would have influenced any decision we made regardless of the political jargon coming out of Washington and London.

Narj · 12 Sep 2010 at 00:33

regulus said:
Well said. The 'me too, me too' factor comes to mind.

I don't get the Diana thing either... she was as mad as a box of frogs. Why so many other people around the globe feel the need to cry over it is beyond me...

Castiel said:
Hussein was a threat to the West simply because Iraq sits on so much oil and it's geographical position and these factors would have influenced any decision we made regardless of the political jargon coming out of Washington and London.

Doesn't it warm your heart to think that the fact that he was doing horrendous things to his own people counted for nothing?

</derailment>

godinman · 12 Sep 2010 at 00:34

I think most people are able to feel anger/pain/whatever for another human being without feeling the actual emotions. You 'know' something is wrong, without having to actually feel it. If that makes any sense..

Robbo · 12 Sep 2010 at 00:36

PianoBasher said:
I don't get the Diana thing either... she was as mad as a box of frogs. Why so many other people around the globe feel the need to cry over it is beyond me...

Doesn't it warm your heart to think that the fact that he was doing horrendous things to his own people counted for nothing?

</derailment>

Frankie Boyle summed it up nicely when he said, why did they make a fountain for her?

Surely a gang bang in a minefield would have been better

Tefal · 12 Sep 2010 at 00:37

cm1179 said:
with all due respect, that is ridiculous

how so?

it was broadcast live across the entire planet seen by billions of people 7/7 wasn't.

plus 3,000 dead and a massive change to such an iconic skyline is always going to garner more interest than 52 people on some underground trains and a bus.

Floogie · 12 Sep 2010 at 00:38

Castiel said:
Much like Diana's death, I dont really understand people who have no direct connection to the attrocity who have an overt emotional response to it.

Well put. I share the same opinion. I guess its testament to American soft power and its stranglehold on the UK. I find it remarkably odd when British people act like patriotic US citizens.

Greenlizard0 · 12 Sep 2010 at 00:41

Floogie said:
Well put. I share the same opinion. I guess its testament to American soft power and its stranglehold on the UK. I find it remarkably odd when British people act like patriotic US citizens.

Absolutely. If there's one thing I know about American policy is that it's ruthless for America only. I suppose it can be. I don't know why we have that 'special' relationship with them simply because these last few years I've always had the impression we're worse off for it.

cm1179 · 12 Sep 2010 at 00:42

Tefal said:
how so?

it was broadcast live across the entire planet seen by billions of people 7/7 wasn't.

plus 3,000 dead and a massive change to such an iconic skyline is always going to garner more interest than 52 people on some underground trains and a bus.

those 52 people were in our country, it matters more to me. i also strongly believe that had we not have been involved in iraq, it would not have happened. does the US honour 11/11. 11:11 (serious question, because i don't know)

OriginalJonty · 12 Sep 2010 at 00:42

Yes 9/11 was a tragedy and should not be forgotten but it is time to stop using it so often for political reasons.

Greenlizard0 · 12 Sep 2010 at 00:46

cm1179 said:
those 52 people were in our country, it matters more to me. i also strongly believe that had we not have been involved in iraq, it would not have happened. does the US honour 11/11. 11:11 (serious question, because i don't know)

I've spoke to my sister about this a few years back (she lives in Chicago, very well educated etc.), and she had little idea about it. Same applies to e.g. the Madrid bombings as well.

I totally agree with the first point as well. For every reaction there is an opposite reaction....or something..

adamknox said:
Diffrence is they wernt man made.

You're right in the sense human nature is much more malevolent, but I was talking about in recent years disasters with a greater amount of destruction and/or death.

Castiel · 12 Sep 2010 at 00:50

PianoBasher said:
Doesn't it warm your heart to think that the fact that he was doing horrendous things to his own people counted for nothing?

</derailment>

I'm not sure what you are implying? I think that ALL these things are considered, but we cannot police the world and as such our own security (I include economics in that) should take priority.

It may sound mercenary, but unfortunately we can't help everyone, we can only encourage those with a vested interest to help themselves and their neighbours in such circumstances.

Also our record in Africa isn't good.

Danthus · 12 Sep 2010 at 00:51

Castiel said:
The reason is simply, Mugabe doesn't pose any threat to either the West or the West's economy.

No, Zimbabwe has no natural resources of note.

It's a fact of life that wars are expensive, and Hussein was a threat to the West simply because Iraq sits on so much oil and it's geographical position and these factors would have influenced any decision we made regardless of the political jargon coming out of Washington and London.

He was no threat at all, that is a lie that was wrapped up and packaged for the world post September 11th. It is quite disgraceful that the memory of 3000 people has been sullied in the name of the "War on terror."

cm1179 · 12 Sep 2010 at 00:57

OldCoals said:
No, Zimbabwe has no natural resources of note.

He was no threat at all, that is a lie that was wrapped up and packaged for the world post September 11th. It is quite disgraceful that the memory of 3000 people has been sullied in the name of the "War on terror."

didn't the US (maybe inadvertentley) actually supply weapons to hussein in the 80's?
they then make up an accusation that he was hiding WOMD's as an excuse to invade, when, although he was a dictator, he was really only a threat in his own country and pretty much dorment when it came to any actual threat to us. surely north korea is a far more prominent threat? and mugabe is equally as dispicable a human being yet we don't go kicking down their door?

Castiel · 12 Sep 2010 at 01:01

OldCoals said:
He was no threat at all, that is a lie that was wrapped up and packaged for the world post September 11th. It is quite disgraceful that the memory of 3000 people has been sullied in the name of the "War on terror."

We will have to disagree on this one. While he posed no military threat to the West, he did to his own people and to the west economically with his Oil.

Now the more desperate Sadaam became, the more brutal he was becoming, this in turn was increasing the instability within Iraq. With Iran looking on and the Oil supply threatened by civil unrest within Iraq our economic security was threatened.

While I agree that the reasons for war were tenuous to say the least, Sadaam was a threat regardless, both to the West and the Region, even if it was indirectly and because the threat of someone other than the West controlling Iraq's oil is a clear threat to us.

He was a threat, just not in the way that it was packaged to us. The problem was in the way that the War was executed. After the fall of sadaam it is reported that a huge plan of rebuilding and integration of the Iraqi Army and a proper plan to combat any insurgency was dumped by Rumsfeld without him even reading it.

Poor execution after the initial Shock and Awe is the reason it went south, not the decision to go to War. If those plans had been executed opinion is that we would now have a secure democratic Iraq. The truth of that will never be known of course, but the mistakes made are plain to see.

Danthus · 12 Sep 2010 at 01:02

cm1179 said:
didn't the US (maybe inadvertentley) actually supply weapons to hussein in the 80's?
they then make up an accusation that he was hiding WOMD's as an excuse to invade, when, although he was a dictator, he was really only a threat in his own country and pretty much dorment when it came to any actual threat to us. surely north korea is a far more prominent threat? and mugabe is equally as dispicable a human being yet we don't go kicking down their door?

Of course they did, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The West supported Afghanistan when they were fighting the Russians too.

scorza · 12 Sep 2010 at 01:05

OldCoals said:
Of course they did, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The West supported Afghanistan when they were fighting the Russians too.

And we supported Afghanistan again when they were fighting the Taliban.