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 ✨
Options
Sick of it
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
I am sick of all this talk about how terrorists responisble for 911 attacks should be punished and blah blah blah, i agree they should be punished but when people talk about it, they make it out to be that America are the best in the world who are guilty of nothing, you talk about innocent lives lost in the two towers, what about all the innocent people living in Afghanstian and Iraq and other countries around the world over the years that have been the victims of american bombs...the papers and the public should stop being so sympathetic towards america and realise that there are more to this world than them.
0
Comments
Atta and co were JUSTIFIED in killing innocents? Who had not personally harmed the Islamic world?
Maybe the US has brought the wrath of Al Qaeda on itself, but you can't seriously state that the people in the WTC 'deserved' to die.
A decade ago 1,000,000 people were savagely murdered in Rwanda in two weeks. That is the single worst atrocity in history (the Holocaust, Stalin and others being excluded since they were a long process and not a single incident). That is the equivalent of 24 Twin Towers attacks every day for two weeks in a row.
Puts things into perspective really. Yet most of the people who continue to cry about 9/11 and attempt to justify all kind of things on it couldn't find Rwanda on the map, let alone know or care about such atrocity.
There are many more incidents worse than 9/11 that few talk about. Twice as many civilians have been killed in Afghanistan by the Americans since October 2001- yet does anyone in power or the media give a shit?
And going a bit further back, the American government’s relentless and use of Agent Orange in Vietnam has caused to date the deaths of 500,000 people and disabilities and deformities to another 600,000. That is the worst WMD attack ever seen. Yet we never see anyone talking about this particular act of terrorism that according to my calculator is 166 times worse than 9/11.
However, the reaction post-9/11 has been disastrous, for America and for the world at large. Instead of questioning why America's actions abroad could have led to 9/11, America acted like the wounded bully - hell bent on revenge and because it happened to America it was a huge tragedy for the world and yet in the many acts of terrorism the US has played a part in have been largely ignored. The shocking thing is that in under two years, which is actually not that long a period of time, America has gone from having the world's sympathy and on its side to being increasingly loathed around the world. The UK's role in this has been shameful to say the least, where the special relationship demanded that we calm the American psyche and encourage our allies to deal with terrorism, our government has in fact encouraged America to brood on 9/11 and provided a cover of international respectability for disgusting actions, encouraging the American public to adopt an attitude of "Oh well if the Brits are with us, we must definitely be right because we have an ally, therefore the rest of the world must be wrong." I think the actions of the French government have been much more in keeping with their role as allies to the Americans - being friends with someone means you warn them when they are headed down the wrong path rather than encouraging it.
The lessons of terrorism are that violence only begets more violence and so someone needs to break the cycle. The tragedy is that the Americans rather than addressing the genuine global grievances that led to the strength of Al Qaeda have instead responded with a counter attack on Afghanistan and Iraq which is, instead of stemming the tide of death of 9/11 is instead turning it into an increasing cycle of death and misery in the world. Now we're all just waiting for the counter attack from Al Qaeda... The sheer increasing scale of death and human misery from the fallout of 9/11 is a tragedy for the world.
Why is it acceptable to intervene in Kosovo. yet not Rwanda?
Sometimes I think there is a racial element to this.
That's because there is. In this PC society we live in, it was okay to decry apartheid in South Africa in the 80s (a horrible practice) because blacks were being oppressed by a white government. However Britain can't get involved in Zimbabwe where whites are being oppressed by a black government because it would be seen as racist for us to interfere with a black government even when they are doing wrong and all hell would break loose at the Commonwealth.
There is a very selective attitude towards dealing with different foreign nations and the sheer hypocrisy of it stinks.
Instead of looking into the whole thing and trying to accept why these kind of attacks happen they have used it to justify worse attacks, killings and acts of violence against innocent people and claimed it to be for the cause of peace.
I refuse to even call it 9/11...the reason? because 9/11 is a slogan, a banner, a creation, dreamed up like some kind of ad campaign. And the whole phrase and everything it stands for disgusts me.
Stop the analysis of his profile please, and take into account what has been said.
Nope.
Anyway, how many innocents have died because of third world debts? And because of sanctions on Iraq (didn't Bowling for Columbine say it was about 500, 000 kids)? Not to mention how many innocent lives were taken with American and British weapons.
And then they go bitch about the 3000 or however many the fuck died when there're probably people dying now because medical treatment is inadequate or because some country has bought a gun from a source in the UK and decided to kill children for their religion.
Sick.
OK - so why hasn't the UK and America offered to destroy theirs!
The main reason of course being that "we dont have any weapons programmes... " :rolleyes:
It all comes down to the ongoing diversionary double standards Im afraid. Though I cant speak driectly to the UK's divulgence or obfuscation on WMD development within their military superstructure, I can strongly suggest that our own Pentagon duplicity on the issue is a matter of record.
Confront those responsible for oversight of this area of military research and theyll of course simply dismiss it all under the pretext that our Bio/Chem production was discontinued circa 1972-1974 (and again in 1990) under the terms of both conventions.
This of course is a falsehood. The only thing that was discontinued was Congressional oversight and scrutiny. Research and development have continued apace within the framework of the Pentagon and the MIC under classified conditions. So much so, it should be said, that our delegate even stormed out of the convention meeting in Geneva in 2002 when discussions turned to the inclusion of a third party verification regime for all signatory nations to the CWC/BWC.
What is truly sickening in all this grandstanding by both Blair and Bush is the constant references to the dangers of WMDs and to weapons proliferation by conveniently selected "rogue" nations, whilst in reality both the US and UK are lightyears ahead of all other countries on the planet in proliferating armaments of every variety to whoever has money to buy them.
Please do not pretend America is any sort of utopia, it really isn't. Racism, hatred, ignorance - they're all part of daily life in America, and even in this country.
People don't need to be taught ignorance, jealousy and hate, once theyre old enough they usually learn it for themselves.
It simply goes to confirm the old addage that the truth is hard for people to accept. That and of course his added belief that Washington does no wrong in the world especially if 10 Downing St. goes along with it.
Sadly for all of us, that is far from the truth whether he chooses to understand that fact or not.
Well in the case of Rwanda, genocide occured there but the US (as West in general) did little or nothing. However, Clinton and Blair couldn't help but intervene in Kosovo!
The West had NO excuse NOT to help in Rwanda.
Its a joke, if you are going to use the arguement that we are allowed and duty bound to stop horrible dictators then we have a lot of work to do. Why not, all the other countries? Why just Iraq? And if we move down that route who decides which leader is to stay or go?
Given both of these considerations, pnj is merely conditioned to believe that its all about doing good and fighting bad and that those classifications are applicable to "us" and "them" respectively at all times. Life and hopefully some time spent abroad (should he ever bother to do so) will hopefully open his eyes to the truth behind those idealistic presumptions.
bongbudda, the argument used with regard to Kosovo concerned the imminent and quite real threat of an expansion of the conflict into the surrounding countries and thereby the further destabilisation of the entire southeast of the continent. More correctly it was under the auspices of NATO and not the US/UK unilaterally.
Nevertheless, I do agree with your points and would go further to say that multilateral frameworks such as the UN have provided the very conditions of peace certainly amongst Western powers which have allowed us to grow into the economic and military powerhouses we are today.
That achieved, it is all the more heinous that our leaders should now presume out of sheer arrogance and smugness that we can dispense with international legitimacy and international law simply because we are the biggest kids on the block.
That kind of thinking invites similar behaviour from other less savory world leaders toward their own political opponents and neighbours and casts the whole exercise of the past 50+ years into utter chaos.
It also sets the stage for future generations to dispense with constructive means of conflict resolution which, as global power shifts once again in its historic cycle at some future point, could one day put our respective countries on the receiving end of some world leader's (or leaders') hit list simply because they consider our governments' policies and our governments' actions towards others to be a "threat". Of course the truth underlying that would for them, as it is with the UK/US, be a desire to get their hands on our resources.
So basically, the behaviour and attitudes of Bush and Blair are both myopic as well as self-defeating for our own future standing and security since they fail to own up to our mutual culpability in creating these messes in the first place.
Responsible leaders would not shake their fist at the world nor try to pretend that the nations and leaders they villify have arisen in a vacuum. We need to stop producing and proliferating weapons, invading other countries, stealing and exploiting resources and populations (respectively) for our own gluttonous over-consumption before we can shake a finger at anyone for lashing out against us.
As the addage says, "we've made our bed and now we have to lay in it". If they expect change then it wont come from perpetrating even further military and economic domination as we are continuing to do.
I wonder what things would have happened if say Gordon Brown or a conservative leader were in power?
Would we still be as close to America? What would the stance of the UK be on the war against terrorism.
Whatever your opinion on war, protesting does nothing and major decisions are out of our hands, they're made by one man,
does he think it's right or is he thinking in terms of making an impact and furthering his career.
I can't remember this far back but I'm wondering what things were like between John Mayor and George Bush snr during the 1st gulf war.
http://www.hereinreality.com/carlyle.html
It would be the same as now because they would have attacked "Big Ben" or something. These are a relatively few gang of Muslim extremists who hate the West and Western influence. They would have attacked you. In America, I usually can't speak for over 280,000,000 very different people but the word used to describe the UK is "friend". But even so, I do believe that Blair believes he is acting in the interest of the UK by supporting America. (Even if as Clandestine says, and I believe he's right on this, that there are people making a lot of money off the war...including the Bin Laden family who is heavily invested in US Defense contractors.)
Sadly, I believe there will be another horrible attack on innocents in a Western country from Al Qaeda. It's the down side of having an "Open" society.
As for the US, many laughed when Dubya cheated his way into power, saying "oh well, he's just a dumb-as-hell moron, what harm can he do?"
I'm not going to speculate on whether the 9/11 (sorry, 11/9
Let’s just hope that the nightmare ends in 2004 and the Bush administration simply becomes a note in History and goes down as one of the most evil, malicious and destructive US governments ever. If Dubya & co get re-elected, we’re going to get a major war before the end of their second term in 2008. Mark my words.
I hope this isn't too US oriented to talk about here but it interests me.
The Democrats are aggressively asking for proof of WMDs and where the notion that Saddam had nuclear capabilities came from. We'll see how it works out. But what has surprised me is that the Bush/Blair response in the US is that the intelligence was good. Now they have to make good on THAT statement. I love this stuff!
Then not only could we get rid of Bush but hopefully put him and all his daddy's cronies on trial for treason and genocide!
Britain really punches above its weight in foreign policy. Countries of similar economic and military strength (like say France or Germany) don't have as extensive a role.
Bush and Major got on well. Don't forget the US and UK have been clsoe allies since the end of WWII, so it's likely that most PM's would be under pressure to maintain the 'alliance' with the USA.
No it wouldn't PNJ, we don't believe all the BS we're fed about the terrorist threat here unlike in the US where every time the President's approval rating falls below 60% they turn up the terror threat.
I think had Brown been PM he wouldn't have been especially interested in the war on terrorism, I think Brown's pet project is more domestic - social reforms and income redistribution are more his aims unlike Blair who's pet project is getting as much praise from as many people as often as possible.
We would probably have had a smaller role in Afghanistan, occuring as it did in the wake of 9/11. MI5 and MI6 would probably have been beefed up and improvements in security sought which is the real war on terrorism. However had Brown been PM we would not have been involved in the Iraq debacle, Brown was known to be against it as it was a waste of money. So our role would have been a lot more like our European neighbours than American lapdog.
PNJ yes there probably will be another attack on Westerners from Al Qaeda which we will be unprepared for - this is what happens when you ignore defending yourself against terrorism to go off on little adventures abroad to boost your re-election chances.
[/government]
no, did daddy post all them replies since all you think is that america is the best place in the world guilty of nothing at all, pnj, have u ever heard of al queda before 11/9? Getting rid of Saddam may have been good for Iraq but what gives america and the uk the right to do so...and no monocrat, i don't think they deserved to die but did all the other innocent victims around the world deserve to die either.