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.
9/11, five years on, time to re-think, adjust?
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
Tomorrow, it will be five years to the day since we witnessed the unspeakable horror on September 11th, 2001. It could be said the world we live in has changed since the events of that day. As ever on dates like this, my thoughts are primarily with the families of the nearly 3000 people who died that day. It is unlikely to be an easy day for them. President Bush is going to lay a wreath at Ground Zero, but he will not be making any formal speeches during the day. Click here.
Meantime, it might be an appropriate time to step back for one day and take a look at where we are now. YouGov and Sky News have done a poll, which has tried to gauge public feelings about the "war on terrorism" that followed 9/11. Their results aren't particularly surprising. From the report...
"...the YouGov survey found 62% supported the fight, which was launched after the strikes. Nearly a quarter of those surveyed (22%) thought the UK and the US were not winning. When it came to Tony Blair's policies since 9/11, the majority (77%) believed he had made Britain more of a terrorist target. Only 13% of people disagreed. Most people have grim fears about the future too, with only 7% believing the War on Terror will end in their lifetime. And when asked whether Britain should be involved in any future US military action against Iran, only 16% said 'yes'." >> Click for more >>
So, the question is - is this a war that's being fought properly? Are our governments doing the right things in our names? Or has the war on terrorism been badly fought, and have mistakes been made?
As one of the more right-wing voices on the boards, you'd more than likely expect me to say - yes, the war is being fought brilliantly, and to expect me to defend Blair & Bush. Not a hope. I supported the military action in Afghanistan at the time - something that I regret now. I supported the military action in Iraq at the time for entirely different reasons - something that I regret too. I feel that both of these invasions have made the problem even worse. Bullets and bombs cannot destroy the threat of terrorism. And increasingly, I can't help but feel that good intelligence and the truth are increasing casualties in this "conflict".
What do you reckon?
Meantime, it might be an appropriate time to step back for one day and take a look at where we are now. YouGov and Sky News have done a poll, which has tried to gauge public feelings about the "war on terrorism" that followed 9/11. Their results aren't particularly surprising. From the report...
"...the YouGov survey found 62% supported the fight, which was launched after the strikes. Nearly a quarter of those surveyed (22%) thought the UK and the US were not winning. When it came to Tony Blair's policies since 9/11, the majority (77%) believed he had made Britain more of a terrorist target. Only 13% of people disagreed. Most people have grim fears about the future too, with only 7% believing the War on Terror will end in their lifetime. And when asked whether Britain should be involved in any future US military action against Iran, only 16% said 'yes'." >> Click for more >>
So, the question is - is this a war that's being fought properly? Are our governments doing the right things in our names? Or has the war on terrorism been badly fought, and have mistakes been made?
As one of the more right-wing voices on the boards, you'd more than likely expect me to say - yes, the war is being fought brilliantly, and to expect me to defend Blair & Bush. Not a hope. I supported the military action in Afghanistan at the time - something that I regret now. I supported the military action in Iraq at the time for entirely different reasons - something that I regret too. I feel that both of these invasions have made the problem even worse. Bullets and bombs cannot destroy the threat of terrorism. And increasingly, I can't help but feel that good intelligence and the truth are increasing casualties in this "conflict".
What do you reckon?
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article1466758.ece
Particularly this one:
Civilians killed after 9/11 as part of the [so-called] War on Terror: 72,000
The rethink should be as follows: An official recognition and an apology from the US and British governments that the illegal war on Iraq had precisely fuck all to do with 9/11; Bush (and Blair) to be arrested for war crimes.
And of course a change of policy in the Middle East.
The above would do infinitely more to combat and prevent future terrorist atrocities than the unwinnable so-called 'war on terror' will ever achieve.
I'm pretty sure the victims of 9/11 wouldn't want this is they were here today.
Yeah.
It seems because its America is must some fucking huge deal. LOADS of countries have been attacked. Get over it.
Christ, it wasn't like they blew hte whole of NY up. Most of the deaths are due to thier governemnt saying things like no Helicopter Pilots are allowed to try to rescue people.
Cunts. They must have wanted them to die... why? Wasn't the attack enough of a reason for war on its own?
I think if you were a husband, wife, child, father or mother of one of those 3000 that died 5 years ago in NYC, or last year in London, or in 2004 in Madrid etc, or infact to the families of over 70,000 people that died since 11/09/2001, you'd still be affected after 5 years. And maybe after 10 years. Until you lose someone like that, you have no right to tell the ones that have to get over it.
Terrorism is not going to disappear until this merciless proliferation of weapons in the whole world stops!
Let me put that into numbers for you.
At the start of the Gulf war, aroundabout 300 Tomahawk cruise missiles were launched from US submarines and cruise ships.
One Tomahawk costs $575,000. 300 Tomahawks cost $172.5 million.
In 1996 the known inventory for Tomahawks in the US Navy only was 4170. (that's a cost of $2.4 billion)
The average cost of a Tomahawk in use (maintenance, storage etc) is $1.4 million.
The average cost for 4000 tomahawks in service is $5.6 billion.
The whole program cost for the Tomahawk missile was $11.2 billion.
This is just one missile type. Think about how many missiles and how many missile platforms (ships, subs, bombers, fighters) there are in the world.
Blair and Bush will be gone in a couple of years. Them being tried and sentenced will not bring back the dead nor will it bring back the money used. And in their place there will be some other disillusioned leaders who will lead all our countries into more wars and more suffering.
The only thing that can change anything is a worldwide revolution.
And that is not going to happen.
As for Post-9/11, well, Iraq was a waste and in truth a full blown alliance and friendship deal with Saddam would have been better, just like the UK is trying with Libya now. The war on terror is a joke as no intelligence agency is even equipped or skilled in tackling terrorists, they are all stuck in cold war mentality of fighting Ruskies and the pinkos. Finally, i think it is indeed time to re-think the entire attitude to the middle east.
Overcoming terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan has proved a great challenge and the fight against it is one we absolutely must win. Further, the emergence of a Palestinian state living alongside a secure State of Israel is vital for stability in the region. But it can't happen until the Palestinian people renounce terrorism and violence. The election of Hamas suggests many Palestinians lack a desire for peace and that many are indeed not capable of diplomacy.
In addition to supporting Israel we should support our other allies in the region; Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt for instance - and we need to do whatever we can to help strengthen their regimes. While any decent person would be uncomfortable with Saudi human rights abuses terrorist groups like Hezbollah and their sponsors - the Iranian government pose a far greater threat to peace. We are on broadly the right path, there have been mistakes admittedly in how we have conducted ourselves but it would be absurd to cower into discredited isolationism.
We have to fight terrorism vigorously - whether it's in Britain, America, Spain, Israel, Egypt or Iraq. The alternative of adapting foreign policy according to what will satisfy Muslim extremists is as flawed a strategy as appeasing the Nazis.
I'm not quite sure how bombing Iraq is going to ensure it becomes a democratic state?
Our actions however are recruiting terrorists. Claiming the moral high ground and claiming to be for peace, democracy and human rights while invading countries on fictitious pretexts, making a right bloody mess of it, ignoring human rights and torturing our enemies is not the way to beat terrorism.
A very simplistic reading of the situation. Hamas have a lot of support because they provide for people - hospitals, schools, welfare. It is taking the role of the state, it works, of course it is going to have support. Maybe if Israel negotiated and supported these activities rather than their history of murder and oppression, we might get somewhere. As it is, Israel's current attmept to starve and shoot the Palestinians into submission is only going to make Israel less safe. Any student of history will tell that oppressing and brutalising a people only leads to increased armed resistance.
Supporting Israel and not bringing it to task for its violent and brutal subjugation of the Palestinians and for its indiscrimante bombing of Lebanon is only going to make us more enemies.
In a lot of the world's eyes, the US and the UK are the terrorists. Until we realise that our actions are only inflaming the situations, that our economic policies cause untold suffering to millions of people, until we realise extremely quick industrialisation of countries and regions is going to make people terrified of the lack of control over their lives and the pace of change (it took Britain a few hundred years to go through some of the social changes that is happening in some places in a few years). Until our governments start acting in a manner that benefits everyone, not just a tiny elite, well we fucked quite frankly. What I find most depressing however is that some people cheer this behaviour on from the side lines without having the nous to see that their cheering their own destruction.
Afghanistan was understandable. Iraq, not a chance. Two wrongs don't make a right, even now you defend it. How does bombing the shit out of a country, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths, anarchy and near civil war help fight terrorism? Why bring the French into this, at least they had the balls to stand up for what was right. I think we should get as far away as possible from trigger happy America and let them fix the mess they got themselves into. It's was their fault 9/11 happened and it's their fault that even us are targets now.
Oh yeh and it's no coincidence that for most Palestinian people, Hamas is their only source of support, do you not know the charitable work they do for their people? Israel are hardly bending over backwards to help them.
Who said anything about isolationalism? It's far easier to sit around a table and talk than to bomb here, there and everywhere. It's far easier for community leaders to get down to the table on a local level and discuss issues than blame each other for why there's social polarisation.
Now you're bringing the Nazis in. You can't compare Muslim extremists to Nazis, this is Guerilla Warfare, not full scale armies involved in all out war.
Richard Nixon:
"I am not a crook!"
Bill Clinton:
"I did not have sex with that woman!"
George W. Bush:
"No one likes to see innocent people killed!"
Disillusioned really does live up to his name
And if you hadn't invaded Ireland 800 years ago and stayed there ever since in some way or another, there'd never have been IRA bombings either.
I didn`t realise "I`m With Stupid" was so old.
I take it that you only lived with it for so long as he is now your "ex" ?
It was a collective you. I.e the English. The presence/influence is still here and I don't want to get into that done-to-death Klintockesque debate into what a country is.
There was no such thing as Great Britain until the 18th Century.
Really?
You obviously don't know too much about sectarian divisions in Scotland.
Then it wasn't Scots they kicked out, it was just an ethnic group coming in to kick another ethnic group out. The idea of nations wasn't formed until long after these intial periods of cross migration.
Yeah because that is so much more up-to-date...
You could also blame the Dutch and even the French...
Ditto.
How far do we take history back to blame someone, you went 800 years, I went a little further. Reality is that we can only really blame those who carry out the acts.
Ah but the influence is still felt here in N.Ireland. We're being run from Whitehall, does that not say something to you about who owned us 800 years ago and who owns us now?
:thumb: :thumb: :thumb: PRECISELY :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:
Thanks for reinforcing my low opinion of you.
Well actually the US and Britain were the two biggest donors to the Palestinians. (If the EU is considered as a single entity it was the biggest). And er the UN has gigantic resources devoted to the Palestinians, indeed a disproportionate amount compared to say, any African country.
You mean before 7/7? Well more Brits were killed on 9/11 than 7/7...
And 9/11 was an attack on America, as a member of NATO an attack on a fellow NATO member that also happens to be our best ally is definitely an attack on us. 9/11 was an attack on civilised people everywhere.
Well I say 9/11 was an attack on Britain too...
So a load of terrorists just happened to jump on a plane heading to America and just happened to pick the WTC to attack. Get a grip, of course it's America's fault 9/11 happened, maybe not the people's fault but certainly the generations long actions of their government.