Sorry to interrupt...this will only take a moment.
This site is an independent reader-supported project.
Because you have viewed at least a few articles now...
Can you give a small donation to keep us online?
We can give you e-books and audiobooks and stuff.
This site is an independent reader-supported project.
The cost of keeping it running are considerable.
If you can spare a few dollars it would help us enormously.
We can give you e-books and audiobooks and stuff.
×
×
Experimental Feature

Select 'Atmospheric Audio' from the Audio menu to add subtle background audio to certain portions of the article.

Terror on Wall Street

Article #271 • Written by Alan Bellows

On 16 September 1920, throngs of brokers, clerks, and office workers poured from the buildings lining New York City's Wall Street as a nearby church bell struck twelve o'clock. The narrow cobblestone street became a river of sputtering automobiles and scurrying pedestrians as the financial district employees set out to make the most of their mid-day break.

Traveling opposite the egressing crowds, an elderly bay horse plodded along Wall Street pulling a nondescript wagon and a driver. The cart came to a stop just around the corner from the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), across the street from the imposing JP Morgan & Co. bank building. The wagon's driver cast the reins aside, leaped from his perch, and fled from the street with conspicuous haste. As the lunch-going men and women shuffled past the parked wooden cart and its patiently waiting horse, a timer within the cargo compartment quietly counted off its final few seconds.

The intersection of Wall Street and Broad Street was locally known as "The Corner," so-named for its collection of influential entities. JP Morgan at that time was the world's most powerful financial institution, ruling over a significant portion of the global economy; just to the north was the US Assay office, where the purity of precious metals was tested many tons at a time; and around the corner stood the home of the NYSE. A US Sub-Treasury and Federal Reserve Bank also stood nearby, housed within the Federal Hall which had once been the site of the United States' capitol building.

The mood was generally cheery on the warm Thursday afternoon-- the sun was shining and the stock market was up. A celebration was scheduled to take place on Wall Street the following day to honor the 133rd anniversary of the adoption of the US Constitution. It was intended to be a small gathering alongside the statue of George Washington which had been erected at the site of America's first presidential inauguration.

You must be at least this tall to ride.
You must be at least this tall to ride.

At approximately one minute after twelve o'clock, the abandoned wagon's timer reached zero in the pleasant afternoon sun. A bomb consisting of one hundred pounds of dynamite packed with five hundred pounds of cast-iron slugs violently vomited red-hot shrapnel and destruction in every direction. A number of passers-by were instantly vaporized by the extreme heat and pressure. The blast sent a nearby automobile careening through the air as countless jagged iron fragments ripped through the crowd. The nearby structures trembled as the shock wave slammed into their outer walls with tremendous force, shattering windows and turning lobbies into lacerating hailstorms of glass. Many of the cloth awnings which overlooked the street burst into flames. Within a half-mile radius thousands of plate-glass windows burst in the city's tall buildings, peppering the streets of Lower Manhattan with razor-sharp glass shards.

An Associated Press reporter named George Weston witnessed the blast from the protection of a doorway, and later described the scene:

"[It was] an unexpected, death-dealing bolt, which in a twinkling turned into a shamble the busiest corner of America's financial center. [...] Almost in front of the steps leading up to the Morgan bank was the mutilated body of a man. Other bodies, most of them silent in death, lay nearby. As I gazed horrorstruck at the sight, one of these forms, half-naked and seared with burns, started to rise. It struggled, then toppled and fell lifeless to the gutter."

One of the Stock Exchange's messengers, Charles P. Dougherty, described the scene to a reporter for the Sun:

"I saw the explosion, a column of smoke shoot up into the air and then saw people dropping all around me, some of them with their clothing afire."

The bustling Stock Exchange shook as its large windows burst inwards, however most of the occupants were spared injury due to the massive silk curtains which deflected much of the glass. Running was strictly forbidden on the trading floor, so the president of the Stock Exchange sauntered to the rostrum to sound the gong to halt the day's trading as a yellow-green mushroom-shaped cloud stretched into the air.

Outside, pandemonium quickly set in. Those who heard blast from the surrounding blocks rushed into the area to see what had happened, trampling over the bodies of the dead and injured. The air was saturated with smoke and dust from the explosion and the ensuing fires. The cobblestone street was scattered with the twisted wreckage of cars, buildings, and humans as the echoes of the explosion slowly faded. A fatally wounded messenger boy pleaded for someone to deliver his securities, and a clerk, having lost his eyes and his feet in the blast, tried to blindly crawl towards safety. A woman's severed head, still wearing a hat, was stuck to the facade of the JP Morgan building.

Thirty people had died in the first few moments, and ten were mortally wounded. Some 300 other men, women, and children were injured. Many staggered towards the Trinity Church to escape the choking smoke. Another wave of panic rippled through the crowd as word spread that another bomb was set to go off nearby, but the rumor proved untrue. News of the disaster spread quickly, and within thirty minutes the street was filled with hundreds of New York City policemen and Red Cross nurses who had rushed to the scene by horse, car, subway, and on foot. The rescue workers cleared the road for ambulances and lined up the multitude of corpses along the sidewalk. Meanwhile well-armed security officers guarded the US Assay office, where $900 million in gold bars were being stored. Within the hour troops from the 22nd Infantry arrived, marching down Wall Street with rifles and bayonets at the ready.

Little was left of the horse and wagon which brought the destruction upon Wall Street, though the FBI Bureau of Investigation agents found enough fragments to piece together many details. The shoe from a charred, disembodied hoof led the police to the farrier who had shod the offending horse. The blacksmith remembered the customer, and described him as a Sicilian man of 25-30 years old. Additionally, the cast-iron shrapnel slugs that had been packed with the explosives were identified as the weights used on window sashes, but the police were unable to determine their exact source despite visiting hundreds of manufacturers and distributors. The NYPD also gathered up fragments of wagon wheel spokes, leather straps, chunks of canvas, an axle, and a hub cap from the original wagon, and managed to piece together many details with the assistance of veterinarians and wagon builders:

HORSE–Dark bay mare, fifteen and three-quarters hands, fifteen years, about 1,050 pounds, long mane and stubby foretop, clipped a month before, scars on left shoulder and white hairs on forehead.
SHOES–Hind shoes marked JHU and NOA, about half an inch apart. Front shoes had pads, circle in center reading ‘Niagara Hoof Pad Co., BISON, Buffalo, N.Y.’
HARNESS–Single set of heavy wagon harness, old and worn and frequently repaired. Turret rings originally of brass, one broken; the other silver mounted and evidently belonging originally to coach harness.
WAGON–Single top, capacity one and one-half tons, red running gear, striped black with fine white lines. Three-foot wheels on front; four and one-half on back, of Sarvant patent. Body 5 feet 6 inches high, 53 inches wide, about eight feet from ground to top of wagon.

Luigi Galleani, leader of the Galleanist anarchists
Luigi Galleani, leader of the Galleanist anarchists

Investigators immediately suspected that the bombing was the work of Galleanist anarchists, a group of mostly Italian-born anti-government radicals who had previously used smaller explosives to draw attention to their cause. Moreover, a pair of Italian-American anarchists had been indicted five days earlier for bank robbery and murder. These suspicions were reinforced by a pile of leaflets found in a mailbox near the blast site, which read:

Remember
We will not tolerate
any longer
Free the political
prisoners or it will be
sure death for all of you
American Anarchist Fighters.

The Washington Post referred to the bombing as an "act of war," though no one could be certain who the enemy was. The newspaper also wrote, "The bomb outrage in New York emphasizes the extent to which the alien scum from the cesspools and sewers of the Old World has polluted the clear spring of American democracy." Though the anarchists had not been proven responsible, the US government's ongoing anti-radical Palmer Raids were increased in intensity as a consequence of the bombing. Immigrants were aggressively targeted, especially Italians, Russians, and Jews. Thousands of citizens were detained in the name of national security, though most of them clearly had nothing to do with the Wall Street terror plot. Ultimately, the orgy of misguided justice resulted in the deportation of about 10,000 such "radicals."

Investigators also became suspicious of a tennis champion named Edwin Fischer who had apparently predicted the attack with astonishing accuracy. Fischer had been warning his friends of an impending bomb attack on Wall Street, sending them post cards enjoining them to leave the area before 16 September. When interrogated by the police, he claimed to have received the messages "through the air." He also claimed to be a sparring partner for the world heavyweight boxing champion Jack Dempsey, and he wore two business suits at once over a set of tennis clothes. Investigators decided that Fischer's warnings were not particularly intriguing once they learned that he had made a regular habit of predicting explosive violence on Wall Street, having previously provided a wide variety of dates. Officials turned him over to the Amityville Asylum, where he was diagnosed as insane but harmless.

In a bid to allay fears of a stock market crash, the New York Stock Exchange reopened the day after the explosion under the guise of business-as-usual. When the workers arrived on Wall Street, the evidence of the previous day's carnage was draped with cloths, and the somber mood was draped in patriotism. In spite of the attack, the Constitution Day celebration commenced as planned alongside the unscathed statue of George Washington. What had originally been intended as a small gathering grew into one of the largest crowds in Wall Street's history. The assembled citizens sang The Star-Spangled Banner and America the Beautiful, followed by a rousing speech from World War I hero Brig. Gen. William J. Nicholson.

Some of the damage on the facade of the JP Morgan bank building (photo taken January 2006)
Some of the damage on the facade of the JP Morgan bank building (photo taken January 2006)

Wall Street soon became a symbol of patriotism in the eyes of the country, and stock trading came to be viewed as an act of defiance against the terrorists. Before the attack a number of outspoken citizens had decried the unchecked growth of power underway on Wall Street, but many of those voices fell silent in light of the new public sentiment. Those critics who continued to voice their concerns were denounced as supporters of violence and terror, a trend which rapidly smothered all public debate on the matter.

The New York Police vowed to apprehend the perpetrators of the terrible crime, yet no arrests were ever made in the case. The NYPD and FBI officially gave up on the case in 1940, having never identified any strong suspects. No group or individual ever made a credible claim of responsibility. Some historians have suggested that the incident may have actually been a botched attempt to rob the gold-filled Assay Office nearby, yet no compelling evidence has been found which supports this notion.

No plaque marks the site of one of the deadliest terror attacks in US history-- only a pockmarked facade stands as a memorial to the loss of life and liberty that struck America in 1920. The owners of JP Morgan have repeatedly stated that they will never repair the superficial scars. "Replacing those great blocks would be inordinately and unnecessarily expensive," one Morgan partner pointed out, "And besides, it’s right and proper that they should stay there."

The event remained as New York's deadliest terror attack until 11 September 2001.

Article written by Alan Bellows, published on 14 May 2007. Alan is the founder/designer/head writer/managing editor of Damn Interesting.

Suggested by Richard Solensky.

For more science, history, and psychology, follow us:
SHARE

More Information
Related Articles


242 Comments
Plank
Posted 15 May 2007 at 03:30 am

First! WOOHOO!


GeorgeAR
Posted 15 May 2007 at 04:39 am

If we don't learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it.

Damned Interesting article (again). I never heard about this, and I've lived in the NY area all my life.


jarvisloop
Posted 15 May 2007 at 04:44 am

"You must be at least this tall to ride."

Good one! Wish I had thought of that one.


jessicapierce
Posted 15 May 2007 at 04:51 am

Oh dude. I'm having trouble getting past the second paragraph (ok, not really) because your wagon driver seems to have abdicated. Reigns != reins, bro.


another viewpoint
Posted 15 May 2007 at 04:54 am

...once again, disgruntled individuals believe they can bring this country to its knees by bombing the financial heart and soul that runs the American dream...while some will pay the ultimate price, it has become obvious over the years that...MONEY TALKS and BS walks!


frenchsnake
Posted 15 May 2007 at 05:08 am

Wow... I'm also a New Yorker who has never heard about this. I guess there's more to history than I thought, haha.


solitas
Posted 15 May 2007 at 05:23 am

Good one Alan. I'd been to NYC a couple of years ago and had seen the pockmarks in the building. A local was on the corner, giving out handbills for something touristy, who knew the month/year of the incident and that it was an explosion; but nothing more. I learned more about when I got home.


Joel Gibson
Posted 15 May 2007 at 05:51 am

I wonder how long they left the hat head lady up on the facade


Dizzee
Posted 15 May 2007 at 06:37 am

GeorgeAR said: "If we don't learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it."

As long as humans are blessed with the ability to have individual thoughts and ideas there will always be radicals who choose to express their beliefs through violence and force. It has been part of history since the dawn of the human race and it will continue until it ends the human race. It will be an unfortunate part of civilization whether we learn from it or not.


auntieem
Posted 15 May 2007 at 07:04 am

facinating! I didn't know about this, it's amazing how manyt hings I've read about here that isn't taught in schools.


auntieem
Posted 15 May 2007 at 07:05 am

WOW I can't type today, I'm sorry for the spelling and gramar in my post!


planetjk
Posted 15 May 2007 at 07:20 am

Alan: congrats on properly conveying the action scene with only words. I kept expecting the descriptions to run a little long-winded, but I'm surprised, astonished, shocked, and knowlingly acknowledging that they did not. :) Seriously though, excellent read.


planetjk
Posted 15 May 2007 at 07:22 am

Oh, and... Did anyone else wonder if perhaps *twitch twitch* Mr. Edwin Fischer isn't maybe the smartest cookie in the jar here? Sorry, gotta go, the voices in my head say it's time for some Purina. ;)


lip_ring
Posted 15 May 2007 at 07:23 am

The similarities between this and the reaction to the attacks on the WTC are astounding.

"News of the disaster spread quickly, and within thirty minutes the street was filled with hundreds of New York City policemen and Red Cross nurses who had rushed to the scene by horse, car, subway, and on foot. "

"The Washington Post referred to the bombing as an "act of war," though no one could be certain who the enemy was."

"Though the anarchists had not been proven responsible, the US government's ongoing anti-radical Palmer Raids were increased in intensity as a consequence of the bombing. Immigrants were aggressively targeted, especially Italians, Russians, and Jews. Thousands of citizens were detained in the name of national security, though most of them clearly had nothing to do with the Wall Street terror plot. Ultimately, the orgy of misguided justice resulted in the deportation of about 10,000 such 'radicals."'

"Wall Street soon became a symbol of patriotism in the eyes of the country, and stock trading came to be viewed as an act of defiance against the terrorists. Before the attack a number of outspoken citizens had decried the unchecked growth of power underway on Wall Street, but many of those voices fell silent in light of the new public sentiment. Those critics who continued to voice their concerns were denounced as supporters of violence and terror, a trend which rapidly smothered all public debate on the matter. "

Substitute "Arabs" for "Italians" and "Wall Street" for "World Trade Center" and it starts to look very familiar...


Radiatidon
Posted 15 May 2007 at 07:35 am

This reminds me of one terrorist attack at the very heart of the world’s mightiest superpower, a massive army protected this civilization with the most advanced war machines. The citizens traveled about their wealthy land without provocation. People of other nations hated these people even as they envied their lifestyle and wealth. A daring attack was made, not by another country or group of nations, but by a loosely formed group of dissidents with minor cells operating around the civilized world. This seemingly unprovoked attack delivered a major psychological blow to the citizens undermining any trust in their government. How the citizens who once felt safe walking their streets of this mighty nation cowered in fear.

It was in the autumn of 68 BC when the Roman Port at Ostia was set on fire. Two Roman senators were kidnapped with all their staff and bodyguards, and the consular war-fleet was destroyed. This set into motion the political decay that finally toppled the Mighty Roman Empire and brought human civilization into another barbaric episode of history.


polyrhachis
Posted 15 May 2007 at 07:41 am

Well done.

Odd that the author didn't mention the significance of this event as the FIRST "car" bomb in history


Astrophysician
Posted 15 May 2007 at 07:48 am

lip_ring, that's a very good point - it *is* kinda creepily familiar...

Anywho, great article. I wish I was taught stuff like this in my history class, rather than spending three weeks on obscure trade embargoes.


Dizzee
Posted 15 May 2007 at 07:48 am

polyrhachis said: "Well done.


Odd that the author didn't mention the significance of this event as the FIRST "car" bomb in history"

Well, one - it wasn't a car, and two - it wasn't the first carraige bomb in history.


polyrhachis
Posted 15 May 2007 at 07:52 am

Dizzee said: "Well, one - it wasn't a car, and two - it wasn't the first carraige bomb in history."

oh? got an earlier one?


JeffWhitledge
Posted 15 May 2007 at 08:07 am

polyrhachis said: "Odd that the author didn't mention the significance of this event as the FIRST "car" bomb in history"

I doubt it was the first, but maybe.

I was a little sad that the story cast the horse as an accomplice rather than a victim, though.


bryanspellman
Posted 15 May 2007 at 08:24 am

My father worked on Wall Street for years and took me there several times as a youngster. I remember him taking me to the wall and letting me feel the shrapnel still in the wall and telling me the story of the terror attack on Wall Street. Years later he lost many friends in the WTC.


Rinson Drei
Posted 15 May 2007 at 08:26 am

None of this would have happened if those greedy capitalists had kept their roosters in their own yard. Or something like that. ;^)

Seriously, by 1922 terrorism was a high art in the Balkans. As soon as Nobel invented Dynamite in the 1860's, radicals discovered it was ideal for killing civilians, from France to Russia. At the heart of all this terrorism was a vague radicalizing ideology, opposed to Western liberal values, like capitalism and secular rule of law. The Wall Street bombing was chump change to the Serbs and Macedonians.
The Europeans solved this problem by deporting and exiling tens of thousands, most of whom wound up here. Because of this and earlier anarchist incidents (Chicago, 1889?), all new immigrants have to answer this important question: Are you an anarchist?
I just wonder how many answer "yes."


Dizzee
Posted 15 May 2007 at 08:40 am

Cart bombs were used in the late 17th century by China, they invented gunpowder in the 800's but didn't start applying it as weaponry until the early 1600s and by the end of the century was being loaded into carts, set on fire, and rolled down hills into approaching enemies. Carriage bombs were also used in the civil war, (although mostly accidental) when carriages containing gunpowder and explosives were sometimes deliberately fired upon by enemies while being transported by the other army.


Dizzee
Posted 15 May 2007 at 08:51 am

Upon googling "history of car bombs" many of the sites do state this incident as the first "car bomb" and apparently a man named Mario Buda was responsible (don't remember him being mentioned in this article and too lazy to reread =D). I'm guessing they are stating it this way because they are referring to it as something regarding terrorism, not something simply used as warfare.


junebee
Posted 15 May 2007 at 09:01 am

I'm a pretty avid reader and never heard of this either. Another excellent example of why, day after day, I come back to D.I.


Rinson Drei
Posted 15 May 2007 at 09:09 am

Radiatidon said: "It was in the autumn of 68 BC when the Roman Port at Ostia was set on fire. Two Roman senators were kidnapped with all their staff and bodyguards, and the consular war-fleet was destroyed. This set into motion the political decay that finally toppled the Mighty Roman Empire and brought human civilization into another barbaric episode of history."

Come on! 68BC?! So, the Empire's collapse began when Rome was still a Republic, 500 years earlier? Rome's collapse was fated before Caesar conquered Gaul, or Claudius Britain? You'll have to show that everything was peachy-keen in the Senate before 68BC, apart from the assertion. I seem to recall periodic riots, where senators would beat each other to death with chair legs, before then. I would assert her fate was sealed the moment Eve succumbed to the serpent's wiles...

The Romans' genius, like all Empires, was in administration and adaptation. If anything, the Ostia incident helped spur the changes that allowed Rome to grow. The Republic wasn't working anymore, obviously, so an Empire emerged. Rome fell because they idealized their past, when "The citizens traveled about their wealthy land without provocation." It was never thus.

We might as well trace the collapse of the Rule Britannia to Guy Fawkes. History is like the weather: chaotic and indeterminable. No one factor causes a hurricane, especially one 500 years removed from the storm. Sure, key events have major consequences, but often not the obvious, linear ones.


Reaper
Posted 15 May 2007 at 09:29 am

Here's a lesson that we need to learn from history: Stay away from important financial institutions during the month of September!

But seriously, it is terribly sad that so few misguided individuals can wreak so much havoc. It makes you wonder what kind of warped and twisted life people who can be led to do such things have lived, and what can be done to improve the situation -- not only for our own safety, but for the good of the world. Just imagine what the world would be like if everybody was as fat, apathetic and capitalistic as we Americans are. Radicals call it sinful and degenerate, but I call it knowing the value of life. Why fill what short time we have with torture, misery and hatred when there is such happiness to be had with virtually no downsides...well, except the eternal damnation of your soul, depending on your religion.

In summation, dictatorial and oppressive governments suck, and need to go away. Or something.


Rinson Drei
Posted 15 May 2007 at 09:35 am

Reaper said: "In summation, dictatorial and oppressive governments suck, and need to go away. Or something."

Pithily said!


justjim1
Posted 15 May 2007 at 09:45 am

If we don't learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it.

I think it is just about damned time the victums of this crazed violence be honored and remember. At the very least get a memorial to set their names to a roll call of honor.


rev.felix
Posted 15 May 2007 at 09:47 am

Plank said: "First! WOOHOO!"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this article does not seem to invoke a "WOOHOO!" reaction. If you must post "first", at least add something relevent to the story.


Dizzee
Posted 15 May 2007 at 10:05 am

31st woohoo?


wargammer
Posted 15 May 2007 at 10:25 am

lip_ring said: "The similarities between this and the reaction to the attacks on the WTC are astounding.


"News of the disaster spread quickly, and within thirty minutes the street was filled with hundreds of New York City policemen and Red Cross nurses who had rushed to the scene by horse, car, subway, and on foot. "

"The Washington Post referred to the bombing as an "act of war," though no one could be certain who the enemy was."

"Though the anarchists had not been proven responsible, the US government's ongoing anti-radical Palmer Raids were increased in intensity as a consequence of the bombing. Immigrants were aggressively targeted, especially Italians, Russians, and Jews. Thousands of citizens were detained in the name of national security, though most of them clearly had nothing to do with the Wall Street terror plot. Ultimately, the orgy of misguided justice resulted in the deportation of about 10,000 such 'radicals."'

"Wall Street soon became a symbol of patriotism in the eyes of the country, and stock trading came to be viewed as an act of defiance against the terrorists. Before the attack a number of outspoken citizens had decried the unchecked growth of power underway on Wall Street, but many of those voices fell silent in light of the new public sentiment. Those critics who continued to voice their concerns were denounced as supporters of violence and terror, a trend which rapidly smothered all public debate on the matter. "

Substitute "Arabs" for "Italians" and "Wall Street" for "World Trade Center" and it starts to look very familiar…"

LIKE HELL IT DOES....


kgb
Posted 15 May 2007 at 11:01 am

The caption on the picture of GW almost made me choke on my turkey sandwich. Hazardously funny!


Reaper
Posted 15 May 2007 at 11:55 am

kgb said: "The caption on the picture of GW almost made me choke on my turkey sandwich. Hazardously funny!"

Holy hell, I missed that! Thanks for the heads-up!


thingummy
Posted 15 May 2007 at 12:00 pm

Fascinating and DI article, Alan. It's amazing how quickly events like this sink into relative obscurity.

In 80 years will 9/11 be similarly forgotten?


afteryou
Posted 15 May 2007 at 12:19 pm

thingummy said:


"In 80 years will 9/11 be similarly forgotten?"

"Oh yeah....... Kinda remember hearing something about that......"


Radiatidon
Posted 15 May 2007 at 12:30 pm

Rinson Drei said: "Come on! 68BC?! So, the Empire's collapse began when Rome was still a Republic, 500 years earlier? Rome's collapse was fated before Caesar conquered Gaul, or Claudius Britain? "

Before this incident the Constitution of ancient Rome prevented any one man from having too much power. Two men who were elected annually, held the consulship jointly. Military commands were not only subject to regular renewal, but were of limited duration.

After the incident at Ostia this changed. Using the public’s fear, a lieutenant of Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (Pompey the Great) proposed an unusual if not frightful new law before the Roman Forum. Tribune Aulus Gabinius suggested that Pompey be given supreme power over the naval command to rid Rome of this scourge. This would also give him full authority over every Roman citizen throughout the republic. Such power was unprecedented and the Senate erupted in an uproar as it split into two factions. Those who supported Rome’s greatest and most respected military leader, and those who feared what he could do with such power. Those opposed backed down due to public opinion, and the Lex Gabinia was passed. This gave Pompey over 144 million sesterces (most of the treasury), to build 500 war ships, recruit and outfit 120,000 foot solders and 5,000 cavalry.

Once his army was ready, he cleaned the empire of the terrorists in less than three months. Seems fishy to many, even given that Pompey was a military genius. Perhaps the terrorists were not such a threat to Rome as previously thought. Or was this actually a ruse created by Pompey?

Though the “threat” to Rome was now gone, Pompey refused to relinquish his power. Anyone who dared to challenge him was listed as traitorous and ruined or just vanished. He stayed in the Middle East for around six years creating regimes loyal to him, thus establishing himself as the most powerful and richest man in the empire.

This warping of established laws allowed another ambitious man to achieve unprecedented power less than a decade later. A senator who had spoken out in favor of Pompey’s special command. Julius Caesar was awarded extended military sovereignty in Gaul. This changed the long-standing control of the military by the state through the Senate, by allowing the military to control the state.

Caesar used the resources of Gaul to become immensely wealthy, and used his riches to fund his own political ambitions. This resulted in the elections from then on to be determined by which candidate had the most money to bribe the electorate, and not by the leadership and intellect such an office requires. Thus in 49 B.C. the system was fully overthrown when Caesar crossed the Rubicon and made himself into a god.

Sure the republic had its problems. There were squabbles in the Senate. The republic may have been slowly eroding away from placidness or self-indulgence. Either way the manipulation of the public’s fear from the raid on Ostia hastened the process and allowed the military unprecedented power with no checks-and-balances while corrupting duel process in the political system. Before the average citizen could grumble in public about the ruling body without fear, after…

It also denied the Roman political system any chance of being able to evolve into a better system as the worm of greed slowly consumed her from within.


Jeffrey93
Posted 15 May 2007 at 12:57 pm

This story makes me sad. Not so much over the loss of life, it happened so long ago that I'm not overly bothered by it. What bothers me is the fact that the reactions to it are similar to 9/11. Brutally similar.

Immediately talking of 'war' and the kicker was this...

Those critics who continued to voice their concerns were denounced as supporters of violence and terror, a trend which rapidly smothered all public debate on the matter.

This is begining to sound like the typical American reaction, if you don't agree with the group...you must be on the side of the enemy.
"You're either with us, or you're with them." Sounds like even back then this idiotic logic was used.

Great article, very well written. Stuff like this is fascinating, I usually am more interested in the actual event but in this case the reaction seems to be more interesting. And yes Wargammer...the reaction to this event is disturbingly similar to that of 9/11. Just as moronic and pointless.

Honest question here, since it wasn't mentioned in the article. In this "attack" discussed in the article and in 9/11....has anyone seriously looked into WHY these occured? And I don't mean simply saying "They're jealous of our awesome country". That's an ignorant answer.

To me, if somebody walks up and punches me in the face...my first reaction might be to punch them right back...but somewhere along the line I'm going to want to know WHY they punched me. So maybe...just maybe I can do something about that to avoid getting punched again. If I just beat him to a pulp and leave it at that....I'm pretty sure whatever I did to deserve that punch will cause me to receive another punch in the future. I don't like getting punched in the face...so I'd want to limit the possibility of that happening by finding out why it happened in the first place.


Rinson Drei
Posted 15 May 2007 at 02:23 pm

Radiatidon said: "It also denied the Roman political system any chance of being able to evolve into a better system as the worm of greed slowly consumed her from within."

Fair enough, and I'm inclined to agree somewhat. Except that Rome didn't fall for another 500 frickin' years, and then only in the west.

John the Elder didn't call it Babylon for nothing, after all.


Jeffrey93
Posted 15 May 2007 at 02:35 pm

Just found this on another site...

On a warm September day in 1920 in New York, a few months after the arrest of his comrades Sacco and Vanzetti, a vengeful Italian anarchist named Mario Buda parked his horse-drawn wagon near the corner of Wall and Broad streets, directly across from J P Morgan Company.

So the dude was ticked his buddies got arrested and sought revenge. I wonder what his 'comrades' were arrested for.


Dizzee
Posted 15 May 2007 at 02:59 pm

Jeff, hello again! =D To quote the magnificent brilliance that is you.

This is begining to sound like the typical American reaction, if you don't agree with the group…you must be on the side of the enemy.
"You're either with us, or you're with them." Sounds like even back then this idiotic logic was used.

This is the very reason this wall street incident and the 9/11 attacks occured. Not because Americans have that view (the vast majority of us do, but that isnt the reason in this case), but because the terrorists do. They believe we are wrong in how we act, our laws, etc...so they attack us to get our attention so they can show us the er of our ways. They are cowards, and their ideas are so in the minority that they can't get an army together, so they send forth small groups of individuals to kill innocent Americans. Now, I don't mean to sound patriotic here...Americans provoke these attacks by being the self-righteous altruistic bible thumpers that we are, but the actions that are taken against us are not appropriate means to an end that these radicals hope for. You can say that we may have a "we are right and you are wrong" mentality, but say instead of differences in major beliefs regarding government and religion, we were confronted by a group of say 10,000 people who said Canadians were aliens and that the sky isn't actually blue, its hot pink but we can't see the true color because our brains are tampered with at birth to perceive the sky as blue...Sure, they could be totally right, but since the other 6 billion people on earth think something different then that group is deemed crazy. That doesn't make the world wrong, it makes us logical.


Reaper
Posted 15 May 2007 at 03:14 pm

Jeffrey:

Most terrorists target us for two reasons: our aggressive foreign policy, borne of a desire to NOT see the world enveloped by the Soviet Union, and our support of Israel. Everything outside of that is simply icing on the cake.

In a way, they kinda do have a reason to dislike us. We have a military presence in virtually every corner of the world, and we do seem to play a part in many conflicts either overtly or subtly. By the same token, though, we only get involved in a lot of conflicts in order to effect a favorable outcome; we don't start very many. That doesn't change the fact that if something goes wrong for faction X, chances are America played some part in it, and they'll vow revenge, death to America, etc.

PS: That sounded way too sympathetic to terrorists. On terrorism, I'm in the camp of "either wipe them out with fire or completely remove their reason to dislike us (i.e., removing military/economic presence from everywhere), become completely trade-independent, watch as they find other reasons to hate us, then wipe them out with fire."

PPS: These are vast generalizations of a complex history of American military action and espionage. I don't claim to have even a fraction of the understanding of said history required to be able to say the above with a large degree of certainty. That is simply a brief summary of why I believe our reputation on the world stage is in the gutter right now (even prior to Bush).


Reaper
Posted 15 May 2007 at 03:20 pm

Oops, forgot one little bit:

I don't think that many terrorist attacks have a single catalyst. I believe a bunch of crazy people just have to find each other, come up with a plan and successfully execute it. Sure, they can say it is in retaliation for this or that, but I believe it is generally the aforementioned reasons (in my last post) that spark terrorist action.


Jeffrey93
Posted 15 May 2007 at 03:23 pm

Dizzee said: "Jeff, hello again! =D To quote the magnificent brilliance that is you.

This is the very reason this wall street incident and the 9/11 attacks occured. Not because Americans have that view (the vast majority of us do, but that isnt the reason in this case), but because the terrorists do. They believe we are wrong in how we act, our laws, etc…so they attack us to get our attention so they can show us the er of our ways. ."

It's sort of cute that you believe that. Do you honestly think there are people...ANYWHERE in the world that just decide "I don't like how those people on the other side of the world act...so I'm going to somehow get myself way over there...and kill a bunch of them, oh yeah...it will mean the end of my life too!" I don't care what religious beliefs you have or how easily enraged you are, nobody...NOBODY sacrifices their life for something so petty as "I don't like their laws or how they act".

A good chunk of the world...I'd say half or at least damn close, have a similar society as the US. Yet for this extremely well planned attack of such a grand scale...they chose the US. Why is that?

"Americans provoke these attacks by being the self-righteous altruistic bible thumpers that we are."

Altruistic? You're kidding right? As well, you call somebody that hijacks a plane....then pilots it into a building killing himself (and many others) a coward? Not to steal too much from Bill Maher, but what does that make the soldier in the US Military that fires a missle at a building from several miles away without any possibility of him being harmed?

You even used this "I don't like how they act" logic for the Wall Street bombing after I stated that he had "comrades" that were arrested and he was seeking revenge. Sort of took me by surprise that you would explain that event with such a simplistic response instead of realizing that it was probably something more personal and complex than "I don't like how they act".

Since the Wall Street article mentioned it as well....do you believe in the "You're either with us, or with them." logic? Because I'd hate to have to pick....wouldn't be an easy choice I'll say that. Just based on the reaction to both events being discussed, I can say that I'm not too impressed with the US and how they handle tragedy. I'm begining to think that when the "Big One" hits California...the US will respond by declaring it an act of war and anybody voicing disagreement will be accused of being 'un-patriotic' and supporting the enemy.


Jeffrey93
Posted 15 May 2007 at 03:35 pm

Reaper....I was impressed with your post until you started calling people 'crazy'. Dismissing them as 'crazy' is ignorant.

Foreign Policy and Israel are the major reasons for a lot of US hatred, which begs the question...why is your foreign policy still the way it is? Also, why is Israel still blindly supported regardless of what they do? It's almost like Israel has pictures of the US cheating on its wife or something. What does Israel have on the US that commands this unilateral support?

I don't condone terrorism by any stretch of the imagination, I am not a US citizen and do not reside in the US. So I've witnessed all of these events as a spectator of sorts, an outsider. And from what I've found... the US didn't deserve what happened on 9/11, but certainly have done more than enough provocation over time to make it not surprising that it happened. You can only tease the little kid next door so much before he finally kicks you in the clock weights. Yeah, it's a cheap shot. But, you should have expected it to be coming.


thingummy
Posted 15 May 2007 at 03:36 pm

Jeffrey93 said: "Just found this on another site…

So the dude was ticked his buddies got arrested and sought revenge. I wonder what his 'comrades' were arrested for."

"Sacco and Vanzetti were accused of the killings of a shoe factory paymaster and Alessandro Berardelli, a security guard, and of robbery of US$15,766.51 from the factory's payroll in South Braintree, Massachusetts during the afternoon of April 15, 1920.

What is certain that the two men were followers of Luigi Galleani, an Italian anarchist, who advocated revolutionary violence, including bombing and assassination. "

Read all about it at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacco_and_Vanzetti


Jeffrey93
Posted 15 May 2007 at 03:44 pm

thingummy said: "So the dude was ticked his buddies got arrested and sought revenge. I wonder what his 'comrades' were arrested for."


"Sacco and Vanzetti were accused of the killings of a shoe factory paymaster and Alessandro Berardelli, a security guard, and of robbery of US$15,766.51 from the factory's payroll in South Braintree, Massachusetts during the afternoon of April 15, 1920.

What is certain that the two men were followers of Luigi Galleani, an Italian anarchist, who advocated revolutionary violence, including bombing and assassination. "

Read all about it at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacco_and_Vanzetti"

Thanks! Should've thought about using Wikipedia.


Radiatidon
Posted 15 May 2007 at 04:01 pm

Except that Rome didn't fall for another 500 frickin' years, and then only in the west.


John the Elder didn't call it Babylon for nothing, after all."

So right you are. It is truly amazing that such a corrupt, insane, schizophrenic, empire could have existed as long as it did. Perhaps it was due to a state of fear due to the military rulers, and/or the citizen’s loyalty to their country. So many factors were involved that it really is hard to say what caused the final demise. Then again I am not a scholar, just someone with too many interests.

As you pointed out that the western half collapsed (most scholars pin the date around 476 A.D.) while the eastern half continued until 1453 A.D. as the Byzantine Empire, simply amazing.


1c3d0g
Posted 15 May 2007 at 06:24 pm

Damn...it's really sad that people had to deal with terrorism all the way back then. I guess it'll never end, there's a loser born every minute ready to kill everyone who don't happen to agree with their twisted minds.


Jeffrey93
Posted 15 May 2007 at 06:38 pm

1c3d0g said: "Damn…it's really sad that people had to deal with terrorism all the way back then. I guess it'll never end, there's a loser born every minute ready to kill everyone who don't happen to agree with their twisted minds."

This is getting disturbing. Loser? Twisted Mind? Kill everyone that doesn't agree with them?

Their values might be slightly different than what you're used to, but I wouldn't be calling these people losers or saying they have a twisted mind. If you truly believe you are at war with "terror" you should at least respect your enemy. It's quite obvious that most Americans don't KNOW their enemy...at all, but you should at least respect them, even if you only respect them as a formidable opponent.

I find this most appalling, almost as appalling as the acts themselves. People seem more than willing to dismiss these "terrorists" as crazy lunatics. Maybe it's easier to deal with things that way, but it certainly isn't accurate. Again, dismissing these terrorists as insane or losers proves that you have absolutely no idea why these terrorist acts were committed.


MrElegazna
Posted 15 May 2007 at 06:48 pm

Honest question here, since it wasn't mentioned in the article. In this "attack" discussed in the article and in 9/11….has anyone seriously looked into WHY these occured?

Not all Americans are witless reactionaries. Careful with that broad brush.

Your posts seem to insinuate that the terrorists, while heavy-handed are, well, kinda right.

To be sure, America is pretty arrogant and has been known to push the rest of the world around. I prefer the Western European model and mindset, myself.

But let's not go crazy here. America being wrong on some things doesn't make the terrorists right, and they are not. They may not attack us because we are "awesome" but they do because we are powerful, which makes our less-restricitive, more-secular (compared to Islamist states) message particularly threatening as it resonates with their populace and therefore threatens their hegemony and fundamentalist belief system. That, and, of course, we put military bases in their backyards.

Finally a question: Why do you put the word "attack" in quotes?


MrElegazna
Posted 15 May 2007 at 07:06 pm

Jeffrey93 said: I don't care what religious beliefs you have or how easily enraged you are, nobody…NOBODY sacrifices their life for something so petty as "I don't like their laws or how they act".


Again, the point seems to be the we forced their hands and left them no choice but to kill thosands of us because are really that terrible and we deserve it. This especially rings true in your last comment, when you say you are offended that someone would call a group of people who kill dozens (or hundreds, or thousands) twisted.

You really think it's way off-base to call ANYONE, for ANY REASON, who kills scores of civilians "twisted?" Are you kidding me?

Look, you're right that we seek easy, emotionally-gratifying answers instead of addressing root causes. You're right that too many people think in a "you're either with us, or against us." mindset. But your umbrage over some pretty mild and reasonable comments make me think you have taken the unreasonable on one side of the spectrum and gone to unreasonable on the other side.

Also, it seems like you are not simply saying "we should look at the root causes" but even, "we should consider whether these acts might be justified." Again, I go back to you using "attack" in quote.

Finally, people have been killing themselves and others in the name of religion for a long time, in a lot of places. Suicide bombing is nothing new. Read up on brainwashing and self-immolation. I'm sure the terrorists would've been thrilled if the attacks in Spain and the UK yielded the death toll that the US did. You are giving the terrorists too much credit (again) if you think they are judiciously measuring these attacks out so that they correlate with the degree they feel antagonized by the country in question.


Old Man
Posted 15 May 2007 at 07:07 pm

1 Unflinching support for Israel
2 American troops, air & navy bases on foreign soil (notably Saudi in the case of 911)
3 Economic protectionism
4 Media exports which promote permissive behaviour and lack moral restraint
5 Other exports (food, language, fashion, cars, technology) which change societies
6 Foreign policy (supporting repressive regimes, suppressing legitimate ones)
7 Hubristic, ignorant rhetoric from US politicians, religious figures and celebrities
8 The sight and sound of Americans abroad (fat, badly dressed and noisy)
9 Jealousy and schadenfreude (sic?)

Not my grievances (except number 8), and in no particular order. Feel free to add. None of this would have been relevant in 1920 except for maybe 7 & 9. God knows what drives an anarchist.


Jeffrey93
Posted 15 May 2007 at 07:10 pm

Because I'm not exactly sure if pulling a horse and wagon full of explosives up to a busy street is an attack on anything. Seem like just a violent act out of revenge. I consider an attack a willfull act that has a specific target.

I guess with terrorism there usually isn't a SPECIFIC target. Maybe that's why some people refer to these as acts of terrorism, not terrorist attacks. Just a weird quirk of mine I guess, don't read too much into it.

I agree that not all Americans are witless reactionaries....but your government seems to act that way. Thankfully JFK wasn't during the Cuba issues. I'm not trying to insinuate that the terrorists are right, but justified in their anger. The actions they've taken can't be justified or condoned, but their anger certainly can be.

To be sure, America is pretty arrogant and has been known to push the rest of the world around. I prefer the Western European model and mindset, myself.

Exactly.

I think the military bases in their backyards and aggressive foreign policy is what fuels the rage, I don't think the US being powerful or rich or "awesome" has much to do with it. Strong religious beliefs coupled with a military presence in their 'holy land' and you can't leave out the lovely Israel relationship.

With this attack though, the one on Wall Street...what was their beef? You don't hear of anarchists much, at least not much anymore I don't think. Were they just anti-government? Like an Italian Timothy McVeigh?


Jeffrey93
Posted 15 May 2007 at 07:21 pm

Old Man said: "1 Unflinching support for Israel

2 American troops, air & navy bases on foreign soil (notably Saudi in the case of 911)
3 Economic protectionism
4 Media exports which promote permissive behaviour and lack moral restraint
5 Other exports (food, language, fashion, cars, technology) which change societies
6 Foreign policy (supporting repressive regimes, suppressing legitimate ones)
7 Hubristic, ignorant rhetoric from US politicians, religious figures and celebrities
8 The sight and sound of Americans abroad (fat, badly dressed and noisy)
9 Jealousy and schadenfreude (sic?)

Not my grievances (except number 8), and in no particular order. Feel free to add. None of this would have been relevant in 1920 except for maybe 7 & 9. God knows what drives an anarchist."

Impressive! Not sure I agree with #9. I would like to believe that jealousy alone wouldn't drive somebody to kill many people as well as themselves. It's a basic instinct to stay alive, self-preservation. I have a really hard time believing that jealousy would allow somebody to conciously ignore this instinct. Maybe I'm wrong, it's just hard to imagine somebody on the other side of the world would be so jealous of a society that they would go to these extreme measures. As far as the 1920 attack goes, I plan on reading up on this more to see what their motives or reasoning were to have this anarchy group.


Reaper
Posted 15 May 2007 at 08:57 pm

Jeffrey, I have to take issue with your implication that terrorists are normal, level headed people who are just mad at something. Anybody who would explicitly target defenseless, completely uninvolved civilians is a frickin' nut. The actions of the country that represents them doesn't matter. How the civilians feel doesn't matter. All that matters is that they are human beings trying to live their lives as best they can, same as the civilian population of every other nation on earth. If you feel that killing those people is a cogent means of making a point or exacting revenge, then you are crazy.

On why we continue in our policies if they're corroding our public image, I can't say where our foreign policy in general is concerned. I'm sure we have our reasons (probably something to do with oil...isn't it always?), but most people can only speculate. I'd personally be happy to radically adjust our foreign policy, but I'm not in power for a reason ;)

As for Israel, we stick with them because we believe they're in the right. They're surrounded by vicious enemies that want nothing more than for them to cease to exist. I can't help but think they have a right to be heavy handed in their dealings with the neighbors -- the only thing that would satiate them is a mass emigration from Israel. Their crimes hardly measure up to the threats that are continually levied against them.

Most importantly, though, they are a stable foothold at the front door of a very volatile region. The civilized world has a LOT to gain from Israel staying and...well, everybody around Israel going.


Reaper
Posted 15 May 2007 at 08:59 pm

Ouch...proofreading posts BEFORE posting them is a virtue...I hope you guys can sift through the ambiguous sea of "thems" and "theirs" in paragraph 3 =(


Joshua
Posted 15 May 2007 at 09:27 pm

Jeffrey93 said: "Thanks! Should've thought about using Wikipedia."

On the same subject, here's Wikipedia's page on the Wall Street bombing.

Rinson Drei said: "Because of this and earlier anarchist incidents (Chicago, 1889?), all new immigrants have to answer this important question: Are you an anarchist?"

If you're referring to the Haymarket Riot, that actually took place in 1886.


Ronback
Posted 15 May 2007 at 09:40 pm

Worked in the financial district for years and had never heard about this.

The worst thing is that everyone seems to have some solution to terror, and no one really understands the problem (myself included).

Here is a crazy analogy. Man goes into the woods armed and comes between a bear and her cub. Bear attacks man, man shoots bear ALL THREE DIE (the cub dies too).

Then a dumb ass goes into the woods with a camera, invades the bears space and believes he is part of the bears family. Bear eats man and his girl friend. The bear lives and the cub lives.

So, who do you equate to the terrorist, the bear or the man?

Basically it sounds stupid…right? Apparently terrorism has been going on for a long time. So the idea of we need to appease the terrorists or the idea that we can “wipe out” the terrorists, is basically stupid.


just_dave
Posted 15 May 2007 at 09:42 pm

You know, when I first read this article (very interesting, by the way; hadn't heard this much detail to the story) I knew someone would hijack the thread and make an anti-American/anti-Iraq-war soapbox out of it. Sorry, but I just gotta respond to some of what has been said.

Jeffrey93 said: "This is getting disturbing. Loser? Twisted Mind? Kill everyone that doesn't agree with them?

Their values might be slightly different than what you're used to, but I wouldn't be calling these people losers or saying they have a twisted mind. If you truly believe you are at war with "terror" you should at least respect your enemy. It's quite obvious that most Americans don't KNOW their enemy…at all, but you should at least respect them, even if you only respect them as a formidable opponent.

I find this most appalling, almost as appalling as the acts themselves. People seem more than willing to dismiss these "terrorists" as crazy lunatics. Maybe it's easier to deal with things that way, but it certainly isn't accurate. Again, dismissing these terrorists as insane or losers proves that you have absolutely no idea why these terrorist acts were committed."

You are mistaken; we Americans do know our enemy well enough to know that he is not worthy of our respect and is not a formidable opponent. He is a coward (regardless of what you say to the contrary) who hides behind women and children, then calls us cowards when those women and children are hurt when they are caught in the crossfire. They are cowards who preach vindictiveness and lies to their young people, then send them off with explosives strapped to them to kill innocents. They are cowards who capture their enemy, tie him up, then cut off his head while the camera rolls, and release that video in an attempt to make us afraid.

It is a coward who waits in the shadows until his victim is at ease, then executes an attack on unsuspecting civilians. Don't mistake the hijackers' willingness to drive aircraft into large buildings as courage; they had the lie of a martyr's reward for motivation. That doesn't take bravery, only a dense mind that will believe what crazy men tell it, and suspend logic and morality to accept that doing what is abhorrent is honorable.

And if we did know the true motivations of these terrorists, do you think that would make dealing with what they did any easier? I don't think so. Your ilk would like nothing better than for us (the US) to sit down across a table from these terrorist cowards and try to reason out the whole situation with them. And do you know how it would go down? Same as the Israeli/Palestinian "peace talks". These people don't want us to change; they want us either dead or subject to them. And the only thing they will respond to is force.

It's thinking like yours that led to the attacks on 9/11, and perhaps also in 1920; the terrorist thinks that his enemy is weakminded enough that an attack will force concessions from him. Concessions that are never quite enough, and no matter how much is given, there will always be reason enough for another attack. The trouble now is that there are enough weakminded leftists in this country and elsewhere that are willing to cave in to the terrorists that continued attacks are all but guaranteed. I just pray that it won't be in your back yard that it happens next; wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy.


Old Man
Posted 15 May 2007 at 10:49 pm

I feel like I'm drowning in a sea of ignorance. There are reasons for terrorism - they might not seem like good reasons to you or I, but they are concrete to the people who take them up. Certain other people claim to kill for the sake of 'democracy', 'freedom', 'peace', and 'a better future'. Does that not sound strange?

just_dave is clearly a simpleton - he clumps unrelated phenomena together, produces a black and white template that he applies to every situation, and produces a simple, unqualified judgement, though he hasn't read widely or allowed himself free rein to ask simple questions. Example: conflating Al-Qaeda (whose hijackers were all male, adult, and volunteers) with Hamas with various groups in Iraq.

He says that the only way to deal with these people is by use of force, i.e. killing them. He then says that he wouldn't wish a terrorist attack even on his worst enemy. Don't think that a military strike is necessarily any more legitimate than a terrorist attack. Is it the 'mindlessness', the randomness of a terrorist attack that is so shocking, or is it the ideology behind it that is offensive? He may never find himself saying, "Ah, but only if they could have been killed for a good reason," but that, at base, is the cause of his feelings.

Of course, what good are reason and insight 'at a time like this', when we could all be killing some ragheads instead?


Plank
Posted 16 May 2007 at 12:42 am

rev.felix said: "Correct me if I'm wrong, but this article does not seem to invoke a "WOOHOO!" reaction. If you must post "first", at least add something relevent to the story."

You are absolutely right and I apologise. Having read all the comments so far I will now add constructively to the discussion.

thingummy said: "Fascinating and DI article, Alan. It's amazing how quickly events like this sink into relative obscurity.

In 80 years will 9/11 be similarly forgotten?"

Good question. It surprises me that quite a few Americans are not aware of this event. I live nowhere near the US and I knew about this. It is kind of sad that this does not form part of the US school's history curriculum.

Reaper said: "Jeffrey, I have to take issue with your implication that terrorists are normal, level headed people who are just mad at something. Anybody who would explicitly target defenseless, completely uninvolved civilians is a frickin' nut. "

I have to agree, no sane person takes months or years to plan and execute a plan to kill hundreds or thousands of innocent people, whether it be from brainwashing or not. I also agree that it is cowardly the way that terrorists attack.

In my following statements I am in no way agreeing with or condoning terrorist acts but as an outsider, (possibly unaware of all the facts) I struggle to see how the US reaction to 9/11 was so much different to the terrorist acts themselves. The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have killed countless numbers of civilians, the only difference is that the US told them that they were coming. It just seems that the reaction was very poorly planned, an approach of "shoot first, ask questions later."


ukskyman
Posted 16 May 2007 at 01:53 am

You really think it's way off-base to call ANYONE, for ANY REASON, who kills scores of civilians "twisted?" Are you kidding me?

Can I refer you to a nation in the Middle East called Iraq where thousands and thousands of CIVILIANS have been killed by the US Army in your name ? Twisted? Colateral damge ? Dress it up as you like but it should never have happened.

I am not saying we (the UK) are not just as bad (our government was TOTALLY out of order on Iraq), but everyone seems to forget that the 'revenge' for 9/11 has been civilian deaths a thousand fold greater than those lost in NY in September.
My guess is that you don't REALLY think these people are worth less than American's, but that maybe you just didn't give it any thought ?


ukskyman
Posted 16 May 2007 at 02:20 am

Your ilk would like nothing better than for us (the US) to sit down across a table from these terrorist cowards and try to reason out the whole situation with them. And do you know how it would go down? Same as the Israeli/Palestinian "peace talks". These people don't want us to change; they want us either dead or subject to them. And the only thing they will respond to is force.


Concessions that are never quite enough, and no matter how much is given, there will always be reason enough for another attack. The trouble now is that there are enough weakminded leftists in this country and elsewhere that are willing to cave in to the terrorists that continued attacks are all but guaranteed. "

Well, looking at the news and pictures of a certain Martin McGuiness and Ian Paisley smiling and joking together, it looks like these "weakminded leftists" have managed to sit down around the table, make some concessions and have genuinely changed. They don't seem to want to kill us or each other any more!
They have achieved what a right wing government failed to do for many years.
This, despite huge amounts of arms funding for the IRA coming from the USA! Tough on terrorism and the causes of terrorism ? I think not - only when it suits your purpose!


asyork
Posted 16 May 2007 at 03:18 am

"You really think it's way off-base to call ANYONE, for ANY REASON, who kills scores of civilians "twisted?" Are you kidding me?"

"Anybody who would explicitly target defenseless, completely uninvolved civilians is a frickin' nut."

"It is a coward who waits in the shadows until his victim is at ease, then executes an attack on unsuspecting civilians."

"I have to agree, no sane person takes months or years to plan and execute a plan to kill hundreds or thousands of innocent people, whether it be from brainwashing or not."

Hiroshima - August 6, 1945

Nagasaki - August 9, 1945

An estimated 214,000 people died in those two attacks. The vast majority were civilians.


justapeon
Posted 16 May 2007 at 04:02 am

Old Man said: "I feel like I'm drowning in a sea of ignorance. There are reasons for terrorism - they might not seem like good reasons to you or I, but they are concrete to the people who take them up. Certain other people claim to kill for the sake of 'democracy', 'freedom', 'peace', and 'a better future'. Does that not sound strange?


just_dave is clearly a simpleton - he clumps unrelated phenomena together, produces a black and white template that he applies to every situation, and produces a simple, unqualified judgement, though he hasn't read widely or allowed himself free rein to ask simple questions. Example: conflating Al-Qaeda (whose hijackers were all male, adult, and volunteers) with Hamas with various groups in Iraq.

He says that the only way to deal with these people is by use of force, i.e. killing them. He then says that he wouldn't wish a terrorist attack even on his worst enemy. Don't think that a military strike is necessarily any more legitimate than a terrorist attack. Is it the 'mindlessness', the randomness of a terrorist attack that is so shocking, or is it the ideology behind it that is offensive? He may never find himself saying, "Ah, but only if they could have been killed for a good reason," but that, at base, is the cause of his feelings.

Of course, what good are reason and insight 'at a time like this', when we could all be killing some ragheads instead?"

You don't see the difference between driving a plane loaded with innocents into building or blowing up a Pizza Hut filled with teens and bombing a terrorist camp? I can't say I agree with the Iraq invasion or the liberation of Kuwait many years ago (I do agree with the invasion of Afghanistan) but at least the US military tries to avoid civilian casualties. Terrorists on the other hand try to maximize that. The Khobar Towers and USS Cole although tragic were military and could be construed as legitimate targets. Embassies in countries other than your own are not legitimate targets.

Anyone who sings and dances with joy at the sight of slaughtered innocents has a twisted mind, no matter what culture they are from. How can you defend that?


chudez
Posted 16 May 2007 at 05:55 am

If the question is why are Westeners in general - and Americans in particular - the targets of terrorism, then the answer isn't because they hate your democracy and your way of life - an inane soundbyte your president continually recites like a mantra. It's because the US government constantly interferes with other nations internal affairs with infuriating regularity. When they want to oppose communism, they prop up dictators. When they need oil, so send a fleet to the Middle East. In my country, we can't even pass a pro-breastfeeding campaign without some foreign lobby group meddling, concerned about their ability to sell infant formula to developing nations.

US foreign policy is designed to protect American interests. This makes complete sense to an American. But remember when the French decided it wasn't in their interest to support the coalition against Iraq? Do you remember the big fuss Americans made about that? Now imagine that you're a small country without the same clout that America has vis-a-vis the French. A smaller country has to sing the American refrain, whether they like it or not. This makes these governments look ineffectual and weak to the very people they are trying to govern, giving a foothold to radical groups opposed to that government and to the US.

The above statements of course are broad generalizations, with countless exceptions, that unfairly paints all Americans with the same brush - the details won't fit here: this is a web comment field afterall, not a doctoral thesis. Does American bumbling, brash interference justify terrorism? For myself, I would have to say no. I can probably sympathize with their cause, but I cannot condone their methods.


ukskyman
Posted 16 May 2007 at 06:00 am

but at least the US military tries to avoid civilian casualties.

Carpet bombing developing nations is hardly avoiding civilian casualties. In both the first and second Iraq war, carpet bombing cities was absolutely common practice. The high tech 'smart weaponry' is VERY expensive and is only used if TV cameras are watching. How often did you see huge bomber aircraft dropping old fashioned and inaccurate ordanense from high altitude on TV? You didn't see that ? I wonder why- because it happened every day!

If the military are trying to avoid civilian casualties, they are going a funny way about it. Given the option of risking a soldiers life, or risking 10 civilian lives, you KNOW which side they will go for ever time, they have prooved it time and time again. What does that say about a 'civilised' nation ?


foff@handbag.com
Posted 16 May 2007 at 06:05 am

"Meanwhile well-armed security officers guarded the US Assay office, where $900 million in gold bars were being stored. Within the hour troops from the 22nd Infantry arrived, marching down Wall Street with rifles and bayonets at the ready."

LOL. This reminds me of September 11. Fascism at it's greatest. 40 people die and the fascist yankee government is running straight to protect the gold.

"In a bid to allay fears of a stock market crash, the New York Stock Exchange reopened the day after the explosion under the guise of business-as-usual. When the workers arrived on Wall Street, the evidence of the previous day's carnage was draped with cloths, and the somber mood was draped in patriotism."

What a sham. I have come to perceive you American's patriotism as nothing more than a cover up of reality. You so suppress your feelings of panics that you doom America to repeat the same mistakes over and over again.

The corporation will always win in America until Americans realize America for what it was really founded on. Greed.

Fuck America
Fuck Yankees

Long live the confederacy.


Lael
Posted 16 May 2007 at 06:18 am

The "same" is now happening between the participants in this discussion. Don't take it personal, but once again the outside "world" is "bombarding" the USA with comments. What do you want the US to do, sit back and accept the "attack"?? Like any other person, they will defend (even though not always justified) their thoughts and actions.

The world is in crossfire of pointing fingers and blame etc. forgetting (better yet, not noticing) the real culprit escaping behind the curtains of The Press. A game they have so long been active in, they are just about the only experts in it. None (or so they believe) can touch them. Let’s just term it - Secret Societies. There are quite a few to choose from, if you wanted to join them. As for me, Lael.

The battle never was, and never will be for anything else but for YOUR soul! And for what I have read so far on this site, and your comments, THEY have already WON the battle!! Why would the battle be for the last bit of oil, with resources depleting? Alternative solutions to oil shortages have already been found, but it is being suppressed by the masses that invest in oil.

The best way to get the US on foreign soil without the UN having to stop it, is with terrorism. So, creating the "terrorism" also creates the need to defeat it. Always think ahead. like chess. Planning and execution to perfection - even if it takes a few generations (in time, not repetition) to do so. See, one change in every generation will not be noticed by the particular generation, but look at it from start to end!?! Now that bigger picture is what you are playing for. But as we are taught, “change is good”. What-a-load-o-bollox! Try look at the bigger picture, and you might just see the wickedness.

Slowly but surely, the Beast is creating it's One world order, currency and religion. Ask yourself “Where do my loyalties, precepts, principles… my soul lie?”


Ronback
Posted 16 May 2007 at 06:29 am

foff@handbag.com said:

Fuck America

Fuck Yankees

Long live the confederacy."

uh... Thanks, I no longer feel ignorant or stupid, you have that market cornered.


Tink
Posted 16 May 2007 at 06:55 am

All this argument about terrorists?

Sad.

Simple explanation, (understandably argumentative), also applies to illegal aliens on all soils, no wish to debate:

itch
NOUN:
An irritating sensation causing a desire to scratch.
Any of various skin disorders, such as scabies, marked by intense irritation and itching.
A restless desire or craving for something: an itch to travel.
VERB:
itched , itch·ing , itch·es
To feel, have, or produce an itch.
To have a desire to scratch.
To have a persistent, restless craving.
VERB:
tr.
To cause to itch.
To scratch (an itch).

itch mite NOUN:
A parasitic mite (Sarcoptes scabiei) that burrows into the skin and causes scabies.

You can not kill bugs/pestillance with out killing the source. The breeders, the eggs and the nits.
You do not feed them or try to keep them contained as pets.
You kill them , before they infest your home and suck you dry.


justapeon
Posted 16 May 2007 at 07:12 am

ukskyman said: "Carpet bombing developing nations is hardly avoiding civilian casualties. In both the first and second Iraq war, carpet bombing cities was absolutely common practice. The high tech 'smart weaponry' is VERY expensive and is only used if TV cameras are watching. How often did you see huge bomber aircraft dropping old fashioned and inaccurate ordanense from high altitude on TV? You didn't see that ? I wonder why- because it happened every day!

If the military are trying to avoid civilian casualties, they are going a funny way about it. Given the option of risking a soldiers life, or risking 10 civilian lives, you KNOW which side they will go for ever time, they have prooved it time and time again. What does that say about a 'civilised' nation ?"

Name one Iraqi or developing country's city that was "carpet bombed". Oh by the way...the term carpet bomb was made up by the media not the military. You are ill informed


Rockadilly
Posted 16 May 2007 at 07:55 am

ukskyman said: "Carpet bombing developing nations is hardly avoiding civilian casualties. In both the first and second Iraq war, carpet bombing cities was absolutely common practice. The high tech 'smart weaponry' is VERY expensive and is only used if TV cameras are watching. How often did you see huge bomber aircraft dropping old fashioned and inaccurate ordanense from high altitude on TV?"

Actually it costs more to do what you call "Carpet Bombing". Even though them bombs is cheaper to build, shipping-loading-weight cost in time & fuel far exceeds the cost of high tech smart weapons any day of the week. Just the logistics of moving and storage of mass quantities of dumb bombs, well anyone who would use them over smart bombs is a few Kangaroos loose in the top paddock mate.

No matter, this argy bargy is not worth getting shirty.


ukskyman
Posted 16 May 2007 at 08:00 am

Name one Iraqi or developing country's city that was "carpet bombed

I don't know any Iraqi's personally and those involved are probably dead, but there were plenty of credible and well researched reports (in the UK at least) that the USA carpet bombed Iraqi positions (surrounded by civilians) repeatedly. Here is just one reliable quote :

"The U.S. military command has acknowledged that the bombing of the Iraqi Basra area by American B-52 bombers in 1991 was an area bombardment. As the attacks had been directed solely against the combatants of the so-called Iraqi Republican Guard, the United States believed the attacks to have been lawful."

So, to answer your question, Basra. There are many others.

Oh by the way…the term carpet bomb was made up by the media not the military. You are ill informed"

Hang on, I never stated who made up the term, and if I had, it is totally irrelevant, so please retract your 'ill informed' statement until you can prove otherwise! You are the one who seems to be denying something which even the US military don't bother to deny any more.


ukskyman
Posted 16 May 2007 at 08:05 am

Rockadilly said: "Actually it costs more to do what you call "Carpet Bombing". Even though them bombs is cheaper to build, shipping-loading-weight cost in time & fuel far exceeds the cost of high tech smart weapons any day of the week. Just the logistics of moving and storage of mass quantities of dumb bombs, well anyone who would use them over smart bombs is a few Kangaroos loose in the top paddock mate.


No matter, this argy bargy is not worth getting shirty."

How do you work that out ? During the first gulf war, the US press were very excitedly bragging that each missile launched was worth several million dollars per shot. B52's are not cheap to run, but clearly don't cost several million dollars per sortie. Dumb bombs are mass produced and cheap, cheaper than you may think. Otherwise, why use them at all ?
However, clearly there is a strong possibility that there are a few generals who ARE a few kangeroos short etc etc.


Nicki the Heinous
Posted 16 May 2007 at 09:38 am

auntieem said: "WOW I can't type today, I'm sorry for the spelling and gramar in my post!"

its Ok, ur grammur is stil beder then my speling.


CardinalXimenes
Posted 16 May 2007 at 09:42 am

It's amazing how perfectly people can explain Islamicist terrorist motivations without actually referencing anything they've written or said. For the bloodstained apostles of an elaborate ideological creed, these guys might as well be exceptionally violent autists for all that anyone actually listens to them or reads what they write.

Start with Sayyid Qutb, the father of modern Islamicism. His works are foundational for the modern conception of the rightful world rule of the Caliphate. Read the manifestos of Bin Laden. Read Zarkawi's letters. Listen to what these people are saying. Sure, the moderns are complaining about Israel and America and sunspots and toxic Jew banana plots, but their essential and driving principle is that the world needs to be under Islamic rule and that these heinous deeds are simply symptoms of its current reluctance to submit to Salafist rulership. The only and final cure for all these disorders will be the ascension of the global Caliphate and the universal submission of mankind to their particular breed of Wahabi fundamentalism.

These people are not mindless flatworms, subject only to reflexive avoidance and instinctive attraction. America does not control them, and it cannot make them shut up and sit down simply by abandoning Israel and paying danegeld. Not every philosophy is formed directly in response to Western ideologies and the West does not have the power to control the world simply by what it chooses to feel sorry about. For some who seem to be so tender-hearted towards the travails of the Other, a lot of people are no more willing to assign individual agency to terrorists than they are to their dogs.


thingummy
Posted 16 May 2007 at 10:06 am

Ronback said: "Then a dumb ass goes into the woods with a camera, invades the bears space and believes he is part of the bears family. Bear eats man and his girl friend. The bear lives and the cub lives.


So, who do you equate to the terrorist, the bear or the man?

A more realistic scenario, if you want to equate this to terrorism, would be, Bear eats man and his girl friend. The bear lives and the cub lives. Bear and cub go looking for man's home and eat all his relatives as well because they had the audacity/disrespect/poor judgement to send someone with a camera into the woods at all. And because bears believe cameras are the works of the devil and those who use them are minions of Satan.


Reaper
Posted 16 May 2007 at 11:23 am

There's a lot of talk about American murder of civilians that, quite frankly, I saw coming from a mile away. It comes down to civilians dying in guerrilla combat vs. civilians dying in the middle of their peaceful, war-free lives.

virtually 100% of civilian casualties inflicted by Americans have been due to the nature of guerrilla combat. If our soil is ever invaded, the same thing will happen to us. We'll be fighting in our own homes alongside people who have nothing to do with the fighting, and they'll die along with us.

Bottom line is the terrorists avoid targeting the aggressors whenever possible, whereas we generally aim for the people shooting back at us. Sure, shit goes off course more often than we'd like (perhaps more often than is accessible), but we TRY. They target the most unaffected regions that they can find in an effort to exact the most physical and psychological damage. If they only bombed cafes where there was some presence of "the enemy," i.e., American soldiers, then they would be justified on th same level that American soldiers are justified. However, they target areas with zero American soldier presence. It is easy to say that we're doing the same things they are, but there is a huge damned difference.

And to the person who referenced Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I'll ask you to shut the hell up, please. It has been done to death, the battle lines have been drawn, 50% are for it, 50% are against it, it will get us nowhere, it will take us off topic, so please let us beat some other horses to death rather than whacking at the perforated carcass that is this argument.

Finally, I agree with CardinalXimenes; you can't do much to an enemy who wants nothing less than the entire world and will do anything to get it other than...well, what Tink said...


Dizzee
Posted 16 May 2007 at 11:43 am

No one here (at least no one rational) has stated that America is always in the right. Even those of us who back our government fully understand that we make mistakes. The difference between us (the US) and them (terrorists and/or other countries we are opposed to) is that the decisions our government makes are at least MEANT to be for the betterment of our country or one we are attempting to help.

Some of you are arguing that we kill thousands of innocent citizens in the middle east. Are you all forgetting how many HUNDREDS of thousands were murdered by THEIR OWN DICTATORIAL GOVERMENTS before we got there. Do you not understand that (while there may be other less often stated but more obvious motivations behind our actions, such as interest in controlling a gateway to the middle east) our purpose there and the reason so many of our soldiers lose their lives (in their own minds, many back the US blindly and believe they are sacrificing themselves for the good of not only their own nation but also for the future of a nation of people that are constantly attempting to kill them) is because we believe it is important to use the power we have worked so hard to earn to help those less fortunate (the meaning behind my previous use of the word altruistic) and those who are being oppressed and in many cases murdered by their own leaders.

Someone mentioned the bombings on Japan in an attempt to call us on the carpet. Were you never taught about Pearl Harbor? About how we were in the process of signing a peace treaty when Japan's leaders ordered a full-scale suicide bombing of an inactive military base and an island occupied by civilians? Just because we killed more people doesn't make us in the wrong. WE were attacked first and retaliated with the force we had available. Had the Japanese government not been cowards and attacked us without warning or provocation, those events would never have happened.

As I said before and will say again, America is not always in the right and our government often has hidden agendas. HOWEVER we are also a VERY tolerant country, made up of members of every nation on the globe. We are not radicals. We (as a country) do not force our religious beliefs onto others, we do not force our ideas onto others (when we do it is because we see the majority of a country in trouble of being crushed by dictators).

Let me reference for a moment to a certain man in history named Adolf Hitler. He controlled many countries over the course of a few years. He killed MILLIONS of people because they were not of Aryan descent. He would have had control of all of Europe had America not stepped in and given assistance. He was a terrorist. Are you going to argue that he was justified in his actions just because he thought he was right? Are you going to argue that because some man BELIEVES it is ok for him to break into someone's home in the middle of the night, stab a father to death, rape a mother, and then tie up and eat the children while they are alive and awake that he is NOT crazy and that he should not be punished for his actions?

Killing is wrong, no one will argue that loss of life is the best answer to any problem (maybe easiest but not best). But Americans do not just go to some random country and drop bombs just because we can. We do not go across tens of thousands of miles to blow up a building full of innocent people just because that country is on the side of our enemy. We do not attack unless we are attacked first.

Jeff, I like you and all, your arguments never fail to amuse me, but you are from Canada. The country that is never in wars because all you do is sit there and feed off of the American economy. You never attempt to help other countries, you never offer even financial aid to fellow human beings who have less than you do even though you have more than you need. You can sit there and point fingers and call us monsters and invaders and say that our innocent civilians deserve to die because we believe in defending our ideals and defending countries who share those ideals. But frankly, I would rather be from a country that does that than from a country that just sits in the shadow of the greatest power in the world and waits for someone to come knocking on their door even though they can hear their neighbors crying in agony. How dare you call us ignorant because we follow our leaders and support our country and our country's beliefs. If this is such an awful place to live with such a horrible untrustable government, then why have people from around the world fled their homes to attempt to get a chance to live here over any other place on the planet.

Jeff, ukskyman and oldman, grow some balls, stop defending terrorists just for the sake of creating an argument, you can't truly be so ignorant that you actually back and defend what you are saying. America is one of the youngest countries in the world and is the biggest superpower the world has ever seen. We have influence across the globe, have one of the richest economies, have some of the best technology, have the greatest army with the most loyal (even sometimes blindly) soldiers. Sure, we're in debt as a country, but there is a reason that the only attack on us in decades has been a handful of radicals attempting to shake things up, other governments either respect us or are afraid to screw with us.

and P.S. UKskydudewhatever, wasn't your country also attacked by terrorists? I think I remember something about a bunch of whiney brits getting incinerated on some buses and in some subways...


GigsTaggart
Posted 16 May 2007 at 12:00 pm

Honest question here, since it wasn't mentioned in the article. In this "attack" discussed in the article and in 9/11….has anyone seriously looked into WHY these occured? And I don't mean simply saying "They're jealous of our awesome country". That's an ignorant answer

Yes, Ron Paul came out and said what caused the attacks during the debates. Guliani interrupted him with some patriotic bullshit, and got the applause of the crowd.


Reaper
Posted 16 May 2007 at 12:10 pm

GigsTaggart, God help us all if you aren't being sarcastic.


Rockadilly
Posted 16 May 2007 at 12:53 pm

ukskyman said: "How do you work that out ? During the first gulf war, the US press were very excitedly bragging that each missile launched was worth several million dollars per shot. B52's are not cheap to run, but clearly don't cost several million dollars per sortie. Dumb bombs are mass produced and cheap, cheaper than you may think. Otherwise, why use them at all ?

However, clearly there is a strong possibility that there are a few generals who ARE a few kangeroos short etc etc."

Something’s you hear on the box from the lamb-brained larrikins are not always truthful. I myself don’t always take for truth anything out of the idiot box.

Dumb bombs still have to get to the target. They need people flying the planes to deliver them mate, and I don’t mean some air hostess. In order to deliver the GP bomb (An MD-83 is 1000lb bomb at a cost of $3,800 US dollars of which the B-52 can carry around 45), the B-52 (affectionately called BUFF for “Big Ugly Fat Fellow”) can cost just under 4 million to operate during a 14-hour period. Burning over 3,334 gallons of fuel per hour this beast requires various support groups. It needs to refuel during flight (which costs 10 times as much as ground fueling), fixed base locations, runway repair, aircraft maintenance, 5-men flight crew, ground support personnel, fighter support, etc. After each flight the craft must be gone over before its next flight. The B-52 has problems with wing spar cracks and upper wing surface failures. Also depending on where the launch base for the B-52 is located may require a special mix of fuel (far more than the petrol you get at the pump). The 4 million figure includes all these items and was obtained from the DOD operation expenses of the B-52 during Desert Storm. 168.3 million US dollars for one aircraft use, over 43 days at 14 hours per day averaged out.

The accuracy of “carpet bombing” depends on the target, generally 43% for a large target (factory or big group of foot solders and motorized equipment (less the smaller the target). This type of bombing is more for psychological damage than physical damage.

Now the JDAM smart missile costs $18,000 US dollars each.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/jdam-specs.htm

The Tomahawk Cruise Missile costs $500,000 US dollars each.

http://navysite.de/weapons/tomahawk.htm

One sortie with a B-52 carpet bombing 45 MD-83s – cost around $4,191,000. Chance of hitting target – 1 in 19.

The chances of hitting target with a JDAM 99%. Cost - $38,000 with support package & personnel.

Of course that is if you know what and where your target is. So otherwise each weapon has its place and use mate.


Jeffrey93
Posted 16 May 2007 at 01:04 pm

Selections from your original comment...

Dizzee said: "Someone mentioned the bombings on Japan in an attempt to call us on the carpet. Were you never taught about Pearl Harbor? About how we were in the process of signing a peace treaty when Japan's leaders ordered a full-scale suicide bombing of an inactive military base and an island occupied by civilians? Just because we killed more people doesn't make us in the wrong. WE were attacked first and retaliated with the force we had available. Had the Japanese government not been cowards and attacked us without warning or provocation, those events would never have happened.

Not been cowards and attacked you without provocation....remember 'Shock & Awe'? What provoked that? So they attacked a large naval installation and an inactive military base, so they are cowards. The US completely obliterated two large cities full of innocent men, women and children. Last I checked you can defend against a bunch of planes dropping bombs and torpedoes, not sure how you can defend against an atomic bomb.

Let me reference for a moment to a certain man in history named Adolf Hitler. He controlled many countries over the course of a few years. He killed MILLIONS of people because they were not of Aryan descent. He would have had control of all of Europe had America not stepped in and given assistance. He was a terrorist. Are you going to argue that he was justified in his actions just because he thought he was right? Are you going to argue that because some man BELIEVES it is ok for him to break into someone's home in the middle of the night, stab a father to death, rape a mother, and then tie up and eat the children while they are alive and awake that he is NOT crazy and that he should not be punished for his actions?

Ahhh there it is. The ol' "we saved your ass in WWII" comment. If it wasn't for Japan's attack you'd still be hearing about the eventual Allied victory and how America sat on their hands the entire time. You didn't 'save' anyone. You showed up incredibly late and helped speed up the victory. No nation pats themselves on the back more for WWII than the Americans, and they were absent for what? The first 4 f'ing years!?! And no, I don't agree with Hitler or think he was right. However, he wasn't a terrorist. He was the leader of a country. Maybe before you go labeling Hitler as a terrorist you should look into how he orchestrated his complete control over Germany. A "terrorist attack" on the Reichstag allowed him to remove most freedoms given to the public (similar to the Patriot Acts) and gear up for war (similar to Afghanistan and Iraq). I'm not saying the Reichstag fire and it's aftermath are the same as what happened in the US...but there are a lot of similarities. Your example of a rape, murder and cannibalism is a shade different than doing what you can to attack a nation.

Killing is wrong, no one will argue that loss of life is the best answer to any problem (maybe easiest but not best). But Americans do not just go to some random country and drop bombs just because we can. We do not go across tens of thousands of miles to blow up a building full of innocent people just because that country is on the side of our enemy. We do not attack unless we are attacked first.

Americans do not just go to some random country and drop bombs just because we can??? Again, remember that whole 'Shock & Awe' thing?

Jeff, I like you and all, your arguments never fail to amuse me, but you are from Canada. The country that is never in wars because all you do is sit there and feed off of the American economy. You never attempt to help other countries, you never offer even financial aid to fellow human beings who have less than you do even though you have more than you need. You can sit there and point fingers and call us monsters and invaders and say that our innocent civilians deserve to die because we believe in defending our ideals and defending countries who share those ideals. But frankly, I would rather be from a country that does that than from a country that just sits in the shadow of the greatest power in the world and waits for someone to come knocking on their door even though they can hear their neighbors crying in agony. How dare you call us ignorant because we follow our leaders and support our country and our country's beliefs. If this is such an awful place to live with such a horrible untrustable government, then why have people from around the world fled their homes to attempt to get a chance to live here over any other place on the planet.

This is what bothers me about some Americans. We live right next door to you and you know nothing about our country. First, we are involved in many conflicts around the world. Usually in a peace keeping role, we go into ongoing conflicts and help to police it while peace talks are conducted. We don't show up at some country's doorstep and 'Shock & Awe' our citizens with a military display. Considering the size of our country (32 million) we give an enormous amount of military assistance and financial assistance to countries all over the world. You've proven that you know almost zero about your neighbor and biggest trading partner, which forces me to assume you know even less about the other countries around the world, specifically the ones your country attacks. Again, I'm not surprised by this. I don't think anybody outside America would be.

And you can come off your pedestal, a lot of countries have a large amount of immigration, Canada included. However, if you insist on berating Canada all I can say is.....at least we don't have planes flying into our buildings up here. Yeah your country might be great and all....but last I checked, we don't have hundreds or thousands of people scattered throughout the world sharing a common belief (Al-Qaeda like) shouting "Death to Canada". You say that you are a tolerant country...you don't force your ideas on others. Yet your country is killing thousands of innocent people trying to do just that. Spreading democracy. Did anyone ask for it? I realize the original purpose was WMDs, but since we all know that was a gigantic lie (also a war crime) the purpose has changed to spreading freedom and democracy. I have to ask you, if your country is so great and does everyone a huge service by flexing their military muscles to everyone they feel it will benefit someone, why didn't they start this freedom campaign 90 miles off the coast of Florida? Go "liberate" Cuba, travel costs would be a lot less than going all the way to Iraq. You could then head over to China and North Korea next. Good luck.


dwibby
Posted 16 May 2007 at 01:30 pm

1c3d0g said: "Damn…it's really sad that people had to deal with terrorism all the way back then. I guess it'll never end, there's a loser born every minute ready to kill everyone who don't happen to agree with their twisted minds."

Jeffrey93 said: "I find this most appalling, almost as appalling as the acts themselves. People seem more than willing to dismiss these "terrorists" as crazy lunatics. Maybe it's easier to deal with things that way, but it certainly isn't accurate. Again, dismissing these terrorists as insane or losers proves that you have absolutely no idea why these terrorist acts were committed."

just_dave said: "And if we did know the true motivations of these terrorists, do you think that would make dealing with what they did any easier? I don't think so. Your ilk would like nothing better than for us (the US) to sit down across a table from these terrorist cowards and try to reason out the whole situation with them. And do you know how it would go down? Same as the Israeli/Palestinian "peace talks". These people don't want us to change; they want us either dead or subject to them. And the only thing they will respond to is force.

It's thinking like yours that led to the attacks on 9/11, and perhaps also in 1920; the terrorist thinks that his enemy is weakminded enough that an attack will force concessions from him. Concessions that are never quite enough, and no matter how much is given, there will always be reason enough for another attack. The trouble now is that there are enough weakminded leftists in this country and elsewhere that are willing to cave in to the terrorists that continued attacks are all but guaranteed. I just pray that it won't be in your back yard that it happens next; wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy."

Dear me, this little debate has gotten a little venomous. Well, maybe I'll try my hand at easing wounds and egos.

A major point of contention seems to be whether or not people who commit acts of terror are insane. The simplest answer is "Maybe." Sure, some might be completely 'out of their gourd,' but I'd like to ask what is more human that attempting to hurt someone else for a perceived hurt, slight, injustice, or wrong. Take the old "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth," for example.

How does terror attack x make any sort of sense, you might ask. I think it is important to point out that one of the human mind's most powerful and mystifying ability is the ability to resolve cognitive dissonance. At the very least, it is a excellent survival tool, being able to rationalize something that, in an ordinary situation, a subject would never do. Consider tales of cannibalism in hunger stricken survival situations, or even the Stockholm Syndrome (http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=840).

So, perhaps a relatively small slight was somehow magnified into something large enough to be resolved into a major incident.

Maybe it was something as simple as a Muslim analog of the stereotypical 'fire and brimstone' preacher. Maybe it was a charismatic leader with a political motive. Maybe almost an entire family was lost as 'collateral damage'. I imagine that if you were to ask 100 different 'terrorists' why they were doing what they were doing (and you were able to get answers unpolluted by rhetoric) you would probably get 100 different answers.

Very likely, all of them would be fully rationalized, with logic that is not outside the normal human standard.

After all, while the acts they commit are inhumane, I imagine that it would be a daunting task to find one that is not human.

Of course, as (I believe) I am only human, I may be entirely mistaken, and any one who even thinks of harming someone, either in proportion to an injury or not, ceases to be human, and becomes something entirely different. If that happens to be the case, my entire position is null and void, so take it as you will.

Endnote: Some of my viewpoints has been influenced by the movie "Paradise Now," which is a look into the lives of two young men on the path to commit an act of terror. It shows some of the rationalization that goes into lets one take the lives of people that they may know nothing about.


Thag
Posted 16 May 2007 at 02:04 pm

I think it was on Saturday Night Live, something like this: Canada has committed several infantry regiments, one air wing and several warships to the conflict... but with the exchange rate, all that showed up were three Canadian Mounties, two flying squirrels and a birch bark canoe. ;-)

I have nothing against Canada, but you have to admit that was decent!


Jeffrey93
Posted 16 May 2007 at 02:09 pm

You have to be able to laugh at yourself, and yeah...that's funny! Actually...on shows up here we do far more of that than anybody else. I would've expected a Beaver comment in there somewhere!


Dizzee
Posted 16 May 2007 at 02:11 pm

Thag said: "I think it was on Saturday Night Live, something like this: Canada has committed several infantry regiments, one air wing and several warships to the conflict… but with the exchange rate, all that showed up were three Canadian Mounties, two flying squirrels and a birch bark canoe. ;-)


I have nothing against Canada, but you have to admit that was decent!"

literally LOLed at work.


Jeffrey93
Posted 16 May 2007 at 02:21 pm

Good post Dwibby. Personally I don't see terrorists being that much different than soldiers. Their purpose is to inflict damage and kill the enemy. The difference is only that terrorists don't have a government supporting them and telling them what to do. We think of war as one country fighting another where the soldiers are dressed in identifiable uniforms. Well, terrorists don't have the means to take on the US forces so they do what they can. Yes they are cheap shots, but when you're so severely out gunned...that's the only way they can do it.
I don't agree with what terrorists do, but quite often I don't agree with what the US military does either. Is one less guilty than the other? Just because the US military isn't comprised of a bunch of individuals deciding their own actions but rather an enormous body of men and machine ordered what actions to carry out by the government doesn't make the US military any less guilty than any terrorist. We know who commits terrorist acts (usually), but who do you blame when a country's military forces bomb a building and kill many innocent people? How is one so different from the other?


shanachie
Posted 16 May 2007 at 02:53 pm

"A major point of contention seems to be whether or not people who commit acts of terror are insane...

So, perhaps a relatively small slight was somehow magnified into something large enough to be resolved into a major incident...

After all, while the acts they commit are inhumane, I imagine that it would be a daunting task to find one that is not human...any one who even thinks of harming someone, either in proportion to an injury or not, ceases to be human..."

"Personally I don't see terrorists being that much different than soldiers....Is one less guilty than the other?"

Well, maybe I'm going to have to stop reading the responses. Too Damn Infuriating. Or maybe just blow them up since it's all morally equivalent, anyway.

Sheeesh!


Jeffrey93
Posted 16 May 2007 at 04:21 pm

shanachie said: "Personally I don't see terrorists being that much different than soldiers….Is one less guilty than the other?"


Well, maybe I'm going to have to stop reading the responses. Too Damn Infuriating. Or maybe just blow them up since it's all morally equivalent, anyway.

Sheeesh!"

If soldiers blow up a building that is full of innocent citizens because it's believed to be a WMD factory, how is that different from a terrorist blowing up a building? The military could say "Well, we thought we were doing the right thing at the time." Well...so did the terrorist.

There is a difference only because we see war, armies, governments, etc. as morally and ethically acceptable, even though they aren't. Ask people that have fought in wars, terrorist acts are carried out by both sides on a daily basis. Soldiers are blame free because they are normally following orders; the person that gives the orders is blame free because he didn't actually commit the act.

Our society believes terrorism is evil and performed by lunatics, while armies are honorable and noble because it's easier for us that way. If we were as appalled at war as we are with terrorist acts a billion dollar industry would be shut down, but we'd only fight wars that were truly worth fighting. Also, if we realized that terrorists can actually be very intelligent normal people, it would make the acts they carry out even more terrifying, too terrifying to handle. So, we label them as messed up wacko's which helps us sleep a little easier at night.


Reaper
Posted 16 May 2007 at 04:43 pm

Stop equating the military with terrorists. It just doesn't work out. I'll reiterate the main point I made in my above post: The military AIMS for targets that they believe to be threats. They don't go and blow up schools and hospitals for the fudging fun of it. Terrorists, however, AIM for targets that are clearly not threats. If you are attacking our soldiers, you are not a terrorist. You're the enemy, but you're not a terrorist. If you are a soldier attacking a target you know to be inconsequential, then both you and the order-giver are terrorists. Yeah, soldier's just following orders, but we humans have this free will thing for a reason.

But I'll play devil's advocate. America has done all this crap to invite the wrath of the world. What do we do now? Pull out? Say we're sorry and let's be friends? I guarantee you we'd get along just fine if we were to do that. It would hurt our economy somethin' fierce, but we'd pull through. It is the rest of the world that would fall out from under us, and then we'd have to go right back to square one: fighting Islamic fascism. There is little question that they won't be happy until the world is theirs, so we're going to have to fight this war at some point.

It's easy to say we're bullying the world and what-have-you, but I bet we'd all be surprised at the significant role America plays in global stability.


LiLiJ
Posted 16 May 2007 at 05:01 pm

"We (as a country) do not force our religious beliefs onto others, we do not force our ideas onto others…"

Then all the missionaries should be forcibly expelled, immediately.


MrElegazna
Posted 16 May 2007 at 06:19 pm

b

ukskyman said: "Can I refer you to a nation in the Middle East called Iraq where thousands and thousands of CIVILIANS have been killed by the US Army in your name ? Twisted? Colateral damge ? Dress it up as you like but it should never have happened.

I am not saying we (the UK) are not just as bad (our government was TOTALLY out of order on Iraq), but everyone seems to forget that the 'revenge' for 9/11 has been civilian deaths a thousand fold greater than those lost in NY in September.
My guess is that you don't REALLY think these people are worth less than American's, but that maybe you just didn't give it any thought ?"

You lose credibility if you project your assumptions rather than respond at face value. NEVER did I say or imply it's "okay" if/when the U.S. targets innocents civilians, nor do I support the Iraq war, but clearly you have assigned those values to me. I guess if you are not with us, you're against us, eh?

LiLiJ said: ""We (as a country) do not force our religious beliefs onto others, we do not force our ideas onto others…"

Then all the missionaries should be forcibly expelled, immediately."

Right, because those missionaries are sponsored by the U.S. Government, with our official state religion and outlawing of other religions and all.

Man, both sides of this particular internet debate/oversimplification contest is especially frustrating. Left: The terrorists are right! There's no difference between military killings in a war zone and Al-Qaeda trained terrorists hitting an elementary school in the suburbs! Right: It's a matter of good guys vs. bad guys, and the only solution is to kill every man assigned bad guy status because our magnanimous, righteous attempts at mediation haven't worked! Don't agree? Then you're gonna get us all killed!


Jeffrey93
Posted 16 May 2007 at 07:44 pm

Reaper.....say you live in Afghanistan. For a myriad of reasons you and almost everyone you know has had just about enough of the United States. What do you do? You have no real army to speak of....so you can't wage any form of standard war against the US. Your country can't do anything as a nation since it would lead to being blacklisted on the global market. So, what do you do? Just bend over and take it?

What I'm sick of hearing is that the terrorists attacked the US without provocation or reasoning. Bullspit. The US is notorious for bullying countries to get what they want. If you don't want to give the US what it wants...the US will call on all it's other trading partners to stop trading with you. So...you give them what they want at the price they want. Furthest thing from fair I've ever heard of, it's extortion.

So what can you do? Attacks like 9/11 are really the only option to hit back at the mighty US. I'm not rooting for the underdog here or anything like that, but this should send the message to the US government that just because you are much more powerful than a country you aren't always necessarily going to get away with pushing them around. As time goes by I'm begining to think that nobody got that message, neither the government nor the citizens.

Waging these wars in Afghanistan and Iraq certainly isn't going to help the matter either. Afghanistan was somewhat understandable but Iraq was such a load of bull. Not exactly a great way to make friends, I'm not sure if you want to believe it or not...but the US is in desperate need of some friends right now. They are still working on Iraq and Afghanistan and are already apparently trying to find reasons to get in scraps with Iran, Syria and North Korea. This is a country that is going to alienate itself from the entire globe if they aren't careful. The knee jerk reactions to terrorist attacks doesn't help either. "You're with us or you're with them." garbage is a prime example. If the US continues acting like this...well...the rest of the world won't be with the enemy, but they certainly won't be with the US either.


Reaper
Posted 16 May 2007 at 08:37 pm

I'll ask again. Do you really think that a complete military and economic shutdown with regards to our foreign policy is the answer? It is, after all, the source of animosity toward the US, so by all logic the absence of our aggressive foreign policy should evaporate ill sentiment toward us, right? I don't believe that for a second, and I doubt you do, either. We've just given them an easy reason to hate us. In its absence, they'd have found something else; they want to rule us, and they'll likely fight to the last man to that end.

To answer your hypothetical, I obviously can't give an honest answer as I'm not in that situation, but I as I am now would never, ever resort to killing completely uninvolved and nonthreatening individuals. All 9/11 did was rally us against the aggressors with enough steam left over to take a bite out of Iraq under suspect pretenses. I wouldn't call inviting the wrath of the largest, most aggressive superpower on earth a good war strategy; the only reason it is having any psychological impact in Iraq is because we have no real reason to be there other than the fact that the we can't in good conscience leave it in its current condition. People feel that troops are dying for nothing, and they want to put a stop to it. Sheesh, at its core it isn't even necessarily terrorist attacks that are driving ill sentiment regarding Iraq. The insurgents -- the ones actually fighting us rather than blowing each other up -- are the ones waging both the physical and psychological war on the US, because THEY'RE the ones killing US troops.

To turn the tables, as an American, I and my neighbors have had enough of every Islamic country on the planet for a myriad of reasons. Sure, we could try diplomacy, but we know beyond the shadow of a doubt that it won't work. Quite frankly, there is nothing we can do short of killing all of them to put an end to their misdeeds. So what do we do, sit back and let 'em have their way with everyone?

Our options with them are just as limited as their options with us. They chose the seemingly easy solution, and we did the same in retaliation. The only difference is that they can't seem to do any wrong. They attack us, and the evil of the Amerikan Empire has justified their actiosn. They sit at the table and talk with us and they are like unto gods in the eyes of the world. If we make one aggressive move, 3/4 of the world erupts into riot at the evil Amerikan Empire's atrocities. If we sit at the table and talk, nothing friggin' happens because there is no one power source to represent them. This will inevitably be our fault for not trying hard enough.

So we're left with half the world hating us no matter what we do. Great. I say we give the rest of the world what they want and leave them to their own devices. Then we'll be the evil Amerikan Bastards who refuse to participate in the world stage and engage the evils on our world.

Better read up on your Arabic, because its in your future unless America stops it.


Reaper
Posted 16 May 2007 at 08:48 pm

Oh, and by the by, you remember the travesty that was Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Yeah, there will be a lot more of those if we just leave Iran, Syria, and N.K. to their own devices. Hell, they've pretty much stated that fact with pride already. Sure, diplomacy is a factor. If you can think of what would convince a man who forcibly starves the majority of his citizens that he shouldn't have nukes, write our Congress, because I'll bet they're as stumped on that as I am. While you're at it, give them some tips on how to deal with the up-and-coming nuclear power who denies that the holocaust ever occurred. They'll definitely appreciate a diplomatic strategy for THAT quagmire.


Jeffrey93
Posted 16 May 2007 at 09:32 pm

Very distrubing comments Reaper. Why do you think that it is the duty of the US to police the world? Nobody asked you to do this and frankly, nobody really likes the piss poor job you're doing at it. Everything is self-serving and corrupt. So just kick back, put your feet up...and let some other nations give it a go. The world doesn't depend on the US to keep everyone in line.

It's pretty easy to say "If we changed our foreign policies they'd find another reason to hate us" when there is no inkling of your country even attempting it. Think of that on a personal level, the younger kids hate you because you steal their lunch money everyday. Maybe you should stop stealing their lunch money? "Nah, they'd just hate me for some other reason anyway, so I'll keep stealing their money." Does that make one lick of sense to you?

You say your options with them are limited.....they certainly are now. Since it's gone on for so long...9/11 happened and now your country is embroiled in two wars on their turf. Not many choices can be made now about how to handle the situation. All 9/11 did was what? What it did was caused your country to spend billions upon billions on security and paranoia driven acts of government and the creation of new agencies. It also caused your country to spend billions upon billions fighting a war. That's the key right there....you're now at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, pretty much because of 9/11. They got you over there! Where it seems they are now able to fight some form of traditional war against the US military, and they're doing a much better job than the majority expected them to. It's a country of 30 million! Smaller in size and population than Canada...and your superpower nation is struggling to keep the upper hand in the fighting. Puts things in perspective doesn't it? "Super power" doesn't mean so much anymore.

I just watched an interesting interview on the Colbert Report the other day, it was regarding this issue of nuclear weapons. The gentleman (can't remember who he was) pretty much said you have to let it happen. Be worried about it and diplomatic in making sure these weapons won't be used foolishly, but you can't stop it. You can't stop knowledge. In time, everyone that wants to put money into having nuclear weapons will have them. So it's better to start making peace with these countries now...then get into a bitter dispute over their weapons programs just in time for things to boil over when they actually have developed nukes. The US shouldn't be chirping too much about the nuclear weapons, since...as is always said...they are the only country to have ever used them. The only reason the US is all miffed at other countries getting "the bomb" is because you're on everyone's short list. If you were a well liked nation you wouldn't be bothered so much by it. I don't think North Korea will lob any nukes at my country...so I don't really care if they have them. What bothers me is they might chuck one of them at your country...and you will retaliate with everything you've got, creating a real global mess. It's your weapons and their use I'm worried about.


Giltfoulanchor
Posted 16 May 2007 at 09:55 pm

People are essentially xenophobic and chauvinistic. Just read the posts here.

The majority of the terrorists active in the world today are doing "God's" work. The have fatwas giving them permission to kill anyone in God's name. What is happening in Iraq today is a simmering guerrilla civil war with American troops in the crossfire. The removal to the Baathists from the Iraqi army was an enabler for the insurgency to turn into a Sunni versus Shiite conflict. Iran is supporting the Shiites and Syria and the Saudi Wahhabis are supporting the Sunnis. There is the "f" factor of Al Qaeda, (a strictly Sunni organization), fomenting hate and discontent on both sides. The largest number of Iraqi casualties have been Iraqi versus Iraqi, with the most vulnerable, (women and children), as targets. But it is God's will, (fatwas), and it's open season on the crusaders from all sides.

Al Qaeda in all it's many flavors has as it's underlying message that all Islamic countries, (including Spain), must be united under the auspices of the "Caliphate" for the ultimate conquering of the entire planet under Allah. Anyone who refuses to recognize Islam must be ultimately killed.

Funny thing is that someone felt compelled to bring up Hiroshima and Nagasaki, (again), under this subject. Their inhabitants were fighting for their God also. They had been taught that to fight and die for their God was the duty of every Japanese man, woman and child. Training was being conducted throughout the home islands for millions of peasants to meet the invaders with explosives strapped to their bodies to jump under American tanks; with sharpen bamboo spears for suicide charges, etc. Millions would have died on both sides, but having them die by conventional weapons would have been more ethical? If Unit 731 had perfected a delivery system for bubonic plague to the continental United States, the Japanese would have used it, (they just couldn't make it work in those silly balloons). It was called unrestricted warfare.

On the negative side of not being invaded, Japan was never forced look into a mirror like Germany was post-war. The Japanese wrapped themselves in the cloak of A-Bomb victims and conveniently forgotten their conduct of their war. Rape of Nanking? Death camps? Comfort women? Ad nauseam.


dwibby
Posted 17 May 2007 at 12:06 am

Foreword: I would appreciate it if the reader's reaction to the following is not anger. It occurs to me that this might be very frustrating to my fellow humans. While being read, I wish that the reader remembers these are the opinions of a human being, and, as such, is subject to various mental shortcuts on the part of the author, who, for reasons of his own, has selected this as his position. Or to put it in what I consider very human terms: "Please don't get mad at me."

Giltfoulanchor said: "People are essentially xenophobic and chauvinistic. Just read the posts here."

Personally, I'd like to believe otherwise. Namely, that people, on their own, tend to be very open to any social exchange, if a little guarded against the unknown. I do, however, believe that most societies have a vested interest in promoting what Giltfoulanchor has said. It's hard to maintain a social order in the face of rampant social exchange.

I also like to believe in a underlying humanity of every, regardless of their own personal policy. Yes, I even extend this to those so inclined to prey upon their fellow man. Perhaps it was the mistake of society, a fluke of genetics, the "will of God/Allah/Other Deific Figure", or a conscious choice of the person themselves, but I believe that there is something human that remains.

I don't want the immediate response to this to be "So our troops are no better than the terrorists?," chiefly because that is not how I first see it. I would like the response to be "the terrorist are human."

Now, try not to block that out, ignore it, or get mad over it. That's not what I aim for.

Less than 250 years ago, a group of people committed what some might term acts of terror against what some might consider their own military. These people were fighting against something much larger than themselves, and even was across the entire world. Some people might apply the term "terrorist" to these people. Some would apply "American Hero." I would apply "human."

These people might have been misguided. They might even have been outright wrong--I don't believe so in this case. They were a relatively small number of people fighting against a world power. They succeeded because they were humans fighting for something they believe in.

Now, think again about the statement "terrorists are human."

If anything, you should feel a mote respect for these humans fighting desperately, at the cost of life and limb, againist all odds, even if they use terrible methods, even if their choices are wrong, even if they fail.

As I understand it, soldiers on the battlefields of old felt a respect for the troops they were fighting againist. They understood what their counterparts were going through.

And I once again feel obligated to say that society has a vested interest in you not feel respect for them. Perhaps society is right. After all, these humans are tearing lives away, soldier and civilian alike. Even if these are "good tactics," murder is one of the most scrutinized human acts. Those who commit murder without a reason that other humans agree with are guilty of the most heinous of acts. Those who commit murder with such a reason are forever haunted by the act.

I mean no disrespect to the men and women of the armed services who need to make split second decisions that amount to murdering another or being murdered oneself. However, the act remains what it is, regardless of what name is given to it.

This is yet another thing society has a vested interest in. Death of a society's member is often harmful to that society, but sometimes a member of another society needs to die to prevent death within. Calling both of these acts the same name makes it harder to kill that outsider.

I'm sorry if this is inflammatory, as that is not my intent, but I worry that society, specifically the society that is the United States of America, is drifting in to a sort of Orwellian Dystopia, where the provisions that the Founding Fathers put in place to protect the humans from the society--what many call the Bill of Rights--is being eroded in the name of protecting the society from outside humans.

I hope that if people see terrorists not as dread outsiders, but, fundamentally, as humans, that not only we will not sacrifice our own right to stop them from hurting us, but be better able to handle them--fighting if need be, but I think that fighting humans only causes other humans to want to fight--since we might actually understand why they feel so compelled to hurt us.


Plank
Posted 17 May 2007 at 12:46 am

Reaper said: "Quite frankly, there is nothing we can do short of killing all of them to put an end to their misdeeds. "

That is a truly disturbing comment.


Dr. Evil
Posted 17 May 2007 at 12:50 am

Jeffrey93 said: "Not my grievances (except number 8), and in no particular order. Feel free to add. None of this would have been relevant in 1920 except for maybe 7 & 9. God knows what drives an anarchist.""

what drives an anarchist...hmmm...they could be very disillusioned with the governent and how they run the place?


Plank
Posted 17 May 2007 at 01:10 am

Reaper said: "Quite frankly, there is nothing we can do short of killing all of them to put an end to their misdeeds. "

Plank said: "That is a truly disturbing comment."

Having read your post again, I feel I might have taken that out of context and I apologise if I did. I truly hope I did and that you don't believe that.

Having said that, I do believe that many Americans do feel that way. I am in contact with many Americans and it seems to me that the country is pretty divided on the war in Iraq. The Bush supporters are all for "wiping them out" and I get the feeling that if the rest of the world had to cover their eyes for a while that is exactly what would happen.

As an outsider I truly hope I am wrong in this and that this is not the feeling of the American people.


Lael
Posted 17 May 2007 at 01:52 am

All US presidents were and still are part of some Secret Society. All revolutions created by Secret Societies. Germany's Adolf Hitler also part of Secret Societies. The first and second world war planned and excecuted by these Secret Societies. The Third world war is predicted to be between the Muslims and the Jews.

Yes, all these people fight in the name of their god. It has been thus since the beginning of time. All these radical faiths to counter the God of the Bible. They were led to Israel with all sorts of magnificent wonders. Satan with his Secret Societies had to stop God's people and God's faith reaching the globe as a whole. So all these other faiths are created. All to reach one point - Atheism. Creating a world that do not believe in God, cause why would God let this happen?

Secret Society creed, Ordo ab chao (or something of the like), meaning order out of chaos. They create chaos (everywhere, around the world) so they can supply the remidy - either no faith, or ONE faith. And it will not be faith in God of the Bible. And still people think all this war is about something physical (land, oil, money or even peace). And still YOU and just about everybody else refuse to look at yourselfs, and your own leaders, your own country, your own soul!

Have you ever asked who "created" the Muslim faith, the Budhistic faith, the New Age faith, Darwinism, Atheism or even Catholisism (and many more)? Why was it "created"? The world as a whole (in one language) tried to build Babylon to reach up to God. So was the languages counfounded by God, for man's wickedness. And now the world is still at war, but to reach unity through chaos.

By the wickedness of man's heart, the world is at war and believe that war is still the only answer to end war. True faith in God does not result in war! Start cleaning up the mess in your own life, with God's help. Then live out your holy life for the world to see, and envy you, so you can teach them the princeples of God. Its not about pushing my faith on anybody else. Its about people seeking goodness and truth evidenced in other's life.

To the Americans and to those always pointing fingers - Start with yourself and LIVE BY EXAMPLE.


Lisette
Posted 17 May 2007 at 04:53 am

Its all always about the money honey. This is another DI article. I hadn't even heard about this before.


tednugentkicksass
Posted 17 May 2007 at 07:03 am

Lael said: "All US presidents were and still are part of some Secret Society. All revolutions created by Secret Societies. Germany's Adolf Hitler also part of Secret Societies. The first and second world war planned and excecuted by these Secret Societies. The Third world war is predicted to be between the Muslims and the Jews.


Yes, all these people fight in the name of their god. It has been thus since the beginning of time. All these radical faiths to counter the God of the Bible. They were led to Israel with all sorts of magnificent wonders. Satan with his Secret Societies had to stop God's people and God's faith reaching the globe as a whole. So all these other faiths are created. All to reach one point - Atheism. Creating a world that do not believe in God, cause why would God let this happen?

Secret Society creed, Ordo ab chao (or something of the like), meaning order out of chaos. They create chaos (everywhere, around the world) so they can supply the remidy - either no faith, or ONE faith. And it will not be faith in God of the Bible. And still people think all this war is about something physical (land, oil, money or even peace). And still YOU and just about everybody else refuse to look at yourselfs, and your own leaders, your own country, your own soul!

Have you ever asked who "created" the Muslim faith, the Budhistic faith, the New Age faith, Darwinism, Atheism or even Catholisism (and many more)? Why was it "created"? The world as a whole (in one language) tried to build Babylon to reach up to God. So was the languages counfounded by God, for man's wickedness. And now the world is still at war, but to reach unity through chaos.

By the wickedness of man's heart, the world is at war and believe that war is still the only answer to end war. True faith in God does not result in war! Start cleaning up the mess in your own life, with God's help. Then live out your holy life for the world to see, and envy you, so you can teach them the princeples of God. Its not about pushing my faith on anybody else. Its about people seeking goodness and truth evidenced in other's life.

To the Americans and to those always pointing fingers - Start with yourself and LIVE BY EXAMPLE."

What? Secret societies? I think they pretty much ran out of gas (excepting of course the wanna-be-Knights -Templar in ivy-league institutions) about 150 years ago. All they're good for now is providing drinking buddies.

And wasn't it the Tower of Babel? Not Nebichanazar's (I know I butchered that spelling) Babylon, you know the one with the Lion's Gate and the Hanging Gardens. You read (and believe) Zechariah Sitchin, don't you? (If you don't, you probably should-- I just know you'd love his crazily strewn together theories and loose translations)

Reaper and Jeff-- you both have extrememly well thought out and succinctly expressed views on the topic of terrorrism and the U.S. role in provoking/defending against it. That really doesn't matter at this point, though. The past is behind us and we can't change it (though doesn't physics allow that we MAYBE could send a message back {though assuming that we could, in the future, wouldn't we have by now?}to ourselves), so the best we can do is address how to solve the problem.

In my view, we have three options when dealing with these overtly hostile nations/religion with no real hopes of reconciling our differences.

1: old school (I'm talking Roman style) military campaign with no male survivors in the 12-45 age group, forced relocations of the (few) survivers, and a basically unrestricted war including nukes and anything else we could muster. NOTE: not really my favorite option

2: complete withdrawal of all U.S. forces from the middle-east, leaving Israel to fall and allowing a large portion of the WORLD'S oil supply (a fair portion of the U.S.'s as well, but we get a lot of our imported oil from this side of the globe--mostly from Canada) to be rationed out by, well business men, but business men in countries with a decidedly un-Western bent. This would, of course, injure American interests overseas, but our dominance is sure to slip eventually anyway.

or 3: maintain the situation, as is, over there for 25-80 years, waiting for the worlds demand for and production of oil to diminish to the point that OPEC's power is no longer strong enough to cripple much of the world. As their (the terrorist's) coffers dwindle, many terrorist organizations may lose the ability to plan and execute long-term plans, making their activities a regional concern rather than a global one.

Maybe diplomatic channels could solve this problem, but I doubt that much more than tat my third (and I'll freely admit it's a pipe dream) option IS an option. That leaves us with two options, and a withdrawal would look a lot better in the history books than turning the whole area into one giant sheet of glass.

Hope that made sense -- didn't sleep that well last night.


Lael
Posted 17 May 2007 at 07:46 am

Heard of free masons??? and islamic fascists, knights templars, Rosicrucians and many more form part of one big choo. Stories might have been hushed, or j0ked with. They are still alive and well. Talk about underestimating your enemy....!

And Satan was first in "I will be like the Most High", then man with his Tower of Babel, and then the non-believing world (Babylon). Still now it doesn't stop - the pope also claims to be the Most High.

Zechariah Sitchin will have the pages of his books as witnesses against him. NO, I don't read or believe him. The Words in the pages of the Bible is what I believe.


Dizzee
Posted 17 May 2007 at 08:01 am

Lael said: "Heard of free masons??? and islamic fascists, knights templars, Rosicrucians and many more form part of one big choo. Stories might have been hushed, or j0ked with. They are still alive and well. Talk about underestimating your enemy….!


And Satan was first in "I will be like the Most High", then man with his Tower of Babel, and then the non-believing world (Babylon). Still now it doesn't stop - the pope also claims to be the Most High.

Zechariah Sitchin will have the pages of his books as witnesses against him. NO, I don't read or believe him. The Words in the pages of the Bible is what I believe."

Conspiracy theorist and bible thumper...regardless of how correct you may be, the way you come across just makes people giggle at you. The reason they are called "secret" socities is because they are...secret...if everyone knows about them then their whole purpose is gone. They may have existed in the past, but I think you've been watching too much Davinci Code and Skulls. You can't just believe everything you hear, see, or read.

Perhaps you should go through the bible and honestly read it, note how many times it contradicts itself and the supposed teachings of our Lord and Savior. I am christian, but I trust in the bible about as far as I can throw it. It was written by MEN and therefore contains mistakes. It was translated by MEN and therefore contains even more mistakes. Believe in God and the good things he does, but don't so blindly follow the teachings of mankind that you get lost in it and make a fool of yourself. People as gullible as you are the reason people around the world are dying, most soldiers (of man's army or of God's) follow a truth they are taught and learn all too late that they were deceived.


Dizzee
Posted 17 May 2007 at 08:11 am

Some of the contradictions word for word from scripture:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#good_to_all

non-Christians blame the religion for these mistakes. I blame the men who transcribed and translated the bible, because they were only human, just as God made them.

But regardless...they are obvious contradictions and just go to prove that you really can't trust what the bible says. Hold strong to your FAITH not the words of another.


Reaper
Posted 17 May 2007 at 10:22 am

Yes, Plank, that was purely hypothetical :P I do truly feel that way -- stopping Islamic Fascists can only be done in the here and now by genocide -- but it is not an option. Aside from the general horror of the thought of it, the act would only give birth to another generation of even more fanatical anti-Americans.

Jeff, had we not established this policy of policing the world, think of how many nations would have fallen under the Iron Curtain. Yeah, there'd be order, but I can't imagine life would be too sublime as a satellite of Soviet Russia. Then if Soviet Russia should fall, all of those places that we let "do their own thing" would be akin to what Russia is now...a sublime mess. Quite possibly worse off than they are now. Except they'd all have ICBMs tipped with nukes ready and waiting for the next sociopath dictator to play with them. The truth is that our foreign policy has played a very valuable role this past century and continues to do so now, with the notable exception of Iraq. Unfortunately, everybody hates us for it without even considering what might have occurred without it.

I think your whole mindset is based on the untruth that Islamic countries just want to peacefully coexist with America and the rest of the world, and that it is US who keep dragging them into conflict. I can't stress strongly enough that this is false to the core; they want the free world GONE. The reasons they offer the world for fighting are simply propaganda meant to enlist more troops and throw America's reputation further into the gutter. That their arguments only even have substance is because nobody is arguing back. They say that we police and bully, but they don't mention what we're policing and bullying against; the policies were born to stop the Soviet's march, and they continue today to mitigate the progress of these fanatical Muslims who want global domination.

It is all too easy to tell us to lay off (Heck, I'm a big proponent of it, despite realizing the consequences), but we seem to be the only people on earth who realize the implications of that. We've seen what happens when militarily aggressive dictatorships are left to their own devices. Otto Von Bismark and Hitler and, what the heck, Hirohito are prime examples of this. We tried leaving well enough alone twice, and the tactic failed twice. I haven't seen nearly enough evidence against nipping these small factions in the bud before they grow into a global threat to give up on the tactic yet, though.

Lastly, the mere suggestion of allowing Iran or N.K. to get nukes is bewildering and frightening, and I wouldn't even suffer because of it. It is true that we'll have to allow people nuclear technology (both good and bad) at some point, but Iran and N.K. aren't the places to start. They only want them so they can use them offensively, not defensively. This ties in with the above; there is no making peace with them. North Korea, maybe, but not Iran.


Jeffrey93
Posted 17 May 2007 at 01:11 pm

Reaper, here are the problems with the US policing/bullying the world.
A) Often done purely for their own benefit, sometimes even flat out lying about why they are taking certain actions
B) Conducted without consideration for others in the region
C) Usually creates more enemies of the US than it rids
D) They never leave, ever

If the US really wants to use all of her power and riches to better the world.....dump it all into the UN and let an organization with 192 members deciding what action they take, not just one. You can argue about the UN's ability and it's shortcomings all you want but it's truly a better form of policing the world than one nation taking on the task.

Islamic countries don't have to coexist with America. America and these countries should remain about 7 thousand miles apart from each other. The US has military installations all over the place, which also ticks people off. Police the world, that's fine..I guess, but don't setup Police departments in every single freaking neighborhood. So....you seem to promote proactive measures to rid the world of military aggressive dictatorships. You mentioned Hitler...Hirohito....Hussein fits in there? Come on now, let's be serious. If you're looking for someone evil and aggressive you might want to start in North Korea. But they don't have any oil....so poor old Iraq just gets punched up again.

I don't really know what to say, you seem insistent that the US should police every nation for the betterment of that nation. They might not realize the benefit now, but they will in time. The US will rid the region of an evil dictator even though nobody in the region seemed to ask for it. The proximity to Iran might allow you to draw some conclusions on why they are there. If I didn't know better, with the 2 countries that have already been invaded, plus their military presence around the globe...and now the mentions of Iran, Syria, North Korea.....I'd swear the US is trying to slowly take over the world!
Which of course, staying somewhat on topic, doesn't make you very many friends. Again, I feel the only reason the US needs to police everybody and especially those they think have WMDs is because the US is on or near the top of the hit lists of these countries. Maybe fixing that would be safer and cheaper than these preemptive strikes that lead to insurgency and civil wars. But I guess future preemptive invasions could just use your advice and nuke the entire area ridding the world of those pests once and for all, right? Since this would make the US invasions so much easier and problem free compared to how they were...you could even term this type of attack as the 'Final Solution' to America's problems with Islamic nations.


GigsTaggart
Posted 17 May 2007 at 01:32 pm

Dizzee
Posted 17 May 2007 at 02:19 pm

Jeffrey93 said: "Come on now, let's be serious. If you're looking for someone evil and aggressive you might want to start in North Korea. But they don't have any oil….so poor old Iraq just gets punched up again. "

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

Oh man, cold hard facts make Jeff look like a buffoon (sp?) again =D Please take note how very little oil we receive from Iraq, if we lost our supply from them we would still have more than enough from our other suppliers. Anyone who CONTINUES to attempt this lame idea as a factor for us staying in Iraq is clearly ignorant and horribly misinformed.

Our government's actual reasons may not be to assist the country and encourage democracy but neither is it your silly claim. Critics don't want to believe we may actually be attempting something good, so they fish around for whatever they can find, no matter how foolish it makes them look.

And Jeff, if you are so very proud of your little Canada, maybe you should study up on some of its exports.


mayflowerChild
Posted 17 May 2007 at 02:32 pm

Wow! I guess this little tiraid will cause me to comment. DI article and a tribute to the American ability to adapt to the situation.

Now to the posts: I only read one person that mentioned the history of the US. We are terrorist according to bloody old England.

My family has been in this country since the mayflower and if you count my Native American heritage, since the beginning of this land. We sacrificed our lives for the independence of this terrorist nation from bloody old England with as much passion as the terrorists of today. We did not have a government or a uniform, just a passion to stop sending our hard earned resources over to that crown and to stop being treated like surfs for our ‘Posterity’. At least that is the legend in my family. My blood line has fought in every war or military conflict, including this one, and proud of it (except Vietnam). I hope this gives validation for me to speak about America and American values.

Here is some information for you to think about:

1) Wars are fought (by men) for two reasons; Resources and Religion.

2) America gets its Russian oil from one pipeline that dumps out in Israel and controlled by Israel. (Explain the dirty pictures they have on us)

3) A new pipeline has been proposed to come down through the mountains, through Afghanistan, and could hit the ocean somewhere around Iraq or Iran. I received this financial information in 1999 somewhere around the end of the year from a German resource.

4) The Iraqi terrorists are fighting for their resources and religion. This has always been and will be the most deadly of wars.

5) My nephew has been in the Military in Europe and Iraq since the beginning of this war. At the start of the war, it was called Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL). It is now called Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). The Military changed this because they did not want the war associated with oil at all, period, end of story.

Does this satisfy the conspiracy theorists?
And yes, America will look out for our own interests, because no one else will.

American greed (LOL), old world Europe taught us well. They are just angry because America plays better at their rules and has more resources.


Dizzee
Posted 17 May 2007 at 02:44 pm

Oh, also, if you will take a look at the economy of a few of the countries the US has occupied (Afghanistan, Cambodia, Cuba, Diego Garcia, Dominican Republic, Federated States of Micronesia, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guam, Haiti, Iraq, Japan, North Korea, Laos, Panama, Philippines, Puerto Rico, Somalia, South Korea, US Virgin Islands, and Vietnam), almost all of them has seen an increase in not only GNP but also higher levels of education reached for their children, longer life expectancy (this does not include countries where there are still civil wars and guerrilla warfare ongoing such as cuba but most of these deaths are inflicted by the hand of a person from the same country). Might I also point out that at one point in history or another, all current members of the UN occupied another nation, infact the UK still holds the record for most troops deployed to occupy various countries, over 700 million men since the end of WWI.

Stop trying to just assign the US as your little scapegoat. We are not the big bad wolf. We are not murderers and dictators and invaders. And don't try to say that just one man (or a small handful of men) makes our country's decisions. Because we are this lovely thing called a DEMOCRACY, the majority of our people (including those of other nationalities) agree and support our President and legislative branch. Bush was elected not once, but TWICE, the second time while we were in the middle of this war. He was even elected after his father overlooked this same (basically) conflict just a decade before. Thats a lot more people agreeing on one set of ideas than say...in Iraq for instance whose actions were previously governed by one violent and corrupt man. You see all these horrible images of children blown up by American bombs, rarely do you see the pictures of these same children being forced (or heavily persuaded) into firing on not only our troops but even their neighbors who are not resisting the US's assitance. You hardly ever hear the stories of the children whose lives are saved from civil warfare or women who are no longer in fear of being beaten or raped by their friends and relatives.

War happens, its part of human nature, even Canada has been involved in a few. This is a situation where the ends justify the means. Every country we have helped has prospered thus far, aside from those who still insist on waging war against their own countrymen.


just_dave
Posted 17 May 2007 at 03:39 pm

Good Lord; this is worse than the posts that devolve into creationist arguments. Almost as bad as the Argument Clinic. Or maybe worse.

Is anybody convincing anyone else of anything? Don't any of you have anything better to do?


Reaper
Posted 17 May 2007 at 05:04 pm

Well, it's obvious that we're not going to convince each other of our viewpoints. I know, I know...disagreement, on the INTERNET? Unheard of! :P

But anyways, here's my final post on the subject:

America is about the last thing that the people over there will be able to hit. I'm not worried about them getting nukes for my own or my country's sake. I'm worried about the people they WILL target if given the chance: Israel, Europe, India, Asia. Heck, save for North Korea, they'll have to march a nuke into our borders by hand if they can even get their hands on one.

You also have the gross misconception that I'm for the Iraq war. While it is true that I do see the benefits of success over there, Iraq wasn't posing any threat, and we should have stayed out. And yes, our handling of it was questionable. G.W. Sr. could have told us that; he didn't envelop Iraq in the Gulf War for the very reason we're having so much trouble now: no exit strategy. But that is beside the point. The benefits of leaving now are far outweighed by the disaster zone that Iraq will become should we leave prematurely.

Oh yeah, we never leave places we enter because the fools never get their act together. The second we leave is the second before some nutjob takes the place over with a pair of steel toe boots and a stick.

So basically,
1) A war with fanatical Islam is inevitable...why not get into it BEFORE they get and use nukes?
2) We don't occupy nations for our own benefit. We may GO IN for our benefit, but we stay because doing otherwise would be very detrimental to the region.
3) Meh, I think that's all.

Adieu! I look forward to reading the continued discourse on the subject :]


Reaper
Posted 17 May 2007 at 05:06 pm

Oh, and just_dave. It is fun to do this to reinforce our respective knowledge on the subjects being discussed. Even if we don't reach agreements, we learn what the "other" camp feels and are able to adjust our stance based on that...whether we admit defeat or not.


Old Man
Posted 17 May 2007 at 10:49 pm

I'm still going. Sorry for the long quotes:

Dizzee said: "
Jeff, ukskyman and oldman, grow some balls, stop defending terrorists just for the sake of creating an argument, you can't truly be so ignorant that you actually back and defend what you are saying. America is one of the youngest countries in the world and is the biggest superpower the world has ever seen. We have influence across the globe, have one of the richest economies, have some of the best technology, have the greatest army with the most loyal (even sometimes blindly) soldiers. Sure, we're in debt as a country, but there is a reason that the only attack on us in decades has been a handful of radicals attempting to shake things up, other governments either respect us or are afraid to screw with us.
"

I didn't defend terrorists. I just pointed out serious flaws in just_dave's diatribe. The usual witch hunt mechanism operates here: If you criticize us, you must be on their side, If you're not with us, you're against us, etc.

I'm with neither of you. I'm on my own side.

CardinalXimenes said: "It's amazing how perfectly people can explain Islamicist terrorist motivations without actually referencing anything they've written or said. For the bloodstained apostles of an elaborate ideological creed, these guys might as well be exceptionally violent autists for all that anyone actually listens to them or reads what they write.

Start with Sayyid Qutb, the father of modern Islamicism. His works are foundational for the modern conception of the rightful world rule of the Caliphate. Read the manifestos of Bin Laden. Read Zarkawi's letters. Listen to what these people are saying. Sure, the moderns are complaining about Israel and America and sunspots and toxic Jew banana plots, but their essential and driving principle is that the world needs to be under Islamic rule and that these heinous deeds are simply symptoms of its current reluctance to submit to Salafist rulership. The only and final cure for all these disorders will be the ascension of the global Caliphate and the universal submission of mankind to their particular breed of Wahabi fundamentalism.

These people are not mindless flatworms, subject only to reflexive avoidance and instinctive attraction. America does not control them, and it cannot make them shut up and sit down simply by abandoning Israel and paying danegeld. Not every philosophy is formed directly in response to Western ideologies and the West does not have the power to control the world simply by what it chooses to feel sorry about. For some who seem to be so tender-hearted towards the travails of the Other, a lot of people are no more willing to assign individual agency to terrorists than they are to their dogs."

I agree generally. I know little about your comment regarding Islam. For me, there is nothing praiseworthy about Islamic radicalism - it offends from beginning to end. But the US has lost the moral high ground.

I don't support the sets of ideals of the terrorists (though are the militias fighting in Iraq & Afghanistan really terrorists?). I do, however, think it is worthwhile trying to determine the causes of terrorism, sedition, and anti-US and anti-western sentiment.

And no one is suggesting that terrorists' hands are forced - they clearly act of their own volition.

To my mind, the effects of patriotism and nationalism are the same as those of religion - to bend, to obscure, to colour and to make untrue.

Dr. Evil said: "what drives an anarchist…hmmm…they could be very disillusioned with the governent and how they run the place?"

Make that governmentS and placeS. "Anarchism is a political philosophy or group of doctrines and attitudes centered on rejection of any form of compulsory government (cf. "state") and supporting its elimination."
from Wikipedia.


Old Man
Posted 17 May 2007 at 11:02 pm

What I really wanted to say was that between two evils, most right-thinking people will choose the lesser evil. But that doesn't mean it should be beyond criticism. An extremist is a person who views their own side as right, and their enemy's side as wrong, without any standards or sense of relative judgement whatsoever. An example might be those Americans who support the use of torture and the abandonment of prisoners' rights. Or people who support the random killing of civilians in Baghdad and New York.


ExperimentNo6
Posted 18 May 2007 at 12:34 am

"You can please all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but you can never please all of the people all of the time" - in short, no matter what anyone does, there are always going to be other angry over it.


Jeffrey93
Posted 18 May 2007 at 01:28 am

Dizzee said: "http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html


Oh man, cold hard facts make Jeff look like a buffoon (sp?) again =D Please take note how very little oil we receive from Iraq, if we lost our supply from them we would still have more than enough from our other suppliers. Anyone who CONTINUES to attempt this lame idea as a factor for us staying in Iraq is clearly ignorant and horribly misinformed.

Our government's actual reasons may not be to assist the country and encourage democracy but neither is it your silly claim. Critics don't want to believe we may actually be attempting something good, so they fish around for whatever they can find, no matter how foolish it makes them look.

And Jeff, if you are so very proud of your little Canada, maybe you should study up on some of its exports."

I'm not sure how our exports have anything to do with this, yeah we send the US a wackload of oil. Your point? You're in an energy crisis, you need more oil. Very shortly the world will be consuming more oil than it produces. Prices will skyrocket. Do you not think the US wants to set itself up to receive the most oil at the cheapest price?

It's comical that you use Iraq's current oil output as an argument. The oil output has been crippled due to conflicts and embargos against the country. As well, due to the conflicts and embargos Iraq has not been able to explore for more oil. Experts believe Iraq will be in the top 2 oil producers whenver they can get back on their feet.

And by the way...Saudi Arabia beats Canada by quite a bit in the 'Supply the US with Oil' campaign in '02. Geez..where were most, if not all, of the 9/11 terrorists from? I wonder why the US chose Afghanistan as the country to invade as retaliation for 9/11 instead of Saudi Arabia? Maybe it's was the 56.2 million barrels of oil they were getting from the Saudis.
But wait.....the attack on Afghanistan was to capture bin Laden...how's that going anyway? And Iraq for the WMD's right? Come on, sell me on that. Tell me THAT is the real reason and that oil has absolutely nothing to do with it. Good luck. Of course nobody will admit that the vast oil reserves in Iraq influenced their decision to invade, just like the boss won't admit the gorgeous secretary he just hired was hired because she's hot. But we all know that it was at least a factor. Everything is done for a reason, and 'spreading freedom/democracy' isn't an f'ing reason. You don't spend trillions of dollars just to do somebody a favour.


Jeffrey93
Posted 18 May 2007 at 01:32 am

Reaper said: "Oh, and just_dave. It is fun to do this to reinforce our respective knowledge on the subjects being discussed. Even if we don't reach agreements, we learn what the "other" camp feels and are able to adjust our stance based on that…whether we admit defeat or not."

I second that. Not in this case, but often I take the less popular side just to educate myself on how people on that side must be thinking and what makes them take that side, I often don't agree with it. But, I will argue for it. It's a good way to learn how the other side feels. Arguing period is educational. We won't solve anything here....but we may learn something from it all. It's rare but sometimes you will convince somebody to think differently, other times you can open a reader's eyes a bit more, other times you simply bicker back and forth and nobody benefits at all. It sure is fun though!!


klone
Posted 18 May 2007 at 01:48 am

anarchists don't rob banks!


Dave Group
Posted 18 May 2007 at 02:58 am

thingummy said: "Fascinating and DI article, Alan. It's amazing how quickly events like this sink into relative obscurity.


In 80 years will 9/11 be similarly forgotten?"

Already, a significant percentage of Americans do not remember what year the WTC attacks occurred.


Wolfie
Posted 18 May 2007 at 03:53 am

Lael said: "All US presidents were and still are part of some Secret Society. All revolutions created by Secret Societies. Germany's Adolf Hitler also part of Secret Societies. The first and second world war planned and excecuted by these Secret Societies. The Third world war is predicted to be between the Muslims and the Jews.


Yes, all these people fight in the name of their god. It has been thus since the beginning of time. All these radical faiths to counter the God of the Bible. They were led to Israel with all sorts of magnificent wonders. Satan with his Secret Societies had to stop God's people and God's faith reaching the globe as a whole. So all these other faiths are created. All to reach one point - Atheism. Creating a world that do not believe in God, cause why would God let this happen?

Secret Society creed, Ordo ab chao (or something of the like), meaning order out of chaos. They create chaos (everywhere, around the world) so they can supply the remidy - either no faith, or ONE faith. And it will not be faith in God of the Bible. And still people think all this war is about something physical (land, oil, money or even peace). And still YOU and just about everybody else refuse to look at yourselfs, and your own leaders, your own country, your own soul!

Have you ever asked who "created" the Muslim faith, the Budhistic faith, the New Age faith, Darwinism, Atheism or even Catholisism (and many more)? Why was it "created"? The world as a whole (in one language) tried to build Babylon to reach up to God. So was the languages counfounded by God, for man's wickedness. And now the world is still at war, but to reach unity through chaos."

Lear your scary. Do you really see yourself as different to the radical extremists that you hate so much? Your type of intollerance is what fuels religous extremism! The question has to be raised why did god wait so long to tell us the true way then. Hinduism, Budhism and Judaism have been around a lot longer (Druid and shaman based religions even longer) than Christianity.

Secondly, I thought I had to mention one fact that had been missed by this debate. I had never heard the word insurgant (not sure on the spelling) prior to this conflict. The reason its being used is because usually if this was kind of campaign was being conducted by say Russia or an African nation instead of Americans and British the term used would be Freedom fighters, resistance or rebels. The very fact that we are to believe that weapons and exposives are being supplied by outside influences like Iran and Pakistan is farcical. Both Iraq and Afghanistan have an attatchment and facination with the gun similar to the Americas as a result both countries are flooded with weapons. Add to this a growing resentment for the occupying forces and it is clear that they don't need any help in organising an armed resistance!

Finally, I believe (though many others wouldn't) that both Iraq and Afghanistan were both conflicts to secure a safe passage for a new oil pipeline and had nothing to do with terrorism, WMD or freeing the world from tyranny. Both conflicts were and are clumsy, poorly planned and rushed and as a result we will be reaping the whirlwind for many years to come.


Dizzee
Posted 18 May 2007 at 06:32 am

Sorry Jeff, but I'm afraid you are mistaken again. Like I said before oil may have been ONE of our reasons but it was not the primary one. And as you stated yourself, Saudi Arabia WAS our primary supplier, but when our ability to get it from them was dampened, we found somewhere else to get it. This means that we don't NEED Iraq for its oil...at all. Most of the oil we receive from them now is through independent companies, who could always find a way to circumvent laws that a different government might have put against trade with the US. Another interesting development (that is actually not at all recent but was discovered actually discovered in 1935) is the invention of the Hydrolytic Carburetor. An engine that uses water, salt, and a common metal alloy to produce hydrogen gas that requires no oxygen to operate and produces no pollution. (WARNING I am going to sound a little conspiracy theorist here myself) The reason this technology has not been introduced yet is not because it is unmarketable or unusable, but because of the extreme impact it would have on the world's economy. GE purchased the patent for this from its inventor Charles Garrett and it has been under lock and key since. However, due to the laws regarding the length of time one can retain a patent, this technology will soon be available for use by anyone. My point here is that oil is a dwindling resource, but in all truth, it is not one that we actually NEED, just one that we rely on because of how it effects trade and economy. If America could no longer receive oil, we would find a way around needing it. And if you want to try to argue that water is also a dwindling resource, I'm afraid you are wrong there as well. GE has recently introduced technology that may be able to effectively filter ocean water into fresh, usable water. Aside from that however, the Hydrolytic Carburetor doesn't even require fresh water to operate, it requires salt water, which is found across 70% of the world. So, people who continue to be ignorant and argue that our motivation is oil, please do your research before spouting off that nonsense.

Info on the Carburetor:

http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/watercar/h20car2.htm
http://www.keelynet.com/energy/garrett.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_vehicle


Dizzee
Posted 18 May 2007 at 07:41 am

Dizzee said: "(that is actually not at all recent but was discovered actually discovered in 1935) "

Ugh typos FTL...

"that is actually not at all recent but was discovered in 1935"


ukskyman
Posted 18 May 2007 at 09:01 am

Dizzee said: "Sorry Jeff, but I'm afraid you are mistaken again. Like I said before oil may have been ONE of our reasons but it was not the primary one. And as you stated yourself, Saudi Arabia WAS our primary supplier, but when our ability to get it from them was dampened, we found somewhere else to get it. This means that we don't NEED Iraq for its oil…at all. Most of the oil we receive from them now is through independent companies, who could always find a way to circumvent laws that a different government might have put against trade with the US. Another interesting development (that is actually not at all recent but was discovered actually discovered in 1935) is the invention of the Hydrolytic Carburetor. An engine that uses water, salt, and a common metal alloy to produce hydrogen gas that requires no oxygen to operate and produces no pollution. (WARNING I am going to sound a little conspiracy theorist here myself) The reason this technology has not been introduced yet is not because it is unmarketable or unusable, but because of the extreme impact it would have on the world's economy. GE purchased the patent for this from its inventor Charles Garrett and it has been under lock and key since. However, due to the laws regarding the length of time one can retain a patent, this technology will soon be available for use by anyone. My point here is that oil is a dwindling resource, but in all truth, it is not one that we actually NEED, just one that we rely on because of how it effects trade and economy. If America could no longer receive oil, we would find a way around needing it. And if you want to try to argue that water is also a dwindling resource, I'm afraid you are wrong there as well. GE has recently introduced technology that may be able to effectively filter ocean water into fresh, usable water. Aside from that however, the Hydrolytic Carburetor doesn't even require fresh water to operate, it requires salt water, which is found across 70% of the world. So, people who continue to be ignorant and argue that our motivation is oil, please do your research before spouting off that nonsense.


Info on the Carburetor:

http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/watercar/h20car2.htm
http://www.keelynet.com/energy/garrett.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_vehicle"

One of those links is VERY funny (nobody with half a brain would take it seriously)
I quote (and this is a genuine reason to explain the need for their invention):

"the normal oxygen content of our air is 21 percent. But in some places it is only a fraction of that! In Tokyo, Japan, for example, the oxygen content of the air has dipped to 6 or 7 percent. If it reaches 5 percent, people will begin to die"

It all reminds me of Baldrick attempting alchemy - 'we have made some of the finest green'.
This is utter garbage - but by FAR the best (ie. nuts) excuse I have heard for why the current slaughter of innocents is OK.


Thag
Posted 18 May 2007 at 09:43 am

Wolfie said: ... The very fact that we are to believe that weapons and exposives are being supplied by outside influences like Iran and Pakistan is farcical. Both Iraq and Afghanistan have an attatchment and facination with the gun similar to the Americas as a result both countries are flooded with weapons. Add to this a growing resentment for the occupying forces and it is clear that they don't need any help in organising an armed resistance!


Finally, I believe (though many others wouldn't) that both Iraq and Afghanistan were both conflicts to secure a safe passage for a new oil pipeline and had nothing to do with terrorism, WMD or freeing the world from tyranny. Both conflicts were and are clumsy, poorly planned and rushed and as a result we will be reaping the whirlwind for many years to come."

I respect your beliefs but I must interject some facts that contradict you beliefs. I will speak only of Afghanistan as I was there and I don't know anything about Iraq.

Yes the country is flooded with weapons, you can't swing a dead goat without setting off a landmine. (Courtesy USSR, China and NK) The current national policy of the Afghan government is for all citizens to relinquish every weapon/explosive/RPG save for one rifle per home for defense. The majority of people I have spoken with (literally hundreds) are pleased and supportive of their governments' policy. This has hampered the offensive operations of the two main insurgent/freedom fighting forces. As a result they are relying on what they can steal or what they are given from Iran and Pakistan. I have personally been involved in seizures of truckloads of weapons and explosives coming across the border from Pakistan. Pakistan is the home of the Madrassas that recruit, pervert Islam and train young impressionable men to kill anyone associated with the US or ISAF. These schools are widely known throughout the Balochistan region and are condoned or ignored by the Paki gov't. Pakistan supported and continues to fund the Taliban and anyone willing to assist them. Spend 15 minutes on Google and see for yourself. The Paki military openly fires upon US and ISAF troops on a weekly basis, without retaliation. BTW ISAF controls roughly 75% of the territory in Afghanistan now, US 25%.

The decision to invade Afghanistan was to attack and destroy all of the terrorist training camps throughout the country and to bust up the Taliban and Al-Queda for supporting Bin Laden. Once there it was realized that the country was a wasteland. Life expectancy 42, 40% of kids dead before reaching 5, GDP per cap/year $600, no power/clean water for 90+% of the country etc. The US decided to stay. The US and ISAF have built hundreds of schools for boys AND girls, hundreds of miles of paved roads, thousands of wells for clean water, provided training and medical facilities that reach hundreds of thousands, provided stability that allowed the first elections EVER, blah, blah, blah.

The "growing resentment for the occupying forces" is untrue. The majority of Afghans welcome the US/ISAF and are eager to take their place in modern society. They realize they need international help. They are against the radicals that attempt to undermine these combined efforts and are appreciative of the assistance the international community has given them. Like many countries throughout history the violent radical minority is able to exert their will over the majority. Entire villages are taken over by a dozen armed Taliban and the executions begin for: kite-flying, female full-facial nudity, music, clean-shaven men. The Olympic pool in Kabul was used for this purpose every Friday. I don't think any reasonable human would be able to agree with this sort of policy.

If the popular view of the US occupation of Afghanistan is for oil, then a lot of people need to wake up, turn off the TV and do some research, or ask some Afghans.


Dizzee
Posted 18 May 2007 at 10:17 am

Jeff...why do you CONTINUE to make yourself look like a horse's ass? Study facts before you dismiss them as fantasy.

http://www.airproducts.com/nr/rdonlyres/35b1bc31-7c0e-455b-a723-8255ff28ddba/0/safetygram17.pdf

and I quote "The normal Oxygen content of air is approximately 21%. Nitrogen is the other primary compotent of air at 78%"

And I never claimed this as an excuse to slaughter innocents, I'm saying that this is a reason why oil ISNT our excuse for "slaughtering innocents" (innocents? men women and children who not only attack and kill U.S. soldiers with suicide bombings and the like but also attack and kill their own countrymen? anyone who does this or is even raised to believe this is far from innocent)

Just be quiet Jeff, you are burying yourself.

more links just incase the one didn't suite you:

http://thenaturalhealthplace.com/Articles/Oxygen.html (this one by the way states that if it drops below 7% that it is uninhabitable by humans, but it does state that in major cities it is as low as 12%, so the original quote you laughed at was off a little but the basic idea of air being close to unbreathable was founded)

http://www.appliedozone.com/oxygen_deficiency_disease.html
http://www.uigi.com/air.html

Dizzee - 2
Jeff - still nothing, how sad.


Dizzee
Posted 18 May 2007 at 10:24 am

Thag said: "If the popular view of the US occupation of Afghanistan is for oil, then a lot of people need to wake up, turn off the TV and do some research, or ask some Afghans."

yay!


Reaper
Posted 18 May 2007 at 10:50 am

Dizzee, that wasn't Jeff. It was ukskyman. :)

Also, I love you Thag.

Carry on!


agooga
Posted 18 May 2007 at 10:53 am

The absolute reality of war, terrorism and hegemony is that there are no rules. I don't expect the Jihadis to play by any; I don't expect the west to play by any.

What we seem to forget in our pampered, western comfort is that this world is still a jungle, and it's still very much a game of survival-- and the game is still IN PLAY.

Don't pollute your minds with thoughts that the Jihadi's want the redress of grievances for perceived or real past wrongs. They do not. They want to dominate the world.

Don't pollute your minds with thoughts that America and the west is a strictly beneveloent entity that wants only to help other nations prospire and advance into the brotherhood of man. We want to dominate the world, too.

But, DO ask yourself who is the better steward of man and earth? Who is better qualified to lead? To whom would you rather bow?

I am not a free man now, and there is no such thing for the vast majority of us. There will someday be a one world government-- that is my firm belief. I would rather be the subject of a western-style government than an Islamic one.

When two vastly different cultures intersect, one eventually consumes the other. In the past, vast distances and barriers often prevented two cultures from clashing. These barriers do not now exist anywhere.

The illusion of the possibility of peace has vanished.


Dizzee
Posted 18 May 2007 at 11:41 am

lol sorry jeff =) you get one of my points

jeff - 1
Dizzee - 1
ukskyman - goose egg.


Dizzee
Posted 18 May 2007 at 11:49 am

Alan - this site needs to have the option to edit your own posts


Reaper
Posted 18 May 2007 at 02:31 pm

What needs to happen is the elimination of this comment system and the implementation of a forum. That way we can edit our posts and create context specific threads should a conversation deviate from the topic of the article's comment thread. Best of all though, moderators could...well, moderate the overtly inflammatory threads.


Jeffrey93
Posted 18 May 2007 at 03:05 pm

Dizzee said: "Sorry Jeff, but I'm afraid you are mistaken again. Like I said before oil may have been ONE of our reasons but it was not the primary one. And as you stated yourself, Saudi Arabia WAS our primary supplier, but when our ability to get it from them was dampened, we found somewhere else to get it. This means that we don't NEED Iraq for its oil…at all. Most of the oil we receive from them now is through independent companies, who could always find a way to circumvent laws that a different government might have put against trade with the US. Another interesting development (that is actually not at all recent but was discovered actually discovered in 1935) is the invention of the Hydrolytic Carburetor. An engine that uses water, salt, and a common metal alloy to produce hydrogen gas that requires no oxygen to operate and produces no pollution. (WARNING I am going to sound a little conspiracy theorist here myself) The reason this technology has not been introduced yet is not because it is unmarketable or unusable, but because of the extreme impact it would have on the world's economy. GE purchased the patent for this from its inventor Charles Garrett and it has been under lock and key since. However, due to the laws regarding the length of time one can retain a patent, this technology will soon be available for use by anyone. My point here is that oil is a dwindling resource, but in all truth, it is not one that we actually NEED, just one that we rely on because of how it effects trade and economy. If America could no longer receive oil, we would find a way around needing it. And if you want to try to argue that water is also a dwindling resource, I'm afraid you are wrong there as well. GE has recently introduced technology that may be able to effectively filter ocean water into fresh, usable water. Aside from that however, the Hydrolytic Carburetor doesn't even require fresh water to operate, it requires salt water, which is found across 70% of the world. So, people who continue to be ignorant and argue that our motivation is oil, please do your research before spouting off that nonsense.

Info on the Carburetor:

http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/watercar/h20car2.htm

http://www.keelynet.com/energy/garrett.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_vehicle"

Again, quite funny. Yeah...I don't NEED oil either, but I'd prefer to have it. Oil companies aren't going to roll over and die and since they are huge lobbyists and big supporters of politicians I can't see the focus being taken off oil anytime soon. If I usually buy my gas from Station A, but Station B offers a better price and less hassle at the pumps...I think I'm going to see if I can become a customer of Station B (Iraq) instead of Station A (Saudis).

What I'd like to know is, if we Canucks give you guys so much oil...how come you aren't our bitch like you are to the Saudis?

Just admitting that oil is ONE of the reasons is enough for me. I think it was more of a reason, you don't. We'll never know for sure. I do know however, that WMDs and 'spreading freedom' weren't reasons at all.
I'm glad to see I'm on the scoreboard though...yay me!


Jeffrey93
Posted 18 May 2007 at 03:06 pm

Reaper said: "What needs to happen is the elimination of this comment system and the implementation of a forum. That way we can edit our posts and create context specific threads should a conversation deviate from the topic of the article's comment thread. Best of all though, moderators could…well, moderate the overtly inflammatory threads."

I agree...although message boards/forums take a lot of effort and moderation. And I usually get kicked off of them, damn mods. If they don't agree with you they tend to send you packin'.


Reaper
Posted 18 May 2007 at 06:29 pm

BAHH! I just have to respond:

Jeffrey93 said: "What I'd like to know is, if we Canucks give you guys so much oil…how come you aren't our bitch like you are to the Saudis?"

Because Canada won't flip out and threaten nuclear war if we don't pamper you :P The Saudis, however, do a pretty good job of terrorizing the world covertly. God help us all if they stop tryin' to hide it.


Jeffrey93
Posted 18 May 2007 at 10:21 pm

Reaper said: "BAHH! I just have to respond:

Because Canada won't flip out and threaten nuclear war if we don't pamper you :P The Saudis, however, do a pretty good job of terrorizing the world covertly. God help us all if they stop tryin' to hide it."

Well that just isn't fair. First order of business...shut off our sale of oil to the US until they stop changing the f'ing game times of the NHL playoffs to cater to NBC. Damn Yanks!!! Nothing like being forced to watch Hockey NIGHT in Canada at 2 in the afternoon!!! Stupid NBC.

You want our Oil??? You show hockey games when WE tell you to show them! Or else we'll get the Brits and Natives in our country to head down to DC and burn yer white house again!

WE HAVE THE OIL! STOP MESSING WITH OUR HOCKEY SCHEDULING!!!


dwibby
Posted 18 May 2007 at 11:26 pm

Jeffrey93 said: "Well that just isn't fair. First order of business…shut off our sale of oil to the US until they stop changing the f'ing game times of the NHL playoffs to cater to NBC. Damn Yanks!!! Nothing like being forced to watch Hockey NIGHT in Canada at 2 in the afternoon!!! Stupid NBC.


You want our Oil??? You show hockey games when WE tell you to show them! Or else we'll get the Brits and Natives in our country to head down to DC and burn yer white house again!

WE HAVE THE OIL! STOP MESSING WITH OUR HOCKEY SCHEDULING!!!"

Hockey? Hockey?! You best back off before we cut off your Hockey altogether.

Of course, we could always just drive you insane by doing something along the lines of the XHL. Get some skaterboarder kids, ala Bam Margera, make the puck a hot pink spinning hubcap, set up a disco/laser light show on the ice during play. I'm sure we could come up with at least 20 other ways to drive you crazy. Don't make us have a recap of the XFL.


Reaper
Posted 19 May 2007 at 08:31 am

dwibby said: "Hockey? Hockey?! You best back off before we cut off your Hockey altogether."

And the Amerikkan Empire rears its ugly head again. You do not know the meaning of negotiation; you simply
bully and coerce until your demand are met. You filthy pigs disgust me!


Bionicman
Posted 19 May 2007 at 05:47 pm

Hmm, just typical. It seems to me that when anarchists are actually mentioned historically or in any other place, it's either as terrorists (although some are....) or masked kids throwing rocks at riot coppers (well, on other hand.... nothing wrong with that!). Being an idea that I thorougly believe could solve many of the problems that lead to such acts of terrorism, anarchism have some major PR problems.....


dwibby
Posted 19 May 2007 at 08:48 pm

Reaper said: "And the Amerikkan Empire rears its ugly head again. You do not know the meaning of negotiation; you simply

bully and coerce until your demand are met. You filthy pigs disgust me!"

Negotiations? We don't need no stinkin' negotiations. But I tell ya what, we'll be nice enough to let Canada decide what they want us to do.

Canada, your choices are give us an unrestricted direct pipeline to the oil and total control over hockey, or let us use your country as a military base. It's up to you. Heck, we'll even let you do both.


Reaper
Posted 19 May 2007 at 09:12 pm

Er, uhh...FILTHY AMERIKKAN PIGS! Your evils will not go unpunished! We righteous few will fight to the last man in defense of our desire subjugate you! By way of extinguishing our own lives, we will demonstrate to the populace of your sick and twisted country the depth of our devotion to the cause...of killing all of you! En garde!

*blows himself up*

Yeah...how'd you like THEM apples. I bet you're shaking in your boots now!


Charlene
Posted 19 May 2007 at 09:38 pm

Except I doubt envy had anything to do with it. Americans (and, presumably, Ancient Romans) have this immense, unshakable, but batshit insane idea that everyone on earth is pining to become one of them. Americans especially cannot shake the idea that every citizen in the world would jump to become an American citizen.

This is bullshit propaganda you've been spoonfed by your government to make you feel superior. Most people in the world don't want to be American. Most would rather take a bullet to the head than become an American.

The idea makes you feel better about yourself (and condescendingly arrogant towards others), which I suppose is the reason they want you to believe it. But it isn't true.


tednugentkicksass
Posted 20 May 2007 at 12:25 am

Dizzee said: "Alan - this site needs to have the option to edit your own posts"

I second that. Get rid of all these un-connected responses few people want to read. I admit I'm as easily sucked into this mess as anybody, but this whole line of conversation takes away from the original story. Everybody, including myself, needs to look at the potential swaying power of their own comments (which is virtually zero). I think if everybody would just read the article before each comment (disregarding any previous statements), there would be a huge decline in argumentative posts.

Even an argumentative s.o.b such as myself sees this crap is going nowhere. Bashing conspiracy theorists is fun, but otherwise there is just self-edification. I apologise for any arguments started by myself and I hope others do likewise-- it's boring to hear group-edifying statements bandied to-and-fro.

Anti-american and anti-american bull should be dismissed as spurious comments from here henceforth. ( I realize I have little say on the matter, but PLEASE!! it's total crap {I have good memories of people posting that which is other than total opinion in the past})


tednugentkicksass
Posted 20 May 2007 at 12:27 am

I meant pro-american the second time 'round... I hope you can see the point through my personal, drunken stupor.


tednugentkicksass
Posted 20 May 2007 at 12:31 am

and I love Canadians despite their maple syrup, flapjack, and hockey inspired ideals. I mean come on, you guys sent us Steve Nash. You're more american than I am.


Dr. Evil
Posted 20 May 2007 at 12:48 am

is it time for a new article soon...my brain needs more food


Reaper
Posted 20 May 2007 at 06:57 am

Charlene said: "The idea makes you feel better about yourself (and condescendingly arrogant towards others), which I suppose is the reason they want you to believe it. But it isn't true."

I hereby submit that it is true, thereby supplying an argument with as much factual basis as your own. You have met your equal, Charlene. I await your next move.


Old Man
Posted 20 May 2007 at 10:57 pm

Dr. Evil said: "is it time for a new article soon…my brain needs more food"

I second that. Plus work is sooooo boring.


Jeffrey93
Posted 21 May 2007 at 02:34 am

Charlene said: "Except I doubt envy had anything to do with it. Americans (and, presumably, Ancient Romans) have this immense, unshakable, but batshit insane idea that everyone on earth is pining to become one of them. Americans especially cannot shake the idea that every citizen in the world would jump to become an American citizen.

This is bullshit propaganda you've been spoonfed by your government to make you feel superior. Most people in the world don't want to be American. Most would rather take a bullet to the head than become an American.

The idea makes you feel better about yourself (and condescendingly arrogant towards others), which I suppose is the reason they want you to believe it. But it isn't true."

Spot on. I don't think you'll get many people agreeing with you though. Pretty much everyone I know has told me that they would never, ever move to the US. I travel there frequently and don't mind the areas that much, but there is something about living there permanently that changes your thinking. You realize you won't just be 'visiting' anymore....that you'd be "one of them". And very few people want to be "one of them". Well, except maybe those illegal Mexican people that keep storming to the US.


Reaper
Posted 21 May 2007 at 09:28 am

There's a huge difference between a Canadian/European not wanting to be American and someone from a place with a lifestyle that actually differs from America not wanting to be an American. Denigrate us all you want, but chances are that your lifestyle is very similar to that of the everyday American, except we generally work longer hours.

Also, there's a huge difference between some underfed African living in a mud hut saying that he wouldn't do it and actually refusing the opportunity to permanently change his lot in life. People only say they wouldn't do it because they're not being presented an easy opportunity.

To put it simply, talk is cheap. Anybody would live in "the western world" if actually given the opportunity. Only when they know it ain't gonna happen do they stand up and say, "no!" to the American Way™.


Richard
Posted 21 May 2007 at 09:33 am

First of all, thank you Alan for doing a far better job with this subject than I could have.

I had a feeling this would spark some lively discussion!

Personally, as one of the many people who were at work in Manhattan on 9/11, I find the most interesting aspect of this terror bombing is that there's no memorial (other than the marks on the facade, which, to those who know, are a far more poignant reminder than any statue or plaque could ever be). To me, the bickering of the "9/11 Survivors" that has delayed rebuilding (one group even went so far as to halt things by protesting a *proposed* exhibit at a museum that *hadn't even been built yet*!) for years is one of the most disgusting things about the incident.

Today, it seems that whenever someone dies violently, the "professional mourners" swoop in and have memorial services, call for monuments and other permanent reminders of the tragedy, and generally prevent people from coming to terms with their personal loss and moving on.


SparkyTWP
Posted 21 May 2007 at 10:59 am

Once again, I submit to the admins that the comment section needs to be redesigned. It's way too easy to derail the discussion.


Reaper
Posted 21 May 2007 at 12:00 pm

Richard said: "Personally, as one of the many people who were at work in Manhattan on 9/11, I find the most interesting aspect of this terror bombing is that there's no memorial (other than the marks on the facade, which, to those who know, are a far more poignant reminder than any statue or plaque could ever be). To me, the bickering of the "9/11 Survivors" that has delayed rebuilding (one group even went so far as to halt things by protesting a *proposed* exhibit at a museum that *hadn't even been built yet*!) for years is one of the most disgusting things about the incident.

Today, it seems that whenever someone dies violently, the "professional mourners" swoop in and have memorial services, call for monuments and other permanent reminders of the tragedy, and generally prevent people from coming to terms with their personal loss and moving on."

Too true. Perhaps the most poignant statement that could be made at the former WTC buildings is for them to simply be rebuilt bigger and stronger. Tell the world that they can't affect us with such tactics. Instead, we've still got a smoking crater there, which is sending a message of success, if anything. Oh well.


Jeffrey93
Posted 21 May 2007 at 12:39 pm

Reaper said: "There's a huge difference between a Canadian/European not wanting to be American and someone from a place with a lifestyle that actually differs from America not wanting to be an American. Denigrate us all you want, but chances are that your lifestyle is very similar to that of the everyday American, except we generally work longer hours.


Also, there's a huge difference between some underfed African living in a mud hut saying that he wouldn't do it and actually refusing the opportunity to permanently change his lot in life. People only say they wouldn't do it because they're not being presented an easy opportunity.

To put it simply, talk is cheap. Anybody would live in "the western world" if actually given the opportunity. Only when they know it ain't gonna happen do they stand up and say, "no!" to the American Way™."

I'm not speaking ill of Americans. I simply just don't want to be one. And that underfed African living in a mud hut might take the opportunity to live in America, but you are presenting it like it would without question be his first choice. Non-Americans realize we live in nice places but don't think we are the ONE place that everyone wants to live in. That African might want to live in Australlia or England or Sweden or Switzerland or France. All GREAT places to live...if only given the choice of America, sure...he might take it. Americans believe, or at least give the impression that they believe, it would obviously be his first choice to live in the USA, when in reality it might not even be in his Top 10.

The lifestyle that living in the USA offers is a drawing feature, for sure. However, the idea of being "an American" is less than appealing to most. I see protests conducted by illegal immigrants in the USA that crossed the Mexcio/USA border, they aren't happy with the government. And they CHOSE to relocate, illegally might I add, to the US. And they protest.

There is a big difference between wanting a better life for yourself by moving to the US, and actually liking the fact that you live in America and are now an American.

Before you go making assumptions, I was offered a VERY attractive offer from a company in Houston. I thought about it for a while and ultimately turned down the offer. Simply because I didn't want to live in the US. I'll be honest, I would have been better off if I had taken it (financially), but I would've been living in Texas and in the United States. Which I didn't want to do. To simplify, I prefered to make less money and stay in Canada than move to the US and make more money and pay less taxes. You might see that as stupid...my graduating class was full of "stupid" people though.

Not everyone wants to live in the US or "western world" for that matter. People don't just say 'No to America' because they aren't being given the opportunity. If I had to move out of Canada, the US would rank in the Top 20 on my choices of where to live, it'd be towards the bottom of the list as well. Quality of life is much better in other countries. Does that mean I'm not saying 'No' to America?


Silverhill
Posted 21 May 2007 at 04:16 pm

Jeffrey93 said: "Non-Americans realize we live in nice places but don't think we are the ONE place that everyone wants to live in."

No, not the ONE place, but the US still attracts more immigrants (or would-be immigrants) than elsewhere, IIRC.

"The lifestyle that living in the USA offers is a drawing feature, for sure. However, the idea of being 'an American' is less than appealing to most. I see protests conducted by illegal immigrants in the USA that crossed the Mexcio/USA border, they aren't happy with the government. And they CHOSE to relocate, illegally might I add, to the US. And they protest."

Fortunately for them, the USA at least allows them the opportunity to voice their protests while the issue of what to do with them in the long term is still being worked on. Even though everyone knows that, technically, they have no (civil) rights at all while in the US.

"Not everyone wants to live in the US or 'western world' for that matter." ... Quality of life is much better in other countries."

I am by no means saying that the US is a paradise, and that anyone who thinks differently cannot be right, BUT: consider that you don't see news reports about desperate boatloads of, say, Cubans trying to make it to the Dominican Republic, or Haitians trying to make it to Cuba. No one tries to smuggle truckloads of Zimbabweans into South Africa for thousands of (dollar equivalents) apiece. Etc.


Reaper
Posted 21 May 2007 at 07:54 pm

I'm mainly suggesting that no balanced human being would rather be "shot in the head" than move to America. Also, just because the news that echoes to your locale resoundingly states that America is #1 doesn't make it anywhere near true. America is the freest country in the world; that is the only indisputable fact. However, that very fact places us all over the dartboard on other affairs. We know this, despite what you may hear. Just like we know that Iran and North Korea's entire populace aren't livid zealots despite seeing little else of them.

I'll also mention that not moving to the US solely because of the stigma placed upon you by people with no bearing in your life is actually a shallow thing to do. Besides, I hardly believe that it was the only -- or the most significant -- factor at play. To say otherwise implies that 1) you care what uninvolved, uninformed people think of you, and 2) you think your life as "Jeffrey, the American" will be fundamentally different than "Jeffrey, the Canadian." The only change you'd experience is the obvious one: a rise in temperature. Hell, you'll even have an opportunity to peaceably enact change in this superpower-gone-wrong. The same holds true for the rest of the western world. There will be some changes in the cultural nuances, but chances are that you'll barely see a difference. Cuz, heh, believe it or not, not everybody in America is a 300lb factory worker wearing a wife beater stained with the Whopper protruding from his mouth so he has a free hand to wave his second American flag. You decry Americans based on this stigma when doing so is just as misguided as you perceive us to be.


gabriel123
Posted 23 May 2007 at 03:23 am

Two things come to mind that may be useful.

First, looking at power structures, e.g. from a sociological view. For example, that in certain situations there is a superstructure and supporting structure - a hierarchical relationship; and they reinforce each other. So here that would be the U.S., which suppresses whatever it wishes, and others, who rebel and give the U.S. a reason to suppress them. Also related is cultural hegemony.

These are really good topics to look into - there's a lot in there.

Second, I recommend the book Taliban by Ahmed Rashid. It's one of the most informative books I've ever read on the genesis of the Taliban. Highly highly recommended.

(at Amazon.com: http://amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/102-3728934-2032931?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=taliban&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=Go)


gabriel123
Posted 23 May 2007 at 03:38 am

Jeffrey93 said: "Spot on. I don't think you'll get many people agreeing with you though. Pretty much everyone I know has told me that they would never, ever move to the US. I travel there frequently and don't mind the areas that much, but there is something about living there permanently that changes your thinking. You realize you won't just be 'visiting' anymore….that you'd be "one of them". And very few people want to be "one of them". Well, except maybe those illegal Mexican people that keep storming to the US."

Jeffrey - great comments so far.

On the subject of South American immigrants to the U.S.... they don't want to come here because they think America is a wonderful place for a myriad of reasons... they come here to work. Their economies, broadly speaking, are so poor that there is barely any work. Sometimes they can't even get jobs that pay pennies. They have the idea that they can get work in the U.S. and that's reinforced by stories from their countrymen as well as imported American media, and other sources. That's why they come here and send money back. Often one person will come here, work full time, and support their whole family back home.

What I'm saying is: when you have to make a decision about feeding your family, you do whatever it takes.

*****
Also,
As someone who lives in this country, I know that it has many wonderful qualities, and many different kinds of people. America is the famous "melting pot" and that still holds true today. While there are many who couldn't think more highly of every single thing our current government does, there are many others as well. Not all Americans are "one of them" because we're all different.


nairobired
Posted 23 May 2007 at 10:00 am

whoa. seems im getting in a little late on this lovely discussion.
but, here's an essay i read awhile ago on terrorism. i really really liked it.

http://www.americanrespect.com/essayv3.htm


HiEv
Posted 23 May 2007 at 02:31 pm

Wow. That's quite a lot of comments that are based in false information and/or using bogus logic to find all in one place. I'd be more specific, but then I'd only increase my odds of adding to the noise. Not that there weren't any good comments, but you'd need a shovel to find 'em. In short I'll just say that there are a lot of people who either think they understand the terrorists or think that there is nothing to understand about the terrorists, when they both just plain have no clue why the terrorists work and are only fooling themselves. How many of you are even aware of the stated reasons for 9/11? Please, do some research. That's what I did.

Oh, and Dizzee, regarding your "Garrett water-car conspiracy," people have looked at that patent, and the reason why it isn't used is not because it's a threat to the economy, but because it simply doesn't work very efficiently at all. With the current demand for gasoline-free emission-free cars GE would be fools to keep that technology "under lock and key" if it actually worked. Heck, it's just a patent, that wouldn't keep some other countries from using the plans nor would it keep people from applying it in other areas. You could safely bet that the fact that this has not happened is because the technology just doesn't work. Ukskyman was also right in pointing out that the claim that Tokyo's oxygen levels are around "6 or 7%" appears to be utter garbage. That claim only seems to be repeated on pseudoscience energy websites, and I can find no real data backing up that assertion. Rather ironic that you ended the post where you brought up the Garrett engine with, "please do your research before spouting off that nonsense."


Reaper
Posted 23 May 2007 at 05:38 pm

HiEv, I'm not going to get really deep into this, but they can say whatever they want -- it means nothing. They are a very decentralized movement, and what one sect says doesn't necessarily reflect what another one says. Yeah, it does sound like a cop-out, but that's what I see in the Muslim world's rampant infighting.

I think the leaders want what every leader wants...power. They just have the single-rule style of government and the funding to render their desires a possibility.


Jeffrey93
Posted 24 May 2007 at 06:40 am

HiEv said: "Wow. That's quite a lot of comments that are based in false information and/or using bogus logic to find all in one place. I'd be more specific, but then I'd only increase my odds of adding to the noise. Not that there weren't any good comments, but you'd need a shovel to find 'em. In short I'll just say that there are a lot of people who either think they understand the terrorists or think that there is nothing to understand about the terrorists, when they both just plain have no clue why the terrorists work and are only fooling themselves. How many of you are even aware of the stated reasons for 9/11? Please, do some research. That's what I did."

That's weird.....the bulleted points about the reasoning behind the attacks is what I've been saying, I didn't see 'Jealousy of the United States' or 'Hatred of the US lifestyle' in there anywhere. Which are the two main points the majority of Americans (even mainstream media) refer to in regards to why their country is so deeply hated throughout the world.


Jeffrey93
Posted 24 May 2007 at 06:55 am

Reaper said: "HiEv, I'm not going to get really deep into this, but they can say whatever they want — it means nothing. They are a very decentralized movement, and what one sect says doesn't necessarily reflect what another one says. Yeah, it does sound like a cop-out, but that's what I see in the Muslim world's rampant infighting.


I think the leaders want what every leader wants…power. They just have the single-rule style of government and the funding to render their desires a possibility."

This sounds awful. You should have just kept quiet. The rampant "infighting" is pretty silly as well. I mean...adjusting for differences in societies...I could say that the US has rampant infighting. Crimes against other citizens, over half the country not approving of their elected leader, previous assasinations and attempts on Presidents, riots, racism, hate crimes, etc.

Does Oklahoma City count as 'infighting'? The Atlanta Olympic explosion? The Wall Street bomb? The Anthrax attacks? The Unabomber? Bath School Disaster? Watts riots? VT Massacre?
Is that infighting?

I think it is. If it is, then any reasoning the US provides for anything they do shouldn't be considered accurate, according to you.


Reaper
Posted 24 May 2007 at 09:08 am

No, Jeffrey, they don't equal each other. And it says a lot about you that you actually believe the comparisons you try to draw.


EruditeGuy
Posted 26 May 2007 at 02:14 pm

This comment might be "off-color".

However, I can't help but noting that this event redefines the cliché of getting "More Bang For Your Buck".

Yes, I've heard this already: don't quit your day job and similar retorts.

I just had to share.


MonoAoV
Posted 27 May 2007 at 06:37 pm

I think whats really disturbing about this event and its somewhat similarity to sept 11th is, even before discerning why, but who was actually involved in the attack...

-
"In a bid to allay fears of a stock market crash, the New York Stock Exchange reopened the day after the explosion under the guise of business-as-usual. When the workers arrived on Wall Street, the evidence of the previous day's carnage was draped with cloths, and the somber mood was draped in patriotism. In spite of the attack, the Constitution Day celebration commenced as planned alongside the unscathed statue of George Washington. What had originally been intended as a small gathering grew into one of the largest crowds in Wall Street's history."
-

I remember the flags flying high after 9/11, draped from over passes, houses, and businesses nation wide. Not a flag pole was bare. after all, whats a country to do but band together in time of need. We are a patriotic people. Full of spirit and eager to console those in pain. At least the common man is... the government may be considered a separate entity, with its own views and concerns.

-
"Before the attack a number of outspoken citizens had decried the unchecked growth of power underway on Wall Street..."
-

The concerns i speak of have all too much to do with money and power. If its power was questioned, than the governing body comes up with an answer. An answer that, for the most part, makes that which is in question a guarantied necessity.

-
"Wall Street soon became a symbol of patriotism in the eyes of the country, and stock trading came to be viewed as an act of defiance against the terrorists."
"Those critics who continued to voice their concerns were denounced as supporters of violence and terror, a trend which rapidly smothered all public debate on the matter."
-

The investigation entitled piecing back together the remains of the carriage, and even the horse, to draw clues as to who could have been behind such a heinous crime against humanity. My question is, what of the 100 pounds of dynamite? was it that easy to get a hold of? or was it supplied by someone which the investigators refused to 'finger'? Who is behind the planing of such an action? Why target innocents, civilians... when an act of revenge could just as easily placed the carriage in front of the court house which passed judgment on this mans 'comrades'? or the jail in which they were kept?

Was this man a pawn?

and lastly...

Did the government bring down the towers to justify war?
Do you really need oil when you can sell guns and ammo for a never ending terroristic attack on another country?

The men and women of the US armed forces stationed in Iraq are being censored. They can be tried on account of treason for uttering a word against the theyre commander and chief, as well as the decisions made by his administration which keeps them in harms way. They are forced to support this war, which supports death and control of a people who only wish to defend themselves. BRING HOME OUR TROOPS!!! The losses are reckless... the media lies... the money drives all things political.

My heart goes out to all those caught in the middle of these pointless pursuits. Be it a 1920 street bombing, or a 2007 war on terror.


Jeffrey93
Posted 29 May 2007 at 05:03 pm

Reaper said: "No, Jeffrey, they don't equal each other. And it says a lot about you that you actually believe the comparisons you try to draw."

I'm sure it's hard for you to admit that Americans are a lot more like their enemies than they care to believe.
Adjust the scale of the infighting for societal differences, things aren't that different.

Oh...and if anyone wants something good to watch, find a copy of "A Crude Awakening". A great documentary that might help open your eyes.


Reaper
Posted 30 May 2007 at 12:33 pm

Jeffrey93 said: "I'm sure it's hard for you to admit that Americans are a lot more like their enemies than they care to believe.

Adjust the scale of the infighting for societal differences, things aren't that different."

Adjusting the scales, you say? Sure, eliminate the element of respect for the lives of your enemies (and even some friends) and we are exactly alike. Just fightin' for our cause. Unfortunately, that one little element makes a world of difference.

And MonoAoV...do you have a blog? I've been looking for a place that can make me laugh as hard as you just made me ;)


SAreader
Posted 05 June 2007 at 05:23 am

hi, I've never commented here, and I know I'm a bit late :P

but never the less, I want my 2c heard just as badly as the rest of you did :)
I agree fully with everything that Jeffrey 93 has said here.
Now I'm not going to be specific and get the quotes, I'm way to lazy to scroll up, but then again these are my two cents so I don't care if you don't like it.
BTW I am South African, yeah that 3rd world country with the hunger, the virusses and all the crime.
Although I think America is a nice country for a visit, I wouldn't trade my virus infested death trap of a country for yours. Someone said something about, wait I actually have to quote this one...

Silverhill: "I am by no means saying that the US is a paradise, and that anyone who thinks differently cannot be right, BUT: consider that you don't see news reports about desperate boatloads of, say, Cubans trying to make it to the Dominican Republic, or Haitians trying to make it to Cuba. No one tries to smuggle truckloads of Zimbabweans into South Africa for thousands of (dollar equivalents) apiece. Etc."

FYI: The Zimbabweans walk accross the border here, so do the nigerians, congo republicans and MANY MANY more, why? you may ask?
SA is crime ridden right?
Sure we are, but we're honest and open about it to the world, while some other countries, including America try to hide their 'not so good side'
and THAT is why people would choose other countries over America, because they know that what they see would be what they get.
oh and BTW, America 'helping other countries' and not being in Iraq or where ever for their own benefit?
why didn't America even bother to try and help South Africa in some of our wars in the past, we sure couldv'e used the help sometimes, oh but wait, we offer nothing to your country so America couldn't care less if SA and most of Africa for that matter, get blown off the face of the earth.
Every person is proud of his/her own country, but Americans, in general, would stoop to the level where they bad mouth other countries to make theirs seem better, which in turn has made me resort to the same.

There, that's not everything I wanted to comment on, but the comments on this article got so many, I can't remember half of them anymore.
Except, I live in South Africa, like I've mentioned before, and even I knew about the wall street bombing of the 1920's how is it that there are americans that don't know this?
Oh and I am not some kind of history boffin, I'm not the most informed person I know, I'm not crazy about general knowledge and I'm only 22 years old. Now tell me, how is it that someone that lived in the NYC area his whole life didn't know about this?
this is just a general 'wonderment'
;)


SAreader
Posted 05 June 2007 at 05:29 am

Oh P.S. most of the people in SA when asked where they'd like to live if they couldn't live here say Australia, or Canada.

VERY few want to go to America and oh yes, a CRAP load wanna go/do go to Brittain.


Reaper
Posted 05 June 2007 at 12:23 pm

I actually thought South Africa was a surprisingly civilized area, especially when compared with many other places in Africa. Is it really as big a crap hole as you make it out to be, SAreader? (genuine curiosity)

But I digress, of course America interacts with places that will benefit us. It would be incredibly burdensome to do otherwise...funneling money out of the country in that manner with no return has never been done...ever. However, what we DON'T do is knowingly turn some place upside down just so we can make some scratch from the ensuing chaos. Our best interests come first, yes, but the best interests of the rest of the world are a close second. I know you guys will never be convinced of this -- and I won't be swayed, either, until history proves me wrong -- but I am certain that stirring up trouble in the Middle East is acting in the best interests of not only us, but in the world. Their might be options that don't sully our hands so, but it would only transfer the blood from us to somewhere else.

On the Americanism stuff, if you don't want to come to America, fine. But let me tell you. In 2004, about 30% of the country threatened to leave if Bush got re-elected. As far as I can tell, nobody of consequence did. The same thing happened in the Vietnam era. Everybody threatened to leave if we engaged in the war, and nobody did. That leads me to believe that there is something in this country that even our homegrown detractors don't want to lose by leaving. If you don't want it, then there are plenty who do.


SAreader
Posted 05 June 2007 at 11:53 pm

Maybe the only reason that 30% didn't leave was because they didn't have enough money or anywhere to go?

SA is not that bad, I apologise I was being sarcastic, because that is the general response I get whenever speaking to foreigners, I actually got the:"so you live amongst the wild animals?" question once.
Big parts of Africa are catching up nicely now.
The comment on America only helping countries that America can benefit from was for a comment someone made up there about how they where only in Iraq to help Iraq and that it had nothing to do with America's own interests over there.


Reaper
Posted 06 June 2007 at 09:16 am

Nope, the 30% were anti Bush politicians and other "media" types like that. I'm sure there were some who were simply too poor, but the people making the biggest fuss about it (the ones threatening to leave, I mean) are still here fussing.

I can assure you that the only reason people really dislike America is the "outsiders looking in" syndrome. Misconceptions, such as those people have about South Africa. The stereotypes you see about Americans do exist, mind you, but they are much less prevalent then they may appear and are sometimes even frowned upon. I know I get angry whenever I see some fat idiot yelling about how America is the best country in the world and other garbage like that.


USSReagan
Posted 22 June 2007 at 10:02 pm

Jeffrey93:

You are an anti-American, Communist loudmouth. Boohoo....super-intelligent, courageous Arabs are CAUSED to attack us because WE are evil, fat and stupid (oh, except you?)! You are typical of today's homosexual-communist lobby. Maybe someone could shove a halfnium bomb in your huge booty....then, applying your logic, you can blame yourself for causing the intelligent, brave action. Scumbag. Get off my planet.


USSReagan
Posted 22 June 2007 at 10:16 pm

Jeffrey93:

For a guy who likes to tell others they have it all wrong and are stupid, you are one stupid dude! I got a little dumber just from reading your childish comments, such as these:
>>
This sounds awful. You should have just kept quiet. The rampant "infighting" is pretty silly as well. I mean…adjusting for differences in societies…I could say that the US has rampant infighting. Crimes against other citizens, over half the country not approving of their elected leader, previous assasinations and attempts on Presidents, riots, racism, hate crimes, etc.

Does Oklahoma City count as 'infighting'? The Atlanta Olympic explosion? The Wall Street bomb? The Anthrax attacks? The Unabomber? Bath School Disaster? Watts riots? VT Massacre?
Is that infighting?
>>

Please educate everyone of the utter BLISS of living in Taliban controlled Afghanistan.....I'm waiting. Oh, I see: isolated acts by madman in the US are exactly the same as Genocidal activities of Arab v Arab. Kinda like your idea that terrorists (your heroes) torturing our servicemen to death is EXACTLY the same as putting panties on a guy's head. Explain to everyone how Hamas murdering Fatah members in the streets in front of their families was caused by "US foreign policy and Isreal". Boy, that Daniel Pearl sure did have the whole "get head sawed off" thing comin for all his....well he...you know the Israelis caused it by uh....

You dumb ass. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall....and take that retard Jeffrey93 home with you. Get the hell off my planet.


Hayley
Posted 07 August 2007 at 12:21 pm

Hmm...I've never noticed the marks on the JP Morgan building before. I'd be sort of interested to see, now that I've learned the history, but...going just to look seems a bit classless, considering the carnage.


Snowflake
Posted 04 October 2007 at 03:55 am

Oh my. What a crap load of information I learned on this page (and, oh, those arguments!).
You folk really have nice vocabularies... "schadenfreude"-- I never heard that word before.
I don't have much to contribute. Sure, I was going to comment on some posts, but with all the rebounding and flopping around, my mind is all muddled. @.@
Okay. I'm from NYC (Staten Island): I've never heard of this attack on Wall street. Yes, I've been going to public school since the first grade; I've recently turned 15. This is NOT being taught. Really, to stray a bit, students do not become informed unless they take the initiative, on their own free time, to look into things like this. I've known people who say they're a part of a certain political party, be it Republican or Democrat, and they're not even sure about the group's positions. We're ignorant dopes. Having moved to Hawaii, the situation is a lil' different, but still-- people tell me they don't like President Bush and can't explain why.
This, somehow, leads me to a separate yet connected thought: a country is made up of individuals. Not everyone thinks alike, acts the same, or is as well informed. I know, I know, we here all seem to be intelligent beings, YET, why have I been exposed to the phrase, "you Americans"? (rhetoric, rhetoric)
I have been infuriated, horrified, enlightened, amused, and humbled by the discourses stemming from an event in the early 20th century which has slid out of public eye.
But I do wish people, rather than swearing allegiance to a government, commit themselves to humanity.
I'd like to share some quotes:
"In separateness lies the world's great misery; In unity lies the world's true strength"
"War does not determine who is right, only who is left" Bertrand Russell
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
"If you want a symbolic gesture, don't burn the flag; wash it." - Norman Thomas

There. One last thing: people, please try to refrain from using derogatory language like-- well, these two stuck in my mind: pig, and ass. Its really unfortunate that we all can't be clean.

(Do forgive my running around in different topics-- you must! I am a fat American, see, just tryin' to get some exercise)


MrsBadKrumble
Posted 03 April 2008 at 12:29 pm

While I agree with many of the critiques about American Foriegn (sp?) policy, I think that everyone here needs to remember that large scale attacks were also attempted in several European countries by Islamic Extremist groups. I can remember attacks in Britain and Spain...perhaps France, as well. I'm not sure, I'd have to look it up. The point is that these groups don't simply hate the U.S. because we're assholes. I agree that we've screwed up in that region many a time and took steps that not only encouraged anti-American sentiment but actually provided these people with the money, weapons, and training that they needed. They hate the "infidels", which is not only America, but Europe as well. I'm just saying.


atonyt
Posted 24 April 2008 at 09:34 am

OK, for the comment on the atomic bomb. In an article posted here, don't know the name, and in other history books written, a detailed plan by the Japenese was in progress for mass killings in the US. They did not have atomic bombs, but had developed chemical bombs by testing on the Chinese. I can't remember the exact date, but they had plans to launch the bombs about a week after we had dropped the first atomic bomb. So the world loves to say the US dropped the atomic bomb, killing thousands, but if we had not, someone else would have been responsible for killing thousands.

And Jeff, since the US sucks so badly I have a solution for everyone. The SkyElevator. The SkyElevator will be placed on the Mexican/US border and the other end will be placed on the Canada/US border. Any illegal immigrant can take a ride over to Mexico or Canada. Let you two great and wise countries figure it out and leave us alone.


GeorgeAR
Posted 23 July 2008 at 05:47 pm

GeorgeAR said: "If we don't learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it.

Damned Interesting article (again). "

Again I mean it, but in a different way.... Good luck with the book!


klaue
Posted 24 July 2008 at 12:52 am

humm.. what's up with americans and patriotism? I mean, if this happened in my country, there would be no patriotism spreading because of it. I/We like our country, but we realise that it's just that, a human defined part of landmass. You just happen to be born there, it's nothing you have acomplished, so you have no reason to be so damn proud about it.
Can someone help me here? I never understood patriotism..

Well, at least with this terrorist attack, america started no war (SCNR)


Two Cents from Girth
Posted 24 July 2008 at 06:26 am

The concept of Patriotism varies from indvidual to individual, much like faith. In most cases it is a feeling, belief or as in service to ones country, an action. Some have it, some dont...
Next month is the Olympics, an event for many which stirs and rekindles Patriotism. If your country has an Olympic team, you may have grown up watching asspiring athletes compete from your home country. Seeing them on the podium getting a medal, hearing the national anthem or just seeing them perform well can all stir a feeling of Patriotism; however, that is only one thread in a complicated fabric.
Patriotism can also include a sence of belonging, this world is a big place and having your roots in a country, where you have fond memories, family and friends; that too can promote Patriotism. Simply, the land that you love... if you dont feel that way about your country, perhaps you need to find a new one, that is kind of how America got started...again one thread in a fabric. To know many have served, been wounded or died in combat or to have been one of the fallen can stir the feeling of Patriotism. There is an old term "For God and Country", some of us were raised with this concept or belief, if you will, to do good for God and Country as best as you are able. This duty or devotion can expand a feeling of national pride which is another facet of Patriotism. For some Patriotism is learned or believed and for other still, it is a right that is earned. Many have struggled, risked all assumed huge levels of risk to come to America and have shown their version of Patriotism too. This is not a single construct, it involves many parts of our lifestyles, conciousness and actions. To have a deep seated pride, respect and honor for your country helps both you and your nation. This helps define you and can set a standard by which we behave. Patriotism can also be a fleeting moment you have simply observing how your flag flutters in the spring breeze.
Klaue, I would find things about your county you like, love and hold dear and add a bit of your own positive experiences you've had to your thoughts and perhaps a bit of Patriotism will grow within you too. With Patriotism, you care what becomes of your nation and are moved by its changes and events; you grow, suffer, rejoice and even worry as your nation goes form one day to the next... it is one thing you will always have, a love for home, the name of the nation may change, the leaders come and go, the borders redrawn, but your land will always in some form be home...
Again, the exact concept of Patriotism varies from one person to another and in some does not exist at all. You may find you are a Patriotic person and never realized it or perhaps you care not for your country realizing it is just a human defined landmass much like parents are just people who bore you into the world, nothing more...give me a break.


sid
Posted 24 July 2008 at 06:32 am

klaue said: "humm.. what's up with americans and patriotism? I mean, if this happened in my country, there would be no patriotism spreading because of it. I/We like our country, but we realise that it's just that, a human defined part of landmass. You just happen to be born there, it's nothing you have acomplished, so you have no reason to be so damn proud about it.
Can someone help me here? I never understood patriotism..

Well, at least with this terrorist attack, america started no war (SCNR)"

I'd be interested to know what country you call yours? No reason to imply ownership. After all, it's just a human defined landmass, and you likely don't own it, and you probably haven't accomplished anything that would justify you claiming possession.

Seriously, though, I would guess quite a few countries have some sort of patriotic mentality. It may not be rational, but it is probably present in some form. So, where do you live?


Stead311
Posted 24 July 2008 at 09:19 am

I would give my first child for that DI book.

and my second... for that matter.


sid
Posted 24 July 2008 at 12:35 pm

Since "klaue" sounds German, could you be from Germany? No history of patriotism in that country, of course. Some other European nation? Yeah, they've all avoided the impulse to "rally 'round the flag." Really, where are you from? I'd love to know of this country with no patriotic spirit. Perhaps there are some, but I really doubt it. Maybe it's just your particular circle of acquaintances that, when faced with an attack on your own country, you all simply shrug your shoulders and say, "Big deal. Just some dead people who happened to be within the same human defined part of landmass we happen to occupy." I'm certain others would take it a little more seriously, maybe even get together and denounce such a thing having been done to the collective population, and perhaps even demand some sort of response. But if I'm mistaken, I'm truly interested in knowing what country this is to which you refer. I mean, it's got to be a real rarity.


Radiatidon
Posted 24 July 2008 at 12:40 pm

klaue said: "humm.. what's up with americans and patriotism.
Can someone help me here? I never understood patriotism.."

Try this one and see if it makes sense. Football – not the American version, but the global recognized version also known as Soccer. Soccer is a game of warfare. The goal of the game is to advance through enemy territory and place the ball (the weapon) into the heart of enemy territory (the goal). Like in warfare, the more goals you make than the enemy, the greater your glory. The greater your glory, the more wealth you can accumulate.

Spectators usually pick a team to support and can be very patriotic about their choice. Wearing that team’s colors, and bestowing icons representing that team throughout their home, place of work, even painfully injecting colored ink deep into the skin layers creating a tattoo representing a favored player, the team’s logo, and/or colors. Fights can startup in the stands, behind the stands, the grounds outside the stadium, and even on the playing field, all this because the spectators and players are very patriotic about their team.

Why? All those spectators cannot own the team. The team is just a bunch of people that enjoy kicking a ball around or bouncing it off their heads. Only one guy on each team gets to actually handle the ball in play without having everyone (fans, team members, referees) wishing them ill will. Not every fan can take them (photos and souvenirs don’t count, we’re talking flesh and blood here) and show them off to their friends.

So if you understand the frenzied feeling behind a soccer match, then you have also experienced patriotism.

Now back to your quote:

klaue said: "humm.. what's up with americans and patriotism? I mean, if this happened in my country, there would be no patriotism spreading because of it.

So if the team representing your country had a series of bad calls against it, and the referees kept overlooking fouls against your team’s players, your telling me that your countrymen would smile and say “So what, no big deal, its just a dumb game anyway.”

I/We like our country, but we realise that it's just that, a human defined part of landmass. You just happen to be born there, it's nothing you have acomplished, so you have no reason to be so damn proud about it.

You like your soccer team, but it’s just that, a bunch of guys playing kick the ball. You just happen to like the team’s colors, pretty. You did not get to pick the colors, or the team’s logo, or even who gets to play on the team. So why be so damn proud of it

Well, at least with this terrorist attack, america started no war (SCNR)"

Hum, this one is harder since every soccer game I have watched, it seems someone will always start a fight during or after the game.

The Don.

PS - By the way, I enjoy a good Soccer Match and the above comments are meant to help explain the feelings behind patriotism and not to belittle the game nor the people who enjoy it.


sid
Posted 24 July 2008 at 01:06 pm

Radiatidon said: "PS - By the way, I enjoy a good Soccer Match and the above comments are meant to help explain the feelings behind patriotism and not to belittle the game nor the people who enjoy it."

I was thinking of the same analogy, since Football/Soccer is so popular throughout the world. But I also understand her/his analytical approach to the subject. Take out the emotional aspect, and he's right. However, I also presumed that if he can be that unemotional about something relatively serious, such as the murder of innocent people, then he/she probably doesn't get too emotionally worked up over a relatively meaningless game. Then again, maybe he/she just wants to be provocative. Whatever the case, he/she did ask a question, and made a statement that, thus far, cannot be discussed/debated without additional information. I eagerly anticipate her/his response.


Radiatidon
Posted 24 July 2008 at 01:20 pm

sid said: "Whatever the case, he/she did ask a question, and made a statement that, thus far, cannot be discussed/debated without additional information. I eagerly anticipate her/his response."

As am I. This could be interesting, as long as it skirts ill feelings and flame wars.

The Don.


sid
Posted 24 July 2008 at 01:40 pm

Radiatidon said: "As am I. This could be interesting, as long as it skirts ill feelings and flame wars.

The Don."

Little chance of that. I try not to start such things, but I reserve my right to exercise the nuclear option if I see things headed that way. Besides, even if I don't fly into attack mode, someone likely will. Like I said, I can understand her/his analytical perspective, if that's what it truly is, but that doesn't mean I hold the same view. If he/she can be consistent and logical, I look forward to a healthy discussion. But I tend to be fairly patriotic, if you hadn't noticed, so bashing America just for the sake of bashing America doesn't sit well with me.


klaue
Posted 24 July 2008 at 02:29 pm

Thanks Girth and Radiation for the explanation. I thought over it again and I have to adjust my position. Yes, there actually is some patriotism here. The thing is that it shows almost never. The only time you really see, for example, flags in the windows or so is at the national holiday or at, yes you guessed it, the european football championship (but in the latter case, you also see many flags from other countries). Things like car magnets or "god bless america" on money or singing the anthem at any possibility wouldn't happen here. (you'd actually have to search someone who knows the whole anthem out of his mind)
Well, it could also be that it's only me. I always tried to look at the world with the eyes of reason and logic, kinda Spok-like, if you will.. I like my country and I think it's one of the best countries in the world but I also see that it is not that good. I don't love it, I just like it..
But that such an attack wouldn't result in patriotism still stands. It may be that I define patriotism other than you, but I just don't see how you can grow proud of your country when it is attacked.. To take the soccer comparison: If the other team scored a goal, would that cause you to cheer for your own team? In my opinion, hating the other team is not patriotism..

Radiatidon said: "Hum, this one is harder since every soccer game I have watched, it seems someone will always start a fight during or after the game."

Yep, that's true and the same thing is true in the most case for patriotism if "hating the other team" would actually count as patriotism.. Then, patriotism can cause wars, one of the worst things we humans are capable off, but can it cause peace? Wouldn't earth be a peacefuller place without patriotism?
And to answer your question, I'm swiss. you know, the mini country that will soon kill us all with black holes, if you believe the sensational press

PS, sid: Why is my, as you call it, america bashing so much worse than your bashing of multiple european countries?


Redneck Beauty
Posted 24 July 2008 at 03:24 pm

I am really amazed by this! I think damn interesting things like this should be taught in school!


Richard Solensky
Posted 24 July 2008 at 03:49 pm

With regards to a definition of Patriotism, I refer you to "About Patriotism" by Carl Schruz, Harper's Weekly, April 16, 1898. It's in "Speeches, Correspondence and Political Papers of Carl Schurz", which can be found on Google Books.

Be advised, it's a rather lengthy essay (around five pages in the book) - but well worth reading.


sid
Posted 24 July 2008 at 03:50 pm

klaue said: "PS, sid: Why is my, as you call it, america bashing so much worse than your bashing of multiple european countries?"

First of all, I never said you were bashing America. I said I didn't like it when people do so just for the sake of doing so. Second, I didn't bash any other countries. Third, you're Swiss? Your country doesn't have a very clean history, or present, for that matter, so I wouldn't go throwing stones. It's also very nationalistic, which is pretty much the same as patriotic. You don't wave flage or sing anthems, perhaps, but you want to keep Switzerland as Swiss as possible.


Two Cents from Girth
Posted 24 July 2008 at 04:09 pm

Well fellows,that is one of the rare examples...Switzerland. Perfect terrain defences, manditory military service, small population, huge financial center, you can set your watch by the Swiss. :)
(I've got the knife and watch)
I'd say the Swiss have behaved themselves the last 100 years or more...I'd be real proud of that if I were Swiss. I think the financial infrastructure has saved them from the total ravages of WWI and WWII, along with the historic neutrality policy. I would think someone who is Swiss would be very Patriotic when it comes to their Confederation: money system, soccer team, natural scenery, neutrality and the social system seems secure too. Whats not to like, whats not to love?? Our Swiss guest may be missing another facet of Patriotism due to prolonged neutrality which as Sid pointed out is truly "a bit of a rarity", the threat of losing... Loss is a driving force and preventing loss drives as well! Perhaps after being sidelined for so many generations, the Swiss may just have a calmness about such things within the eclave of their mountain chalets as the tempests year after year seem to exclude the Helvetii and their cantons.
I would say the Swiss are indeed rare and have a bestowed peace about them; however, just because the friction is reduced, Patriotism doesnt need to suffer. Patriotism may very well slumber under the white sheets of snow, to one day be dusted off when the Swiss find they have need of such things after all... those hills have not been tested in many years.
(Probally because thats where the rich keep their loot; who wants to break into their our bank??) Remember klaue, the peace Switzerland enjoys is a grant from other countries and the adherence by your government, it is the golden cage. Golden yes, but still a cage. Remember this too klaue, a cage can serve more than one purpose, it can keep someone in or it can keep someone out. Much like a shark cage your Switzerland is...a vast world exists outside your ring of mountains, a vast world...


Next page of comments →
Add Your Comment

Note: Your email address will not be published, shared, spammed, or otherwise mishandled. Anonymous comments are more likely to be held for moderation. You can optionally register or login.

You may use basic formatting HTML such as <i>, <b>, and <blockquote>.