Why I hate 9-11 - DPChallenge Forums

09/11/2006 11:32:56 AM · #1

I laid in bed last night and my wife and I discussed why I hate 9-11 ... allow me to share this with my fellow DPCr's. Please remember this is my OPINION and we all have those so if you don't care , don't read -- RANT.
Let me also preface this by saying that I'm hoping I'm not a hypocrite by broadcasting my feelings about this but i just have some thoughts that i thought some might appreciate.

1: Saudis: To this day I haven't heard a decent explaination why everyone seems to ignore that the majority of the people that performed this act were Saudis. I'm not saying that terror groups outside of Saudi Arabia weren't involved -- but we jumped through hoops to TRY to find a link to IRAQ and really never found one -- but the Saudis seem like an underinvestigated link to me.

2: Politics: Why is 9-11 used by politicians as a motivation to fight and to invade privacies ... not to mention torture? ... Ok I mentioned torture. To me this hurts more deeply than almost anything - We talk about honoring the victims but in the same breath we instill fear ... to me this insults our intelligence as citizens of this country.

3: The World didn't change that day: Some people like to claim that the world changed that day. And for many individuals it did - but as a country and a planet - life is the same. To say that these terrorists changed the world is like honoring them with something that they don't deserve. People in some middle-eastern and African countries have experienced a life-time with many events that could be considered the level of carnage America saw that day.

4: Dividing not Uniting: Finally, I hope and pray that we as people can be more accepting and understanding of others rather than generalizing about religions and lifestyles. It seems to me that 9-11 united Americans but divided us in many ways from other places in the world. I personally am going to make an effort try to do my part to Unite and understand rather than divide we as people in my life and I hope others can do the same.

i hope to not start a flame-fest with this and I probably am not the first person to bring up this topic -- but this is my rant. thanks.

Message edited by author 2006-09-11 11:43:24.

09/11/2006 11:46:25 AM · #2

um... doesn't everybody hate 9/11? Perhaps you mean you hate the hype. I mostly agree with your points, perhaps I'd even go further.

1. There is NO connection between 9/11 and Iraq. Never was. Never will be. There will, however, be a connection between Iraq and future attacks on our country.

2. Why? Because it generated fear, and fear is the root of so much evil.

3. The world DID change, thanks to neo-conservatives who took advantage of a disaster that they were pitiful at avoiding. Or maybe I'm being too presumptuous. The United States changed, in a very bad way which affects the rest of the world. And yes, that is a victory for the terrorists. I think it was Osama Bin Laden who hung that "Mission Accomplished" sign behind Bush.

4. Yes, 9/11 divided this country in a stark way. It united us only as a shared trauma, but like all traumas different people react differently, and in extreme ways.

Buckeye_Fan

09/11/2006 12:00:27 PM · #3

I hate what happened on 9/11. Today I was listening to the same radio station where I heard about the towers being hit. All of a sudden, I was feeling that panic and knot in my stomach as I did 5 years ago. I live in Central Ohio. Knew no one in New York. But, I just wanted to cry all over again. I know exactly where I was 5 years, what I was doing and who I talked to when I heard what happened. It changed me. Should we have a Patriot's Day....absolutely! Should we be at war....I question that every day. Earlier today I was complaining about breaking my key off in my truck on Friday, then after listening to the radio...the key is just a minute blip and can be fixed. Bringing back the lives of the people that were lost when the towers fell, won't ever happen. Hate what happened, hate the hype but love the people around you now.

g

09/11/2006 12:11:01 PM · #4

Good point. I think that this event could have motivated Americans is more productive ways. IMO the division inspired by our so-called diplomats and so-called leaders has pulled up us into a realm where government and media are "spinning" rather than actually trying to get a job done. Oh well, gotta get back to work. Have a good day.

Originally posted by posthumous:

3. The world DID change, thanks to neo-conservatives who took advantage of a disaster that they were pitiful at avoiding. Or maybe I'm being too presumptuous. The United States changed, in a very bad way which affects the rest of the world. And yes, that is a victory for the terrorists. I think it was Osama Bin Laden who hung that "Mission Accomplished" sign behind Bush.

Spork99

Canon EOS M6 Mk II

Canon EF-M 22mm STM Lens

09/11/2006 12:18:06 PM · #5

Originally posted by posthumous:

1. There is NO connection between 9/11 and Iraq. Never was. Never will be. There will, however, be a connection between Iraq and future attacks on our country.

There is now, only because 9/11 was used in part as an excuse to invade.

I think the decision to invade was partially to give the US a place to engage Islamic Extremists that is well outside the boundaries of the US.

09/11/2006 12:19:53 PM · #6

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by posthumous:

1. There is NO connection between 9/11 and Iraq. Never was. Never will be. There will, however, be a connection between Iraq and future attacks on our country.

There is now, only because 9/11 was used in part as an excuse to invade.

I think the decision to invade was partially to give the US a place to engage Islamic Extremists that is well outside the boundaries of the US.

Nah, the reasons to invade are spelled out on the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) web site.

09/11/2006 12:24:05 PM · #7

Originally posted by posthumous:

1. There is NO connection between 9/11 and Iraq. Never was. Never will be. There will, however, be a connection between Iraq and future attacks on our country.

I'm curious. What connection do you think there will be between Iraq and future attacks on our country that you do NOT think existed between 9/11 and Iraq?

Originally posted by posthumous:

3. The world DID change, thanks to neo-conservatives who took advantage of a disaster that they were pitiful at avoiding.

I'm curious. What steps do you think the neo-conservatives should have taken to avoid the attacks of 9/11, that could NOT have been taken during the Clinton administration?

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

09/11/2006 12:33:32 PM · #8

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by posthumous:
1. There is NO connection between 9/11 and Iraq. Never was. Never will be. There will, however, be a connection between Iraq and future attacks on our country.

I'm curious. What connection do you think there will be between Iraq and future attacks on our country that you do NOT think existed between 9/11 and Iraq?

Dang, you caught me! There IS a connection between Iraq and 9/11! The fallout from the First Gulf War, including US military bases in Saudi Arabia, created a lot of terrorists, and was surely part of what inspired the hijackers. But now, in addition to providing tons of new inspiration, terrorists are actually being trained and organized inside Iraq.

Originally posted by Ronb:

Originally posted by posthumous:
3. The world DID change, thanks to neo-conservatives who took advantage of a disaster that they were pitiful at avoiding.

I'm curious. What steps do you think the neo-conservatives should have taken to avoid the attacks of 9/11, that could NOT have been taken during the Clinton administration?

I'm not happy with either administration's efforts before 9/11, but I was thinking more about the day itself: how slowly fighter pilots got into the air, how they could not get authorization to shoot down the planes, and how our leaders seemed more concerned about protecting themselves than anybody else.

Message edited by author 2006-09-11 12:33:59.

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

09/11/2006 12:40:02 PM · #9

yep ... this thread should easily make it over 40 pages long

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

09/11/2006 12:51:42 PM · #10

I hate 9/11 because nearly 3,000 people died.

09/11/2006 01:01:46 PM · #11

1: Saudis: To this day I haven't heard a decent explaination why everyone seems to ignore that the majority of the people that performed this act were Saudis. I'm not saying that terror groups outside of Saudi Arabia weren't involved -- but we jumped through hoops to TRY to find a link to IRAQ and really never found one -- but the Saudis seem like an underinvestigated link to me.

[ It's really quite simple. The Saudi government has been a continuuing economic partner. And it co-operative, as is to a degree the government of Pakistan. This does not mean that all it's members are likewise friendly or inclined to work together.

That said, much of the indoctrination materials and support is derived from Iran (books, videos, safehouses, money, etc). We were in Afghanistan endeavoring to set-up a Democracy. The hope was to setup up a second Democracy in Iraq who, regardless of WMDs had been in repeated violations of the cease-fire, for those who question the legality of the Iraq war remember we had an ongoing cease-fire since 1991 which was repeatedly violated in many ways. Any of those were legal justifications for a breach of the cease-fire. WMDs was the only reason the U.N. (or in actuality France & Russia two particularly important members of the U.N.) would allow for action in Iraq.

Note, that eventually France came out after months of deliberations and stated even if WMDs were found they would veto any action. Since what was first played as the only valid reason for U.N. action became a farce as it was shown France was up to a much bigger game...we went in on our own. No, there was NO CONNECTION between 9-11 and Iraq. But there were connections of arms sales, and financing for various terrorist activites. (Of note, Saddam's promise of payments to the families of suicide bombers.) President Bush stated that he disagreed with waiting until danger was imminent. I agree as that's like deciding to put your seatbelt on only before you feel there is danger of a car accident.)

Later, France and Russia and several other nations who'd been in strong opposition were caught in the bulti-billion dollar scandal of oil. Including illegal sales of contraband items, many of which had potential dangerous military uses. So America acted on what was called the Axis of Evil by the President.

The hope being that if we could succeed in founding two democracies on the flanks of Iran that Iran's strong pro-democracy movements would gain strength and enact their own revolution. Yes, most people say we should stay uninvolved and if they want freedom the people with stage a revolution. Then again...most people are blithering idiots who's intelligence is far surpassed by Washington's banana slugs. They fail to realize how hard it is to have a revolution when you have few to no weapons. Perhaps a hunting rifle or machete at best and are facing machine guns, tanks and chemical weapons. They also tend to be completely uneducated about history. In the American revolution there were several factors which made it possible to win the war. 1) the sheer logistics of distance and re-supply 2) the enemy being engaged in other more pressing wars 3) the assistance of a super-power (namely France) aiding us in our revolt.

But it failed, the whole endeavor was doomed to failure...not from the start as so many suppose but when Congress balked at the re-construction bills. We should have devoted $500 billion over the next 5 years toward reconstruction. Meeting the common people's needs. But we didn't. Now, we are doomed to spend that much on military actions instead.
]

2: Politics: Why is 9-11 used by politicians as a motivation to fight and to invade privacies ... not to mention torture? ... Ok I mentioned torture. To me this hurts more deeply than almost anything - We talk about honoring the victims but in the same breath we instill fear ... to me this insults our intelligence as citizens of this country.

[ Because there is danger. The plot recently foiled by Britain was only done so because of those invasion of privacies. That said there is a danger. And there must be a balance. IMHO, I think there should be a blanket warrant that allows the government to monitor calls, emails, etc of anyone in contact with an Al-Quaeda or other suspected islamofascist terrorist connection. However, there should also be an oversight committee to review and a documentation of all records. To be released after either a 5 yr or 10 yr waiting period.

But really, why is there so much uproar about this which is actuqlly focused on protecting U.S. citizens but there was but a small murmer when Clinton used the FBI files for political advantage?
]

3: The World didn't change that day: Some people like to claim that the world changed that day. And for many individuals it did - but as a country and a planet - life is the same. To say that these terrorists changed the world is like honoring them with something that they don't deserve. People in some middle-eastern and African countries have experienced a life-time with many events that could be considered the level of carnage America saw that day.

[ So 9-11 didn't change the world. Neither did Hiroshima. But it did change us. And it did alter the long-standing balance of politics in the world.

Rwande had carnage that left a million dead. Sure...it's not just about the carnage but the potential. And this has set-up one of the most dangerous and UNKNOWN scenarios the world has seen. We could easily find ourselves waking up one morning only to hear that New York, Washington D.C. and London are gone.

It's not just about what has happened but what has been shown to be possible to happen.
]

4: Dividing not Uniting: Finally, I hope and pray that we as people can be more accepting and understanding of others rather than generalizing about religions and lifestyles. It seems to me that 9-11 united Americans but divided us in many ways from other places in the world. I personally am going to make an effort try to do my part to Unite and understand rather than divide we as people in my life and I hope others can do the same.

[ Likewise, so did World War II. Sadly, most who remember the lead up to WWII are dead. Those who were in their 30's to 40's in the 1930's are dead. The problem is the Western world seeks understanding with an enemy (islamofascists) who accept no understanding. Even in their own regions their fellow members in the belief of Islam are given no allowance or understanding.

Have you listened to the statements from Iran's present and past leaders. Sure, they tell us we should not use force or sanctions but rather dialogue. Then they also state that if America wants peace we should surrender and submit to Iran and the Islamic way.

If you think you can understand and negotiate with islamofascists, do me a favor, put your money and your life where your moth is and go over to the region and go try to understand and negotiate with some terrorists. Not just Arabs or Muslims...because I believe that IS possible. But with the islamofascism there is no negotiating.

I learned many years ago on the playground, that dialogue did not matter, that negotiation is not possible. If a bully was out to get you than they would harm you regardless of your desire or endeavors. I spent years trying to avoid confrontation and had zero success. Ironically, I was stronger than most of the bullies and could easily beat the crap out of them. But avoid confrontation...nothing I tried worked. Ironically, I found myself usually suffering more condemnation than the bullies. "Why are you always here for fighting?" "Fighting never solves anything!" But I didn't fight. I never even retaliated. "It takes two to start a fight." (it really doesn't) "Why is it always you?" "What are we going to do with you?" And of course the playground terrorism just increased because what bully is going to pass on bullying a kid who gets in more trouble for being bullied than the bullies get for bullying.

Wanna know how I broke the vicious cycle? I did the exact opposite of what I had been guided on. My freshman year I was being harassed by a bully. A textbook was thrown at me and hit my feet. I just kept telling myself "Just ignore them and they'll stop." (that's what I was told to do...but it never worked). Well, a second much larger history textbook came flying across the room. I snapped. For the first time I completely retaliated. I picked up the desk I was sitting in over my head and nearly threw it at the bully. I fought back. Thankfully, I did not throw the desk. In fact, I never even touched the bully. But I earned a reputation of the potential I could inflict and from that day onward I was pretty much left alone. Ironically, after dozens of suspensions for fighting when I did not even fight back. This time in which I did fight back would be the one time that I would in fact not be suspended for fighting.

So maybe my world view point is a little skewed. But what the U.N. and most liberals keep touting to me is just like the teachers giving me loads of BS that won't ever work. And laying on the same condemnation and criticisms. No, you can't dialogue with an opponent who has no respect for you. You must have respect either mutual respect or respect of fear. There is NO WAY we can achieve mutual respect from islamofascists as their requirements for such are surrender or conversion to their particular take on Islam. That leaves fear...

And since none of you can provide a way out of this world of fear. I choose having my enemies in fear and danger rather than me. Those enemies are the violent and aggressive islamofascists who are causing problems in every region of the world: U.S., Europe, Russia, Australia, India, Phillipines, Asia, and more. Look, these islamofascists are bullies. They are bullying everyone on the playground. And yes, they will give their reasons.

Some will like to point to the U.S. and say we are the bully. Or even Europe. This is NOT so, not to say we haven't been and we haven't screwed up or been so in other cases. But in this case, the U.S. and European states have managed to peacefully co-exist with a great number of other states. The islamofascists come into conflict with EVERY SINGLE OTHER ENTITY they encounter. In fact, I do not believe you can find a single place where islamofascism is not strong and present in which it does not conflict with all the other kids in the playground. That is NOT to say you can't find muslim entities who are peaceful playground participants. Many muslims are happy to be a peaceful participant on the playground. But no islamofascist are. They beat up the christian kid, the pagan kid, the jewish kid, the atheist kid, even the other muslim kids for not being the right type of muslim. They are a danger to the playground.

09/11/2006 01:07:28 PM · #12

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

I think the decision to invade was partially to give the US a place to engage Islamic Extremists that is well outside the boundaries of the US.

That was a strategic military objective and it was very successful. As much as everyone complains about our soldiers dying abroad. And I've got friends out there, I don't want them to die. But having been in the military it has always been the objective of the military to sustain losses over the civilians. And it has always been the goal to take the war to the enemy so that the infrastructure damage sustained does not take place on our soil.

A simple observation of statistics will show that such has been probably the one succes clearly observed. The vast majority of terrorist attacks in the world have occurred in Iraq. It is what in computer security is called a honeypot. A sweeter, easier place to attack but that is not in the network whole. Thus poses no direct danger.

09/11/2006 01:25:54 PM · #13

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by posthumous:
1. There is NO connection between 9/11 and Iraq. Never was. Never will be. There will, however, be a connection between Iraq and future attacks on our country.

I'm curious. What connection do you think there will be between Iraq and future attacks on our country that you do NOT think existed between 9/11 and Iraq?

Dang, you caught me! There IS a connection between Iraq and 9/11! The fallout from the First Gulf War, including US military bases in Saudi Arabia, created a lot of terrorists, and was surely part of what inspired the hijackers. But now, in addition to providing tons of new inspiration, terrorists are actually being trained and organized inside Iraq.

It appears from your response that your original statement was only made in an attempt to have others infer something that you, yourself, cannot articulate. I thought as much, but was curious to see whether my belief was accurate. It seems that it was.

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by Ronb:
Originally posted by posthumous:
3. The world DID change, thanks to neo-conservatives who took advantage of a disaster that they were pitiful at avoiding.

I'm curious. What steps do you think the neo-conservatives should have taken to avoid the attacks of 9/11, that could NOT have been taken during the Clinton administration?

I'm not happy with either administration's efforts before 9/11, but I was thinking more about the day itself: how slowly fighter pilots got into the air, how they could not get authorization to shoot down the planes, and how our leaders seemed more concerned about protecting themselves than anybody else.

From your response, I assume that you actually believe that if the attack had occurred under Clinton's watch that our fighter pilots would have been in the air much sooner, that they would have quickly been given authorization to shoot down civilian aircraft, and that the leaders would NOT have seemed more concerned with protecting the President, vice-President, ranking Congressional Leaders, etc. than anybody else.

But out of curiousity, what positive immediate responsive actions do you believe were taken by the Clinton administraton following the 1993 attack on the WTC? The 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers? The 1998 bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya? The 2000 attack on the U.S.S. Cole?
And I don't believe that the bombing of an aspirin factory should be considered a "positive" action.

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

09/11/2006 01:47:20 PM · #14

Originally posted by RonB:

I sure as hell can't articulate whatever it is you assume I am attempting, so you got me there.

Originally posted by Ronb:

Your the one with the bizarre assumptions. I never mentioned the Clinton administration. To use your strategy of ridiculously rhetorical questions, How exactly does a bumbling Clinton administration exonerate the Bush administration?

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

09/11/2006 02:00:43 PM · #15

Originally posted by LoudDog:

I hate 9/11 because nearly 3,000 people died.

Same reason as mine. So sad that even in this thread it goes largely ignored and took 10 posts before someone actually mentions it as a reason for hating 9/11. I predict next year when this thread comes up it may take till page two for it to be brought up.

09/11/2006 02:03:50 PM · #16

Originally posted by posthumous:

It does to a degree, in that the infrastructure at the time was established by President Clinton. President Bush had not had the opportunity to over-haul the intelligence networks. Though it had been stated that changes were necessary and in fact there had been a big fight as a couple of President Bush's appointees had been held up by politics. The result was that one of the appointees to a top CIA post was not implemented until a month before. So until that change over much of the operations were being conducted by Clinton's placees and following the prior administrations policies. Would it have made a difference...probably not. But I think it's harsh to put so much blame on President Bush when he wasn't even allowed to put his men into position until a month before.

Just my thoughts...

09/11/2006 02:06:28 PM · #17

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by RonB:
It appears from your response that your original statement was only made in an attempt to have others infer something that you, yourself, cannot articulate. I thought as much, but was curious to see whether my belief was accurate. It seems that it was.

I sure as hell can't articulate whatever it is you assume I am attempting, so you got me there.

Nor, it appears, can you articulate what the connection is between Iraq and future attacks on our country.

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by Ronb:
From your response, I assume that you actually believe that if the attack had occurred under Clinton's watch that our fighter pilots would have been in the air much sooner, that they would have quickly been given authorization to shoot down civilian aircraft, and that the leaders would NOT have seemed more concerned with protecting the President, vice-President, ranking Congressional Leaders, etc. than anybody else.

Your the one with the bizarre assumptions. I never mentioned the Clinton administration.

No, you didn't. You mentioned neo-conservatives. I mentioned the Clinton administration. You are quick to blame the Bush administration for not quickly taking the actions that YOU appear to believe would have been called for and prudent. But you, sir, have the benefit of history to guide your beliefs - they did NOT, AT THE TIME. I was merely pointing out that OTHERS also took actions that seem equally imprudent in retrospect, but seemed prudent to the decision makers AT THE TIME, given the level of knowledge AT THE TIME.

Originally posted by posthumous:

To use your strategy of ridiculously rhetorical questions, How exactly does a bumbling Clinton administration exonerate the Bush administration?

a) you didn't answer my question - but, then, I didn't think you would.
b) Unlike you, I will answer your question. It doesn't exonerate the Bush administration.
But the Clinton adminstration had nearly 8 YEARS to take actions that could have "avoided" 9/11, while the Bush administration had barely 8 MONTHS. So, why is it that you chose to remark on the failure of action by neo-conservatives, but chose to ignore the failures of action by liberals?

09/11/2006 02:11:58 PM · #18

Originally posted by theSaj:

Originally posted by posthumous:

Your the one with the bizarre assumptions. I never mentioned the Clinton administration. To use your strategy of ridiculously rhetorical questions, How exactly does a bumbling Clinton administration exonerate the Bush administration?

It does to a degree, in that the infrastructure at the time was established by President Clinton. President Bush had not had the opportunity to over-haul the intelligence networks. Though it had been stated that changes were necessary and in fact there had been a big fight as a couple of President Bush's appointees had been held up by politics. The result was that one of the appointees to a top CIA post was not implemented until a month before. So until that change over much of the operations were being conducted by Clinton's placees and following the prior administrations policies. Would it have made a difference...probably not. But I think it's harsh to put so much blame on President Bush when he wasn't even allowed to put his men into position until a month before.

Just my thoughts...

I believe the trouble occurred at the top. Memos were ignored by Bush and Condoleeza (neither of whom were Clinton appointees), who were busy with other priorities, which is typical of this administration: they blindly follow predetermined gameplans. And no, I cannot present you with evidence for that. This conclusion is based on years of watching them in action. If you're a fan of this horrorshow whitehouse, than I'm not interested in arguing with you because I'm already aware of the limits of your observational skills and your interpretational apparati (that's a general "you" btw, I'm not aware of your stance on this matter).

Message edited by author 2006-09-11 14:12:13.

09/11/2006 02:21:44 PM · #19

Originally posted by RonB:

Nor, it appears, can you articulate what the connection is between Iraq and future attacks on our country.

Those who understood me will find me articulate.

Originally posted by Ronb:

But you, sir, have the benefit of history to guide your beliefs - they did NOT, AT THE TIME. I was merely pointing out that OTHERS also took actions that seem equally imprudent in retrospect, but seemed prudent to the decision makers AT THE TIME, given the level of knowledge AT THE TIME.

Ah, but history was available to them. It is available to all of us ALL OF THE TIME. And besides, their decisions were prudent in retrospect since nothing better could have happened to the Bush administration and its neocons than 9/11.

Originally posted by RonB:

a) you didn't answer my question - but, then, I didn't think you would.

Why would I answer your question when I just went through the trouble to explain why it was irrelevant?

Originally posted by RonB:

So, why is it that you chose to remark on the failure of action by neo-conservatives, but chose to ignore the failures of action by liberals?

Um... because they're the ones who are still in power. They're the ones who have won several elections based on their ability to defend the homeland. They're the ones who are benefiting so outrageously from this tragedy. Hopefully, they too will soon be an irrelevant footnote like the Clinton Administration and then your argument will make perfect sense and I will smilingly concede to it.

09/11/2006 02:47:39 PM · #20

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by RonB:
Nor, it appears, can you articulate what the connection is between Iraq and future attacks on our country.

Those who understood me will find me articulate.

And those who do NOT understand you will not. Though you should know that there is little benefit to be gained from limiting your preaching to the choir.

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by Ronb:
But you, sir, have the benefit of history to guide your beliefs - they did NOT, AT THE TIME. I was merely pointing out that OTHERS also took actions that seem equally imprudent in retrospect, but seemed prudent to the decision makers AT THE TIME, given the level of knowledge AT THE TIME.

Ah, but history was available to them. It is available to all of us ALL OF THE TIME. And besides, their decisions were prudent in retrospect since nothing better could have happened to the Bush administration and its neocons than 9/11.

Really. Prior to 9/11, when were multiple airlines hijacked by trained terrorists and flown into buildings for the purpose of killing civilians?

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by RonB:
a) you didn't answer my question - but, then, I didn't think you would.

Why would I answer your question when I just went through the trouble to explain why it was irrelevant?

Why, to prove that you actually COULD answer it, of course.

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by RonB:
So, why is it that you chose to remark on the failure of action by neo-conservatives, but chose to ignore the failures of action by liberals?

Um... because they're the ones who are still in power. They're the ones who have won several elections based on their ability to defend the homeland.

Ah, enough said. It's all about power and politics, as I thought from the very beginning. The conservatives have it, and that seems to bother you, as it does most non-conservatives ( not meaning to imply that you are a non-conservative - only that the current balance of power seems to bother most of them, and seems to bother you, too ).

09/11/2006 02:55:10 PM · #21

I guess there was no way that this thread wouldn't pull people apart as the topic usually does. In retrospect I regret srarting this.

You mention that Saudi's "cooperate" which is exactly my point -- because we have extremely strong economic relations with their leaders, there was no one held accountable on the top over there.

As far as rationalizing behavior, I'm not sure the playground (ot the zoo for that matter) can be used as metaphores when you're dealing with adults and weapons that can kill enormous numbers of people with the click of a button.

Originally posted by theSaj:

I learned many years ago on the playground, that dialogue did not matter, that negotiation is not possible.

09/11/2006 03:13:27 PM · #22

Originally posted by RonB:

And those who do NOT understand you will not. Though you should know that there is little benefit to be gained from limiting your preaching to the choir.

But there is some benefit to be gained from speaking to people who are willing to listen, and who can understand direct statements. That is not just the choir (I hope).

Originally posted by Ronb:

Really. Prior to 9/11, when were multiple airlines hijacked by trained terrorists and flown into buildings for the purpose of killing civilians?

See above. I didn't expect you to understand what I said.

Originally posted by RonB:

Why, to prove that you actually COULD answer it, of course.

Sorry, but I don't talk just to prove I know things. That's boring.

Originally posted by RonB:

I'm talking about holding accountable the people who are in power. So yes, power and politics.

09/11/2006 03:14:47 PM · #23

LARGELY IGNORED!!!! ?????
Holier than thou are we?
Just tell me -- 'this forum wasn't written right' -- well i think we all hate the fact that those people perished and on of my points was that this very day is used politically instead of honoring those people.

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by LoudDog:
I hate 9/11 because nearly 3,000 people died.

Same reason as mine. So sad that even in this thread it goes largely ignored and took 10 posts before someone actually mentions it as a reason for hating 9/11. I predict next year when this thread comes up it may take till page two for it to be brought up.

09/11/2006 03:18:38 PM · #24

but how can you begin to try to right wrongs like this except through politics?