Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

an old subject awakened

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
I know it's a little obsolete, but I have to do this anyway. I don't doubt that it's already been done, but I'm pretty new, so...
I know most everyone who's a member on this website is from Europe or Canada or somewhere else, but I'm from the USA, so I was wondering what your thoughts were (are) on the events that happened over here on September 11??
«13456

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Pretty much the same as everyone else in the western world..

    Absolutely sickening
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes it is a very old subject...

    I am not going to post the normal views here as they been discussed thousands of times. But since you are from the US, I want to ask you why the Americans voted for George W Bush in the first place? As it was already known before his election that he was ambitious in foreign affairs. By this I mean he was ambitious to see his influence over the globe even at the expense of creating conflicts with other countries. People who voted for Bush should expect these conflicts would happen.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why George W was elected president is completely over my head. I, myself, did not vote just for the fact that I felt none of the presidential nominees were very suitable. Some things don't make much sense, but there's a lot of stupid people over here (oh, that was mean of me, but the truth hurts sometimes).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Nice Kick:
    <STRONG>People who voted for Bush should expect these conflicts would happen.</STRONG>

    Oh do shut up...

    Its all down to Bush right...That must explain why there have never been any terrorist attacks on US targets before Bush came to power right? <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Balddog:
    <STRONG>

    Oh do shut up...

    Its all down to Bush right...That must explain why there have never been any terrorist attacks on US targets before Bush came to power right? <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"></STRONG>

    There have always been, but Bush intensified the conflicts. He is still in the old 'US imperialism' mind state. This is a fact.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Nice Kick:
    <STRONG>
    There have always been, but Bush intensified the conflicts. He is still in the old 'US imperialism' mind state. This is a fact.</STRONG>


    Intensified? Please tell me just what he intensified that led to the WTC attacks on sept 11th?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Balddog:
    <STRONG>


    Intensified? Please tell me just what he intensified that led to the WTC attacks on sept 11th?</STRONG>

    There is no direct proof that linked Bush and the attack together. But his attitude has created hatred from some countries. Also he insisted to fight back instead of peace talk. Even Tony Blair who stands 'shoulder to shoulder' with Bush, felt hestiatied with Bush actions.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The event on the 11th of Sepetmeber is just sickening. I can't think about it, without an awkward kind of feeling.
    One of my best friends cousin was in the second plane, to crash into the WTC. I knew her cousin, and it affected everyone around us greatly.
    I didn't know that she was in the plane, until late at night. Before that it was awful and tragic. But when a person I knew and could set a face on was involved, then it became undescribeable. Especially thinking about the fact, that she was going after the american dream, travelling in the US hoping to find a route in life and unfortunately it all ended with real-life nightmare.

    I will never ever see the people who did this' point. If they wanted to get a point through, then they could stop the oil import or something else. But sinking so low, is unforgivable.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Balddog:
    <STRONG>


    Intensified? Please tell me just what he intensified that led to the WTC attacks on sept 11th?</STRONG>

    What Bush has done is to return to office a man who clangs when he walks, rather than the coward who held office for the most of the prior decade, and ran from confrontation.

    "Imperialism"? Is that what you call it when you are attacked, and defend yourself?

    What led to the attacks was the chickenshit coward Kommrad Klinton, and his focusing upon the presidential blowjob, rather than the defense of his nation. The first WTC attack. Somalia. The Cole. An endless list of examples as to the cowardice of the prior president.

    WTC was a wake-up call to this nation, and must be a wake-up call to the world. Attack US, and no place on earth will be safe for you.

    Nowhere...

    While the cowards clamor for "peace at any price", the warriors will take care of business. We will burn the trash.

    The cowards and parasites exist by the effort and commitment of the warriors, and not the reverse.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Nice Kick:
    <STRONG>

    There is no direct proof that linked Bush and the attack together. But his attitude has created hatred from some countries. Also he insisted to fight back instead of peace talk. Even Tony Blair who stands 'shoulder to shoulder' with Bush, felt hestiatied with Bush actions.</STRONG>

    Which attitude? Tell me one thing that Bush did that angered BinLaden more than he was before Bush was elected.

    WTF? Instead of peace talk? In case you missed it, the US waited for months before taking any kind of military action. Bush could quite easily flattened Afghanistan the very next day. He was extremely cautious and he was commended on being cautious by Blair and the entire western world.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Every sane person would agree that what happened with the WTC is definately extremely terrible and should not have happened.

    But its about time that we should be looking at the causes that made those terrorists carry out that evil act.

    Why do so many people the world over from Latin America to Europe and from the ME to Australia have immense hatred to the US government?? <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">

    Whenever a US official visits a country we see people protesting?? US embassies all over the world have to be built and guarded like massive forts ?? <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">

    Nothing can justify the murder of people on 9/11 but in my opinion the US start examining the reasons behind the attack...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Nice Kick:
    <STRONG>
    Also he insisted to fight back instead of peace talk...</STRONG>

    When they are dancing in the streets over their "victory" - the murder of thousands of non-combatants - talk is the recourse of cowards and slaves.

    The pathetic "peace talk" is what Klinton would have done, and Gore would have hid in a corner and piddled himself. "Peace talk" is what brought about the WTC. "Peace talk" would have encouraged escallation by bin Laden.

    Fuck "peace talk", and the cowards who clamor for it...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Thanatos...AGAIN:
    <STRONG>
    The pathetic "peace talk" is what Klinton would have done, and Gore would have hid in a corner and piddled himself. "Peace talk" is what brought about the WTC. "Peace talk" would have encouraged escallation by bin Laden...</STRONG>

    How many terroist attacks have you seen during Clinton administration? And how long have Bush been in government that the largest terroist attack happened in the US?

    I can understand the urge to fight back, but recklessly sending troops and stuff would just kill more innocent people.

    [ 26-05-2002: Message edited by: Nice Kick ]
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Nice Kick:
    <STRONG>

    How many terroist attacks have you seen during Clinton administration? And how long have Bush been in government that the largest terroist attack happened in the US?

    I can understand the urge to fight back, but recklessly sending troops and stuff would just kill more innocent people.
    </STRONG>

    I suggest you stop right now NiceKick, you are showing a lot of ignorance there. Go do some research.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Seriously can't believe it!
    How can someone blame the americans of trying to fight back? It's common knowledge, that yu defend yourself, when someone has pissed on your territory!

    And to tell you the truth, I still don't get the message of the attack? Why wanting to ruin the american ideology, when you are supposed to be so fond of your own? <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">

    They could just not care, and go on with their own lives.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Returning to the original question of this post, I think it was an unimaginably dreadful tragedy.

    However, I also think that it needs to be kept in perspective. The same number of people are murdered many times over every day in other parts of the world; genocide never stops. No human life is worth more than any other, and thus I felt that a disproportionately large amount of coverage was afforded to September 11th.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Jacqueline the Ripper:
    <STRONG>How can someone blame the americans of trying to fight back? It's common knowledge, that yu defend yourself, when someone has pissed on your territory!</STRONG>

    "An eye for an eye and the whole world is blind".

    Besides, seems like someone is verging on the Israeli trick of using the US anti-terrorism stance following 11/9 to legitimise their own policy of ethnic cleansing against the Palestinians.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Vox populi, vox Dei:
    <STRONG> thus I felt that a disproportionately large amount of coverage was afforded to September 11th.</STRONG>


    Luckily it wasnt you who got to make that choice...The majority of people were massively shocked and wanted to see that coverage.

    The thing about the WTC being so big is simply because its never happened before. We are all used to hearing about floods in India or famine in Africa, it happens so bloody often. Yes its sad, yes we feel sorrow for those people but we are used to it. Nothing like the WTC has ever happened before. THats why it got so much coverage.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Vox populi, vox Dei:
    <STRONG>

    "An eye for an eye and the whole world is blind".

    Besides, seems like someone is verging on the Israeli trick of using the US anti-terrorism stance following 11/9 to legitimise their own policy of ethnic cleansing against the Palestinians.</STRONG>

    She didnt say an eye for an eye <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> , she said you defend yourself when youre attacked.

    I hope you dont mean that shes using that tactic in this thread because she quite obviously isnt. This really isnt the thread to resume your arguments against Israel.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Balddog:
    <STRONG>


    Luckily it wasnt you who got to make that choice...The majority of people were massively shocked and wanted to see that coverage.

    The thing about the WTC being so big is simply because its never happened before. We are all used to hearing about floods in India or famine in Africa, it happens so bloody often. Yes its sad, yes we feel sorrow for those people but we are used to it. Nothing like the WTC has ever happened before. THats why it got so much coverage.</STRONG>

    I think coverage was probably the wrong word to use. I understand that as something so out-of-the-ordinary happening to the most powerful nation on Earth it did deserve a lot of coverage.

    What people did afford it is more sorrow than the thousands who die each day elsewhere. I understand why they did this; I happen to believe it's wrong to though.

    It also bugs me the number of people, especially in Europe, who, at first, were almost jubilant about it, only to pretend later that they were totally shocked, when society told them that this was the right way to act.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Balddog:
    <STRONG>This really isnt the thread to resume your arguments against Israel.</STRONG>

    This thread is about the impacts of 11/9. Undoubtedly one of those impacts was on the Middle East situation. It was thoroughly relevent, I felt.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Vox populi, vox Dei:
    <STRONG>

    This thread is about the impacts of 11/9. Undoubtedly one of those impacts was on the Middle East situation. It was thoroughly relevent, I felt.</STRONG>

    bullshit, you just wanted to provoke Jaq and you know it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Vox populi, vox Dei:
    <STRONG>

    "An eye for an eye and the whole world is blind".

    Besides, seems like someone is verging on the Israeli trick of using the US anti-terrorism stance following 11/9 to legitimise their own policy of ethnic cleansing against the Palestinians.</STRONG>

    Hope that the someone you are mentioning isn't me <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">

    I am saying that you can't expect life to float by without consequences!
    The smallest thing will leave trails, and a big thing will leave a route, that should be blocked immediately in some cases, as in this one.
    Sorry, but I believe that any suicide action should be stopped ASAP! It can't be true, that people need the suicide threat to weigh on their minds and shoulders as well as all the other problems a person... community... nation has.

    I am against the militant palestinians and the supporters who will belive for even a second, that their acts will get them anywhere positive.
    When they do stop their insane acts, then they can begin the talks of a new state. I won't support it until then.

    Same goes for the US attackers. Why should I be the nice one, when they kick me to the ground, and hit me when I am down?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Vox populi, vox Dei:
    <STRONG>It also bugs me the number of people, especially in Europe, who, at first, were almost jubilant about it, only to pretend later that they were totally shocked, when society told them that this was the right way to act.</STRONG>

    It bugs me that there are people who still glory in it. Those who pretend that the US has nothing to make a fuss about. Afterall thousands of people die everyday.

    As for the focus, this event was the biggest single terrorist attack in history. The manner in which it was done is beyond words or disgust - proof that religious extremeists have no feeling for their fellow man.

    I was also one of the people who suggested that US foreign policy should be reviewed following the attack - not necessarily changed, but reviewed to see if any steps could be taken to avoid a repeat. It is one thing to seek revenge and retribution for those who carried out the attack but there is no shame in admitting that perhaps your own actions have been a source of motivation.

    Bush seems to agree with me, note the change in policy concerning Palestine...

    As for NiceKick (more like CompleteDick), my only advice is to read your subject before you post inane shite. Thanatos actually outlined some acts carried out during Clintons Presidency, such as the original WTC attack and the bombing of USS Cole.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Jacqueline the Ripper:
    <STRONG>
    Sorry, but I believe that any suicide action should be stopped ASAP!
    </STRONG>

    I agree entirely. I just disagree on the methods perceived to be the best for stopping suicide actions (ie killing people).
    Originally posted by Jacqueline the Ripper:
    <STRONG>
    It can't be true, that people need the suicide threat to weigh on their minds and shoulders as well as all the other problems a person... community... nation has.

    I am against the militant palestinians and the supporters who will belive for even a second, that their acts will get them anywhere positive.</STRONG>

    Once again, I agree. I abhor terrorist groups of whatever persuasion. I simply fail to see how our acts of violence in retaliation will not breed further acts of violence. The Taliban has been destroyed and al-Qaeda scattered, but the US government is still warning its people, and the rest of the world, to expect further attacks. Clearly, the war on terrorism has so far not been successful.
    Originally posted by Jacqueline the Ripper:
    <STRONG>
    When they do stop their insane acts, then they can begin the talks of a new state. I won't support it until then.
    </STRONG>

    Contrary to Bulldog's interpretation, I don't want to get bogged down in another discussion of Israel - I was simply highlighting the use of the "War on Terrorism" by the Israelis to gain political capital. Suffice it to say that I believe both sides are committing insane acts that must cease before peace is possible.
    Originally posted by Jacqueline the Ripper:
    <STRONG>
    Same goes for the US attackers. Why should I be the nice one, when they kick me to the ground, and hit me when I am down?</STRONG>

    Because we in the West are supposed to have a more evolved sensibility. We should not resort to violence and barbarism so easily, yet we do; we should recognise that violence will indeed breed more violence, but we on the whole refuse to.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Vox populi, vox Dei:
    <STRONG>
    Contrary to Bulldog's interpretation.</STRONG>


    Grow up mate.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What would you then do Vox if you could decide, how America should respond.

    I mean, people are so hasty judging Bush, but I clearly can't see any other ways of dealing with this.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Balddog:
    <STRONG>


    Grow up mate.</STRONG>

    <IMG SRC="eek.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> <IMG SRC="eek.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> <IMG SRC="eek.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> <IMG SRC="eek.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">

    At first I couldn't really understand what had made you say that - only just then did I realise. It wasn't intentional at all; I was typing quickly and, as I often do with unfamiliar words, used a homophone by accident. I seriously did not intend it.

    Sorry.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Vox populi, vox Dei:
    <STRONG>

    Because we in the West are supposed to have a more evolved sensibility. We should not resort to violence and barbarism so easily, yet we do; we should recognise that violence will indeed breed more violence, but we on the whole refuse to.</STRONG>

    You subscribe to the theory of "moral superiority" by assuming the role of designated victim? Them who will not fight back perish. FOREVER.
    It is not "moral superiority"... merely moral cowardice. You think if you do not fight back, the attacker will have pity and cease the attack. How utterly and pathetically naive. The reality is, they then go for the jugular...
    Have not yet been afforded a view of the REAL world, have you? Time for you to begin to grow up.
    Once again, I agree. I abhor terrorist groups of whatever persuasion. I simply fail to see how our acts of violence in retaliation will not breed further acts of violence. The Taliban has been destroyed and al-Qaeda scattered, but the US government is still warning its people, and the rest of the world, to expect further attacks. Clearly, the war on terrorism has so far not been successful.

    You compound cowardice with ignorance. What delusion has taken hold of you? Taliban have NOT been routed and defeated... the combat continues, this damned hour. As for centuries in Afghanistan, they have slunk back into the mountains, and are regrouping to fight again.
    The only thing which holds the terrorist acts in anything resembling check is to keep up the offensive upon them. If they are running for their very lives, it is more difficult to mount an attack.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    3-4000 people died in the September 11 attacks and that was terrible....

    Many more than that die EVERY DAY through starvation and treatable diseases.

    We could prevent this, we have the power, this is the true 'cowardice' that we allow this to happen....

    We are all guilty <IMG SRC="frown.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Sign In or Register to comment.