The Twin Towers

ringzer

Originally posted by fluffer
I was simply reminding people of the immense human tragedy that took place after September 11th 2001, thats all. Nothing else.

Another smartass, great!

ArphaRima

Smartass?!

Listen. You havent argued a single valid point yet.
September 11th was an immense human tragedy. You said that. I agree. What makes 3,500 Afghan or 6200 Iraqi civilians (both minimum figures) killed by Americans less of a tragedy?

I suppose its fairly easy to be distant from the actual death and destruction of it all when you're in Ireland.

Unlike many Americans, we tend to follow the news.
I guess Americans feel pretty distant to the bombs that fall from their military machine...

Victor

Originally posted by ringzer
I suppose its fairly easy to be distant from the actual death and destruction of it all when you're in Ireland.

Except when it was republican violence being sponsored from New York and Boston.

bonkey

ringzer....

less of the personal attacks please. If you're unsure why read the rules.

fluffer....

you sound like you're pretty close to retaliating to said personal insults (cause you're sounding a bit riled there). Take my advice and don't.

[/b]bananayoghurt.....[/b]

pedanticism is all well and good when there's a point to it. I fail to see one in your "ground zero" comment. Are you actually trying to make a point, or just distract others from the actual discussion?

jc

LegacyUser

Originally posted by ringzer
Ok, smartass, if you dont have anything useful to add to this topic, then dont bother. .

it is usefull, shows the mindset of all those American's, happy to inflict Nuclear Holocaust on two cities (and justify it, doubt you'll ever hear any kind of apology from Mr Bush for that or any other war crimes perpetrated by him and his ilk )then blubber when two office blocks get knocked down,

Yea, it was a terrible thing, but its hard to have sympathy for them when their armies are laying waste where ever they please,

terrorists my arse, any Iraqi who bags himself an enemy soldier who invaded and blew the crap out of his country gets a big thumbs up from me,

Sand

Hardly sensational; if you paid any attention to what goes on on these boards, you would remember that for about three months Sand posted with a comment of mine saying almost the same thing in his signature, not to mention the numerous previous discussions in which I have defended precisely what I said above.

You imply youre happy to defend your views but when I placed a few quotes of yours in my sig as you noted - you ended up going to Devore upset by the fact that I thought your views worthy of my sig. Clearly saying you hoped Bin Laden came back and finished the job on the US didnt sound so good in retrospect:)

Seeing as youre happy to defend your views will you go to Devore again if I were to quote you again in my sig?

I was thinking of using

No matter what they build, if it is a defiant statement, I swear I hope the terrorists knock it the hell down again. The Twin Trade Towers were an emblem of US triumphalism and I damn sure am going to blame the US for bringing the events of September 11th on themselves.

as im getting a bit tired of my current sig. Please let me use it as a sig as youre a great man for the memorable quotes, and Ive found it hard to replace the 2 or 3 of yours I was using previously.

Éomer of Rohan

Sure Sand - that one is fine as a matter of fact; the ones that I had a problem with were ones that people seemed to take out of context every time you posted in the same discussion as I did.

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Fisty
What about world war two, America helped your commie mates and britain fight back facism, did you disagree with that?

America went to war to prevent herself being isolated on the world stage - out of selfish strategic interest; nothing more. Actually, there a few commentators around who believe that it was banking interests in Europe that tipped the Americans in favour of war....let's not forget, America did not declare war on Germany - it was the other way around. America sat happily on her laurels while the British and French suffered horrible casualties and then, after squeezing the British for all they were worth, still held off.

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Bananayoghurt
terrorists my arse, any Iraqi who bags himself an enemy soldier who invaded and blew the crap out of his country gets a big thumbs up from me

Abso-fricking-lutely.

Xhen

Eomer of Rohan, I despise the fact that you hijacked an honorable name from Tolkien's book that you're not worthy of and I have nothing but contempt for your reprehensible ideology. If your cheerleading for murderous terrorists is any example then Europe is sinking into an amoral, nihilistic morass that will destroy it if the fascists from al Qaeda don't get there first.

Christopher Hitchens has this to say about you and your ilk:

If our Congress or our executive mansion had been immolated that morning, would some people still be talking as if there was a moral equivalence between the United States and the Taliban? Would they still be prattling as if the whole thing was an oblique revenge for the Florida recount? Of course they would. They don’t know any other way to talk or think. My second-strongest memory of that week is still the moaning and bleating and jeering of the “left.” Reflect upon it: Civil society is assaulted in the most criminal way by the most pitilessly reactionary force in the modern world. The drama immediately puts the working class in the saddle as the necessary actor and rescuer of the said society. Investigation shows the complicity of a chain of conservative client states, from Pakistan to Saudi Arabia, in the face of which our vaunted “national security” czars had capitulated.
Here was the time for radicals to have demanded a war to the utmost against the forces of reaction, as well a full house cleaning of the state apparatus and a league of solidarity with the women of Afghanistan and with the whole nexus of dissent and opposition in the Muslim world. Instead of which, the posturing loons all concentrated on a masturbatory introspection about American guilt, granted the aura of revolutionary authenticity to bin Laden and his fellow gangsters, and let the flag be duly seized by those who did look at least as if they meant business.

Let me take the strongest objection to my interpretation, which is that the events of Sept. 11, 2001, were exploited by conservatives to settle accounts with Saddam Hussein and that many Americans have been fooled into war by thinking that Iraq was behind the attacks. Leave aside the glaring and germane fact that Saddam was and is in partnership with the forces of jihad; not even the sorriest illusion is in the same category as a book published by The Nation, written by Gore Vidal and flaunted at “anti-war” rallies, which argues that it was essentially George Bush who helped organize and anticipate the atrocity. That’s a level of degeneration unplumbed by any other faction. So, the pitiful peaceniks are the chief moral losers, whichever way you slice it.

ArphaRima

Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th. Remember that.

"The case for war was weak." - Kofi Annan, Time Magasine.
Remember the chief cause for going to war was WMD. No WMD have been found. Claims of massive, fully developed, and weaponised secret weapons programs were false.

Iraqi soldiers are not terrorists or extremists, just patriots. If I was an Iraqi, despite an unjust ruler, I would fight any invading force. They came posing as liberators. Don't all occupiers.
If it is an American soldiers duty and belief that he is fighting for "freedom" surely it is an Iraqis right to do the same.
Freedom from foreign rule.

Iraq will become a puppet state of the USA. Military bases will be kept on Iraqi soil with or without the consent of the Iraqi nation. Any election will have vetted candidates, with CIA etc funding the favourite. This we know. Iraq is not free from tyrany, it just adopted a new form. Democracy my arse.

bonkey

Originally posted by Xhen
I despise the fact that you hijacked an honorable name from Tolkien's book that you're not worthy of

No personal attacks, thank you.

If this thread doesn't stop descending into flamage, it will be locked. Some people clearly want to discuss the topic at hand. I suggest that the rest of you let them.

jc

Éomer of Rohan

JC; I haven't flamed yet but if you say that what the majority of people are posting on this thread is off-topic then I'll be glad to create a new one and link it (if someone would be so good as to telegram me HOW to link it).

Quoted from Xhen
as if there was a moral equivalence between the United States and the Taliban?

First off, there is no moral equivalence; the USA loses hands down - what makes it a bitter pill to swallow is that the USA has the largest number of democratically elected positions of any country in the world and vaunts itself as the defender of peace and freedom yet it's foreign policy (one that supposedly represents the opinion of Americans) is absolutely not compliant with this self-assessment (cf Athenian Democracy from 478-323BC). The USA is the greatest terrorist the world has seen since the days of the British Empire - the only difference is that god forbid anyone call them that because they are a nation and double standards apply; they'll say we can't generalise because the people of America don't get a say in their foreign policy - but these same people are quite happy to believe that their 'freedoms' are under attack and that they are the most democratic free nation on earth when few things are further from the truth.

As for this conservative clap-trap (let's not let ourselves be lulled by the semi-criticism of the Bush Regime) about the working class in America - since WHEN have the working class in the USA EVER been in the driving seat? The Unions are tainted with the jingoism of the cold war, the politicians are prostituting themselves with greater and greater openness to the corporations who take the corporate tax breaks and then up stakes to Indo-China.

September the 11th was the time for leaders of the left to come out and damn America themselves - to break the nationalism that has permeated American working class politics since the inception of the state - it is just another piece of land. But no, the leaders of the left tried to outdo the damn republicans. Gore Vidal is not particularly revolutionary, neither is Noam Chomsky but both at least made a stab in the right direction.

Quoted from Xhen
The drama immediately puts the working class in the saddle as the necessary actor and rescuer of the said society

That's a type of political rhetoric called meaningless twaddle. I would actually like to see if you can justify it.

Quoted from Xhen
Let me take the strongest objection to my interpretation, which is that the events of Sept. 11, 2001, were exploited by conservatives to settle accounts with Saddam Hussein and that many Americans have been fooled into war by thinking that Iraq was behind the attacks

Wrong. He just took an objection he thought he could deal with and panned it off as the strongest. The strongest objection he has tried to dismiss as the folly of the left by saying that america is guiltless. If you need the exact reference...

Instead of which, the posturing loons all concentrated on a masturbatory introspection about American guilt

...and I must say the man has nerve; it was the very intention of the war(s) to STOP them from doing just that - by allowing them a way to jump on the nationalist jingoist bandwagon.

Quoted from Xhen
Here was the time for radicals to have demanded a war to the utmost against the forces of reaction,

I refuse to take this guy seriously; what he basically says here is that the radicals are only a good thing when their goals are the same as those of their reactionary counterparts. Why would a radical want to wage war for a regime that itself has crushed scores of peace and democracy, not to even touch on socialist movements???

The Americans were for years in bed with a hundred and one corrupt, dictatorial, nationalist regimes - several of which committed genocide; one of which killed a million of their own people thanks to the CIA backed and supported coup. The bottom line is that if it takes a few thousand American deaths more to bring events like that to a halt then so be it. Make no mistake however; if Ireland was a viciously imperial power and did the same things as the USA, then I would say precisely the same.

bloggs

quote:

---

Quoted from Bananayoghurt
terrorists my arse, any Iraqi who bags himself an enemy soldier who invaded and blew the crap out of his country gets a big thumbs up from me

---

Not sure i would agree with the exact text, but as the Iraqi army didn't surrender, you could say the war hasn't ended in their case. So you can't call them terrorists. Acutally the French resistance during WW2 would be classed more as terrorists as the French Army had surrended to the Germans :rolleyes:

Saying that, it doesn't mean there aren't terrorists in the country.

As the Irish army isn't big enough to go toe to toe with any invading foe, it would be converted into a gurillia style force and work in the same way as 'Saddam Loyalists' are operating.

spongebob

to get this locked.

/me /mulls

bug

Not sure i would agree with the exact text, but as the Iraqi army didn't surrender, you could say the war hasn't ended in their case. So you can't call them terrorists. Acutally the French resistance during WW2 would be classed more as terrorists as the French Army had surrended to the Germans

It all relative to what side your on isn't it really...

I dont like the word terrorist, its a word that conjures up images of bad people with bombs.

When everyone's a terrorist, nobody asks why they took up a gun in the first place... and as we know addressing these issues is the only way to sort it out.

And as far as the Americans are concerned they should get the hell out of the middle-east its meddling in their affairs which has got them into the situation in the first place...see my sig..

Sand

Sure Sand - that one is fine as a matter of fact; the ones that I had a problem with were ones that people seemed to take out of context every time you posted in the same discussion as I did.

Grand so.

dsheehan

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
JC; I haven't flamed yet but if you say that what the majority of people are posting on this thread is off-topic then I'll be glad to create a new one and link it (if someone would be so good as to telegram me HOW to link it).

First off, there is no moral equivalence; the USA loses hands down

So the pluralist, republican nation which gives you a constitutional right to sprout on your horrendously unpopular and silly views loses to a theocracy which executes people for disagreeing with it? Put it this way, where would you prefer to live? The U.S. or under the Taliban?

- what makes it a bitter pill to swallow is that the USA has the largest number of democratically elected positions of any country in the world and vaunts itself as the defender of peace and freedom yet it's foreign policy (one that supposedly represents the opinion of Americans) is absolutely not compliant with this self-assessment (cf Athenian Democracy from 478-323BC).

American forgein policy has one major aim, keeping America safe. This is a very democratic aim as most people would vote for a government that keeps them safe from forgein governments. The primary duty of a government is the safetey of it's citizens. Secondary aims, include ensuring american economic interests prosper (therefore raising the living standards of the americans who vote for their government).

The USA is the greatest terrorist the world has seen since the days of the British Empire - the only difference is that god forbid anyone call them that because they are a nation and double standards apply; they'll say we can't generalise because the people of America don't get a say in their foreign policy - but these same people are quite happy to believe that their 'freedoms' are under attack and that they are the most democratic free nation on earth when few things are further from the truth.

Differant standards apply for nations then individuals. Are you trying to argue against that principle???? When the government locks up a thief, it is different then if an individual locks up someone who has stolen from him. If a government threatens imprisonment for someone who doesn't pay taxes, it's not extortion. If a government executes someone it is not murder. Vastly different rules apply for governments, because they are soverign. The soverign had power to do justice, make laws and rule the land. In a republican government, the power to make laws is in the legislature, the power to do justice is in the courts, and the general power to govern is in the executive.

On september 11th, many peoples freedoms were extinguished. The terrorists removed the freedom to live peacefully from 3,000 people by murdering them. The consequences of the attacks have made security a necessity in a country that was preciously very lax about it. However if you think america is so unfree, I suggest you visit the 120 odd other nations on this earth and see how free they are in comparison.

As for this conservative clap-trap (let's not let ourselves be lulled by the semi-criticism of the Bush Regime) about the working class in America - since WHEN have the working class in the USA EVER been in the driving seat? The Unions are tainted with the jingoism of the cold war, the politicians are prostituting themselves with greater and greater openness to the corporations who take the corporate tax breaks and then up stakes to Indo-China.

See, the american ideal is there is no working class, or middle class. No class wars for commies to pontificate about. The idea is that anyone can succeed.

The Americans were for years in bed with a hundred and one corrupt, dictatorial, nationalist regimes - several of which committed genocide; one of which killed a million of their own people thanks to the CIA backed and supported coup. The bottom line is that if it takes a few thousand American deaths more to bring events like that to a halt then so be it. Make no mistake however; if Ireland was a viciously imperial power and did the same things as the USA, then I would say precisely the same.

I'd like you to name all 101 nations that they supported. America tolerated, supported and kept quiet about many nasty governments during the cold war, because their number one priority was to protect america. The soviet union had 3,000 missiles and 200 armoured divisions and was the greatest threat to their security. So they supported dictators in central america, to stop under cuba. Cuba frightened them, and the reason for the cuban missile cirsis, was that missiles based in cuba could hit washington in less then 10 minutes, wiping out the leadership before a counter-attack could be ordered.

They supported the Taliban, to stop the soviet union expanding into central asia. They supported Sadam, the Shah ofIran, and the theocracy in saudi, to keep the oil supplies in the middle east safe.

Frankly they supported lots of nasty governments, but it was necessitated by the cold war.

Capt'n Midnight

RE:Iraqi soldiers are not terrorists or extremists, just patriots.
Actually they were mostly conscripts - It's an interesting distinction remember the Kuwait war, kill 50 people and it's wrong - take civilians force them to wear a uniform and a few weeks later it's OK to kill 100,000's of them ...

And about other posts about WWII - Soviets beat the Germans argue any way you like but most of the german army and most of the resources went to the eastern front.

To me the US seem taking a "dog in the manger" approach to the rest of the world with regard to taking reources and throwing thier weight around. And like many people who cause offense etc. they are easily offended etc.

The best monument to the towers would be for the US to understand that the rest of the world does not see them the way they see themselves or share thier selfish values. Here we Irish are seen as good Europeans - it would be nice to see the citizens of the US to be seen as good americans by the majority of people who live in the other countries in america.

In films I keep seeing "The Peace Corps" and I've not heard much about them elsewhere - IF they do what they are portrayed to do then perhaps setting up thier HQ there and giving the rest in funds to them...

I can't remember the start of the saying - but it ends "reaps the whirlwind"

Also the US should learn to Do unto others ...

RE the magnitude of the attack
911 (means nothing in the islamic calender btw) was terrible - but how many other people were murdered or killed in car accidents or died of preventable poverty related illness in NY that year ?

If any one complains about collatoral damage in current US campaigns, then at least less civilians were killed in recent US wars than in others (apart perhaps from greneda) - Vietnam 50,000 american soldiers , 2,000,000 civilians (more if you count cambodia)
Panama not sure how many civilians but perhaps 54,000 (yeah more dead than in 'nam over a shorter time from a smaller population)

Sorry for draging on but many governments are a greater threat to civilians than all the terrorists put together. One great trick when you are the ruler is to get the population united against a common enemy - then they put up with a lot more..

Do a pole on US citizens - a sizable number believe the CIA was involved (AKA suggestions of British Army in Talbot St bombings)...

But whatever for the site is suggested people will complain..

And I think using "ground zero" as the name is another example of US insensitivity to the pain of others - what happened at the real ground zero's were two orders of magnitude worse - imagine the reaction of US citizens if a bus boming in Isreal was called "ground zero" (given the relative sizes of populations it is the same %)

How about reinstating the government controlled milita - they could have thier HQ at the site. Then all the other illegal militia's could be disbanded and proper gun laws enforced - the over all reduction in killings would balance out what terrorists do worldwide.

Terrorist - on thier side
Freedom Fighter - on our side
Gurellia - when we're not quite sure whose side they are on

Capt'n Midnight

RE - Frankly they supported lots of nasty governments, but it was necessitated by the cold war.

So are you saying the cold war was necessary ?
in real politics most countries respect boarders / areas of influence - and in vietnam that stage of the war began when the japanese were defeated - ditto in korea / china
yes the US/USSR would have competed for clients - but it was cheaper and more effective to supply aid - look at the Answan dam in Egypt - look at Isreal - has got aid from UK / France / USSR / USA in turn..

- remember Italy had one of the worlds biggest communist party (2m) and no stable govenment (it was close call for democracy in that country - the danger being seen as US backed coup)

If you are saying the cold war was necessary then you must agree that current US policy is necessary.

US has acted against democracy / strongly supported non-democratic regimes in most (all) latin american countries , south vietnam , south korea , laos , cambodia , indonesia , about 1/3 of the countries in africa , iraq , iran , kuwait , saudi , pakistan , cuba etc. etc.

dsheehan

Actually they were mostly conscripts - It's an interesting distinction remember the Kuwait war, kill 50 people and it's wrong - take civilians force them to wear a uniform and a few weeks later it's OK to kill 100,000's of them ...

IIRC the reason they finished the war quickly was they felt bad about massacering so many conscripts. So they left Sadam in power, resulting in 13 years of sanctions and another war. They really should have finished the job the first time.

And about other posts about WWII - Soviets beat the Germans argue any way you like but most of the german army and most of the resources went to the eastern front.

The soviets were responsible for liberating, if you can use that word, eastern europe from the Germans, and then subjecting it to 50 years of tyranny. The Americans, British, Canadians, etc., liberated Western Europe, Italy, Greece, North Africa and the Far East from Japan.

To me the US seem taking a "dog in the manger" approach to the rest of the world with regard to taking reources and throwing thier weight around. And like many people who cause offense etc. they are easily offended etc.

They're the most powerful nation in the world, what do you expect? They cause offence because their finger is in every pie and people or jealous of their high standards of living and pluralist, democratic government.

How do you think the Chinese, or Russians would act if they were in america's position?

The best monument to the towers would be for the US to understand that the rest of the world does not see them the way they see themselves or share thier selfish values. Here we Irish are seen as good Europeans - it would be nice to see the citizens of the US to be seen as good americans by the majority of people who live in the other countries in america.

Ireland can be seen as good europeans, because we're so small an inoffensive. A country like america is either seen as strong an arrogant as you put it, or weak and foolish. The world laughed while Jimmy Carter was agonising over the hostages in Iran, while he cut off grain for the soviets invading afghanistan. In the realpolitik world of international relations, your either strong or your weak.

RE the magnitude of the attack
911 (means nothing in the islamic calender btw) was terrible - but how many other people were murdered or killed in car accidents or died of preventable poverty related illness in NY that year ?

If you want to give us the equivalent in the islamic calendar......
it means nothing to most people, as most countries go day/month/year.

But FFS, I'm sure the number of people in the world who died taking a ****e on the can exceed the number murdered in America. But the fact is those people were unlawfully killed with malice and aforethought, they were murdered, their lives were unlawfully taken by those with no right to take them or legal excuse. An the fact that such a large number were attributable to a single organization and small group of people.

I'm sure you can saw more Jews died throughout history then in the holoucaust, but the fact was in the holocaust their lives were not lost but taken but a tyrinical entitiy.

Sorry for draging on but many governments are a greater threat to civilians than all the terrorists put together. One great trick when you are the ruler is to get the population united against a common enemy - then they put up with a lot more..

I see, it's becoming clear now, it was the aliens in roswell, in collusion with government agents meeting in dark rooms,who combined forces with the crowd who shot JFK, hijacked aircraft with boxcutters (you think they could have smuggled a ray gun or something on) went off to hit their own offices in the pentagon, yes that's deceptive, as well as kill several thousand of the people the government agents have sworn an oath to protect.

And I think using "ground zero" as the name is another example of US insensitivity to the pain of others - what happened at the real ground zero's were two orders of magnitude worse - imagine the reaction of US citizens if a bus boming in Isreal was called "ground zero" (given the relative sizes of populations it is the same %)

I don't know who came up with that name. Yet you must be like the americans who take offense at the slightest thing if you find that in any way offensive.

How about reinstating the government controlled milita - they could have thier HQ at the site. Then all the other illegal militia's could be disbanded and proper gun laws enforced - the over all reduction in killings would balance out what terrorists do worldwide.

There is a government controlled militia, it's the national guard. There are national guard armouries all over the place, putting them in lower manhatten might seem a bit uneconomical.

dsheehan

So are you saying the cold war was necessary ?

Yes, to stop communism expanding by using military force. Remember NATO was founded after Czechoslovakia was taken by a coup, the Berlin blockade, and North Korea, unprovoked, invaded south korea.

If you are saying the cold war was necessary then you must agree that current US policy is necessary.

The cold war was necessary to stop the expansion of communism dictatorships. I currently feel Islamic theocracy is a threat to the progress of civilization, however it's not nearly as dangerous as communism was. Frankly because it has no support outside people of the islamic faith, and it's an uneconomic system that discourages innovation and keeps half the workforce at home (the women). Because of this the countries where it's practiced are dirt poor, their economies are ****e, so their militaries get no money, so they have to resort to sending 12 guys over with box cutters.


[QUOTE
US has acted against democracy / strongly supported non-democratic regimes in most (all) latin american countries , south vietnam , south korea , laos , cambodia , indonesia , about 1/3 of the countries in africa , iraq , iran , kuwait , saudi , pakistan , cuba etc. etc. [/B][/QUOTE]


YEs I accept that, that's what i said in the earlier post, they supported crap regiemes in an effort to protect their electorate

mr_angry

I just can't believe anyone would condone the loss of 5000 innocent lives. Whether that be in the World Trade Centre, or in Afghanistan or Iraq - nobody had the right to rob those people of their lives. Nobody. Not in the name of equality, not in the name of public safety.

And do you really think American foreign policy makes the US a safer place? I have to say, I disagree entirely. I think US foreign policy will create more anti-US terrorists than ever before.

I absolutely abhore Eomer's views. In some funny way (probably my loathing of the current US government), I can see where you're coming from. But frankly, I think people with such views are either horribly desensitised, or plain evil. I am referring only to the condoning of killing innocent people. I don't care whose side they are on, by the way. I can certantly say that I would never like to be governed by anyone with such scant disregard for human life. Please note that this is not a personal attack, but a comment on your publicised views.

LegacyUser

Originally posted by mr_angry4
I just can't believe anyone would condone the loss of 5000 innocent lives

5000 civilians, it's against the Geneva Convention to kill civies and so it should be, doesn't matter if they were innocent or guilty as sin, though I'm not sure what the charges were that everybody keeps saying they were innocent of ?

LegacyUser

Originally posted by mr_angry4
I just can't believe anyone would condone the loss of 5000 innocent lives.

5000 civilians surely, what do you mean when you say 'innocent', innocent of what ?

just can't believe anyone would condone the loss of 5000 innocent lives

Just curious, but how many of these served the the US's militia forces or were active reservists in the armed forces?

The attack on the Twin Towers was awful simply because the number of people that died at one time. If a number of attacks had happened over the space of a year, would you be calling it such a terrible occurance?

Its simply because a non-western country made the attack, especially with non-conventional weapons. If the US had carpet bombed another country causing such death, you would shrug your shoulders and move on. Its awful, because it brings home that none of us are safe.

YEs I accept that, that's what i said in the earlier post, they supported crap regiemes in an effort to protect their electorate

Which is no reason to allow the US to act in such a manner. By saying this, you're essentially saying that the Taliban were in the right to use any means possible to halt the advance of US interests, since they were currently at war with them.

Turnip

For the benefit of Éomer:

Before the World Trade Center hit the ground, Tom Brokaw, the empty hair-do of US television news, announced that the Twin Towers had been attacked because they are Symbols of American Capitalism. As we watched humans jump to their deaths from burning windows, Tom had already appropriated them as martyrs to a rising stock market and the enterprising spirit of his advertisers.

He wasn't alone. Much of the European Left agreed with him. In the Guardian, Rana Kabbani wrote with ill-disguised glee that this mass murder was aimed at "two symbols of American hegemony." Well, Tom and Rana, let me introduce you to two of your symbols of American capitalist imperialism - Greg O'Neill and Clinton Davis. Of course I realize that Brokaw the red-white-and-blue big-business booster, and Kabbani, were referring to the two towers of the Trade Center; but it wasn't an architectural artifact that was crushed on September 11.

Davis worked in the basement of the Trade Center; O'Neill on the fifty-second floor of the South Tower. (Until I started spending too much time in London, my office was on the fiftieth floor of the North Tower.)

Here's what O'Neill did on Floor 52. When the Exxon Valdez grounded, he fought the oil company to get compensation for the natives of Alaska; previously he sued the American oil giant Amoco for fouling Britain's beaches. And when he learned a power company had faked safety reports on a nuclear plant, O'Neill hit them with a civil racketeering suit and ultimately helped put the creeps out of business. Davis worked in the cops' division of the state's Port Authority. Neither Davis nor O'Neill would be my first choice as a symbol of U.S. imperial might. They certainly were not prime targets for retaliation for "terror by Jewish groups" and the "painful lesson Americans have to learn" (to use Kabbani's boneheaded words).

It may disappoint both Kabbani and Brokaw to learn that, if the World Trade towers symbolized anything, they stood for American socialism. They were built by New York state in the 1970s, when "government-owned" became quite unfashionable in Britain. Still owned by Davis' employer, New York State's Port Authority, they generated the revenue which pays the bonds that keep the city's infrastructure - subways, tunnels, bridges, and more - out of the hands of the ever-circling privatizers. The task of convincing capitalists to buy those government bonds, which requires an argument that publicly owned operations are as good an investment bet as General Motors, fell to government securities market makers Canter Fitzgerald (100th floor, 658 workers, no known survivors).

Here's a statistic for you: The capitalization of corporations owned by the U.S. federal government exceeds $2.85 trillion. Add to that the state- and local-owned operations, like water systems, and the total invested in public enterprises eclipses the investment in the New York Stock Exchange, making the U.S. one of the most socialized nations left on this sad planet. If you're not American, you wouldn't know that. And if you are, you probably wouldn't know that either.

The night of September 11, I finally called O'Neill's home. Heanswered the phone. "My God, you're safe," I said.
O'Neill replied, "not really."

Davis was safe too, in the basement of the Twin Towers. But he chose to go up into the building to rescue others. Today, this symbol of American capitalist hegemony is listed as "missing."

www.gregpalast.com

mr_angry

Right, I'm gonna answer your questions, despite the fact that I think my original points were blatantly clear. Anyway, for those of you who were confused:

5000 civilians surely, what do you mean when you say 'innocent', innocent of what ?

Innocent of anything malicious, to the best of our knowledge. I'm not even referring to the bloody Geneva convention, just plain moral values. Nobody has the right to take another life.

Just curious, but how many of these served the the US's militia forces or were active reservists in the armed forces?

That's being pedantic. Or incredibly paranoid.

The attack on the Twin Towers was awful simply because the number of people that died at one time. If a number of attacks had happened over the space of a year, would you be calling it such a terrible occurance?

Its simply because a non-western country made the attack, especially with non-conventional weapons. If the US had carpet bombed another country causing such death, you would shrug your shoulders and move on. Its awful, because it brings home that none of us are safe.

I think you'll find that I wrote in my original post that I was equally as disturbed by all the Iraqi and Afghani deaths, which happened over a much longer space of time. I am as much afriad of Americans killing innocent people as I am of terrorists doing the same. I feel America has sunk to their level.

However, I still refuse to condone any civilian deaths, no matter what the provocation.

LegacyUser

Originally posted by mr_angry4

I think you'll find that I wrote in my original post that I was equally as disturbed by all the Iraqi and Afghani deaths, which happened over a much longer space of time. I am as much afriad of Americans killing innocent people as I am of terrorists doing the same. I feel America has sunk to their level.

However, I still refuse to condone any civilian deaths, no matter what the provocation.

Yea I noticed that, don't disagree with u in any way, just the general consensus out there (not saying its yours) seems to be that the lives of those killed in the US were more valuable than the nobodies killed in Afghanistan or Iraq, tagging one group as 'innocent' implies someone else is guilty, and those poor buggers usually find themselves on the receiving end of large quantities of US ordnance

dunno how i did that last double post

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Turnip
Before the World Trade Center hit the ground, Tom Brokaw, the empty hair-do of US television news, announced that the Twin Towers had been attacked because they are Symbols of American Capitalism. As we watched humans jump to their deaths from burning windows, Tom had already appropriated them as martyrs to a rising stock market and the enterprising spirit of his advertisers

Makes an assumption about Tom Brokaw and a biased interpretation of what he said on television. Dismissable.

Quoted from Turnip
He wasn't alone. Much of the European Left agreed with him. In the Guardian, Rana Kabbani wrote with ill-disguised glee that this mass murder was aimed at "two symbols of American hegemony."

No matter what way you look at it, it was. Al-Quaeda didn't care about the people; AQ cared about the potent symbol that the building represented.

Quoted from Turnip
When the Exxon Valdez grounded, he fought the oil company to get compensation for the natives of Alaska; previously he sued the American oil giant Amoco for fouling Britain's beaches. And when he learned a power company had faked safety reports on a nuclear plant, O'Neill hit them with a civil racketeering suit and ultimately helped put the creeps out of business. Davis worked in the cops' division of the state's Port Authority. Neither Davis nor O'Neill would be my first choice as a symbol of U.S. imperial might. They certainly were not prime targets for retaliation for "terror by Jewish groups" and the "painful lesson Americans have to learn" (to use Kabbani's boneheaded words)

Two people out of the fifteen thousand employees who did any sort of good - AND as an evaluator of source material, these are part stories and don't tell us the rest of what they did which may have been a more potent symbol of imperial might for whomsoever wrote this claptrap.

Quoted from Turnip
It may disappoint both Kabbani and Brokaw to learn that, if the World Trade towers symbolized anything, they stood for American socialism. They were built by New York state in the 1970s, when "government-owned" became quite unfashionable in Britain

This is an outrageous statement that demonstrates ignorance of socialism. If anything, the towers were a throwback to Keynesian Economics or the protectionist-era style of capitalism - absolutely frig all to do with Socialism - that is nationalism to which the author of this article refers.

Quoted from Turnip
The capitalization of corporations owned by the U.S. federal government exceeds $2.85 trillion. Add to that the state- and local-owned operations, like water systems, and the total invested in public enterprises eclipses the investment in the New York Stock Exchange, making the U.S. one of the most socialized nations left on this sad planet

Sorry, they neglected to point out that the USA is the richest government on earth and that percentage wise in terms of what the author calls 'socialization', there are 21 developed nations ahead of it.

Quoted from Turnip
Davis was safe too, in the basement of the Twin Towers. But he chose to go up into the building to rescue others. Today, this symbol of American capitalist hegemony is listed as "missing."

Ah, the good old obscuring of the issue. I use this approach myself in debates. One life is unimportant in the process of international politics; the first people to agree to that would be the US Government who as I write have Colin Powell making his speech and talking about the sacrifice of the troops in Iraq to "bring freedom to the Iraqi people." The fact is that for every good life that was destroyed in the Twin Towers attack, hundreds of lifes were and are continually being destroyed by the WTO which is, as I have laid forth many times before an American-led and American / EU dominated tool of oppression of the lesser developed world.

The fact is that your article, Turnip, proves nothing more than America looks after it's own (IF it does even that since we know that the legislation America has with regards to it's corporations and 'downsizing' and corporate relief and so on is atrocious) and does not care about the rest of the world; hence the example given which refer exclusively to the benefits to Americans which state funding and the WTO provide - there are 6,000 million people on Earth; only 290 million are Americans.