Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Personal Meditations on September 11th, 2 years Later

By circletimessquare in Op-Ed
Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 10:03:53 AM EST
Tags: Culture (all tags)
Culture

I grew up during the relative quiet of the Cold War. I always wondered what it would be like to live during a trying and dramatic moment in history, such as during World War I or World War II, or during the Civil War in the United States.

I don't wonder anymore. And that isn't a good thing.


I am no impartial observer. I live in Midtown Manhattan (steps from Times Square, thus my Kuro5hin moniker circletimessquare). I work now blocks from the United Nations. Walking home late some nights I have gone out of my way to walk by the UN. During the diplomatic squabbling preceding the War on Iraq, I gazed out over the army of white news vans with satellite dishes on their roofs, like vultures waiting to descend upon a great dying beast. Recently I went inside the United Nations, for the first time since grade school, and purchased a copy of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights for $1.00. The mini-pamphlet felt tiny and light, like a tiny sliver of hope in a world gone mad.

I worked at 5 World Trade Center until the morning of September 11th, 2001. It was a small 9-story office and shopping building that sat on the corner of the original 16-acre World Trade Center site. It was rained on with hot concrete and burning steel and consequently was pummeled and fried into a quickly forgotten shell that morning. I lost 4 computers and 2 years of code, as well as a good job (I was laid off in November of 2001), but, luckily for me but not so luckily for so many other people, that was all I lost. I still remember leaving work on Monday, September 10th around 9 PM, looking across the plaza towards the sound of a lone guitarist I could not find visually, somewhere near the fountain at the base of "The Sphere" (described by it's creator, Fritz Koenig, ironically now, as "a monument fostering world peace").

Wherever you are in the world, make note of this interstice in time. Your grandchildren may wonder what you were thinking during this time of great change, they may even ask you.

The world changes every day, but sometimes the drama is remarkable. I wonder what life was like for our grandparents and great grandparents in previous trying times in the world, and so someday our grandchildren and great grandchildren will think about what our lives might have been like. What mistakes did we make? What things did we do that were brave? People will wonder about us rightfully in the future. And conclude about us, all of us, our feebleness or our strength, which could lie in either hawkish or dovish instincts. Such is the benefits of hindsight, something none of us have right now.

When Archduke Ferdinand was shot, who said that that was not the beginning of the Great War? When John Brown raided Harpers Ferry, who said that that was not the beginning of the American Civil War? But with hindsight, and only with hindsight, we know this: those catalclysms were the beginning of a cascade of events over which no one had any control. September 11th looms in my mind.

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.

- Margaret Mead

I believe in human progress. I am not apocalyptic in my world view. I do not look over history and see a cycle of violence with no meaning, because human progress does happen, albeit in fits and starts, and is always accompanied, unfortunately but in a sort of sick dependent way, upon human suffering. Such is the principle of creative destruction. There is no creation without destruction, and visa versa. To see progress without suffering is blind. To see suffering without progress is cynical.

When Gavrilo Princip and his small group killed Archduke Franz Ferdinand on June 28, 1914, who had any idea that their actions would precipitate World War I? His group was a small cell of radical ideologues. They were committed to violence to further their goals. He can be called alternatively an anarchist, a nationalist, a terrorist, a freedom fighter, depending upon if you ask a Serbian or those committed to the peace and stability of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. On the edge of that splintering, decaying grand empire, in decay as it was, they were fighting for the identity of their people, and they started the collapse of that mighty empire. Surely, the sun is setting on the American Empire today just as fast as the Austro-Hungarian Empire then. And surely, the terrorists of September 11th, 2001 had no idea of what they set in motion as much as Gavrilo Princip and his cell had no idea what foreboding he unleashed in 1914 in Sarajevo.

So it looks like the UN, or at least its legitimacy to lead, is in fray. Now, Russia stands with Germany and France. A new united European counterpoint to American hegemony in the world. To what end? Does anyone know? Anyone else have the feeling of sitting at the top of a hill in a car without breaks, just beginning the imperceptible motions that we know signal the beginning of a 50 mile per hour slide down that hill?

We all sit here today, 2 years after September 11th, feeling as if things are in a sort of lukewarm calm. We forget when we read history how we receive it in our textbooks and television documentaries in nicely prepackaged shots, without the interstices in time in between of relative calm. Punctuated Equilibirum. The pendulum swinging from one end to the other. Silent change at work in the plate tectonics of geopolitics and socieconomics, wielding pressure in places none of us perceive, for would we perceive them, surprises like September 11th would never happen.

Remembering the madness that descended upon Europe in 1914, maybe that is why the Europeans objected so much to waging war on Iraq. They recognized the coming storm, because they have been there before. Their continent is littered with the dead from that conflict that so much resembles the stormclouds that march across the Middle East.

Americans are afraid and cowed. Pearl Harbor happened in a distant protectorate. And speaking of foreboding interstices in time, let us not forget how that conflict ended. However, September 11th happened in the very heart of their most important city.

Americans circle the wagons, freely trading freedom for security and happily rushing towards the right of the political spectrum since only George W Bush and his NeoCons offer them any certainty, any security. The American Political Left is in disarray and retreat, with no platform, no words, no strategy to address the most pressing concerns Americans have about September 11th: religious madmen from a largely alien culture hellbent on killing and destroying them. And the madmen seem to have had spectacularly successful effects on the American imagination. For at the very least, on an almost Hollywood B-movie scale, the violent religious fundamentalists have scared the living daylights out of the Americans.

The NeoCons offer the Americans certainty and security, and the Americans buy it hook, line, and sinker. So they rush headlong into monumental change and warfare. Are the Americans rushing us all into the madness? European anxiety is appropriate, reasonable, and responsible.

Today, no Austrian needs worry about puttering around Sarajevo. And maybe that is the point. Princip got what he wanted. But what will give fundamentalist terrorists what they want? Was Princip's cause sound? The antipathy of Europeans to war in the Middle East is noble, but what will appease the enemy of the peace? And by enemy of the peace, George W Bush is not implied. Surely you are a fool if you do not see how September 11th handed the NeoCons all the pretense in the mind of the American public to do as they please in the Middle East. Do you see the deeper evil at work?

I think Europeans should make themselves busy about what to do about George W Bush. George W Bush is an idiot. But in a year, or a few, in 2004 or 2008, he will be gone, replaced by another idiot in chief. So he is but a red herring. America's economy suffers, its coffers run dry from the weight of waging war, and its actions right now do nothing but create universal antipathy the world over, all of the good will from September 11th utterly squandered. Before September 11th, in 2000, 75% of Indonesians had a favorable opinion of the United States. Today, 83% do not like the United States.

2 years after September 11th, I do not see calm, I see a calm before the storm. The conflict is not over, it is only beginning. And America's power wanes. So America is a red herring too.

So what are we left with? Ask Princip what he wanted, and maybe Europeans should make themselves busy with what the Princips of 2001 wanted as much as they are making themselves busy with George W Bush. Because that is the real problem before the world. Bali and the perceptibible uptick in bombings in Southeast Asia. Kenya and the continuing madness in Israel. Russia and Chechnya and the hostage takers in Moscow. Men who are willing trade their life for fundamentalist martyrdom. The source of the conflict between civilizations that drives the tap of young men willing and able to give themselves to suicide attacks is not emptied, nor is it near being emptied. Nor does anyone honestly know when the tap will be emptied or how to mend the socioeconomic and geopolitical wellspring that continually refills this tap with men who otherwise would be engineers and lawyers, fathers and grandfathers.

The rise of well-organized, well-funded, violent International religious fundamentalism. This is the world we live in. I once lived in midtown Manhattan and felt distant from these threats. Ask me now how distant I feel. Ask yourself how distant you feel. In today's increasingly smaller and smaller world of the Internet and Jet air travel, what happens in Kabul matters in Manhattan, what happens in Mindanao matters in Canberra, what happens in Beirut matters in Nairobi. There is no more hiding behind great oceans and deep mountains. There is no protection from madness for anyone.

We scream about Iraq. We obsess over America and its idiot leader. But underneath it all, rises a new conflict that cannot be denied. A new emotional storm before us. And George W Bush is but a bit player in it. America is but a bit player in it. The whole world moves and repositions itself to be consumed by it.

In the US, not far from Washington DC, is a place called Harpers Ferry, in West Virginia. The state of West Virginia was created from the Western counties of the State of Virginia that did not want to join the Confederacy during the American Civil War. Harpers Ferry is a national park today. A quaint Railroad Era town frozen in time. Absolutely charming. Except for the events that made it's name.

In 1859 in Harpers Ferry, a man named John Brown and a crew of committed abolitionists started the slide of the United States into Civil War, and so the eventual realization of their cause beyond their wildest dreams: the freeing of black slaves in the South, the Emancipation Proclamation. He would be called a terrorist today in every sense of the word. He was violent and a murderer in Kansas even before the events of Harper's Ferry. He was said to have mental problems. He was a devout christian fundamentalist intent on a holy war. And he was a visionary that changed the course of history by precipitating into action strong emotions that existed throughout society. From the University of Viriginia website:

On Sunday, October 16, 1859, between the hours of 10:00 and 11:00 P.M., John Brown, of Kansas notoriety, entered the town of Harpers Ferry, Virginia, with eighteen men, took hostage some of its prominent citizens, and captured the federal arsenal. His intention, as he later made clear, was to liberate the slaves in the surrounding territory and form them into an army which would then free the Negroes throughout the South. Without an effective and detailed plan of action, Brown's "army" was surrounded on the afternoon of October 17 by local militia. After a brief skirmish, it was captured on the morning of October 18 by marines under the command of Colonel Robert E. Lee, of the United States Army.

(Historical side note: also prominent in capturing Brown was one up-and-comer named George Custer, of later Little Big Horn infamy in the wars against the Native Americans of the American Midwest).

Though Brown and some of his followers fought courageously, the raid, for all practical purposes, was a fiasco resulting in the death or torture of the insurgents, but its long-range effect on both northern and southern emotions far exceeded the wildest dreams of those who planned it. Accounts of the raid and the subsequent trial and execution of John Brown attracted national attention, and the event became a symbol to both sides in the Civil War.

Sound familiar anyone? I am no numerologist, but why not note that John Brown's crew of abolitionists was composed of 19 men, as was the the crew of September 11, 2001. The World Trade Center is our age's Harpers Ferry. Our age's Sarajevo. The cork on the top of an emotional bottle ready to burst. The emotions that are being uncorked all over the world right now, as you read, are under no one's control. No one can deny the potency of these emotions. No one can control what is under way.

I feel personally touched by recent world events, but my closeness to them brings me no more wisdom, just more anguish. And so I hate the hawks for being so arrogant and full of so much hubris and so much false confidence in America's ability to simply stride into a foreign country and right such complex wrongs. The hawks believe we can do whatever we want, completely dismissing the rightful anger fueled by a complete dismissal of national boundaries in a pursuit of dubious goals which may or may not increase the peace. I hate the hawks for not caring.

And I hate the doves for being so naive and blind to their complicit nature to evil men and regimes who bank on their weakness, who depend upon good men doing nothing, who depend upon their cowardice being there as they do truly evil, vicious things in the world. The doves believe that the struggle for human rights ends at the borders of whatever country they live in, no matter what happens outside of them. And so I hate the doves for not caring too.

And I hate myself for not knowing towards which instinct, hawk or dove, to err. But mostly, I am just sad for us all. Even the ideologues pushing their perspective agendas. They do not bother me anymore, they do not seem threatening. They look like bugs trapped in amber now. The ideologues on the right and on the left once seemed like ferocious monsters to me, their every word full of venom.

But now, their words just seem as bugs wings weakly struggling against the weight of the sweet honey of doubt they are trapped in. They do not know any more than any of us. I tell you: do not listen to the propagandizers, the liars, those with a hidden agenda, from either end of the ideological spectrum. No one knows what the right thing to do is. Everyone makes their best guess, and our opinions thereby diverge painfully and dramatically.

Kahlil Gibran, 1883-1931, was a Lebanese Poet, a mystic, revered throughout the Middle East. He wrote The Prophet in 1923, and won renown in the West as well. I think that his words speak for us all, in America, in Europe, in the Middle East, everywhere:

And one of the elders of the city said, "Speak to us of Good and Evil."
And he answered:
Of the good in you I can speak, but not of the evil.
For what is evil but good tortured by its own hunger and thirst?
Verily when good is hungry it seeks food even in dark caves, and when it thirsts, it drinks even of dead waters.
You are good when you are one with yourself.
Yet when you are not one with yourself you are not evil.
For a divided house is not a den of thieves; it is only a divided house.
And a ship without rudder may wander aimlessly among perilous isles yet sink not to the bottom.
You are good when you strive to give of yourself.
Yet you are not evil when you seek gain for yourself.
For when you strive for gain you are but a root that clings to the earth and sucks at her breast.
Surely the fruit cannot say to the root, "Be like me, ripe and full and ever giving of your abundance."
For to the fruit giving is a need, as receiving is a need to the root.
You are good when you are fully awake in your speech,
Yet you are not evil when you sleep while your tongue staggers without purpose.
And even stumbling speech may strengthen a weak tongue.
You are good when you walk to your goal firmly and with bold steps.
Yet you are not evil when you go thither limping.
Even those who limp go not backward.
But you who are strong and swift, see that you do not limp before the lame, deeming it kindness.
You are good in countless ways, and you are not evil when you are not good,
You are only loitering and sluggard.
Pity that the stags cannot teach swiftness to the turtles.
In your longing for your giant self lies your goodness: and that longing is in all of you.
But in some of you that longing is a torrent rushing with might to the sea, carrying the secrets of the hillsides and the songs of the forest.
And in others it is a flat stream that loses itself in angles and bends and lingers before it reaches the shore.
But let not him who longs much say to him who longs little, "Wherefore are you slow and halting?"
For the truly good ask not the naked, "Where is your garment?" nor the houseless, "What has befallen your house?"

Source.

To my grandchildren, to all of our grandchildren: I apologize, I apologize on behalf of us all. For not being more brave in the fight against rogue states. Or, for not being more brave in the fight against arrogant warmongers. Only you will know where the real danger lies. I apologize for our human frailty, for not knowing the best way to proceed. I apologize for us not being omnipotent. We tried our best, but sometimes, our best is not good enough.

I am sorry, my grandchildren. In this brief interstice in time before and after a great incineration of bombs and war machines, I am sorry for the weakness of us all. It is so quiet before a storm. I cry for those thousands of innocents lost 2 years ago to madness, and I cry for the thousand more innocents who are yet to be consumed by the madness that is still just heating up.

In their eyes, the terrorists tore down the devil's horns on September 11th, 2001, and they have their 19 heroes. And indeed they are correct: they knocked on the head of evil himself. Horns or not, Americans or not, evil smiles on what they did, for what they did and the storm it helped awaken and churn will feed their devil, anyone's devil, for years to come.

As I said before, I am no impartial observer. I am a victim of terrorism, and my heart rankles at the images in my mind of people plunging to their deaths from burning towers, and my mind tells me there are only more victims of terrorism in the years to come.

Then Almitra spoke, saying, "We would ask now of Death."
And he said:
You would know the secret of death.
But how shall you find it unless you seek it in the heart of life?
The owl whose night-bound eyes are blind unto the day cannot unveil the mystery of light.
If you would indeed behold the spirit of death, open your heart wide unto the body of life.
For life and death are one, even as the river and the sea are one.
In the depth of your hopes and desires lies your silent knowledge of the beyond;
And like seeds dreaming beneath the snow your heart dreams of spring.
Trust the dreams, for in them is hidden the gate to eternity.
Your fear of death is but the trembling of the shepherd when he stands before the king whose hand is to be laid upon him in honour.
Is the shepherd not joyful beneath his trembling, that he shall wear the mark of the king?
Yet is he not more mindful of his trembling?
For what is it to die but to stand naked in the wind and to melt into the sun?
And what is to cease breathing, but to free the breath from its restless tides, that it may rise and expand and seek God unencumbered?
Only when you drink from the river of silence shall you indeed sing.
And when you have reached the mountain top, then you shall begin to climb.
And when the earth shall claim your limbs, then shall you truly dance.
Source.

I remember, and I will not forget, and I will indulge no ideological fool of any ilk who collectively act only to hasten the coming of the storm I have already glimpsed. The fringes are driving the agenda in many parts of the world today, and it will be many years before the center takes it from them, after they have harvested the madness they planted 2 years ago and continue to plant today.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o Kuro5hin
o Times Square
o United Nations
o United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights
o 5 World Trade Center
o "The Sphere"
o the Great War
o the American Civil War
o September 11th
o Margaret Mead
o creative destruction
o June 28, 1914
o Austro-Hun garian Empire
o sitting at the top of a hill
o Punctuated Equilibirum
o littered with the dead
o Pearl Harbor
o how that conflict ended
o 83% do not like the United States
o Bali
o Kenya
o hostage takers in Moscow
o well-organ ized, well-funded, violent International religious fundamentalism
o This is the world we live in
o Harpers Ferry
o John Brown
o the Emancipation Proclamation
o a murderer in Kansas
o a holy war
o visionary
o From the University of Viriginia website
o Little Big Horn infamy
o Kahlil Gibran
o The Prophet
o Source.
o Source. [2]
o Also by circletimessquare


Display: Sort:
Personal Meditations on September 11th, 2 years Later | 490 comments (449 topical, 41 editorial, 0 hidden)
Damn thats good (4.42 / 7) (#1)
by blackpaw on Wed Sep 10, 2003 at 10:52:54 PM EST

+1FP From me
And should be required reading for all our leaders

thanks ;-) (nt) (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 10, 2003 at 11:11:00 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
contrary to your normal intelligible ramblings (5.00 / 6) (#17)
by jjayson on Wed Sep 10, 2003 at 11:41:00 PM EST

This this is clear, well written, and doesn't use a line per clause. I'm fucking impressed. There are many little mistakes, but I'm too lazy to do a proper editorial comment. Hopefully those will be fixed by the time this goes to voting.

some form of +1

--
Smile. =)
[ Parent ]

thanks dude (4.66 / 3) (#18)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 10, 2003 at 11:42:31 PM EST

sorry for the william shatner formatting in my comments

i'm just lazy ;-P

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Yikes! (2.75 / 4) (#2)
by vyruss on Wed Sep 10, 2003 at 10:56:25 PM EST

I don't know whether you intended that, but you are juxtaposing the assassination of Franz Ferdinand (performed by an "ideologue") and Sept 11th. I don't find Osama much of an ideologue.

  • PRINT CHR$(147)

if osama isn't an ideologue (5.00 / 6) (#11)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 10, 2003 at 11:16:33 PM EST

who the hell is? ;-P

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#431)
by dawtrina on Sat Sep 13, 2003 at 08:32:20 PM EST

Osama bin Laden is absolutely an idealogue. He's just not an idealogue to us.

I hope I don't offend by suggesting that not being able to accept that there are other ways of thinking is possibly the most dangerous threat to the world at present.

[ Parent ]

Huh? (5.00 / 5) (#15)
by kjb on Wed Sep 10, 2003 at 11:38:28 PM EST

Osama, not much of an ideologue?

That was a joke, right?

--
Now watch this drive.
[ Parent ]

my bad... (5.00 / 3) (#27)
by vyruss on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 12:29:57 AM EST

...I was thinking of the other meaning of ideologue, meaning theorist :/

  • PRINT CHR$(147)

[ Parent ]
Other meaning (4.50 / 2) (#90)
by epepke on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 08:04:01 AM EST

About 20 years ago, I decided to pronounce "ideologue" with a short rather than a long "i," so as to suggest "idiot" rather than "idea."


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
heh... :) but seriously now, (5.00 / 1) (#409)
by vyruss on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 11:49:02 PM EST

In Greece the word Idea is pronounced with the same I-sound as ideologue. Idea and ideologos are pronounced ee-de-a and ee-de-o-lo-gos. :).

I know what you mean and why you said it, but I just had to throw in something irrelevant :D

  • PRINT CHR$(147)

[ Parent ]
WHERE IS THE FUHRER?? (1.69 / 13) (#19)
by President George Bush on Wed Sep 10, 2003 at 11:48:45 PM EST

HAS ANYONE SEEN THE LEADERSHIP? I AM LOOKING FOR THE FUHRER? WHERE IS THE LEADERSHIP?

Look in the mirror (4.00 / 6) (#20)
by kjb on Wed Sep 10, 2003 at 11:52:50 PM EST

you fucking idiot.

--
Now watch this drive.
[ Parent ]

Yeah, whatever (3.80 / 5) (#29)
by b1t r0t on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 12:36:08 AM EST

At least I know what I was doing on the night of September 10, 2001. I watched four episodes of Dirty Pair. That definitely gave me a wierd perspective the very next morning.

-- Indymedia: the fanfiction.net of journalism.
The night before... (5.00 / 1) (#130)
by randyk on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 02:29:29 PM EST

I had watched Arlington Road. Then I went to bed, and the next thing, my radio alarm goes off talking about planes hitting the WTC. Pretty damn freaky.

I'm not usually superstitious, but despite owning that movie, I haven't watched it since.



[ Parent ]
how quaint. (4.25 / 8) (#30)
by pb on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 12:36:29 AM EST

Let's see if anyone remembers about 9/11 after the second Civil War comes to pass...
---
"See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
-- pwhysall
hysterical (5.00 / 3) (#37)
by jjayson on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 01:24:59 AM EST

Is that a joke, really funny troll, or was there really someone who called himself John Titor and wrote all that stuff? Excellent.
--
Smile. =)
[ Parent ]
I agree. (5.00 / 3) (#41)
by pb on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 01:51:53 AM EST

It's definitely excellent. I read through a lot of the posts, and I think there really was someone called John Titor who wrote all that stuff. As for the veracity of it, only time will tell, but it all seems to be quite thoughtful and interesting, especially as compared to many of the other comments on the board. I've certainly read worse science fiction. :)
---
"See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
-- pwhysall
[ Parent ]
It's quite good. (5.00 / 3) (#49)
by jjayson on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 02:37:35 AM EST

The guy also seemed adept at steering converation away from areas that he didn't see to have a good story for. At least it isn't somebody predicting something in 2050.  You don't have to listen to 47 years of people saying, "But he might be true." This will all be settled in 2005. If only more time traveling trolls would be as nice.
--
Smile. =)
[ Parent ]
did you hear about the time travelling spammer? (5.00 / 5) (#52)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 02:53:20 AM EST

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,60141,00.html

fucking hilarious, i got a few from this guy

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I like it (4.66 / 6) (#32)
by alfrede01 on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 12:46:17 AM EST

And even though I was ready to vote it down b/c of the headline, I decided not to after reading it. Thanks for your perspective.

Great essay (4.90 / 10) (#34)
by YelM3 on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 12:57:02 AM EST

We desperately need perspective. It's very hard to know what the proper perspective is (as was one of your points) but I think we all need to try on some different ones. Yours is thought-provoking.

With so much meaningless chatter and fear-mongering in the media (even for someone who doesn't watch tv,) it's easy to just stop thinking about world affairs, politics, terrorism, etc. But there are valuable personal lessons in these times for everyone to find. Every time I really sit down and think about these events, it gives me pause and makes me really appreciate life for the next little while. There is a chance that these times might be the good times that I need to look back on someday for hope and strength.

thank you ;-) (nt) (5.00 / 2) (#35)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 01:01:12 AM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Perspective (5.00 / 3) (#174)
by gidds on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 07:54:46 PM EST

We desperately need perspective. It's very hard to know what the proper perspective is

This is more true than many realise.

I know I'll get flamed for this, so before I start I want to stress that even here in England I was shocked, horrified, outraged, and saddened by the WTC and related bombings. Whatever America as a country or its people have or have not done, neither deserved what happened then, especially not the innocent victims of all kinds. It was a tragic time.

But as you say, we all need perspective. I don't pretend to have a better one, just a different one; by sharing perspectives maybe we can each enlarge our own.

ISTM from what I've read since then that many Americans somehow unconsciously assume that terrorism was invented two years ago, that an entirely new problem had been unleashed on the world, something no-one had had to confront before. It's true that many Americans may not have had to face it before, but elsewhere the problem has been around a depressingly long time, and led to untold death, injury, and destruction. Of course, no single event quite on the scale of two years ago has happened before, but other countries have had to face the smaller incidents distressingly often. Even here in the UK we've had bombings (Omagh, the Baltic Exhange), hijackings (Lockerbie), and many many more. Al Quaeda is merely the latest in a long line of terrorist organisations -- it's just that this time the target was closer to home for many reading this.

What depresses me more than the terrorism itself, though, is one way in which I've not (in general) seen people responding. I'd very much like to see people trying to understand what has led to this situation. If many Americans have a limited perspective, I'd at least like to see some of them want to change that, to learn more, to try to see America the way that some others see it -- in particular, to see the results of America's foreign policies.

(I'm not saying that America has necessarily done anything wrong here, just that many seem to take it as axiomatic that anything America does must be right, which is exactly the wrong way to get any sense of perspective. Even avoiding the morality, I think some might see one or two of America's past actions as having had unfortunate consequences.)

So, two years on, what have Americans learned from what's happened? What have they done to make something like this less likely in future? Anything? -- And I don't mean the use of force, whether military, economic, or political. You can't force the world to like you; you can only try to be a better nation, to be honest, tolerant, understanding, mature, and wise. Which of course is what we should all be trying for anyway. Don't let terrorism change that. Don't get all defensive and miss the point. Don't focus on short-term actions that only address the symptoms (badly). Instead, try to see yourselves as others see you. Try to gain some perspective.

At least, that's my perspective.

Andy/
[ Parent ]

You've got it (5.00 / 1) (#186)
by YelM3 on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 08:55:00 PM EST

I'd very much like to see people trying to understand what has led to this situation.

Indeed. This seems to me like the only possible way to actually prevent terrorism in the future. Unfortunately, the American people largely follow the lead of the media. And the media, for reasons obvious to some, simply don't ask why.

Something that really bothered me is hearing people on the TV or otherwise asking "Why do they hate us so much?" (or even worse -- "they hate us because of our freedom!") Bin Laden released at least one extensive letter detailing many reasons why he opposes American rule and occupation in the Middle East. The information is out there but no one wants to see it. And of course, one of the most obvious ways to end this terrorism is to give Al Qaeda what it wants and get the hell out of the Middle East. This is nearly unspeakable on the media, for some reason. I rarely hear anyone discuss the possibility.

[ Parent ]

Osama just wants the US out of the Middle East (4.00 / 3) (#208)
by Grognard on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 10:15:52 PM EST

and Adolph will be satisfied with the Sudetenland, he promised.

The naivete of some people never ceases to amaze me.  If only history had an example or two (or dozens) of demagogues pimping victimhood in order to gain power.

[ Parent ]

Hallelujah! (5.00 / 2) (#432)
by dawtrina on Sat Sep 13, 2003 at 08:36:56 PM EST

Osama bin Laden wanted one thing and everybody seems to be happy to give it to him.

He wanted a polarisation of opinion so that the world would descend into a battle of two sides: the Islamic world and the Western world.

The next step is a global war between these two sides. I just hope we don't continue to play his game that far.

[ Parent ]

Wish it were true (5.00 / 1) (#319)
by CwazyWabbit on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 04:43:10 AM EST

This seems to me like the only possible way to actually prevent terrorism in the future.

I do believe that people will always find something to be angry about no matter what happens, in part because there will always be history to plunder if the world did end up perfect.  The best examples of this are old borders and nations being dredged up and compared to the present.

I don't think the world will ever be rid of people who want to change it, and some will choose to do so through terrorism.
--
"But here's the thing: if people hand me ammunition, what kind of misanthrope would I be if I didn't use it?" - Sarah-Katherine
[ Parent ]

You lost source code? (4.00 / 2) (#38)
by QuantumG on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 01:31:51 AM EST

No offsite backups eh? So what happened, did they go out of business as a result? Or did they redevelop it all. I'm interested in getting some idea how many people lose source code a year.. trying to evaluate the market for source recovery services (ala decompilation).

Gun fire is the sound of freedom.
well (4.00 / 3) (#39)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 01:41:02 AM EST

it wasn't so much source code i lost as basically my mental workspace, where my mind worked- all the snippets of code and partly worked on projects and such that defined 2 years of my work life.

nothing vital was lost by the company, since everything vital i contributed to the company was but 5% of my coding output in terms of projects completed and executed, versus code still not completed and code completed and not executed by the company

in which all the seeds of all my future work lay, scattered over various harddrives on my computers at the world trade center in a way that cannot be recreated, and is therefore irretrievably lost.

it was a large multinational investment bank... in a way i don't really miss the soul-sucking existence working for such a nameless faceless conglomerate entailed... but i miss the salary, lol (as much of us dotcom flotsam and jetsam do) ;-P

the company i work for now is tiny, but a lot more comfy


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

oh well (4.75 / 4) (#43)
by QuantumG on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 02:02:16 AM EST

good to hear it.

Gun fire is the sound of freedom.
[ Parent ]
The attack is comencing!! (4.14 / 7) (#42)
by Vesperto on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 01:52:36 AM EST

Don't say i didn't warn. Well, i guess it's just a tad "poor me" for me, a bit too much. I think you could do well without all the quotes. Still, this'll get FP anyway. Since there are lots of things i don't agree with or just don't feel like comenting and what not, i'll do what's logical: astain (0). well written, though.

If you disagree post, don't moderate.
i can handle abstain (5.00 / 2) (#51)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 02:49:50 AM EST

but if you are going to put a stain on my story, i am deeply saddened ;-P

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
circletimessquare (1.43 / 23) (#46)
by debacle on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 02:17:28 AM EST

I hate your fucking guts, I really do. You're a dick and a fucking kike and I wish you'd die sometimes.

But this was very, very well written. I feel inspired, and I like it, and I feel like there's hope, and I like that too, and maybe sometime tomorrow I can pass that on to someone who's remembering where they were, and cares more about a loss of lives than an affront on america.

+1 FP, needless to say. Not even the trolls should touch this one (Though I'm sure they have).

And maybe I don't hate you so much anymore.


It tastes sweet.

a small bit of advice (2.60 / 5) (#48)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 02:31:42 AM EST

i am not the racial slur you refer to me as

but regardless, you are not convincing anyone that your hatred of me is compelling as long as you use racial slurs

in fact, i would submit to you that racial slur use only bespeaks a small, provincial, ignorant mind

now that i've been all nice for you, i shall speak from the heart:

GO FUCK YOURSELF YOU INTOLERANT FUCK

I DON'T WANT YOUR VOTE OR LESS HATING ME OR A FUCKING THING FROM SUCH AN INBRED PUD WHO USES RACIAL SLURS LIKE THAT

we now return you to your usual trolling channel...

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Did I say kike? (5.00 / 1) (#201)
by debacle on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 09:55:53 PM EST

I meant kike.

It tastes sweet.
[ Parent ]
Let me tell you something... (5.00 / 1) (#70)
by tkatchev on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 05:56:30 AM EST

...we will all die sometime.

Including you, my man.

   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

0 you racist shit [nt] (5.00 / 1) (#84)
by nebbish on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 07:17:44 AM EST


---------
Kicking someone in the head is like punching them in the foot - Bruce Lee
[ Parent ]

Wow... (5.00 / 2) (#103)
by domovoi on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 10:15:54 AM EST

I never thought a dirtbag racist piece of crap would out himself so blatantly.
------------------------------
This is not my signature line.
[ Parent ]
Oh good. (5.00 / 1) (#318)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 04:34:31 AM EST

K5 got really slow last night and stopped responding so I didn't know if my score got change or not. You see, I liked the fact that he liked the story, but I didn't see the "kike" reference.

My change worked - this is changed from a "4" to a "1".

Yours humbly,
Ta bù shì dà yú


---
AdTIה"the think tank that didn't".
ה
[ Parent ]

seems OK.. (2.62 / 8) (#53)
by vivelame on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 03:14:42 AM EST

+1 FP from me.



--
Jonathan Simon: "When the autopsy of our democracy is performed, it is my belief that media silence will be given as the primary cause of death."
thanks dude ;-) (nt) (3.66 / 3) (#55)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 03:30:22 AM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
EDITORIAL (4.14 / 7) (#56)
by jjayson on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 03:36:10 AM EST

Fuck. When will people learn to put these kind of useless shit comments in editorial. Besides, everybody can see how you voted in in the little drop down boxes, and nobody really gives a fuck how you voted anyways.
--
Smile. =)
[ Parent ]
it's a human community (4.20 / 5) (#58)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 03:55:24 AM EST

people want to pat each other on the back, high five each other, etc.

you'll notice it goes on all the time, and i really don't think stanidng on a roof top and cursing and screaming at everyone about it will really change human behavior.

in which case, you really have no choice but to grow used to it.

think of it as simple post pollution. no big deal. there are larger problems, believe me.

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I wouldn't care... (5.00 / 6) (#60)
by jjayson on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 04:18:01 AM EST

if they just used editorial comments for it. When the story actually gets posted there are enough comments to have to filter throught without that useless "+1, I like it" crap.
--
Smile. =)
[ Parent ]
you know, jjayson, (4.50 / 4) (#99)
by ninja rmg on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 09:45:35 AM EST

i've developed a new rating policy meant to combat such idiocy.

among other things, i zero any comment that explains why the poster voted a particular way or is topical at the top-level. these are two of the biggest contributors to noise on the site. everybody posts stupid, content-free garbage on the top-level that isn't worth responding to. of course, why wouldn't they, since they usually get modded up anyway and they get more visibility than they would if they actually participated in discussion by replying to others? i believe that giving them zeros will provide the disincentive needed to keep people from posting garbage at the top-level. good comments will tend to get modded up to compensate for the low moderation, so it all evens out.

my last diary explains the policy more fully.



[ Parent ]

Wouldn't it be more effective... (4.71 / 7) (#109)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 10:54:31 AM EST

... if you stopped posting comments entirely?

Yours humbly,
Ta bù shì dà yú

---
AdTIה"the think tank that didn't".
ה
[ Parent ]

through dialectic with SocratesGhost... (3.00 / 4) (#119)
by ninja rmg on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 01:50:22 PM EST

i have learned that the best way to improve the signal to noise ratio is to moderate. the comments individuals write or do not write are of little importance. if you have any faith in the moderation system and our leader, rusty, you will see that i am doing the right thing.

the problem with this site is that there is not enough moderation.

moderation in all things, my friend, moderation in all things. this is the way to harmony and success.



[ Parent ]

yup, i (4.25 / 4) (#95)
by vivelame on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 08:50:50 AM EST

thought about that *after* clicking on the "post" thingie. As there isn't any "oops i'm stupid" button... As for the useless comment, well, you're mostly right: the only one who might be interested by this post is cts, and he read it. There isn't any "send a fskin' private message" option, through, so live with it. :-P

--
Jonathan Simon: "When the autopsy of our democracy is performed, it is my belief that media silence will be given as the primary cause of death."
[ Parent ]
Nice...Circ finally finds the <SHIFT> key (5.00 / 9) (#61)
by Psycho Dave on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 04:46:44 AM EST

"To see progress without suffering is blind. To see suffering without progress is cynical."

I was nearly willing to give up my cynical worldview after that great line. Then, I remembered:

The first person that John Brown killed in the assault on Harper's Ferry was a black man.

Still, +1 FP. 9-11's making me feel sentimental for a change.

it's true (5.00 / 3) (#62)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 04:49:01 AM EST

the abolitionists killed a free black railroad worker in their assault on harper's ferry, on purpose

not cynicism, irony

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

this belongs on the frontpage (4.71 / 7) (#63)
by the wanderer on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 04:49:51 AM EST

It is well written, well thought out, and belongs on the front page. I hope alot of people will read this and stop to think for a while.


» david, the Lost Boy
» the Written Pixel

thanks man ;-) (nt) (3.66 / 3) (#64)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 04:52:14 AM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
+1 FP, Wow you used capitalization. (3.66 / 6) (#67)
by strlen on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 05:37:22 AM EST

Wow, circletimesquare used capitalization. And a good essay, even if a bit long and overly broad.

--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
thanks dude ;-) (nt) (3.66 / 3) (#72)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 06:13:50 AM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Yes and no (4.91 / 12) (#73)
by pyramid termite on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 06:14:12 AM EST

Anyone else have the feeling of sitting at the top of a hill in a car without breaks, just beginning the imperceptible motions that we know signal the beginning of a 50 mile per hour slide down that hill?

Yes, but that's not the worst part. The worst part is the uncomfortable feeling I have that 9/11 has very little to do with the real reason we're going to slide down that hill. I have the distinct idea that the War on Terror could well be a minor issue compared to what will be the major issues of tomorrow - and no, I'm not sure what that will be, although I suspect that it may be economic in nature or have something to do with other flashpoints in the world.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
then you feel as i feel (5.00 / 3) (#77)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 06:29:09 AM EST

i keep waiting for the other shoe to drop

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Even those who limp go not backward. (4.00 / 6) (#74)
by Russell Dovey on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 06:15:58 AM EST

You've given me a new sig. Thankyou.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan

kahlil gibran (5.00 / 1) (#75)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 06:22:21 AM EST

kind of a mystical poet, sometimes too dense to wade through

but read some of his stuff, it's good ;-)

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

kahlil gibran (5.00 / 2) (#93)
by Battle Troll on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 08:39:21 AM EST

Poetry for people who don't really like poetry.

He's like the pink zin of poetry.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

Sig... (5.00 / 1) (#92)
by avasarpini on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 08:33:00 AM EST

New sig from Kahlil Gibran here too.
<HR>"...fear of death is but the trembling of the shepherd when he stands before the king whose hand is to be laid upon him in honour." -- Kahlil Gibran
[ Parent ]
+1 FP, best rant Ive read in ages (4.72 / 18) (#76)
by nebbish on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 06:25:16 AM EST

And thank you for saying this -

No one knows what the right thing to do is

This is why a lot of people in Europe have been so cautious about the Middle East. If you're not sure what you are doing is right, you make damn sure you don't kill people doing it.

---------
Kicking someone in the head is like punching them in the foot - Bruce Lee

yeah but, honestly... (4.33 / 6) (#78)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 06:32:44 AM EST

the world isn't perfect

you have a narrow window in which to act sometimes in life, and sometimes you have to take your best shot, even though you know you could do better, but you don't have enough time to find out what it is

if you keep waiting for the exact perfect thing to do, you wind up doing nothing, which is worse than doing something half-baked but well-intentioned

everyone knows acting without thinking is bad

but equally bad, capable of creating and sustaining just as much evil, is thinking without acting


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

You're right (5.00 / 3) (#80)
by nebbish on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 06:46:21 AM EST

My own opinions on the Middle East are fairly clear (although Im not going to go into that now) and I personally don't think Europe is doing enough.

There is a timidity here, and I think you summed up the reasons for that pretty well in your article.

But also, unfortunately what I and a lot of people here think about the Middle East would probably bring Europe into conflict (not military obviously) with the US if it were made into foreign policy. I suspect this may also be part of why Europe is holding back - opinion in Europe is different to the US, and whilst we aren't really giving the US much support in its attempts to deal with the Palestinian situation and Iraq (although Im a Brit), this might well be because we disagree - but realise that going against US foreign policy would be futile and probably make things much worse.


---------
Kicking someone in the head is like punching them in the foot - Bruce Lee
[ Parent ]

well (5.00 / 3) (#82)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 07:09:57 AM EST

how about this:

i'll agree that europe is doing more than just thinking without acting if you agree the us is doing more than just acting without thinking

;-)
 

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I agree wholeheartedly! [nt] (5.00 / 3) (#83)
by nebbish on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 07:10:56 AM EST


---------
Kicking someone in the head is like punching them in the foot - Bruce Lee
[ Parent ]

The palestinian situation. (5.00 / 2) (#104)
by Dr Seltsam on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 10:27:48 AM EST

I largely agree with your position. But especially regarding the palestinian situation, I have to say that I don't see too much action from the US either. The new "roadmap" is essentially dead, we're back to square one - and neither europe nor the US are doing anything substantial about it at the moment.
The fact that I'm paranoid does not mean that they are not after me.
[ Parent ]
What can be done? (5.00 / 2) (#138)
by wiredog on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 03:00:30 PM EST

Too much hatred, on both sides. IIRC, it was Golda Meir who said "There will be no peace until the Arabs love their children more than they hate the Jews."

The cynical, or perhaps despairing, view is that Hamas, or some other group, will commit some massive atrocity in Israel. The surviving Israelis will retaliate by massacring the Palestinians, and possibly vaporizing a few Arab capitals.

100 years of peace in the Middle East will follow.

Maybe the fence will work.

Wilford Brimley scares my chickens.
Phil the Canuck

[ Parent ]

Cynical... (5.00 / 2) (#147)
by Dr Seltsam on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 04:19:21 PM EST

...but possibly right, I fear.

The fence, in my opinion, will not work - simlpy because of the fact that it is an Israeli concept. The only thing I believe might help (except the kathartic catastrophe you mentioned) is some kind of massive international intervention. But I can hardly imagine what form it should take. As Jerusalem seems to be the focus of all problems, being the "holy city" to three major religions, it would probably best if it would not belong to either of them. What about Jerusalem as some kind of neutral UN protectorate, open to all but belonging to none? This status could be underlined by moving the seats of some major UN organisations to Jerusalem.

Of course I realize that there is no simple way to implement this concept, in particular, I can see no way implementing it without the use of force, which is quite contrary to the intention of the plan.
The fact that I'm paranoid does not mean that they are not after me.
[ Parent ]

nice idea, but (4.66 / 3) (#189)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 09:00:27 PM EST

i know a couple of billion indians and chinese who are outside of the judeochristian tradition and would find making jerusalem the capital of the un a little too self-serving and provincial a move for the west to honestly propose

make it a un protectorate, yes, but not anything more in the least

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

right (5.00 / 2) (#298)
by Dr Seltsam on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 02:17:29 AM EST

That is certainly right. I didn't mean to make it the UN "capital", just move some major UN organisations there to stress its international charakter. Starting with the UNHCR would be quite symbolic for example.
The fact that I'm paranoid does not mean that they are not after me.
[ Parent ]
i, unfortunately, agree (nt) (5.00 / 1) (#188)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 08:58:26 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
not necessarily (5.00 / 2) (#108)
by SocratesGhost on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 10:49:39 AM EST

Not having answers is usually a response to not having enough information. But we never have enough information, so do we live in a constant stalemate or do we do what's best for our own self interest or self-preservation?

One of the statistics that gets thrown around a lot is that 70% of Americans believed Iraq was involved with the events of the hijacked airlines. Wiser heads know this is not true. But I'm wondering where this 70% is! I don't know a single person that believes this or at least no one admits to believing it. I don't dismiss the stat, but I think it needs some reinterpretation. It may not represent a belief in a factual relationship between Al Qaeda and Iraq, but a sympathetic one: Al Qaeda hates us and uses terrorism; Iraq hates us and uses terrorism although not necessarily against us. It's not outside the realm of possibility then that there was goodwill between the two even if there was no cooperation or even communication. But the sentiments of one aids the other. Consequently, once you've been slugged in the chest, the friend of my enemy is also my enemy.

It's circumstantial, sure, but to a terrified people boogeymen are everywhere. So, we shouldn't act if we feel our lives threatened? That's the scariest part of it all. Most people saw Saddam as threatening. We didn't see Al Qaeda as threatening. And now, we hear from Europe that we don't act against the overt threat? To a worried American, Europe sounds like the neighbor whose house was spared from the tornado telling us not to worry because the insurance will kick in.

So Europe tells the U.S. to take it slow and get the facts right. That's good advice. But tell that to a person who feels alone in the alleyway and sees rapists and muggers all around them. Yes, the world is that brutal of a place.

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
The U.S. may feel vulnerable, but let's be real... (5.00 / 1) (#408)
by kcbrown on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 11:28:09 PM EST

So Europe tells the U.S. to take it slow and get the facts right. That's good advice. But tell that to a person who feels alone in the alleyway and sees rapists and muggers all around them. Yes, the world is that brutal of a place.
Yes. But for the analogy to hold, the person who feels alone in the alleyway would have to be Superman. Yeah, there might be someone who has a batch of Kryptonite and who has managed to hide it well enough that even Superman can't see it. But that's amazingly unlikely.

The U.S. lost about 3,000 people in the WTC attack. A horrible loss. But let's put that into some perspective: that's about .001% of the country's population, from an attack that is not only the most devastating terrorist attack ever seen, but an attack that would be difficult to duplicate.

It would be hubris for the U.S. to feel invulnerable, and inexcusable if it didn't take reasonable action to defend itself in the face of the WTC attack. But there's no good reason at all to believe that the U.S. didn't (and doesn't) have the time or situational luxury to really think things through before responding.

[ Parent ]

You can kill plenty of people... (5.00 / 1) (#124)
by SPYvSPY on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 02:04:07 PM EST

...by doing nothing but thinking about what to do. There is something to be said for trusting your instincts in difficult situations.
------------------------------------------------

By replying to this or any other comment in this thread, you assign an equal share of all worldwide copyright in such reply to each of the other readers of this site.
[ Parent ]

Instinct (5.00 / 2) (#141)
by Cameleon on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 03:47:23 PM EST

I don't think that if you have the strongest army on earth, you should act on instinct. You may break much more than you wanted. I also don't think the US acted on instinct attacking Afghanistan and Iraq. I think it was well thought out. I also think that the reason for attacking Iraq was not what the government said it was. And that is pretty scary.

The events of 11-09-01 have shocked everyone in the world, and have given them the will to do something. I just hope everyone will do the right thing.

[ Parent ]

Interesting times, indeed. (4.33 / 3) (#86)
by mooZENDog on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 07:31:14 AM EST

And surely, the terrorists of September 11th, 2001 had no idea of what they set in motion as much as Gavrilo Princip and his cell had no idea what foreboding he unleashed in 1914 in Sarajevo.

I disagree, in that I'm fairly sure that someone (even if the actual terrorists themselves were not aware of the enormity of what they were doing) had a fair idea of what was being set in motion.

However, that is the only thing I really disagree with... +1FP, an excellent article, extremely well written, captures the sense of uncertainty and lack of security over what's going to happen, indeed, what should happen... the interesting times that we live in.

IMHO things will more likely change in an economic sense. Capital represents power in the current system (how the cold war was 'won'?). The only way to maintain that power is to grow, in fact it's a requirement of capitalism, and the way that a superpower can grow is through aquisition (I'm sure that the Project for a New American Century has this in it's world domination HOWTO document). I don't think that it's sustainable, and it does seem set to make things worse. Just my (badly thought out, badly worded) two pennies worth :)

--------
"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"
- Gandhi

I like your sig (nt) (5.00 / 1) (#227)
by banffbug on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 11:04:15 PM EST



[ Parent ]
-1, dump it. (4.00 / 5) (#87)
by Ward57 on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 07:42:30 AM EST

Stop telling me that further war is inevitable. Nothing is inevitable.

My god, a balanced view! (3.33 / 9) (#88)
by megid on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 07:48:44 AM EST

Where is your usual "pandemocracy" "lets invade undemocratic countries" rambling? And why do you, suddenly, admit being an USian (not neccessarily official inhabitant of America), after denying it time and again?

Unfortunately, you are wrong. We all know what is right. We all know what is fair to all humans. We all know that there would be no wars if we wouldnt supply weapons, secret agencies, agendas, and OUR greed there. We all know how to build peaceful societies -- by giving humans their basic needs, and if nothing helps, all of them guns (worked quite well in the US, did it?).

If we just isolated the badasses (isolate! not still importing their resources, not still selling them weapons)... But again, our greed. OUR greed. Here in Europe we know what war feels like, its good you know it too. Then, maybe, one day your yearning for peace may be stronger than your greed for profits.

Hey, now we have a rant as answer to a rant.

Prepare for downmodding.

--
"think first, write second, speak third."

In the US ... (3.75 / 4) (#89)
by valeko on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 07:51:02 AM EST

This is called "fair and balanced" viewpoint, believe it or not.

"Hey, what's sanity got going for it anyways?" -- infinitera, on matters of the heart
[ Parent ]

the thing I don't like about Europeans... (3.55 / 9) (#112)
by SocratesGhost on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 11:24:14 AM EST

is this indignant air of "those shameful Americans constantly war; why can't they be civilized and learn that war is not the answer as we Europeans have found?" (sips tea with pinky in the air).

I think this attitude is false.

No one likes war. Your nations have been fortunate to be spared them. Why? Because the U.S. prevented the Iron Curtain from falling on you. How? War. War in Korea. War in Viet Nam carrying on a battle begun by the French. Wars and overthrows in South America to prevent the spread of communism. Without them, your freedoms today would include cursing the Kremlin because bread costs too many rubles. None of those wars were against Russia, but it demonstrated our willingness to use force for what we believe. We believed in a free Europe. The Soviets knew this.

The prize of the Cold War wasn't U.S. domination over the U.S.S.R.; Europe was the trophy. That's why the Cuban Missile Crisis affected you. If we were forced to sink those boats, Russia was prepared to invade Germany.

We protected your backdoor so you could feel safe walking out the front door. Your leaders know this, but find it more satisfying to play to the cheap seats. "Hasty Americans, we're so much better; we don't find it necessary to fight." Ask yourselves how you got that luxury.

Also, this so-called education in peace you presume to lecture about was not earned by your generation. If you live in a burnt out husk of a building caused by a German V2, or if you're still getting war rations, I could better understand your fatigue. As it is, it's naive self righteous ingratitude.

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
Dont blame to hastily, son. (3.66 / 3) (#139)
by megid on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 03:27:18 PM EST

First, what you experience as "indignant air" has no such arrogance -- we had enough bombs dropped on us to learn modesty. Obviously you havent yet.

Second, the US only had to protect us because our weaponry was destroyed in WW2. After that, we were colonies. Colonies with a certain range of freedom, but colonies nonetheless. If it had not been for the US, we would have built our own weapons. And we CAN do that, mind you.

Third, I understand what is going on. It is not that americans want war, it is such that certain factions, rich families who can from time to time dominate the government, use their power to further their wealth thru organized violence in other countries. I dont blame you, personally, or any other innocent american for that. You are as manipulated (to vote them) as we were in former times.

War is indeed seldomly the answer. Learn from Picard (in an american TV series, indeed!).

Fourth, bringing in the Vietnam War is unwise of you, from an argumental point. After all, you lost that war, so what? The world didnt fall, contrary to your depiction.

Fifth, this "we protected you so you could live in peace, be a little more grateful" attitude is dead wrong. While it is true that the lesson of peace was learned a generation before me, it is a lecture my generation still beholds. And your generation need it, too.

Sixth, what you call "threat" is always in other countries, which I find rather amusing. I perceive a thread when someones army can overrun MY country (at this time: the EU), not someone elses country. While that may sound rather egoistical, its true nonetheless -- or do you care about human rights violations in Myanmar, hm?

--
"think first, write second, speak third."
[ Parent ]

Interesting (4.16 / 6) (#152)
by SocratesGhost on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 05:47:13 PM EST

You call me son as though I'm a child, and you're not being patronizing. Amazing. You look down your nose at American willpower and you call yourself modest. Generally, when a person bows to the whip, it's called submissiveness, not modesty. There is nothing wrong with taking a principled stand.

In particular, I was responding to a really bad claim of yours. There will be wars if no one supplied arms or intelligences to others. You should know better than to make a claim against that. Talk about being duped by your leaders.

Also, there is nothing wrong with exporting greed. Trade stops wars. That, more than anything else is the main reason we didn't invade Saudi Arabia. The people may hate us, but their government's willingness to cooperate (they need us economically as much as we need them) means that there will be no war in Saudi Arabia. Saddam's mistake was interfering with the free trade of Kuwait. He'd still be in his palaces if he had not made that blunder. That's the big reason the French didn't want war: big fat oil contracts were waiting for them. Trade stops wars.

When has boycotting worked? It sure isn't working in Cuba. It didn't work against the fledgling U.S. colonies in revolt. It didn't change Iraq. South Africa maybe, but they were on the political track to end apartheid before boycotts began to take effect.

Now, to address your new points:

Colonies? You need a different word. No European nation is like any colony prior to 1900. The reason Europe's military was weak after World War II was because America protected it while it was rebuilding. Strategies such as the Marshall Plan were necessary to keep you from writing in Cyrillic. You could not have had a better friend and ally than the U.S.

I'm so glad that you understand U.S. politics so much better than me over the distance of the Atlantic. You'll have to teach me that trick. Specifically the part about how some rich guys duped me into supporting a war. I do support the invasion of Iraq but I never cared about WMD or Al Qaeda links. Most people that I know were disappointed that we didn't do the job right the first time and were eager to get the region into a stable shape.

I never said that winning the Viet Nam war was necessary. Our willingness to oppose communist expansion was the point you missed. But... Oh! Oh! He said Viet Nam! Jump! Jump! Look, some expansions we won. Others we lost. But we fought it everywhere we could. Can you point to any war in the last 60 years where the U.S. involvement cannot be associated with communist expansion(except for Israel, a situation left incomplete in American hands by the British)? I'd like to think that the U.S. is a doctor, cutting the patient so that he can be free to walk again.

I guarantee that if America didn't offer its umbrella of protection, that Europe would be just as divided as before your last great war. Each nation would have immediately built up its military just like they did at the end of WWI, but this time to prevent a Russian invasion. Each would have begun negotiating for its own self interest, resorting to sabre rattling if necessary, and we're back to square one. Europe's prosperity and unity is a direct result of U.S. protection. Or do you think bullets, nukes, and soldiers are free? We saved you that cost and discouraged the divisiveness that a military brings and we took that burden upon ourselves. Yes, you should at least say "Thank you." We have a black eye so you can trade in a common currency and move around anywhere under a single EU passport.

Iraq was a threat in the region to its neighbors (especially Israel since Saddam funded terrorist activities there), defaulted for 11 years on the terms of its peace treaties, and it was a breeding ground for anti-Americanism; a nation that says, "America is the enemy, America is the enemy, America is the enemy" doesn't produce admirers. Calling us the Great Satan tends to produce ill-will. If I call your mother a whore, I'd expect you to punch me. So, lets see: terrorism + hatred of Americans = threat. Following 9/11, it was a rookie maneuver for Saddam to give money to the families of suicide bombers. Even worse was to be on record for plotting the death of our country's President. But no, let's stick flowers in our gun and pretend he's not a bad guy. It will work in Myanmar if we close our eyes and hope really, really hard. Oh, and don't buy any of those valuable Burmese commodities like...

Um, can you help me here?

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
You arrogant prick. (4.00 / 3) (#309)
by megid on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 03:25:09 AM EST

I called you son because your arguments are as well thought out as a 12 year old. *I* certainly had thoughts similar to this at this age.

"Most people that I know were disappointed that we didn't do the job right the first time and were eager to get the region into a stable shape."

The middle east is not your damn playing field, kid! (sic!)

"Generally, when a person bows to the whip, it's called submissiveness, not modesty."

Oh yeah, what whip? I think this time we decided for ourselves -- its the "ancient" (to me) experience of being the whipped one instead of being the whipper that influences us.

"Colonies? You need a different word."

No I dont. We have US military on our ground, and if we do something that really disturbs the trade and money influx into the US, I bet they will take action. Plus we got Echelon to boot out our competitiveness in the marketplace. The french may be the most free of us in the EU, the rest is hopelessly americanized. Until now.

"[sarcasm] Specifically the part about how some rich guys duped me into supporting a war.[sarcasm]"

Yeah sure, it was your own opinion.

"Our willingness to oppose communist expansion..."

Yeah, the communists invade countries, YOU merely protect them by, ahm, sending support troops, hm? Black white par excellence.

"I'd like to think that the U.S. is a doctor, cutting the patient so that he can be free to walk again."

ARROGANT mega troll. You have no RIGHT whatsoever to meddle with the world in THAT arrogant way.

"I guarantee that if America didn't offer its umbrella of protection, that Europe would be just as divided as before your last great war."

You are pretty quick with your guarantees. I'd rather bet the EU would have been formed faster, as a military alliance against russia. Though *I* will give no guarantee on that bet.

"Europe's prosperity and unity is a direct result of U.S. protection."

Sure. See Echelon before. Our society would be different, more military and less welfare, but thats about it. You have a pretty one dimensional view of state budgeting.

"Iraq was a threat in the region to its neighbors..."

To those peaceful neighbours, especially Israel with its nuclear bombs, which is a threat to no one, right? Hell, did you ever come to the conclusion that the US is the great threat? That the US is the only large-scale invader right now? Or is this fact fogged by your "but we are the good guys" view?

"It will work in Myanmar if we close our eyes and hope really, really hard."

Yeah, why not invade *them*? Asshole. I bet the weapons supplied there are of western origin (and I dont exclude my country here). Plus, when foreign trade is so unimportant there, why does the Amnesty International thing with worldwide perception work there, hm?

And, last but not least, the diamond:

"Even worse was to be on record for plotting the death of our country's President."

Yippie! Never in the world have you been influenced by cheapest propaganda!



--
"think first, write second, speak third."
[ Parent ]

european arrogance, but I'm being redundant... (5.00 / 4) (#336)
by SocratesGhost on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 08:31:55 AM EST

I have every right to meddle in the world as I see fit. Don't like it? Show me the rule book that says otherwise. The thing you don't grasp about international politics is that it operates in a void. Old Europe is so weighted down with its own self importance, no wonder it divided the world into West & East as though it were the center of the world. Wake up, old timer! The world doesn't operate that way. It never has. Europe can no longer conceive of places with lawlessness, let alone power relationships in the 21st century. The EU won't know what to do with global power nearly so well as the U.S. so long as it keeps this naive fascination that the world operates like Europe and peace is the only answer. Moreover, as this last war proved, Europe isn't as much of a union as it believes.

If you want to effectively operate on the global scene (you need to learn this, Europe never has operated effectively globally), you need to stop thinking like a European. Not everyone is out to dominate your country as you sought to do to everywhere else. Sometimes, you just want to keep them from being hostile to your cause. Other times, you want to trade with them so you both can profit. Somehow, you find that so offensive that you curse the export of american greed as though Adam Smith was our first President. But, no, he was European.

Now, Americans, we'd prefer to be a peaceful folk, but we don't take kindly to people who want a violent marxist overthrow of the world. We didn't create that idea. That was born in... let me see... Europe! And it came to fruition in... oh! Europe again! And thus Russia decided to carry out the European program of world domination. So, we had to learn the ropes quickly. The Soviets set up Castro; America set up Pinochet. The Soviets armed the Middle East. The U.S. supplied Israel. Somehow you think Europe would have held back the Soviet threat, but having your small minded old school mentality, you think only of your precious European soil. "We'd unite nobly to resist the Russians. How foolish of the U.S. to defend South Korea. How damaging it was to fight in Viet Nam. You deserve the creation of bin Laden in Afghanistan. They're none of your business. But over here, in Old Europe, even three years after the war, the Germans would peaceably set aside their differences with the French and ask them for help in breaking the Embargo of Berlin. Yes, we're that enlightened."

Get over yourself. You each would have been forging your separate peace with Russia just as Chamberlain and Moussolini did with Germany in World War II. Think you wouldn't? Think again. You're practically being an apologist for Saddam Hussein in your comments (No, he would NEVER do a brutal thing like plan an assassination attempt). You'll believe whatever it takes to desperately hold on to the once proud legacy of your country that is now relegated to the children's table while the grown ups go and do the real work of making the world safe for you.

The Treaty of Brussels was a nice gesture, but why was it the Americans who performed the airlifts into Berlin in 1948? (again, another failed boycott)

OK, I need to back up a second. You're telling me that after Alexander, Scipio, Caesar, the Crusades, Napolean, Frederick Barbarossa, Bismarck, and the countless endless bloodbaths that masked as French Revolutions that you finally have wised up and realized that war doesn't solve anything? Forgive my skepticism. You're telling me that the French, who never fatigued of killing themselves for the better part of the 18th and 19th century suddenly had a change of heart because America somehow turned that cheese region into the 51st state? Hey, I don't get their fascination with Jerry Lewis either, but we sure as hell didn't force him on them. Europe was always free with America as its ally.

Since you seem to have forgotten your local history, let's go through a timeline:
  1. Europe goes through a world war
  2. The U.S. intervenes and prevents Europeans from dying slow deaths in trenches.
  3. War ends.
  4. The U.S. departs.
  5. 20 years later, you fuckers are back at it again, like crabby old men fighting over Geritol and Depends underwear.
  6. U.S. intervenes and prevents Europeans from killing each other a second time within a generation.
  7. U.S. stays and establishes itself.
  8. Europe unites.
At the risk of oversimplification; the main differences between the endings of both World Wars is that America chose to become actively involved with the reconstruction during the second war instead of resuming its isolationist policy. But we also realized that the problem of World War always seems to start in Europe for some reason. So, we stayed to help Europe rebuild and to protect you from ripping out your own stitches.

Having a military presence is the definition of a colonial power? You have a wacky sense of what colonialism is. If anything, it's imperialism. Not that you seem to care for such subtle distinctions. Moreover, you can only see things in European imperialist terms. That's why you need to use better words. We're no longer operating in the 1700's when Europe was the center of power.

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
You are getting sillier each time. (3.00 / 3) (#342)
by megid on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 09:24:10 AM EST

"At the risk of oversimplification"? Thats a very nice terminus to describe your argumentation. May I remind you that the boycott of East Germany was one of the few that worked? Are we united again, or not? Or, are these (of course!) different reasons? Like... I dont know... The good american influence?

You shape the world according to YOUR benefit, not the benefit of a better world. Thats the reason while even the Yugoslawians asked US to train their police (us! Germans! we invaded them during WW2! They would have every right to hate us!), as well as the Afghans.

No, it is you that is small minded. You want to forge a world under your crushing will, to your benefit. You dont care anything about the world. We want to build a better world for all, but that takes time, patience, fairness, and money. And it works. Look at how we are growing. I predict that in 50 years Russia is part of the EU. Peacefully. Look at Turkey. They improve their Human Rights conditions, make western laws -- all to join the EU. Peacefully. My dream is that one day this principle will encompass the Middle East and all the crisis countries of the planet. Peacefully.

This day, your warmongering has to end. Until then, try to wage wars for greed. It will work, for some time. Ultimately, you will loose all your colonies. No one can rule forever.

And when you want to get to history... Who eliminated their own countries native inhabitants with biological warfare (pox comes to mind)? Who had the grossest slavery on this planet? Who had the most puppet dictators, cruel like nothing, installed? Hm?

Wake up, old timer. Your "I am the strongest" strategy has worked well for 40 years, be grateful that everyone else weakened themselves so you could be the one left, securely protected by an ocean. This time is over.

Oh, and about the "Now, Americans, we'd prefer to be a peaceful folk..." crap... Yeah, except when your Govt creates a war frenzy again. You fall for it again and again. Not that I'd blame you too much, Hitler did that to us too, so the shame is mine too. But I dont think you will ever, in your lifetime, realize what shapes you. Stay well put in your safe warm shell.

--
"think first, write second, speak third."
[ Parent ]

Did you fall asleep in history class? (4.66 / 3) (#346)
by Grognard on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 10:24:09 AM EST

And when you want to get to history... Who eliminated their own countries native inhabitants with biological warfare (pox comes to mind)?

Ever heard of the Caribes?

Who had the grossest slavery on this planet?

I think you'll find the mortality rates for Africans working the cane fields in the Caribbean and natives in the mines of Mexico to exceed that of the southern US.  Also take a look at what happened in the Belgian Congo.

Who had the most puppet dictators, cruel like nothing, installed? Hm?

North Korea
Poland
East Germany
Bulgaria
Rumania
Hungary
Czechoslovakia
Afghanistan
Cuba
Nicaragua
North Vietnam
Laos
Cambodia
China

versus how many for the US?

A question of my own:

Who supported nearly all of world-wide terrorism prior to the 1990's?  Hint - what do the IRA, the PLO, and the Red Brigades (to name a few) all have in common?

[ Parent ]

always appreciative of... (5.00 / 1) (#351)
by SocratesGhost on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 11:00:22 AM EST

the help of a grognard.

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
and not to bring up a sore point (5.00 / 2) (#352)
by SocratesGhost on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 11:04:50 AM EST

if you consider jewish internment camps slave labor...

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
Yeah, support! Or your second account? (2.66 / 3) (#354)
by megid on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 11:08:35 AM EST

Guess what? The US invaded more countries than anyone else, including Russia. Cant find the link to that source right now, though.

Regarding your second question: The US funded the Afghans, the Contras, Saddam, the Saudis and everyone else well before 1990.

For the intro, you got a point. You probably *will* find people who have been more evil than you. Germany has been evil too, but contrary to the US, *we* take the guilt onto us. So should you. A "holier than thou" stance doesnt help.

--
"think first, write second, speak third."
[ Parent ]

I wouldn't fool you (5.00 / 3) (#355)
by SocratesGhost on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 11:21:38 AM EST

That's not the type of game I play. Takes too much time.

Also, most every one of the instances you mentioned were reactionary. There were credible communist encroachments in Afghanistan, El Salvadar, Iran (which is who Iran battled using U.S. Support, but we never trusted him--it's well known he was always vehemently anti-British and anti-West).

Funding Saudis is a bad thing, though? We want free flow of oil so we encourage the region to be stable. They were in charge of Saudi Arabia before we got involved in the region (put in place by European Brits, btw). We just paid a high cost to secure resources. Is that any different than being the highest bidder on ebay?

I think your dislike of the U.S. is blinding you to the fact that we all inherited this world's problems; it's not just one country's fault.

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
A quick look at the next history book (5.00 / 1) (#436)
by megid on Sun Sep 14, 2003 at 09:07:17 AM EST

... would bring you lots of examples of USian overthrows of democracies with cruel dictatorships for economical purposes (pinochet comes to mind). Funding the Saudis is not bad per se, but as your president so eloquently said, you are thus funding their contras ("terrorism") also.

Again, dont oversimplify my stance. I said before that I dont claim me (or my country) to be clean in that matters, on the contrary (we had the cruelest dictator on this planet); of course it is not ALL the US fault, but they are contributing much to the situation (again: not ONLY you! its us too!). In fact, I dont even dislike the US at a whole -- I am not such a simple person as some here (maybe you? I dont know) would like.

That I dislike arrogant behaviour (especially the "the world is rightfully mine" stance), and that I dislike a certain ability to reflect on the influences that one is surrounded with (I must constantly remind myself that what I see as "my free opinion" is of course 50% free and at least 50% successfully manipulated by media without myself even noticing it), should hardly come as a surprise.

--
"think first, write second, speak third."
[ Parent ]

and who did Pinochet replace? (5.00 / 2) (#439)
by SocratesGhost on Sun Sep 14, 2003 at 02:08:38 PM EST

the communist Allende. U.S. foreign policy until the 1990's was dominated by the Cold War. We didn't have the resources to fight anything that would divert us from the goal of toppling the aggressiveness of Russia.

I'm not particularly content with the Saudi people, but their government is friendly enough to warrant support. As the attack in Riyadh shows, they're as vulnerable as we are. It's a problem that must be worked out, but that doesn't mean we remove support for their government.

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
Sorry, I'm the real thing (4.66 / 3) (#356)
by Grognard on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 12:11:58 PM EST

Very nice to use the accusation of being a dupe account to distract from the fact that you were wrong.

I'm sure there's a reason why you can't find that link about the US invading more countries than any other (pay attention in history class would again pay off).  I have seen a link or two posted over the years detailing the number of US interventions (not necessarily all of which were invasions) - old news and most were Cold War proxy conflicts.

I find it laughable that you throw up the Afghans (who were resisting a Soviet invasion) as a counter-example to those I listed (Red Brigades, IRA, PLO).  Please do some research into the differences between the mujahadeen and Soviet sponsored terrorists before you decide to embarass yourself again.  Also, comparing governments (Saddam in Iraq and the House of Saud) to NGO's also betrays a dearth of the ability to discriminate between radically different situations (not that I'm fond of, or supportive of either).

I certainly haven't claimed a holier than thou status for the US, however when one makes historically illiterate statements one should expect to be refuted.


[ Parent ]

hopefully my analysis was better (5.00 / 1) (#357)
by SocratesGhost on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 12:23:29 PM EST

I'm curious. I was going from memory for most of it, so a reasonable fact check would be appreciated.

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
For the most part (5.00 / 1) (#358)
by Grognard on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 12:29:42 PM EST

The only quibble I'd have is over Iran.  The support of Saddam versus the Imams (unintentional rhyme, but I like it, so I'll keep it) had more to do with checking Shiite Fundamentalism (which was threatening to be expansionist) than the Iranian communists (who were also under attack by Khomeini).

[ Parent ]
I thought that (5.00 / 1) (#360)
by SocratesGhost on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 12:36:54 PM EST

the Shiite government also obtained its weapons from the Soviet Union. Or at least they get them from Russia now. I probably have the time line wrong in my head.

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
Iranian Weaponry (5.00 / 2) (#361)
by Grognard on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 12:42:38 PM EST

There may have been some purchases from the Soviets(honestly, I'm a bit fuzzy on that point), but Soviet influence was negligible and they may well get their current stuff from Russia.

I do know that the Khomeini regime inherited a lot of US-made hardware from the Shah (including the export version of the F-14), which they used until lack of spares made the items inoperable.

[ Parent ]

Look (4.75 / 4) (#350)
by SocratesGhost on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 10:58:59 AM EST

First of all, an olive branch: Here's to peace in our time. It's a goal that I do want, even if you think I'm a warmonger. I'm going to try to return to a more civil tone, too.

The fall of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Germany occurred for more reasons than boycotts. Do you seriously believe that boycotts alone did it? Western powers held an embargo against East Germany, but East Germany was supported by the Soviet Union, which is to say that there was no effective embargo. The reunification of Germany occurred as a symptom of the impending collapse of the Soviet Union. East Germans were the most prosperous of all the countries of the Iron Curtain but survived on only 1/3 of West Germans. Frequently, the country was drained of resources to support Mother Russia. When the communist model went bankrupt, Germany quickly broke off.

This did not occur only because of an embargo, but as a direct failure of that communist implementation. If communism covered the entire globe, it's doubtful it would have survived considering the high levels of waste. Embargo may have contained the threat, but really, the arms race accelerated the downfall. Most historians point that the Soviet Union had to divert resources from public works and even food production to keep up with the pace of America's war machine. Bankruptcy was inevitable at that point.

I think it's simplistic to say the U.S. did not play an important role in the fall of Russia and the consequent reunification of Germany. You have to expand your perspective to more than just proximate causes. I think this is my biggest frustration, not just with Europeans (although Europe is more dangerous in this myopia) but with Americans and anyone else. They see proximate causes and take them for ultimate causes. The U.S. won the Cold War. The greatest victory was in bringing down the Berlin Wall. But it did so through an aggressive strategy elsewhere in the world.

Another example of a misleading proximate cause: the U.S. created bin Laden. It did in order to counter the threat in Afghanistan. Should we have stayed aside and let the country be overrun by Soviet tanks? If we did, that's a form of capitulation of the arms race that brought about the Soviet collapse. We reap what we sow and as terrifying as bin Laden is, a United States in the condition of a 1988 East Germany bothers me more than a bin Laden free in the Middle East.

So, yes, the United States is aggressive in protecting its interest. It's about a lot more than saying greed, though. Like I said, can you point to a single instance before the first Gulf War in which U.S. actions are not related to fighting communism? I really don't think you can; I've spent a lot of time reading about this subject.

There's two debatable areas: Grenada and Panama. Grenada was in the process of removing its communist elements, but it wasn't happening fast enough for the U.S. The removal of Panamanian dictator Noriega was more related to our War on Drugs, but he was also charged with selling secrets to Cuba. Although there is a debate about degree, all wars involving the U.S. since 1945 have been related to communism or the defense of Israel. Until you can show otherwise, you cannot convince me that we weren't fighting the Cold War and thus protecting Europe and protecting you. You haven't even tried to except in a dismissive way. Considering my attitude, I don't blame you, but I'd actually prefer to try to see each other's point of view on this one. I'm willing to listen if you are.

Incidentally, it was the European Spanish who predominantly used germ warfare in conquering America but the worst damage was accidental. By the time the U.S. was formed 250 years after the Spanish conquered Mesoamerica, Native Americans were sufficiently inoculated, but their numbers were tremendously reduced. There's statistics to say that North America had about 8 million inhabitants. By the time of the colonies, the population reduced to less than 2 million and most of this happened by normal transmission to populations never exposed to European diseases. Either way, that was Spanish policy. Not the United States. Guns, Germs, and Steel is a good book that talks about this.

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
Diseases (4.75 / 4) (#423)
by epepke on Sat Sep 13, 2003 at 12:21:09 PM EST

And when you want to get to history... Who eliminated their own countries native inhabitants with biological warfare (pox comes to mind)?

Do you mean the European Spanish who wiped out the native inhabitants in the Southeast U.S. with smallpox, or do you mean the European English who wiped out the native inhabitants in the West U.S. with smallpox?


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
Naive (5.00 / 1) (#142)
by svampa on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 03:59:02 PM EST

In Ssouth-America USA has spreaded its corporations, and supported brutal dictators that allow exploit the country resources. And comunism was just an excuse.

Don't look just press, look oficial unclassified documents.



[ Parent ]
corporations are outlawed? (n/t) (5.00 / 1) (#353)
by SocratesGhost on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 11:07:29 AM EST


-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
you mean Europe's greed (3.75 / 4) (#125)
by modmans2ndcoming on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 02:09:02 PM EST

if I recall, France (the loudest of all the fools there) were trading with nations that the UN put sanctions on.

yeah, who's greed?

[ Parent ]

Of course. (5.00 / 1) (#145)
by megid on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 04:10:50 PM EST

You are the best at recalling, obviously. The US never traded weaponry with Iraq while France and, to a lesser extend, all European countries, did.

--
"think first, write second, speak third."
[ Parent ]
too focused!! (5.00 / 1) (#175)
by lens flare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 08:00:48 PM EST

so France dealt with Iraq... but you're being too focused. So in that one example, France I would say are doing the wrong thing, the USA the right... but that's only ONE damned country we've looked at. What about Iran, etc?

[ Parent ]
Learn sarcasm, please. (5.00 / 1) (#305)
by megid on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 03:03:38 AM EST

A quick look at my comment history should suffice. OF COURSE the US traded with Iraq despite UN sanctions!

--
"think first, write second, speak third."
[ Parent ]
wow it's the 1st time... (4.00 / 3) (#91)
by dimaq on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 08:07:10 AM EST

I see an article that matches both /pearl harbour/i and /\(hiroshima\)\|\(nagasaki\)/i

still only a 0. from me.

Form over substance. (4.57 / 7) (#94)
by Tezcatlipoca on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 08:41:21 AM EST

Your personal experiences are touching and said with dignity.

Your evaluation is simplistic but equally well exposed.

We don't know who have the right answer because at any given moment we can try only one path, normaly the one of the mightiest, and we been imperfect humans, any path we choose is full of imperfect choices. Of course Bush having no grasp of international politics (how fast people forget he could not name any foreign leaders in interviews during his campaign to become president) is a dangerous man due to his abismal ignorance and parochialism. Reagan at least understood where he stood and what were the consequences of his actions.

Might is right
Freedom? Which freedom?

-1 ffs, let it go! (3.57 / 7) (#96)
by gordonjcp on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 09:27:45 AM EST

Come on, for everyone else in the world it was "Little bit of trouble, not many dead, film at 10" and buried by the next bit of tabloid gossip within a day or two. Anyone would think it was the first terrorism ever committed.

Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll bore you rigid with fishing stories for the rest of your life.


it was the first terrorism ever committed. (3.11 / 9) (#98)
by ninja rmg on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 09:36:22 AM EST

i had never heard of terrorism before 9/11. i figured they just invented the word to describe 9/11.

before 9/11 people in america didn't talk about terrorism. why? because 9/11 was the first terrorism ever committed.



[ Parent ]

Sorry dude. (5.00 / 2) (#105)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 10:38:10 AM EST

If only this were the case. It is not. It profoundly affected the way many Australians viewed the world. I'm one of them.

Yours humbly,
Ta bù shì dà yú

---
AdTIה"the think tank that didn't".
ה
[ Parent ]

Are you kidding me? (4.00 / 5) (#113)
by Russell Dovey on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 12:13:13 PM EST

At the time, I was in Samoa, an Australian dole bludger looking after my little brother while my mum got settled in her new UN job. The first I heard of it was about an hour before the second tower collapsed.

My mother rang our house, which immediately became a surreal fibro structure overlooking an equally impossible reef lagoon, to tell me that there had been a terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in New York City, and that 40,000 people might be dead.

She was crying. That's how affected people were, in Samoa, a little island in the South Pacific.

I walked down the road, since we had no TV, to a little Internet cafe (shack with four computers and an ISDN line) and got my first look at the famous picture of the fireball coming out of the left-hand side of the WTC.

There were tourists there, one pair from New York. None of us knew what to say to them, or each other.

After walking through the main street of Apia, Samoa's only town, where the usual throng of white tourists all had sober, stunned looks on their faces, I found myself in the poolside bar, palm trees around the pool gently waving in the wind, of the local hotel where my mum's UN conference was going on.

There was a TV, with BBC World, which the local TV station was broadcasting for free, 24 hours a day. (It continued to do this until after Afghanistan was invaded.)

I sat there watching, getting food and drink from the bar occasionally, for about four days, going home to sleep and coming back every morning at 9 or so.

While I may be more prone to "I must experience every second of this big event" syndrome than most people, I think you are seriously wrong in saying that most people weren't affected by this.

Oh, and it might not have been the first, but at one and a half thousand people, it was certainly the most deadly single terrorist attack ever.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

So? (3.33 / 3) (#117)
by Magnetic North on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 01:46:34 PM EST

That a lot of people seemed to care doesn't make it significant. That a lot of people listen to Britney Spears, won't make 'her' music significant in any way on a time scale larger than ten years.

Did people in Samoa cry the last time tens of thousands of people died in a flood in Asia? Or when Iraqi children starved to death because of a UN sanction?

The only thing that made the TT attack significant was that the US was the target. How special do you think you are in the grand scheme of things? How many coloured people in other parts of the world is one white American worth?



--
<33333
[ Parent ]
your cynicism (4.33 / 3) (#123)
by modmans2ndcoming on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 02:00:24 PM EST

covers a lot of larger issues. but be happy living the way you do.

I do not doubt that in 500 years, people will look back on this time and just clump all the actions of the 20th century together into one big conflict. they will no doubt attribute this to the fact that the birth of globalization in the 19th century greatly contributed to the cultural conflicts that sparked off all the wars.

no one will recall who died, and kids will get pissed that they have to memorize the date of such a distant event, even if it did spark the birth of a global union of mankind.

but does the perspective of people in the future dictate the importance of the events in the present? hell no.

9/11 is a significant event for us today. the fall out is significant to us today. do not trivialize something that changed the world and help transition it into the final phase of global integration of people and cultures.

[ Parent ]

Hmm.. (3.50 / 2) (#134)
by Magnetic North on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 02:46:38 PM EST

spark the birth of a global union of mankind

That's just creepy. Do you really believe that?

Not that the thought itself is creepy, just that coming from an American, it makes my spine shudder.

Sure you haven't watched too much 'Star Treck' lately?



--
<33333
[ Parent ]
I am not saying it will be from America (5.00 / 1) (#140)
by modmans2ndcoming on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 03:44:06 PM EST

I am just saying that the turmoil is cause by culture clash and in the end, we will have a global unity of the human race (politically) as a result of these differences being solved.

[ Parent ]
I agree (5.00 / 1) (#235)
by banffbug on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 11:17:45 PM EST

Europe was once divided, fighting fiefdoms, which conglomerated, and has now learned to live together, despite their diferences. Yes the world wars were only 50 year ago, but we're looking at the present day here. Feudal japan parallels here too. It's no doubt that one day all human nations will unite and govern each other accordingly. They probably won't even be called nations by then.

As the article points out, this will only probably come about from mass suffering, terrible global emergencies, and other great news. Through conflict comes synthesis.

[ Parent ]

Sounds nice of course.. (2.66 / 3) (#365)
by Magnetic North on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 01:10:21 PM EST

But you do realise that the big catch in that plan is the US?

How does cutthroat jingoism and egoism fit into a united world?



--
<33333
[ Parent ]
The iguana will bite those who chose not to dream (5.00 / 1) (#376)
by banffbug on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 02:04:59 PM EST

The united states will undoubtedly undergo transformations; where power is more evenly distributed, and the will of a nation cannot be strung like a harp by arcanic despots. Jingoism and egoism will be recongnized as pitfalls to a united humanity, and signposts to problem areas. Again, emense suffering happens every day, but where can the human hand (or 10,000) relieve the pain?
When I think of myself, it's as a human being, first and foremost.

[ Parent ]
yep (5.00 / 1) (#390)
by Magnetic North on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 04:32:04 PM EST

When I think of myself, it's as a human being, first and foremost.

And that is a very good first step.

The next step is to recognise that the reason that we can live our (relatively) incredibly good lives, is nothing other than sheer luck in geography.



--
<33333
[ Parent ]
Some Compassion, Please (3.40 / 5) (#129)
by thelizman on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 02:28:55 PM EST

The only thing that made the TT attack significant was that the US was the target.
...and the fact that is the single largest act of destruction during a time of peace in human history, that it is the largest body count of non-combatant civilians since WWII to occur in one day...oh I could go on, but your outlook is stained by your anti-American hatred, so it'd be pointless to educate you.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
well said (5.00 / 1) (#192)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 09:15:40 PM EST

now why did you vote against my article?

you agree with my sentiment but hate the author?

i thought i was the troll?

but of course, you are above my kind of behavior

when you do what i do, it makes perfect sense, but when you see me do the same thing as you, i'm incorrigible scum

you're a hypocrit


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Dude (5.00 / 2) (#317)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 04:24:29 AM EST

Calm down. Just because someone doesn't vote for your article doesn't mean that they're a hypocrite. There may have been other reasons they voted it down.

And not just because they hate you - don't take a -1 so personally!

Yours humbly,
Ta bù shì dà yú

---
AdTIה"the think tank that didn't".
ה
[ Parent ]

Exactly my point. (5.00 / 1) (#245)
by Russell Dovey on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 11:47:56 PM EST

The US got attacked, and that's why it was big. Because if, say, 1 million Rwandans are murdered by other Rwandans, it's an unthinkably huge tragedy, but it's over.

The 9/11 attacks have changed US foreign policy, shifted attitudes all over the world, and generally affected the entire world's future. My mother cried not only because she thought 40,000 people had died, but also because for all we knew, this was the start of World War 3.

According to circleshatnerssquare, it was.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

Rwanda's massacres are NOT over. (5.00 / 1) (#254)
by Russell Dovey on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 11:58:15 PM EST

Replying to my own comment, I retract that bit, since it came out like I was some kind of insensitive, unthinking bastard.

What I mean is that 9/11 provoked the US into affecting the entire world with its actions, while Rwanda's genocide stayed largely in Rwanda. Personally, I would rather that the US had stuck up its middle finger at Osama and continued on, unaffected, and that the UN had sent troops into Rwanda at the first sign of trouble, rather than waiting for bodies to drift down the river into neighbouring countries.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

Yup (5.00 / 3) (#133)
by epepke on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 02:43:36 PM EST

You've succinctly described why the U.S. doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks and is not likely to for a long time to come.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
NeoCons (4.00 / 5) (#100)
by wiredog on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 09:46:54 AM EST

I'm glad that someone on this site realizes that not all conservatives are Imperialists. Many conservatives are anti-imperialist, and opposed the Iraq war.

But then, there are people on the left (Hitchens, Lieberman, and others) who support the Iraq war.

Wilford Brimley scares my chickens.
Phil the Canuck

why not just call them what they are (3.66 / 3) (#118)
by modmans2ndcoming on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 01:50:22 PM EST

fascists.

of course that word has been used to describe conservatism, as if it is being fascist to take a wait and see approach or something.

Hitler was a fascist, Stalin was a fascist. the difference? they approached the fascist end of the spectrum from different directions. one from the right, the other from the left.

[ Parent ]

nope (4.50 / 2) (#233)
by martingale on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 11:12:32 PM EST

Mussolini was a fascist. Hitler was a Nazi (National Socialist). Stalin was a communist.

It's easy to lump all these ideas together under the heading of (those evil bad guys over there), but it's counterproductive.

Stalin was a dictator who used communism as a way of controlling his country. He also imposed american style capitalism for about five years in the thirties, to build up Russian industry before reverting to communism. Mainly, it seems he was interested in using the planning power of the state for controlling people and dissent.

Hilter was a nationalist first, socialist second. He wanted Germany to be first among all other nations - kind of like the US today, if you listen to the current administration, but lots of other countries went down that path too.

Unlike most Americans, Hitler was a socialist. He believed that German society had a lot to say about how individuals should live their lives. Whence things like the Hitler Jugend, where kids were trained from an early age for allegiance to the State first, parents second. Hitler was no fascist. He was quite happy to destroy the German economy and intellectual establishment for racial reasons.

Mussolini believed in the power of corporations and the State before individuals. The Roman fasces, which is where word fascism comes from, were a bunch of thin wooden rods used for corporal punishment (think of the British caning tradition). The fasces symbolised the collective power of the State over the individual, ie the good of the many over the good of the few.

Mussolini believed that Italy would become a leading nation of the world through technology and the trickle down effects of corporate domination. Very similar to the US right. For him, what mattered therefore was the well being of corporations and state organisations (eg the military). Single individuals should never be allowed to damage these organisations.

[ Parent ]

I don't care what you call them (5.00 / 1) (#249)
by modmans2ndcoming on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 11:53:30 PM EST

they all had the same damn policies and ideals.

they were all communists, fascists, Nazis

the only difference was political positioning in front of the masses.

I know all that you have said, but tell me one thing that was substantively different between all those governments.

there was nothing that differed. hence they all fall under the same heading.

[ Parent ]

one substantive thing (5.00 / 1) (#265)
by martingale on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 12:30:12 AM EST

Hitler wanted to (and did) exterminate Jews because they weren't Arians (Germans).

Neither Mussolini nor Stalin did.

When you say that there was no substantial difference between the three, it's like me saying that there is no substantial difference between the current Neocons and the 1960s American Hippies. They're all incomprehensible Americans to me, too interested in their own part of the world and navel gazing.

It's just stupid to lump such widely different political ideas together. The fascists had most of the same ideals as the US conservatives. The nazis had ideals of racial purity and strength. The communists (not to confuse with Stalin himself) had ideals of equality irrespective of race, creed or means.

[ Parent ]

Killing is killing no matter what or why (5.00 / 1) (#364)
by modmans2ndcoming on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 01:08:38 PM EST

Mussolini tried to exterminate the Mofioso and opressed the Scilians. Stalin...he killed 30 million people durring his reign of terror.

[ Parent ]
sure (5.00 / 1) (#402)
by martingale on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 08:58:04 PM EST

You asked for a difference. Stalin didn't kill Jews because they were Jews. He killed some Jews because they were as "inconvenient" to him as other educated Russians. Hitler killed Jews specifically because he considered them the root of Germany's economic problems. Stalin didn't stay awake at night worrying about Russia's economic problems.

Now if you want to lump together all killers and call them fascists, then go ahead. I'll help you: Powell is a fascist. Bin Laden is a fascist. Arafat, Churchill, Washington, Napoleon, they're all fascists.

I'm not excusing or trivializing anyone's behaviour. Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini were all powercrazed dictators. They duped their followers with attractive ideas, just like the neocons and the bin ladens. It's important to recognize the ideas, because they come back again and again, in different packaged forms.

Stalin set up a system which took nearly fifty years to undo, even though he died in 1953. The idea is more powerful than the person.

[ Parent ]

and if you read what I said origionaly, (5.00 / 1) (#428)
by modmans2ndcoming on Sat Sep 13, 2003 at 03:32:23 PM EST

I said, the only diffrence was political motivations for the killings.

and you must understand, that Jews were inconvenient to Hittler as his entire rise to power lay on their backs. if he did not exterminate the Jews, he would look like he was full of crap to the people of Germany.

politics do not make you facist, policies do.


[ Parent ]

Right, Wrong, and so on. (2.50 / 2) (#127)
by thelizman on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 02:23:32 PM EST

Many conservatives are anti-imperialist,
Right

Most conservatives, in fact, are anti-imperialist since the center of conservative ideaology is to minimize the roles of government in every day life - ours, and elsewhere.
and opposed the Iraq war.
Wrong

One of the core functions of governments is to provide a defense for the US. Containment had failed, and Iraq continued to flaunt international law and its own laws, and presented a significant threat to the US. I won't even acknowledge the debate on Saddams WMD capability, because it is blatently evident that such a program was well underway, and significantly advanced. It is also quite evident that Hussien's intelligence services have had an active role in supporting international terrorists, including those responsible for Oklahoma City*, and 9/11. The actions against Iraq - and particularly any nation which provides aid and comfort to people who have established themselves as enemies of the US - are part of this mission.

* Reference "Jayna Davis", "Abdul Hakim Murad", "Ramzi Yousef"
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
a significant threat to the US (4.00 / 5) (#135)
by wiredog on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 02:54:01 PM EST

First, OK City was a home grown attack. That said, I've seen no real evidence that Iraq was involved in attacks on the US. Other than the USS Stark attack.

But how was Iraq a threat to the US? Were they going to bombard our cities? Blockade our ports? Were the Iraqi Marines going to storm the Atlantic beaches? Assuming they had nukes, and ICBMs, would they have launched on the US?

Especially after 9/11, the Iraqis were not likely to support terrorists who attacked the US. In fact, if we had one natural ally in the Persian Gulf against Al Qaeda, it was the Iraqi Baathists. The Baath Party is (well, was), after all, a Secular, Socialist, Nationalist party.

Nasty sonsabitches, to be sure, and if anyone's neck needed to be wrung, it was Saddam's. But we've done business with nastier people. Or ignored them.

I will admit that Iraq is a terrorist threat now. GW Bush's great achievement. Take a country that isn't a threat, and make it into a serious one. And this after he had made the right moves in Afghanistan.

Wilford Brimley scares my chickens.
Phil the Canuck

[ Parent ]

Eliminate the disturbing, and everything is fine. (3.00 / 6) (#143)
by thelizman on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 03:59:20 PM EST

First, OK City was a home grown attack.
Right, continue to belive whatever makes your world safe and definable in spite of the evidence. OKC was pulled off by two rednecks acting alone, and all similarites in techniques, tradecraft, and implementation between it, the first WTC attack, and thousands of bombings a year in the middle east (including the mosque in Najaf and the UN Compound in Baghdad) are pure coincidence.
But how was Iraq a threat to the US?
Saddam Hussein supported terrorists, and provided significant support for OKC and WTC.
In fact, if we had one natural ally in the Persian Gulf against Al Qaeda, it was the Iraqi Baathists. The Baath Party is (well, was), after all, a Secular, Socialist, Nationalist party.
Really? How secular is a party who stars and ends all of their official statements with "Praise be to God", "God is great", "In the name of God" or some variant thereof. Secularism ended in the early 90's when Saddam began allying himself with terrorist organizations, and needed to adjust his rhetoric. Honestly, if Iraq had a secular government, then there's no reason those 10 commandments couldn't stay in the Alabama courthouse.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
wow (2.00 / 4) (#184)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 08:51:51 PM EST

you're on crack

all this mixing up of ok city, alabama commandments and saddam hussein makes me wonder if you've meditating on the sterno/ hooch a little too much

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

And of course...that's it for you. (2.66 / 6) (#185)
by thelizman on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 08:54:01 PM EST

Attack the author. Nevermind the validity of their claims - because you can't win. So attack the author. That one way how you are such a pathetic troll.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
yes, i am a pathetic troll (2.00 / 4) (#190)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 09:01:52 PM EST

and you? any intellectual honesty forthcoming? my behavior makes me wrong but when you do the same you are different? or does sunlight shine out of your asshole honey? HAHAHA


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
No More Food For You [n/t] (2.00 / 4) (#199)
by thelizman on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 09:49:11 PM EST


--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
hello world (2.50 / 4) (#209)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 10:25:31 PM EST

this is the last word on this thread, because we can be certain thelezman won't respond to this

thelezman doesn't like my trolling ways, which is ok

but what the lezman doesn't understand is that his ivory tower attitude about trolling is self-defeating and hypocritical

for if you have any passion behind your beliefs, trolling is merely a proof of passion for your beliefs

so when thelezman retreats to his holier-than-thou ivory tower, he leaves this world called kuro5hin to the trolls, and we win

the fiercest beliefs in life support the greatest passion, and the greatest passion wins the day in any debate, regardless. it always has, it always will, on any battlefield, ideolgoical or physical

remember folks, this website is subtitled "technology and culture, from the trenches"

not "technology and culture, from the ivory tower"

do not let people like thelezman fool you with their false veneer of civility

for either they have no real passion for their beliefs, in which regard that should be proof enough of the value of their beliefs to you, or they do have passion. in which case chastising me for my trollish ways means they are hypocrites... or they are fools

those with the least passion let their beliefs fade into nothing over time

goodbye thelezman, enjoy your irrelevancy, and enjoy the irrelevancy of the beliefs you fail to defend

passion always wins


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

What a fascinating correlation. (5.00 / 1) (#151)
by Sanction on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 05:26:35 PM EST

Is it just me, or is there a significant correlation between the use of phrases like "blatently evident" and the taking of a position that lacks the support of any significant amount of actual evidence?

I can either stay in and be annoying or go out and be stupid. The choice is yours.
[ Parent ]
How is there a lack of evidence? (2.50 / 6) (#197)
by thelizman on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 09:48:19 PM EST

Your failure to comprehend the evidence, or outright efforts to otherwise ignore the evidence because it would force you to rethink your position on an issue, does not equate a lack of evidence.

If you care to learn a little something, Jayna Davis had proven a definitive link between it all. Abdul Hakim Murad, an officer for the Iraqi Military and a member of the Iraqi Intelligence services has connected to Ramzi Yousef, who masterminded the first WTC attacks. Both Terry Nichols and Murad were in the Philippines at the same time, along with Yousef who had an apartment in the Philippines. In the months before 9/11, an Iraqi intelligence officer is said to have met with Mohammed Atta in Prague (and this story is still verifiable in spite of questions of its veracity).

Following the OKC bombing, an APB was issued for a brown chevy truck driven from the scene at high speeds. Witnesses described the drivers as "middle eastern". When the truck was finally located, it was discovered to have been owned by a Palestinian who owned an apartment complex. The owner was heavily connected to the PLO - an organization which has official recognition by the Government of Saddam Hussein, and which receives cash payments from Saddam Hussein personally. The individual in question also employed 6 Iraqis - including Murad - all of whom were officers in the Iraqi military with ties to the Intelligence ministry. None of these men reported for work on the day of the bombing.

Yet another ex Iraqi soldier - Hussain Hashem Al-Hussaini - was in OKC about this time, and he is a dead ringer for the mysterious and as-of-yet unfound John Doe #2. A witness connected Al-Hussaini with McVeigh at a night club in OKC just four days before the bombing.

Jayna Davis's research is airtight, but you can also find signifiant connective data in the reports of the OKC Bombing Comission, Senate testimony over the WTC bombing, and Congressional Studies of 9/11.

You have to ask yourself this question: If there is absolutely no link between 9/11, OKC, and Iraq, then how is it that so many lawsuits against Saddam Hussein and Iraq have been allowed to proceed?

Reference
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
you're genuinely nuts (2.66 / 3) (#230)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 11:08:22 PM EST

next up:

we didn't land on the moon

nazis didn't put jews in ovens

jfk was shot by the masons

take your meds man, your paranoid schizophrenia and conspiracy theories belie a sever social disporder on your part

my advice:

meds

stop carrying around a gun, you are a danger to yourself and your community

of course, ignore me, i am a member of the illuminati trying to quash your clear, rational, well-balanaced insights

lol

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Somewhere, a Royal Court is Missing A Fool (3.00 / 5) (#275)
by thelizman on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 01:02:23 AM EST

What's the matter? Reality too hard to swallow? Oh wait, you spit.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
Another question (5.00 / 1) (#396)
by pyramid termite on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 06:27:10 PM EST

You have to ask yourself this question: If there is absolutely no link between 9/11, OKC, and Iraq, then how is it that so many lawsuits against Saddam Hussein and Iraq have been allowed to proceed?

A better question would be - why isn't our government officially investigating these connections in a public and forthright manner? If this can be proved, I would see the invasion of Iraq in a quite different light, I assure you.

I don't dismiss this out of hand, but I ask again - if there's something to this, why isn't our government going all out to prove it?

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
The Have (2.66 / 6) (#406)
by thelizman on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 10:25:46 PM EST

The OKC Bombing Commission and the 9/11 report were issued by government bodies. The question should be why isn't our media reporting this? Why aren't intelligence agencies being pressured into turning over rocks? I think the answer is simply that we don't have the assets in place to deal with a global network of alliances that go from neo-nazis, to Arabs, to the Chinese, to the Koreans, to neo-Marxist rebels in south America, and back around again. It'd be like me asking you to investigate who stole my lawnmower - you would'nt know where to begin.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
Actually ... (5.00 / 2) (#418)
by pyramid termite on Sat Sep 13, 2003 at 08:49:47 AM EST

... a brief look at the OKC Bombing Commission's page reveals that they're a private non-profit organization, although they have state and federal representatives working with them. I draw your attention to the Current News page which reports, "Congressman Dan Burton (IN), chairman of the Government Reform Committee, is investigating the OKC Bombing with the objective of having Congressional hearings." Obviously, our government has some work left ahead of it if this is to be looked into.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
Not quite sufficient. (5.00 / 1) (#440)
by Sanction on Sun Sep 14, 2003 at 05:39:16 PM EST

First, I must commend you on an excellant summary of your ideas, with references.  However, this is hardly what I would call definitive proof.  Every conspiracy theory has an amazing chain of evidence compiled by a dedicated researcher, but as long as it remains the evidence and conclusions of one person, it does not constitute proof, just a beginning for more serious investigation.

There do seem to be a lot of starting points in there, but also I lot of links I would consider to be of questionable importance.  It may prove to be correct, or it may not, but until there is independant corroboration, I can't agree that it rises to the level of "blatently obvious."

I can either stay in and be annoying or go out and be stupid. The choice is yours.
[ Parent ]

Take a deep breath, big guy (4.71 / 7) (#101)
by SocratesGhost on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 10:01:26 AM EST

Your outrage is shared. Moreso because no one has the answers.

-Soc
I drank what?


Kehlog Albran (4.54 / 11) (#102)
by IHCOYC on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 10:04:03 AM EST

I am here.
I am tired.
But I will answer your questions.
Bring me food, drink, and don't forget a little gold.
A little silver for an answer.
A drachma for a doubt, a penny for a thought.
For I am The Profit and what I have learned has cost me ten lifetimes.
What you are about to learn has cost you two dollars and fifty cents.

        -----

KEHLOG ALBRAN was a lifelong member of the Diner's Club and did much of his most creative writing there. His style was that of a man with a much larger brain. Born in Brest-Litovsk, much of his earlier work was published in his native dialect, in which language he is still greatly revered. In an area embracing several hectares in that city, he is still looked upon as a demi-god. His drawings and paintings have been exhibited in Quito, Ecuador. His artistic and literary style have been compared by Chester Gould to the work of Ernest Bushmiller and by Bushmiller to the work of Gould. Upon moving to America, his great desires were to write in his adopted language, English, to make a million dollars, and to retire from pseudo-philosophy so that he might open a chain of laundromats. It is the world's loss that he never succeeded in writing in English.
        -----

The Profit, by Kehlog Albran
 --
Quod sequitur, sicut serica lucis albissima tingere rogant;
Quod sequitur, totum devorabit.

oh shit! funny!!!! lol ;-P (nt) (5.00 / 1) (#183)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 08:49:05 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
typo (2.50 / 4) (#106)
by eudas on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 10:38:42 AM EST

"in a car without breaks"

little typo got left in the article..

eudas
"We're placing this wood in your ass for the good of the world" -- mrgoat

you are such an idiot. (5.00 / 2) (#122)
by ninja rmg on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 01:57:50 PM EST

why would you say that now?

you go around rating everyone down and this is the kind of crap you post?

i sure hope no new readers saw this post and then thought this sort of thing is okay. unbelievable.



[ Parent ]

you are the shining example we all aspire to (5.00 / 1) (#148)
by eudas on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 04:30:21 PM EST

yes, better that they should see things such as "you are such an idiot."

eudas
"We're placing this wood in your ass for the good of the world" -- mrgoat
[ Parent ]

wow. (5.00 / 2) (#153)
by ninja rmg on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 05:54:06 PM EST

so by this comment do you mean to say that pointing out typos in topical comments after editing is over is a useful practice that ought to be encouraged?

if not, what is your point?



[ Parent ]

oh yes, and... (5.00 / 2) (#164)
by ninja rmg on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 06:23:30 PM EST

it is better that they see you rebuked for making that comment. imagine, if you will, a site in which everyone who sees a typo that no one caught in editing posts a topical comment like you did. we would have a great deal more noise and a lot more obnoxious conduct. that is why it would be better for new comers to see my post than yours.

you see, when i am being obnoxious, i'm just fucking around, trying to get a rise out of people, etc. you on the other hand seem to be genuinely obnoxious.

plz don't let this happen again.



[ Parent ]

Shake it off. (4.50 / 8) (#111)
by jmzero on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 11:18:48 AM EST

Your article makes for good reading on a melancholy sort of day, but it goes too far into foggy fatalism.  It paints the world as a play and stage with no lead parts.  This it is not, and it never has been.  

Your dismissal withstanding, America will play an important role in determining the shape of things to come.  With good decisions and strong will (both exist, but perhaps have not yet been found), America could yet lead the world into an age of peace.  Or Europe could.  Or China.

Speaking of no one in particular, and most people in general, there's an attraction to "history" - be it tragic or triumphal.  Being in the world on a "September 11, 2001" is an addictive surge of reality.  Life becomes a story rather than a dance - and sometimes we feel a longing for the story to continue even if the plot doesn't favor us.  

I suppose the story must continue - but how about, instead of an action scene, we have a quickly-cut-scene-where-everything-turns-around then we pan away from our triumphal lovers to the universal fireplace.  
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife

This sort of article puts me off. (2.86 / 15) (#114)
by Kax on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 12:22:40 PM EST

Though it has to suck to have died or known people who died due to these attacks, and I feel fortunate I'm not one of them, I am really sick of  hearing about it from these fucking whiny New Yorkers.

The combination of cockiness and pansiness, even after two years, is repulsive.  When push comes to shove, the average NYC resident falls to pieces.  Rest assured, if there's another attack on public transportation, or virus related, etc., everyone who is financially able will be fleeing the city.

Remember - this is the same place that people think it's a profound, deep symbol of community and connectedness when a bunch of them get together to ride bikes around town.  Even though people are skittish about 9/11, they are secretly happy since now they have something of real, meaningful importance to talk about.

"I'm sure glad I don't live with the hicks in Kansas!  Oh by the way, they should subsidize our safety."

Fuck. That.

Please go live with five other people in a one bedroom apartment, commuting two hours each way to do menial labor before posting any of this "OMG What does it all mean?!  OMFG my life is so changed now, and like, I'm just so saaaad and OMFG can you pick me up some Bjork tickets on the way back from the Soy Luck Club k thx lolz*!#(*!" crap.

Dude (3.75 / 4) (#115)
by awgsilyari on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 01:34:45 PM EST

You really have the wrong mental image of circletimessquare. Go read some of his other comments. That Bjork quip is particularly ridiculous.

--------
Please direct SPAM to john@neuralnw.com
[ Parent ]
thank you (nt) (5.00 / 1) (#207)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 10:14:29 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
did you read the fucking article? (3.80 / 5) (#116)
by modmans2ndcoming on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 01:45:04 PM EST

if you bothered reading passed the first 3 paragraphs, you would see that it was a much deeper meditation involving Geo-politics and what the right course of actions should be.

it is not about "the poor new yorkers"

and if you have read it and still you maintain your critique, you are a very incompetent reader.

[ Parent ]

thank you! (nt) (5.00 / 1) (#301)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 02:27:34 AM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
The intro about him being a New Yorker... (4.75 / 4) (#120)
by Rasman on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 01:52:06 PM EST

...has very little to do with meaning of the article, but it does serve its purpose to set up the rest of the musing, which you obviously failed to read.

You're telling me all the people of Podunkville, KA, or wherever it is you live, wouldn't be the same way two years after experiencing the biggest terrorist attack in history? Ha!

I'm not saying it's not annoying, but it's definitely human.

---
Brave. Daring. Fearless. Clippy - The Clothes Pin Stuntman
[ Parent ]
The article exists (2.33 / 3) (#149)
by Kax on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 04:37:56 PM EST

as a direct result of the continuing cud chewing about the attacks; a reaction further fueled by the self-obsession inherent in virtually every non-immigrant NYer.  It also exemplifies how despite all the chest thumping and 'capital of the world' nonsense we always see, the city is just a house of cards waiting for a gust of wind to reveal the general lack of fortitude and real self-confidence of its residents.

There was no such thing as 'surviving' 9/11 and anyone who claims otherwise is just full of shit.  With the exception of those who lost close friends and family, no one in that city has a right to be all, "I've soldiered on."  These people are devastated when the power goes off for a day or someone thinks they look fat in a dress.  Yeah, I do think the people of Podunkville, KS would have handled it better.

[ Parent ]

you stupid fuck (2.33 / 3) (#163)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 06:16:37 PM EST

you don't know me

my background is probably more rural than yours

for 18 years of my life

PEOPLE ARE THE SAME WHEREVER YOU GO


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

dingding (5.00 / 2) (#162)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 06:15:38 PM EST

thank you

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Seriously (4.00 / 3) (#121)
by thelizman on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 01:54:29 PM EST

I think you hit the nail right on the head. Further proof of this is found in your comment rating, and other two responses to your post (unfortunately, apathy has replace collaboration, and the only time people seem to be motivated to rate a comment is in the interests of one of their clique, so you have to gauge your post by how vehement the reactoins are, not the sum of the reactions).


--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
hey honey (3.00 / 2) (#161)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 06:15:09 PM EST

how come you don't come over anymore? i sure do miss our time together, snuggling under the sheets, my sweet lover

you sure have the cutest set of buns!

xxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

i grew up on a rural farm (5.00 / 2) (#160)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 06:13:59 PM EST

nearest neighbor a mile away through a swamp

18 years of my life

dogs under the porch

i grew up in the same house my mom grew up in

i have family members who won't visit me because they view the city as some sort of insane place of bedlam and vice

all i have learned from this is on giant turth: people are the same wherever you go, rural or dead center in the city

you only demonstrate your cluelessness about human nature

now go overdoes on your hillbilly oxycontin you toothless fuck lol ;-)

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I grew up on an industrial farm. (5.00 / 1) (#169)
by tkatchev on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 07:18:00 PM EST

As an apprentice cow.

Actually, not.

Anyways, my point was that you're wrong.

Also, American sucks.

   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

ah! animal farm? (5.00 / 1) (#181)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 08:46:16 PM EST

you certainly sound like an orwellian sheep

four legs good, 2 legs baaaad

four legs good, america baaaaad


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Yes. (5.00 / 1) (#320)
by tkatchev on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 04:46:18 AM EST

Lookit me, I am totally indoctrinated to hate America and your peculiar taste of American freedom.

I think I should just go kill myself, because a life without America is not a life worth living.

   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

i freely mention kansas in my article (3.66 / 3) (#167)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 06:40:34 PM EST

as well as west virginia

dude, i GREW UP ON A RURAL FARM

7 dogs, a truckload of cats, chickens, goats, ponies, rabbits, a barn, acres of woods, the whole nine yards

all you are guilty of is prejudice, ignorance, stupid inbred intolerance

people are the same WHERE EVER YOU GO

new yorkers are no more self-absorbed than CLUELESS RURAL IDIOTS such as yourself

all i see in your words is anger that no one is talking about you instead of something or someone else

you're the self-absorbed one, methinks

plus, after the oklahoma city bombing as well, proving we are exposed to terrorism, rural or urban, your words are downright self-defeating

you fine sir, are the most ignorant fuck i have encountered in awhile


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Stop embarassing yourself. (5.00 / 1) (#168)
by Kax on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 07:15:03 PM EST

Where you or I grew up is not relevant.  FYI, I do not live in a rural area.

people are the same WHERE EVER YOU GO

No.

all i see in your words is anger that no one is talking about you instead of something or someone else

That is because you are filled with whiny brat juice.

you're the self-absorbed one, methinks

No.

plus, after the oklahoma city bombing as well, proving we are exposed to terrorism, rural or urban, your words are downright self-defeating

Am I arguing that we aren't exposed to terrorism?  No, 'methinks'.

[ Parent ]

when you wake up (3.00 / 2) (#182)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 08:48:02 PM EST

and manage to poke your head out of little hate filled brown paper bag, please find the dignity to commit suicide, for the benefit of us all

smooches! ;-)

xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

They lied to you, (5.00 / 1) (#187)
by Kax on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 08:57:47 PM EST

those people who told you that repaying hatred with kindness would infuriate the other party. :)

'sides, there's no hatred involved.

[ Parent ]

no hatred? (3.00 / 2) (#191)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 09:10:50 PM EST

would you mind reading this post again?

http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2003/9/10/22402/7194/114#114

oh no, no hared there, nothing but sunlight sunlight streaming out of your asshole, lol

you sir are:

ignornant

hateful

prejudiced

intolerant

this is not me throwing empty words, these words come from a reasonable reading of your attitude as expressed freely by you in your unsolicited comments

you're just a common, run-of-the-mill stupid asshole

now that's me speaking from the heart, lol ;-)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Tell me, then. (5.00 / 3) (#258)
by Apuleius on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 12:04:56 AM EST

Why was it in the rural Midwest that the 9/11 price panics took place, and not anywhere near New York?


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
Dur. (5.00 / 1) (#267)
by Kax on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 12:38:38 AM EST

Even if true, so what?  What am I arguing that this little tidbit contradicts?

Even so, I was curious as to what you were talking about so I googled around.  The only thing I could find was about raids on supermarkets - in NY.

[ Parent ]

Dramatic (5.00 / 9) (#126)
by lens flare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 02:18:01 PM EST

First of all, can I commend circletimessquare for his honesty and being open about his feelings. I find it interesting to see your feelings, and I do sympathise greatly with you (collectively) after what happened.

My feelings 2 years ago were those of shock and sympathy for the USA. I support in no way any form of terrorism. My support for the USA has dwindled however since the country has started acting arrogantly to the rest of the world. I think Hussein needed to be taken away from power in Iraq, but only by a UN supported force. Having the UN support would have shown a global support for the actions. All that was needed was some patience. That did not happen, but then what happens when the war is 'won'? The UN starts to be called upon for support in the aftermath!

If someone assaults you, you have the right to protect yourself. You then might decide to have them prosecuted by the right channels. I have not always been a cynic, but I feel that the USA sees itself as being above the rest of the world.

The rise of well-organized, well-funded, violent International religious fundamentalism. This is the world we live in. I once lived in midtown Manhattan and felt distant from these threats. Ask me now how distant I feel. Ask yourself how distant you feel.
I live in N.Ireland and I have experienced terrorism since I was born. The West has also been terrorised by groups like ETA in Spain for many years.

This article is overly dramatic and I think a more balanced view is needed.

I can't stress enough however, how awful the attacks were 2 years ago. But it has been happening all over the world for years - you (or your media/govt) just haven't chosen to properly see it until now.

Maybe you should have spoken up more (4.33 / 6) (#345)
by epepke on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 10:05:14 AM EST

There were some nice thing that happened after 9/11. Arafat gave blood in a symbolic gesture. I appreciated that. Du Monde had the headline "We are All Americans." Ironically, though, Americans are supposed to feel stupid for "Freedom Fries," while according to French law, such a headline is against the law. The Times had a nice editorial, but then again, they're notably pro-American.

But this was entirely swamped by statements about the chickens coming home to roost. For months and months, every day I saw someone saying that Americans should try to understand why people hate us. Ironically, it was nearly always accompanied by the assertion that nobody had ever brought up that idea before. Over and over again.

So I have a hard time believing you when you say, My support for the USA has dwindled however since the country has started acting arrogantly to the rest of the world. Maybe you did believe that. However, the majority of people I heard from Europe fetished little magic-markered books of history going back decades with everything bad that the U.S. ever did highlighted as ammunition. Even now you can see it. "Hahahaha! Pinochet! Pinochet! Bet you didn't know about Pinochet!"

All these people wanted to be heard. And so I, and probably a lot of other Americans, thought, why not? And because we aren't complete morons, we came up with a couple of ideas. First of all, it was clear that the WTC attacks were part of a long line of bin Laden attacks since the 1993 bombing of the WTC and possibly before, with the bombing of the Cole and the embassies in between.

In other words, stuff that happened before George W. Bush.

Now, when I remember the Clinton years, they weren't all bad. There were the Oslo accords, which seemed to work for a while. There was the work done in Ireland, which you may have conveniently forgotten. There was the NATO action in the former Yugoslavia, which I think was not very much fun but necessary. There were sanctions against Iraq in lieu of war. There were a couple of missile attacks on Afghanistan to try to assassinate bin Laden, but there was a significant reduction in the willingness of the U.S. to assassinate. There was even a rule against the CIA's dealing with felons, to avoid cases in the past where the U.S. was criticized by making deals with the devil.

Now, every single one of these thing had several things in common:

  1. The were, all of them, widely supported by European "intellectuals" when they were in the idea phase.
  2. They were, all of them, implemented by the U.S. at least in part because the U.S. listened and cared what people in other countries thought.
  3. All of them, when implemented, were met by European "intellectuals," often the same ones, shrieking BAD! BAD! BAD! at the top of their lungs.
  4. When 9/11 happened, all of it again was BAD! BAD! BAD!

Now, I do not think highly of Bush. I hope that he is beaten with a landslide. I did not support the invasion of Iraq. I so fervently thought it was a mistake that I was in denial about it for a while and made some false predictions that it would not happen. For which, I guess, I am BAD! But I was right about the Bush administration not being able to win the peace. I hope Bush is ridden out of town on a rail, and I know that it's going to be hard to repair the damage he has done.

On the other hand, I know what it's like to hear shrieks of BAD! BAD! BAD! constantly, no matter what. The thing about shrieking at the top of your lungs is that you can't shriek any louder.

So now I'm supposed to persuade the U.S. government to listen. Because if they listen, people are going to get killed, and Europeans are going to shriek BAD! BAD! BAD! at the top of their lungs. And if they don't listen, people are going to get killed, and Europeans are going to shriek BAD! BAD! BAD! at the top of their lungs.

Like it or not, during the 90's, I really thought that the U.S. was moving toward a more progressive and friendly way of doing things. That's because I was stupid, of course. And European reaction after 9/11 has successfully trained me to know that it is stupid. It's all, whatever it is, BAD! BAD! BAD! No matter what.

And the U.S. never thinks of changing its foreign policy. Except when they do. And then, instead of BAD! BAD! BAD! it's BAD! BAD! BAD!

This article is overly dramatic and I think a more balanced view is needed.

Balance. You want balance? Pretend for a moment that you aren't safely esconced within a country where you're never going to get dumped on for something that happens more than a few hundred kilometers away from your borders.

Just take a five-minute break from telling Americans that they should listen to Europeans, and ask yourself this question: Why don't Americans listen to you? Treat this question fairly, with as much respect as you would treat the question "Why do people hate Americans?"

You want more balance, given it's arrogant to think that the U.S. is above anybody? How's about you fix the Middle East and make it into a paradise. How's about you fix something like Srebrenica, which is in your own back yard. How's about you invent some drugs and cure the AIDS problem in Africa. How's about you find a solution to the troubles in your own country. No, that's not enough. How's about you spend millions of pounds and come up with a solution to the problems in South-Central Los Angeles and get called names if it doesn't hold five years down the road?


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
You, sir, have not learned the lessons of empire (4.09 / 11) (#128)
by trhurler on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 02:26:25 PM EST

If anything, the "American Empire" is only just getting under way. The assassination of an Archduke sparked a world war, but only because of a very publicly visible system of interlocking mutual defense treaties that essentially turned Europe into two sides long before the war. Those treaties were not uncontroversial, and there were those who warned that a big war would come as a result of them where otherwise a small one might suffice. Their opinion was not heeded, but it wasn't inaudible either. Modern teachings in classrooms to the contrary are like much of what history is taught in public schools: distortions and lies to make things look better or less complicated than they really were.

If you want to see what makes or breaks an empire, it is always one thing: the ability to administrate and control. Rome did not fall because its military was weak. Rome fell because, all details of how and why aside, it became incapable of controlling what it claimed. Look at the United States.

First of all, in the traditional sense, there is no empire. We do not rule over people using military garrisons in peacetime. There are those who point to Iraq and Afghanistan and claim otherwise, but to them, I can only suggest a reading of history; interim occupation forces can become tools of empire, but they are not in and of themselves imperial. We can only wait and see - but already, in the US, there are rising voices against our continuing presence. In truth, we are more at risk of leaving too soon and in the end accomplishing nothing than we are of staying too long.

Second, while there is a sort of "unseen empire" in some ways, it is neither well behaved nor in need of ongoing centralized administration. It can only fall if other nations gain power sufficient to make themselves feel that the United States is no longer the undisputed king of the hill - because that's really all the situation is. People always defer somewhat to the man who can always get things done, sometimes because they want to do so, and sometimes because they feel they must. Eventually, it probably will wither away - but it will not be overthrown. It will die off as it becomes pointless - as other nations gain, rather than as we lose - and we'll all be better off as it happens.

Third, it should be helpful to maintain a sense of perspective. Everyone knows where George Bush lives. No matter what goes on in his mind, he's not hiding from anyone; he doesn't live in fear of his life, so far as we know. Who knows where bin Laden is? Who knows where Saddam is? It is all well and good to make tapes in secret and send them off to journalists and have yourself broadcast making brave claims, but the fact is, militant terrorism only survives because having lots of money makes it possible to hide, and its operations are hindered by that necessity. Given their resources, terrorists could be blowing things up daily in the US - but if they did, we'd catch them in a matter of weeks, and they know that. On the other hand, we do apprehend or kill more terrorists daily. There is no country - not even an army - on their side. No organized force would ever even dream of standing against the recognized legal order on behalf of the kind of people who massacre civilians. And without that sort of force, they're doomed to lose.

In short, these guys have no chance. They're delusional martyrdom obsessed loonies and bitter old lying men who preach that martyrdom in the name of religion. The only question is, how many people will they murder before they're rooted out?

Understand, I'm no great fan of present day US policy on a great many subjects. I do not believe the present order of things is all as it should be. The UN is both a joke and a threat; it is a joke in that it can't even pay for its own pompous proclamations, and it is a threat in that its goals are basically the same socialist world government bullshit that we used to call the USSR. Don't believe it? Reading autobiographies of retired UN officials from before 1990 is entertaining; they speak in glowing terms of the wondrous Soviet health care system and so on. I wonder if any of them were actually surprised when the truth came out, and it became clear that while Soviet citizens lacked much of what we call health care, they also lacked things like decent grocery stores? The US leadership often screws things up for no good reason. Europe is a mess of seething opinion repressed in the name of political correctness, and will explode again sometime if something isn't done(remember, the election of a man who once in the distant past admired Hitler in some unknown context was cause for semi-serious talk of armed revolt.) World leaders talk about Africa and send medicines to Africa - but nobody tries to build actual economies or decent governments there, so all the talk is just that. There are lots of problems.

But, those problems are not going to find representation in any meaningful way in terrorism. Relax; terrorism is, by design, an awful thing, and it can affect you personally, but really, with 280 million Americans in a huge country, if you don't want to be a terrorist victim, just move away from large phallic symbols of American might. Terrorists don't attack Wichita. And if you don't want to run, then learn to live with risk, because terror is hardly the biggest risk you face, statistically speaking, and moving to Iowa City wouldn't change that fact anyway.

But, please, quit whining about it. My aunt died recently. I wrote about it. Once. Your father died? I'm sorry to hear that. But, I don't want to hear about it a million times because he died in some terrorist act instead of having a heart attack or whatever. What matters is your loss; the manner of its happening only matters so much in your head, because you let it matter. Lots of people die every day, and I'm sorry for everyone who loses them, BUT:

This last paragraph is for people who know where they were when JFK was shot, and cried when his son died. For people who hold big vigils every year to commemorate the downing of an airliner, or who think Tienenmen Square was the height of human oppression. For people who, even many decades later, despite not knowing anyone who ever knew anyone who was there, went to see a reenactment of a story about a ship that sank a dozen times in a row AND CRIED EVERY FUCKING TIME. For those New Yorkers who talk about how tough New Yorkers are while simultaneously behaving like tear-sodden children:

GET OVER IT. Tragedy is not made worse by being notorious. When someone's dad has a heart attack, he feels that loss every bit as much as you miss your dad who died when engulfed in burning jet fuel. For those of you who actually lost someone, we are all deeply saddened by your loss. That said, you've had time to grieve, and you've done it, and it is time to SHUT THE FUCK UP. But most of you out there feeling so deeply shocked haven't lost ANYTHING, except for a delusional sense of perfect safety that the saner among us never possessed anyway. Why do you cry over a dead son of a former president, and become cold when your friend loses her brother? Why do you only feel real emotions for people you only pretend to know? What the fuck is wrong with you?!

In conclusion, 9/11 was a senseless act of violence that has led to a lot of overwrought sentimentality. Sentimentalists can have amnesty if they promise to stop now. Otherwise, we may have to have a War On Sentimentality. You ready for that, you whiney pricks?

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

Empire? (4.00 / 2) (#146)
by pyramid termite on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 04:18:25 PM EST

If anything, the "American Empire" is only just getting under way.

I wouldn't call a start of 1945 to be "just getting under way".

The assassination of an Archduke sparked a world war, but only because of a very publicly visible system of interlocking mutual defense treaties that essentially turned Europe into two sides long before the war.

And, in a world that had previously consisted of multiple poles of power, from natural cultural and geographical factors, the very existence of the Cold War helped build the American and Communist empires even as they "caused" the conflict. Now that one of those sides has been removed, the other is left to try to keep its dominent status in a world that is experiencing many pressures to create regional powers. My feeling is that it will take some time, but eventually, the American empire will be a regional one only.

Rome fell because, all details of how and why aside, it became incapable of controlling what it claimed.

Partly right - Rome declined and fell becuase it was incapable of controlling ITSELF - a quick overview of the emperors and how most of them came to power and left power makes it obvious that there were no real rules or discipline in the process except when a few exceptional politicians managed to negotiate some. In recent American politics there are symptoms of a similar lack of discipline - in the past 43 years, we've seen an assassination, one resignation, an attempted impeachment, an election that will remain controversial and an electorate that has refused to give either party a clear mandate for rule. Our control over the government and the government's control over us has been declining through the years. That might not be a bad thing but it doesn't make for a strong empire.

Second, while there is a sort of "unseen empire" in some ways, it is neither well behaved nor in need of ongoing centralized administration. It can only fall if other nations gain power sufficient to make themselves feel that the United States is no longer the undisputed king of the hill - because that's really all the situation is.

True - but this isn't a case of "king of the hill" - it's a case of "king of all the hills". India, China and Europe, in their own low key ways have already indicated their intention to become kings of their own hills. Eventually, it will not be so low key.

And to take the analogy a little further, the terrorists have no means of becoming kings of the hill themselves - but what they can do is to make the cost of being king of a particular hill so high for an empire that the empire decides that it isn't worth it. Which doesn't do the poor bastards living on the hill any good, but that's the way it goes. The terrorists' strategy is simple - to make intervention in the Middle East too costly for the West to accept. By themselves they will not be able to accomplish this - but in combination with guerrilla forces and regional politicians they may well pull it off.

And yes, there does come a time in life when one has to bury the dead and move on ...

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
Well, (4.50 / 2) (#381)
by trhurler on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 03:16:44 PM EST

You overestimate the importance of emperors to an empire, I think. The machinery of the US government is not elected, and follows rules that are not made by men who are elected. Those elected don't even know how to find that machinery, although they can find out. They rarely bother. Their predecessors at some distant point in the past made the rules, and now occasionally someone tweaks them, but who does so? The changes are proposed from within, and move up. Maybe, at the best, a staffer for some Congressman writes them up. And all of our officials are essentially the same. The difference between a democrat and a republican is basically abortion and maybe gun control - two issues that, when you get down to brass tacks, are probably the best diversions from the issues of the day that have ever been devised. The struggle in government is not efficiency or perfection. It is merely to control the magnitude of waste and stupidity just well enough that things keep moving along while simultaneously keeping out any of the more intelligent and well meaning people who might actually change something that's been working for a long time. Of course, it can't be put that way, but that is the political reality, and the US government's structure is the best ever devised for the purpose. It is sick and demented, but it is well adapted to its purpose.

As for 1945, even if it were true(I dispute it anyway,) fifty years is not a very long time on the scale of empire. An empire that doesn't last 500 years isn't much of an empire at all.

I think you unwittingly agreed with me regarding other powers in the world, such as China and India.

Finally, terrorists can't even accomplish the goal you cite: keeping the king off this or that hill. The same sentimentalists who are holding vigils in NYC right now decry the loss of a soldier or two a day in Iraq and the problems in Afghanistan and so on, but have you noticed any concern of real note from anyone in power? No. A few Democrats are raising the issue to see if it has election potential, but it is going nowhere so far. Why? Because the kind of people who can survive elections in the US are not sentimental. As I told the other reply, they just pretend to be sentimental on occasion to get votes from suckers like him:)

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
Well, OK (5.00 / 1) (#387)
by pyramid termite on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 03:59:11 PM EST

You overestimate the importance of emperors to an empire, I think.

I probably have. I'm not sure that comparisons between the Romans and us are that meaningful anyway. We are, as you've pointed out, masters of beauracracy while they were mere novices.

Finally, terrorists can't even accomplish the goal you cite: keeping the king off this or that hill.

That depends on how long they're willing to keep it up and how much the occupying power has at stake. My guess is that these terrorists, or ones with the same goals will keep it up a good long time and that we will eventually decide it isn't worth it.

but have you noticed any concern of real note from anyone in power?

No - but judging from their other inactions, wafflings and lip services on other issues, I don't think we should be surprised. The American ruling class generally doesn't pay much attention to the sentimentality of the little people until it turns into rage. And that's not going to happen over Iraq for a long time.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
Well, (5.00 / 1) (#451)
by trhurler on Mon Sep 15, 2003 at 04:52:00 PM EST

I think you overestimate the tenacity over the long haul of the terrorism we're seeing today. It is easy to build a network of people, relatively speaking, as long as you have money. But, it is hard to maintain it and continually recruit new people while you're constantly under ruthless attack, and if we actually succeed in creating economic progress in these areas(not certain, but possible,) then that difficulty will become near-impossibility. Terrorism depends on human misery to produce its exponents. Reducing misery(and particularly giving people a stake in the legitimate system,) eliminates terrorism.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
Douglas Adams (5.00 / 1) (#438)
by epepke on Sun Sep 14, 2003 at 12:13:51 PM EST

One of the ideas in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy was that the purpose of the Galactic President was not to wield power but to divert attention away from where power is being wielded. Zaphod Beeblebrox was supremely good at this job. I'm beginning to think that George W. Bush, in his own style but in a similar way, is also supremely good at his job.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
The republic vs. the empire (5.00 / 1) (#395)
by Bisun on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 06:04:54 PM EST

I feel that the time between 1945 and now is more nearly similar to the expansionist period of the roman republic. We seem to be entering a period of extensive centralization. I tend to feel that such is an evil fate, but that's where we seem to be. One may hope that Marius and Sulla won't tear the country apart visciously, though repetitions are rarely that exact. Nixon's era used the term "the Imperial Presidency", but it was, I feel, falsely used. It denoted more a drift in the direction of empire. And the moral degradation of the political process. But we've had periods like that before, and recovered. This time we haven't, and the causes are fairly clear:
1) centralization of control over the mass media
2) the expense of running for office
3) computers conferring the ability to closely monitor large numbers of people
and
4) voting machines which can neither be monitored for accuracy nor for randomness in their errors

A note on the importance of voting machines. They may, or may not, be controllable by those off site at real time. The evidence so far only demonstrates 1) that they can falsify results and 2) that they can be monitored while the voting is in process. Nobody independant has verified the code to see just what it does, but there was an election in Georgia that was blatantly falsified. Nothing that couldn't have been done with the previous methods (stuffing ballot boxes, etc.), but this time they used voting machines. Which proves that they are subject to at least the same manipulations as the prior systems.

It is also not clear just in what way the voting machines are expected to improve the voting. The best suggestion that I've heard for improving the current voting procedure is to take a copy of the voter's pamphlet at full size, and hand it together with a bingo marker to each voter as the enter the booth. And nearly all problems go away. Canada counts it's votes by hand, and has realtively few problems. And quite fast counts. So they voting machines are both dangerous and a solution to a non-existent problem. But they *do*, at minimum, prevent inconvenient recounts. Officially there is no record.

As a result of the foregoing, the introduction of the voting machines feels like the beginning of the true empire period, though I do hope that I'm wrong.

P.S.: Some have said that the benefit of voting machines is that they speed the result of voting. This seems trivial, and worth neither the cost nor the danger. But if one wanted to really speed things up, one could just declare the winner before the polls opened. That cannot be allowed as a determining factor.



[ Parent ]
lol (3.66 / 3) (#159)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 06:09:47 PM EST

you have no power

nor will you ever

because you lack some basic understanding of human nature and how they process events like september 11th, regardless of nationailty

it doesn't take someone with a two by four to whack you on the head with the obvious weight and moment of this event, wherever you live in the world

all of your words only amount to drawing a rift between you and the rest of humanity, and establish how clueless you are

you are an ideologue, stuck in amber, hopelessly trapped

enjoy your lonely, pointless existence, cut off from any relevancy by your own way of thinking


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Keep telling yourself that (5.00 / 2) (#379)
by trhurler on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 03:07:27 PM EST

But remember, the inability to experience is not the inability to comprehend. Also, most of our leaders are people like me; they just pretend to be like you so you'll vote for them.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
sept 11 (5.00 / 1) (#447)
by circletimessquare on Mon Sep 15, 2003 at 12:12:49 PM EST

was a major tragedy for the WORLD

do you refute that?

if you do not refute that, then what is your point in poopooing the tragedy, exactly?

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Heh (5.00 / 1) (#452)
by trhurler on Mon Sep 15, 2003 at 04:57:24 PM EST

The question is not about whether 9/11 was a tragedy. The question is, does it make sense to go on and on about it? When will you stop? A lot more than 3000 people died that day, and 99% of their stories did NOT make the news, and are NOT remembered. It is sad, and if you knew anyone there, I'm sorry - but it is NOT news anymore, and holding vigils and so on years later does no good; it makes people sad who had gotten over the events, and it gives terror a purpose, and that is all it does.

You're one of those people who went around the day after saying "things will never be the same" as though it was some deep insight, and then saying "no, you don't understand, things will never be the same" to anyone who didn't seem suitably impressed, aren't you? Fess up, ya schmoe!

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
dude (5.00 / 1) (#453)
by circletimessquare on Mon Sep 15, 2003 at 05:02:01 PM EST

some terrorists flew 2 airplanes into some of the highest buildings in the world and brought them down

2 years ago

and i was memorialing the event on the day it happened

that i witnessed in person

combine these things together, shake them up, and color me unimpressed by you being unimpressed

would you mind going over us again why you think this isn't important?

you're an asshole, a retard, or an ideologue, but my personal feeling is you're all 3, and then some


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Well, (5.00 / 1) (#454)
by trhurler on Mon Sep 15, 2003 at 05:27:35 PM EST

I am, without any doubt, an asshole. By conventional standards, I am absolutely impossible. I used to be an ideologue; at this point, I'm trying to find a new ideology, and I'm very iffy on a great many things. You may have to concede the retard part, though.

As for this memorializing crap, that's my point. It was a tragedy. Everyone, even third world persons living in desert encampments waiting for the next food truck, is WELL AWARE of that fact, and has been for some time now. At this point, going on about it is nonsense. And really, as tragedies go, it wasn't nearly as big as people pretend. Terrorists chose those buildings for symbolic reasons, and their victims(who are not the dead, by the way, but rather those of you who choose to let yourselves BE victimized,) ate it up. Ooh, tall buildings. If three thousand people had died in a three story conference center, would that be less of a tragedy? If it happened in Wisconsin, would it matter less? Is it any less tragic that a lot more than 3000 people died that day of common causes at a young age?

You "memorialize," and turban wearing bomb belt makers chuckle, because you are now a mouthpiece they could never have hoped to obtain by any reasonable method.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
millions die every year of malaria (5.00 / 1) (#455)
by circletimessquare on Mon Sep 15, 2003 at 05:59:18 PM EST

and it isn't news

why?

because it has been this way probably since before we were human beings even

a couple of hundred people die of sars

this is HUGE news

why?

because it's brand new

what al qaeda did on sept 11 is HUGE news, even if they had managed to kill no one

yes, poverty is sad, but it's not news, there has always been want and need and probably will always be haves and have nots. does this mean we don't care? no you fucking retard! we care, but IT'S NOT NEWS.

i mean c'mon dude, these are remedial concepts, do you grasp them? the retard part applies i think

yes osama is chuckling, he is now totally memorable and interesting. so was/ is stalin, so was/ is pol pot, ivan the terrible, attila the hun... doesn't change anything about what i said or by it being important to talk and think about sept 11 because IT'S FUCKING NEWS YOU FUCKING RETARD.

you need to take some meds and get your pathological mentality more in line with basic human nature and how human beings think and feel if you ever aspire to impress anyone with your pathetic mode of thinking besides incorrigible trolls like me.


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Um... (5.00 / 1) (#462)
by trhurler on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 02:50:08 PM EST

You have not learned much about mass media culture. NOTHING is "news" for two years, unless it extends over that entire period. Note that there was nearly nothing in the mainstream news about 9/11, except some typical hype about fear of followup attacks, and even that was weak-kneed and watered down. Why? Because that horse is dead, chief.

SARS was never really big news. A few researchers and doctors hyped it all out of proportion because it was their 15 minutes of fame, but there have been FAR worse flu bugs in the past, and will be in the future, to be sure.

Finally, you are far too impressed by our media culture. Something being "news" does not make it worth talking about. I read that the eminently worthless J Lo and her loser man broke up. Do I care? No. I would never have mentioned it, except to point out that it is completely unimportant, and was national news for several days. 9/11 was obviously worth talking about at the time. These days, the only reason I discuss it is to point out all the insane things that have happened as a result. (My greatest joy is that Missouri now has a concealed carry law; this is literally the first big government policy change I've seen in years that isn't taking away peoples' rights. But, sadly, it IS the exception; people like yourself who keep hyping 9/11 are feeding not only terrorists, but also fascist elements in our own government.)

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
"SARS was never really big news" (5.00 / 1) (#466)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 01:01:50 PM EST

sars was never really big news?

why am i talking to you? what amazing self-reinforcing delusions and fallacies am i at work against?

i'll tell you what bud, sars was huge news

i won't argue with you for 20 pages about the fact, as if sars was not big news to you, you're alternate reality works on rules that are not worth dismantling

"Finally, you are far too impressed by our media culture"

yes, i am so fucking... what is it? "impressed" by our... what is it? "media" culture that i spend hours of my workday goofing off on kuro5hin.org butting heads with lunatics such as yourself

you're a kook, you're a crackpot, you're a looney, you're a quack

enjoy your fucking alternative reality you fucking freak

and yes, that's just my inability to see the reason and truth so obvious in your words

stupid lunatic... why do i bother with you fucks?

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

So then (5.00 / 1) (#477)
by trhurler on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 03:55:56 PM EST

How many people died of SARS? Worldwide, even, not just in one place? A few hundred? Maybe a few thousand? More than that die of unknown causes every year. Probably that many are hit by a bus. Why isn't being hit by a bus big news?

You accept the idiocy(and most people do accept it,) that hype and media attention equal newsworthiness. Then, you brand me as a "lunatic" because I apply rational standards to my evaluation of things' importance. Enjoy yourself, but don't read any recent stuff from epidemiologists about SARS, because there's an awful lot of "damn, this got overhyped" talk out there that I'm sure you don't want to see, lest you become one of the lunatics:)

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
yes, sars was not big news (5.00 / 1) (#484)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 08:00:26 PM EST

now run along dear, 4:30 is exercise time in the asylum's courtyard

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Put simply (none / 0) (#485)
by trhurler on Sat Sep 20, 2003 at 04:18:53 PM EST

You do not understand the difference between "the news" defined as "whatever makes prime time news media" and "what is important." Someday, maybe you will outgrow the mindset of an eight year old, but most people never do, so if you don't, it isn't anything to worry about too much.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
"mindset of an eight year old" (none / 0) (#486)
by circletimessquare on Sun Sep 21, 2003 at 04:38:54 PM EST

dude, you are trying to tell me sars was not big news, for the whole world

you're daft, your'e a crackpot, you're a fruitcake

i'm not calling you names, i'm basing that on your inabiltiy to wrap your mind around the FUCKING OBVOUS

but don't listen to me fruitcake, i have the mindset of an eight year old

no wisdom for you here

you have it all figured out

no reason to stoop to my level, right?

lol ;-)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Wow (5.00 / 3) (#131)
by kableh on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 02:38:33 PM EST

After we butted heads in the past I had just written you off, but this is a well though out and eloquent piece. Bravo.

I won't bother spelling out my views as far as the Bush administration or the path they've lead U.S. on since 9/11, but suffice to say I'm not happy with them. Even so, I find myself conflicted, in the same way you are. I think you speak for many of us, and in a far more eloquent way than I could express it at the moment.

Good job =)

thanks dude ;-) (nt) (5.00 / 1) (#158)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 06:06:34 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
I have no comment (2.50 / 10) (#136)
by RyoCokey on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 02:55:18 PM EST

Save to say, I would have voted it down had I the chance.



farmers don't break into our houses at night, steal our DVDs and piss on the floor. No
Why is that, and why post anyways? nt (5.00 / 2) (#196)
by amarodeeps on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 09:47:37 PM EST



[ Parent ]
it's funny how you find the need (3.00 / 2) (#225)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 11:01:28 PM EST

to say you are not interested in what i have written

yet you find enough enough time to compose this message to us, thinking somehow that we would be interested that you wrote this? lol

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Very impressive article (5.00 / 3) (#137)
by Jave27 on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 02:56:13 PM EST

I would have to say that this is one of the most interesting articles I've read in a long time.  It's not very often that I'll actually stop what I'm doing at work to finish an article.  Normally, I just glance at them while I'm on the phone or something, but I started to read this one and finished it without a break.  There may be a few broad conclusions, but you don't profess to have any answers, which I truly appreciate.  So many people are quick to judge and think that their idea is the end-all solution to the world's problems.  Rarely do people correlate history to current events without an agenda for doing so.  Congratulations on a well-written and captivating article.

"Beating up the homeless. It's cruel, but it's a good clean work-out and leaves you feeling winded and superior." - CheeseburgerBrown

thanks ;-) (nt) (5.00 / 1) (#157)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 06:05:57 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
This is what people don't understand (4.38 / 13) (#144)
by Kasreyn on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 03:59:55 PM EST

In today's increasingly smaller and smaller world of the Internet and Jet air travel, what happens in Kabul matters in Manhattan, what happens in Mindanao matters in Canberra, what happens in Beirut matters in Nairobi.

The problem is, people in Manhattan are (or at least were) treating people in Kabul like THEY don't matter. "Oh, they're just some scruffy sand niggers thousands of miles away, who cares about them, their problems, their economy, their worries?" Then it's "HOLY SHIT! The ragheads kicked over our pretty sand castle we built so tall! KILL THEM!" There's not even an attempt at understanding.

Yes, there is a global interconnectedness, but the people at the center of it - arguably those in Manhattan - are unaware of anything but themselves, lost in rapt contemplation of their own coolness. Until 9-11, they were content to let the rest of the world skulk around the radius of their light, throwing them a gnawed bone every once in a while. After 9-11, it has become necessary to kick and beat the others who have invaded the nice, neat, orderly world near the center.

I know maybe 2 Americans outside my immediate family who understand why other nations detest us. Everyone seems to think we're universally loved as protectors, leaders, shining examples. In reality, we're hated as callous, greedy manipulators, and feared as unpredictable, violent bullies. The discrepancy between America's actual reputation in the world, and Americans' perception of that reputation, is the reason why most Americans don't understand the origins of the terror attacks. To most Americans, these terror attacks came, literally, out of nowhere - they were totally unaware that this hatred of them existed. I wonder how many people in the WTC two years ago today had any inkling that fanatics plotting their death was even a remote possibility, in this best of all possible worlds. And so the attacks come, out of nowhere seemingly, and it has terrified Americans so much that they're reduced to hiding behind colored strips of cloth and stickers, as if the stars and stripes are a ward against evil. Not even an attempt is made, in public discourse, to ask the simplest question of all: "What on earth caused those 19 men to hate us SO MUCH that they would do this?"

Until we Americans learn to stop treating the rest of the world as our servants and inferiors, fit only to eat our leftovers and clean up after us, this situation will not be resolved pleasantly, but by rule of force. If America does not wise up, it's going to wind up ruling an empire of shattered countries that hate it. The first step? It has to come from within Americans. No U.N. condemnation of America has ever or will ever affect it. This has to start with you and I, with understanding and a resolve to get our government to change its foreign policy. That, and a better perception of what the real world is like.


-Kasreyn


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
lol (4.00 / 4) (#155)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 05:56:10 PM EST

I know maybe 2 Americans outside my immediate family who understand why other nations detest us

by the same token, that paints your greater "understanding" of americans on the world stage as equally suspect

it is just as easy, in a teenager-level mentality way, to embrace every cynical observation about americans on the world stage, and prove to be equally clueless

you chastise the members of your family for being clueless because they think the opposite of you- pray tell, where is your fount of wisdom? ;-P

real wisdom is to say we are loved and hated, in varying degrees, everywhere

you're only just as clueless as your relatives you chastise, in the opposite direction lol


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I never chastised my relatives. (5.00 / 1) (#171)
by Kasreyn on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 07:39:28 PM EST

Reread:

"I know maybe 2 Americans outside my immediate family who understand why other nations detest us..."

By this, I meant that EVERYONE in my family understands this concept perfectly well.

I'm not going to say America is hated everywhere. I AM going to say that, where we're not hated, we're feared, and where we're neither hated nor feared, it is usually sincerely hoped that we will stay away with our bumbling "help".


-Kasreyn


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
[ Parent ]
you are teenager (2.50 / 4) (#180)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 08:43:36 PM EST

you sound like one, you speak like one, you have a teenager's empty cynical outrage

if you aren't a real teenager, you are definitely morally stunted


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

disappointing (5.00 / 4) (#321)
by snitch on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 05:05:33 AM EST

while you seem to relish in verbal abuse when responding, kasreyn has given nothing but restraint response. to an impratial obverser, it's you who sounds more like the cynical teenager. and there i thought to have found a worthwile article to read (based on replies so far). now i'm not so sure. only one way to find out, though.

"Against his heart was a thesaurus bound in PVC. He smiled at the entrance guard." - Steve Aylett
[ Parent ]

Thank you, I appreciate that. -nt (5.00 / 1) (#384)
by Kasreyn on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 03:27:29 PM EST

nt
"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
[ Parent ]
a very restrained (3.00 / 2) (#448)
by circletimessquare on Mon Sep 15, 2003 at 12:15:47 PM EST

well-written and thoughtful position, that in essence boils down to nothing more than an oversimplifying teenager-level righteously indignant position is worth less than

a poorly-written and loudmouth missive, that in essence boils down to a moral and conscious position

i make no apologies for my behavior

i hope some other people apologize for their lack of conscience

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Sort of (5.00 / 1) (#173)
by lens flare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 07:50:01 PM EST

I agree that the USA is 'loved and hated'. Loved and hated are perhaps too strong, but a lot of people do seem to hate the USA.

People hate people, often for no real reason. If you haven't figured that out, then do you live in a cocoon?

Living in N.Ireland has also made me see that while the media and politicians may band about motives for 'religious', 'political' attacks - they are really often for money or for territory, etc. At the end of the day, it is often those who are in charge of terrorism who lead their people to do things - through propoganda, etc.

However, I think that there have to be things which start these sort of actions. It's not black and white, the terrorists certainly aren't right, but the USA perhaps has been a bit bullish in its global affairs. THE USA HAS TO HELP ITSELF!!! I really wish they would just take a more reasonable approach, then things might ease a bit more.

[ Parent ]

Real wisdom requires more than that. (5.00 / 1) (#412)
by kcbrown on Sat Sep 13, 2003 at 12:18:30 AM EST

In the above, Captain Obvious said:
real wisdom is to say we are loved and hated, in varying degrees, everywhere
No shit, Sherlock.

The important question is, how much and how widely are we hated, and how does that compare with how much and how widely we are loved? Only by understanding that and understanding why it is that way will you find real wisdom.

[ Parent ]

Well... (5.00 / 1) (#329)
by epepke on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 07:26:45 AM EST

Not even an attempt is made, in public discourse, to ask the simplest question of all: "What on earth caused those 19 men to hate us SO MUCH that they would do this?"

Since I heard that assertion almost every day in the months following 9/11 and have seen so many explanations of why people hate us that they're all fading into a blur, I think it reasonable to conclude that your perceptions are clouded.

On the other hand, you say that outside your immediate family, you know maybe two people who understand the Real TruthTM about Why They Hate Us, perhaps this is a tacit admission that the overwhelming majority of what suppositions coming from the indie press, K5, and Noam Chomsky are complete bullshit, because there are way more than two of them. To this I'd have to agree.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
I don't KNOW Noam Chomsky. I know OF him. -nt (5.00 / 1) (#383)
by Kasreyn on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 03:26:22 PM EST

nt
"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
[ Parent ]
Well? (5.00 / 1) (#388)
by epepke on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 04:16:36 PM EST

Has he divined the One True Secret according to your family philosophy, or not?

Are you willing to run for office and do it? Failing that, are you willing to sign your name to it in a public document?

Or is it something that is only appropriate for nodding your head with your family, confident that if it doesn't turn out to be the case, you won't get blamed for it?


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
Answers (5.00 / 1) (#391)
by Kasreyn on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 04:47:23 PM EST

Has he? Don't know, haven't read much Chomsky.

I would be willing to run for office. However, I'm well aware that I could never in a million years win a campaign. Since this is obvious to anyone who spends 5 minutes in my company, I would get no funding. I choose not to waste my own money on such a long shot.

Am willing to sign my name to my beliefs. You're the first person who's given enough of a shit to ask me to, though.

And as to my actions about it, considering the voter turnout in this nation and the fact that I vote every chance I get, I seem to be doing more about it than most.


-Kasreyn


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
[ Parent ]
Wow, really? (5.00 / 1) (#417)
by epepke on Sat Sep 13, 2003 at 08:20:07 AM EST

Am willing to sign my name to my beliefs. You're the first person who's given enough of a shit to ask me to, though.

OK. I invite you to write it up. Here or in a diary would be fine. Too bad the guy who was running the Internet prediction registry died; otherwise, that would be a great place for it. Enlighten us.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
meditations... (3.40 / 5) (#150)
by extremist6 on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 04:45:25 PM EST

You forgot the part about the terrorists having nothing to offer the world except hate and extreme xenophobia. They have created nothing. They blame the world, but mostly the US for their problems. If Bin Laden had really cared about the Afghans, he would have spent his time and money helping them to rebuild their country. However, he instead simply turned from hating and killing Russians to hating and killing Americans. He's evil. He exists only to hate and destroy. You must realize that the US will do whatever it has to do to ensure that the terrorists don't get their hands on weaponized biological or chemical or ESPECIALLY nuclear technology. If a regime, such as Iraq's former one, heads in that direction, they will be stopped. Husssein was given 10 years to reverse his path. He defied the UN, and the UN did nothing. If it was just Iraq, we could assume that they wouldn't use their weapons against us, because we could simply wipe them out. However, the terrorists don't have clear targets. You must realize that they would do anything to get a nuclear weapon and would like nothing more than to explode it in NY or Washington, DC. However, if they couldn't do it there, they would also enjoy exploding it in London, Paris, Frankfurt, Tel Aviv, Riyadh, or any of a number of large cities. They are the enemies of us all, and the friends of noone. Remember the words of George W. Bush (whether you like him or not)... You are either with us, or against us. We don't need the UN to sanction our war against terror. On September 11, 2001, the terrorists changed the rules. Now we must live in a different world, at least until they renounce their intentions to destroy us or if not, until they are all dead.

Who's terrorist? (5.00 / 1) (#166)
by jmv on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 06:40:08 PM EST

Note that the original author didn't say the 9/11 terrorists were nice guys (he almost lost his life there). However, the great danger with fighting terrorism is ending up no better than them. This is why support for the US around the world has never been that low (even though it was at a high just after 9/11).

It is not the 30th anniversary of the US-sponsored coup in Chile, replacing a democratically elected government with one of the worst dictators. Same happened in Iran (1953), which eventually led to the Islamic revolution of 1979. Here's a list of foreign governments overthrown by the US. Now, who did more damage? Bin Laden in 2001 or the US in Chile in 1973?

Of course, two wrongs don't make one right (it goes both ways). I'm just saying that what might look to you as a way to protect yourself can be seen as evil to others. See the war against Iraq, Afghanistan, support for Israel and so on. If you want to prevent another 9/11, you have to really ask yourself why Bin Laden is so popular in some places. You can't just point a gun and say "love us or die".

[ Parent ]

Premature certainty is a great evil (2.50 / 4) (#154)
by Bisun on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 05:54:45 PM EST

Please consider the sources of your data before you decide how much trust to put in it. The attack on the Twin Towers may be as represented. We don't know. There's very good evidence that it happened, but the details are...strange. And almost all of the detailed evidence was in the control of the US security agencies for some period of time before it was released. What is fact, what is fiction, and what has been edited out? We do not and cannot know. If we pretend to know, then we fall prey to the manipulators in the same way that those who are convinced that Saddam was behind the attacks do. We do know that the federal government received a large number of warnings in advance of the event, from various respected sources. Security agencies from many other countries, and even from it's own personnel. Nothing was followed up. Incompetence is a possible explanation, but no one has been charged with incompetence. And other explanations are also possible. Before you go ranting off at those who are proclaimed guilty, decide just how much you trust the accusers. In fairness, it seems quite plausible that the act was, indeed, committed by bin Laden's associates. But did the government know in advance? Just how complicit was it? That is was totally innocent bespeaks a degree of incompetence that should cause all of the management of the main security agencies to be fired. Yet nobody appears to have been. So something else is going on.

and we didn't land on the moon (3.00 / 4) (#156)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 06:05:12 PM EST

and jfk was killed by the masons

and nazi germany never burned jews in ovens

etc.

shut the fuck up you paranoid schizophrenic and get some medication before you post again

i am of course a member of the illuminati trying to suppress your insightful observations lol

stupid fuck

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

And you are quite certain. (5.00 / 1) (#394)
by Bisun on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 05:40:02 PM EST

What else is there to say. You are certain. I feel the information is at best incomplete for certainty.
It's also interesting that you claim to know my mind better than I do, without having met me.


[ Parent ]
Erm (5.00 / 1) (#202)
by drsmithy on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 10:03:08 PM EST

If we pretend to know, then we fall prey to the manipulators in the same way that those who are convinced that Saddam was behind the attacks do.

Now, I must admit I tend to tune out most of "teh terrorists did it !" stuff and I only watch A[ustralian]BC and SBS news, but when did the powers that be start blaming Hussein for the WTC attacks ?

[ Parent ]

Exploting feelings (4.00 / 4) (#170)
by svampa on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 07:27:27 PM EST

I can understand your feelings, after such experience, now you feel more united to your country, you feel more than ever that you belong to USA. And you trust in your governmet, that it will do the its best to fight against terrorism all over the world, perhaps sometime wrong, but it will do what it thinks is the best.

I think that USA government is following its own agenda, and its using your feelings to fuel it.

The agenda is , grab as much power as it can to control the country, and in foreign affairs wants to control oil, a strategic resource, and extend the millitary power, new bases, new defense treats etc.

About the civilizations clash. It will end with oil, and with the extermine of Israel or Palestine.

As USA citizen you may agree or not with its foreign policy, but has little to do with terrorism.

Irak had little to do with terrorism, Saddam was a even target of Al qaeda.

The existence of WMD were denied by most inspectors and ex-inspectors, and of course there wasn't nothing like a factory to produce it. There have been fake documents used to jutify never proved WMD programs..etc.

Saddam was a nasty dictator, but civilians are who have suffered the war. There are more than 6000 accepted civilian casualities, their homes destroyed, no job, no electricity. Is Iraq people happier? Would Chicago citizens in Al Capone epoch feel happier if someone would have bombed their homes to liberate them from Al Capone? Each relative now hates USA and may be a future terrorist.

more brave in the fight against rogue states.

You mean more bully to call you feel like rogue and attack it. Rogue states for USA are third world countries ruled by a dictator who doesn't open its economy to corporations, or shout against USA. If they are dictatorships or not, has little to do with being selected as rogue... Chile with Pinochet was not a rogue state, Argentina with Videla was not a rogue state, Cuba, not worse than those above, is a rogue state.

I don't think this actitude of being the supreme auto-elected judge, policeman and executioner all together, helps peace in the world.

Iraq war has nothing to do with terrorism. Maybe you have reasons and feelings to believe that your government would never dare abuse of your feelings and to use terrorism as an excuse to a war and to reduce rights and liberties. I don't have such reasons and facts make me believe so.



ideologues coming out (5.00 / 1) (#178)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 08:39:52 PM EST

people died

it was a tragedy, it bears remembering

turn off the ideology, please

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

American sux. (5.00 / 1) (#324)
by tkatchev on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 05:39:25 AM EST

Shut up already.

   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

People died all over.. (5.00 / 1) (#348)
by JohnnyCannuk on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 10:27:32 AM EST

...long before and since September 11, 2001.

They too were tragedies. The 3000 victims of the September 11 tragedy are no more or no less important than the victims of Bhopal, Mai Lai, Oklahoma City, Chernobyl or Jenin. The death of a single human, anywhere, anytime, is a tragedy.

If you are serious in your sorrow, you will feel it for all, including the victims of Chilean dictators you seem so concerned about in other posts.

If you wish to stop such tragedies from happening again, you must examine the myrad of causes and effects that led to them. You must examine them honestly and be prepared, no matter how hard it is, to accept any amount of responsiblility you may own.

I believe the poster was trying to point out that if the US government continues acting as it has in the past (supporting dictatorial regimes, selling arms to the very people they are no fighting, exploiting others for their resources). This government is supported by people who don't know about the suffering and hardships of others around the world. This ignorance, of both the people and the Government, leads them to do more actions which, in turn, cause others outside the US (who are equally ignorant of the feelings and sufferings of US citizens) to hate the US and, again in turn, to do actions to harm the US, which causes the US and it's citizens to hate and do harm to ohers, who.....

Do you see the cycle?

Continuing in this way will make the US and the rest of the world less safe not more safe, as you seem to beleive. Why not try to stop the cycle instead?

Would this not serve as a better memorial to the victims of September 11, 2001 and all the other tradgedies that have taken place? wouldn't preventing this from happening again be a more fitting tribute than contining on with what is happening now, thus ENSURING that it will happen again?
We have just religion enough to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another - Jonathan Swift
[ Parent ]

The story is ideology (5.00 / 1) (#368)
by svampa on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 01:16:31 PM EST

I understand the shock of people through such experience. But when he begins to talk about rogue states, WMD, UN, clash of civilizations etc, is talking about ideology.

I share his pain, but I absolutly deny all his ideas about "Pax Americana" and USA self-elected world police/judge. If this story is not the moment to discuss this stuff because it's about a tragedy, then he shoudn't have included such stuff.

He has mixed the melancoly of the memory of a tragedy with his own ideology. So he will find answers against that ideology, By the way, mixing feelings and ideology is a common way of subtle indoctrination.



[ Parent ]
I'm amazed no one has said this yet (2.33 / 6) (#172)
by blackpaw on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 07:43:20 PM EST

"How many Americans can you fit in a VW ? - 3000, in the ash tray"

Let this be an antidote the soggy sentimentality floating around today.

Notwithstanding that, this is a great story and its generating great debate, may my comment generate equally stimulating commentary

as opposed to ideologues? (nt) (5.00 / 1) (#177)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 08:39:14 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Huh ? (5.00 / 1) (#195)
by blackpaw on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 09:43:44 PM EST

as opposed to ideologues? (nt)

I'm sorry - I don't get your meaning

[ Parent ]

hawk or dove, light or dark (5.00 / 1) (#176)
by Fuzzwah on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 08:10:32 PM EST

I've just finished playing Knights of the Old Republic, which explains how I've come to the following metaphor....

It's powerful to know that each choice we make and each stance we take will pull us towards either the hawk or dove circles. My problem is that I tire of the crappy storyline which is fed to me. It worries me deeply that such a flimsy plot is all that I'm given to make these choices and base my stances.

Why is it that by trying to rush through the poor dialog we always tend to come out on the dark side, the side of the hawk?

It's harder to understand and have empathy than to allow the rage to fill your being. The same reason we can't turn off the tap of suicide bombers is the exact same reason we couldn't stop our own nations invading two middle eastern countires.

One man's tomahawk missile is just another man's terrorist act.

--
The best a human can do is to pick a delusion that helps him get through the day. - God's Debris

wrong (5.00 / 1) (#179)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 08:41:47 PM EST

there is flying commercial airliners into buildings without warning for the agenda of fringe fundamentalists

then there is warning someone for 10 years of what you are going to do for ten years, then finally acting with a large part of the international community behind oyu in your actions

very different

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Wrong I'm afraid (5.00 / 2) (#194)
by blackpaw on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 09:41:50 PM EST

there is flying commercial airliners into buildings without warning for the agenda of fringe fundamentalists

Various groups have been warning america of their dissatisfaction for years, its just that america wasn't listening

then there is warning someone for 10 years of what you are going to do for ten years, then finally acting with a large part of the international community behind oyu in your actions

The warning part is debatible, but the "large part of the international community" - rubbish, a large part of the international community opposed the war

[ Parent ]

my friend (3.50 / 2) (#203)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 10:04:40 PM EST

if you honestly see no difference between flying passenger airliners into office towers and the actions of the us govt, no matter what you think of them, your ideology is so squashing your sense of reason that all you are doing is walling yourself off from any relevancy to the world


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
I'm not your friend (3.00 / 2) (#215)
by blackpaw on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 10:45:46 PM EST

I've never meet you or exchanged more than a few words - how could I be your friend ?

Also - you completely failed to address my answer to your question

[ Parent ]

ok, you're not my friend (5.00 / 1) (#222)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 10:57:53 PM EST

now listen to me, my friend (lol):

action on iraq is not agreed with by a lot people

it is also agreed with by a lot of people

there's some simple intellectual honesty for you, try to spin that ideologically if you can my friend

and if you insist to compare and contrast the actions of the us witht the actions of fundamentalist bent on mayhem, i repeat:

your ideology

overwhelms

your sense of reason

my friend (lol)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Blah blah, 9/11 such a tradegy... (3.00 / 4) (#198)
by Xiol on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 09:49:04 PM EST

I'd downvote this if I still had a chance.

I'm sick of hearing about 9/11.

So people died, big whoop. Do you know how many people die from starvation every day? (starvation, for fucks sake!) Or disease? Or from poverty?

While we westerners are fat and fed, spending £80 on fucking shoes, £40 to get the latest fashionable shirts and stuff, children and adults alike are dying in there droves in poor third world countries.

Just because a few Americans died, you all go off and blow up a few countries.

The USA is dying, bit by bit and nobody seems to care. When the legal system is rotting, giving corporations the power to "persecute" people randomly (RIAA). And that sad part is, nobody seems to care as long as they get their daily dose of commercials on the TV briefly interrupted by news and weather and horrible sitcoms.

It is more sad that 10 times that number dies every year on the road. It is sad that there are 100s of thousands homeless and poor people. It is even more sad that there are literally millions in the US without adequate health care. It is even more sad that there are 100s of thousands each year that can not afford a higher education. It is even more sad that the US is slowly but surely turning into something most countires left behind a long time ago and now is only found in China, information control. This country is slowly but surely getting to a point where personal freedom is sacrficed on the alter of "terrorism".

But it doesn't matter. I don't live in the US (thank [your] God), and those 3000 people that died - I knew none of them - So I don't care.
-- The Quote Machine

when people drive airliners into office towers (5.00 / 2) (#206)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 10:11:36 PM EST

killing thousands

it's worth talking about and remembering

i'm glad you don't care

care to tell us why you think we should care about you or your kneejerk negative words?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Huh? (3.00 / 2) (#212)
by Xiol on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 10:41:07 PM EST

care to tell us why you think we should care about you or your kneejerk negative words?

You replied.

It shows you care.


-- The Quote Machine
[ Parent ]
i do care (5.00 / 1) (#219)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 10:52:21 PM EST

and you?

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
What about the children ! (5.00 / 1) (#213)
by blackpaw on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 10:41:28 PM EST

You should start chanting that, your constant harping on airliners and 9/11 is achieving that same ubiquity of meaningless

[ Parent ]
dude (4.50 / 2) (#218)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 10:51:53 PM EST

it is 9/11, right now

in an article thread about 9/11

do you go into supermarkets and yell at people for talking about food so much? lol

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I'm tempted sometimes ... (5.00 / 1) (#229)
by blackpaw on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 11:07:23 PM EST

Hate noisy supermarkets <g>

Yah, of course there will be impassioned debate on 9/11 on a 9/11 story, but shouting down anyone who espouse a viewpoint you find particularly offensive with "they flew airplanes into buildings !" isn't helpful to debate and eminds one of Mary Bono <shudder>, it belongs on the fox network.

I guess you're getting pretty upset now, after all it is up close and personal for you, people should remember that.

However this is a public forum - worth remembering as well.

[ Parent ]

dude (5.00 / 1) (#231)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 11:12:11 PM EST

it's not about alternative viewpoints

if you read the post at the top of this thread, the person is shitting all over anyone caring about 9/11 at all and commenting on it at all

and then, hypocritically of course, they are commenting on it

ideology i don't like is one thing

not caring at all and then thinking you have the right to tell people not to care is another

do you support going into AA meetings and yelling about how alocholics are stupid?

that is what i am talking about

you seem to think i am talking about the guy who has found an alternative cure for alcoholism, and i am yelling at him for proposing his alternate theories

understand the problem, read the post, then comment


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

hypocrite (3.75 / 4) (#240)
by felixrayman on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 11:29:58 PM EST

When someone in another comment in this thread mentioned the US support for a military dictatorship in Chile, you said:

oh shit, my grandma stubbed her toe
must be the us's fault


But when something like that affects you, all of the sudden it is a Big Fucking Deal.

care to tell us why you think we should care about you or your kneejerk negative words?

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
wtc (5.00 / 1) (#243)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 11:41:20 PM EST

happened 2 years ago

allende happened 30 years ago

it's simple chronology you dolt

but of course, in your mind, your ideology overwhelms this common sense observation

i'm not a hypocrite

you're a hopeless ideologue


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Actually you ARE a hypocrite. (3.75 / 4) (#248)
by felixrayman on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 11:52:13 PM EST

First of all the Chile comparisons are relevant today - the trials are only now being begun of the people responsible.

Second of all, how many years until in your opinion it will be acceptable to dismiss someone who lived through the WTC bombings and brings them up in a conversation with the line "My grandma stubbed my toe. Must be the terrorists fault"?

I would certainly not accuse you of being an ideologue - you simply aren't that sophisticated. You are simply the average everyday hypocrite who believes terrorism that affects him is worth posting overly sentimental rambling diatribes to this site, while terrorism committed by the country in which he lives should be ignored. Average everyday hypocrite.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
wrong (5.00 / 1) (#255)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 11:59:01 PM EST

what happened in chile is in no way comparable to commercial airliners being driven into office towers

the actions of the us government are no way comparable to the actions of a fringe group of violent fundamentalists, anywhere, anytime, period

what happened in chile was done mostly by chileans with us involvement, for purposes in line with a lot of people

it was not done by people acting in a country completely alien to them for the purposes of furthering 13th century theocracy by a small fringe group

it is a matter of what was done- one not approaching the other in moral reprehensibility, and done in who's name- a fringe group versus a large number of chileans and americans

but you call me a hypocrite, and you continue making those comparisons, and you enjoy walling yourself off from reason with your ideology

and note that the only reason you are marking this anniversary at all is because everyone else is marking the wtc anniversary

which makes you a kneejerk ideologue if there ever were one

enjoy your obsolescence and irrelevancy


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I think you'd better stick to 9/11 (3.66 / 3) (#325)
by pyramid termite on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 06:00:57 AM EST

what happened in chile is in no way comparable to commercial airliners being driven into office towers

True. Pinochet killed more people.

the actions of the us government are no way comparable to the actions of a fringe group of violent fundamentalists, anywhere, anytime, period

Also true - the fundamentalists never took over our government. Pinochet stayed in power for 17 years.

what happened in chile was done mostly by chileans with us involvement, for purposes in line with a lot of people

Irrelevant - the number of people supporting something doesn't make it right.

it was not done by people acting in a country completely alien to them for the purposes of furthering 13th century theocracy by a small fringe group

Also irrelevant - the victims were just as dead.

it is a matter of what was done- one not approaching the other in moral reprehensibility, and done in who's name- a fringe group versus a large number of chileans and americans

So, the more people involved in something, the less wrong it is?

enjoy your obsolescence and irrelevancy

I might point out that Pinochet still may be tried for his actions - and many people in Chile don't think it's irrelevant at all.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
i say (5.00 / 1) (#371)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 01:27:41 PM EST

a lot of chileans would agree with me

but you try selling your uncaring ideological posturing on the streets of santiago

you only care about the chileans as far as you can throw them against the american you hate so much

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Tsk (3.50 / 2) (#389)
by pyramid termite on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 04:20:07 PM EST

Might I suggest you learn more about rhetoric before you make rhetorical arguments? All you've really done is called me an ideologue and an america hater. Unoriginal, ineffective and not true.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
No... (5.00 / 1) (#434)
by Chi on Sun Sep 14, 2003 at 07:58:08 AM EST

...a lot of chileans would drive a stake through your heart. Americans aren't the most loved people in Chile (understandable really).

[ Parent ]
as long as chileans hate americans (5.00 / 1) (#446)
by circletimessquare on Mon Sep 15, 2003 at 12:09:42 PM EST

for what happened 30 years ago, and was done by chileans, to chileans, then chile won't go anywhere

it's called personal accountability

if you blame everyone and everything else for your plight in life, you go nowhere and everyone dislikes you because you deal in incriminations and reincriminations and expect something for your suffering in life

the moment you shut the fuck up, and take responsibility for what you did, is the moment you actually go somewhere in life

the cold war is over, the us did nasty things in a lot of places in the name of the cold war

so did russia

so did cuba

so did a lot of countries

and what happened in chile might have been with the support of the us, but it was done by chileans, to chileans

what the hell does that mean to you? or do you still insist the us is the great satan?

oversimplifying problems in the world solves nothing

blaming every goddamn bad thing that happens in the world on the us, when the intellectually honest truth is the blame was partial and minor to the us, and a lot of other nations and people were doing evil things, means you don't solve a single problem at all

you just sit there and incriminate and reincriminate

yawn


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

responsability (5.00 / 1) (#461)
by bradasch on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 01:14:51 PM EST

If you blame everyone and everything else for your plight in life, you go nowhere and everyone dislikes you because you deal in incriminations and reincriminations and expect something for your suffering in life

Partly not true. I see lot of americans blaming everyone else for 9/11, without any self perspective. I wouldn't say the US is nowhere now. But I agree that the US is still expecting simpathy from other countries.

the moment you shut the fuck up, and take responsibility for what you did, is the moment you actually go somewhere in life

Oh man, and when is the US going to take responsability for the bad things they've done, which you seem to dismiss with a waving hand, asking for simpathy and care for the victims of 9/11?

blaming every goddamn bad thing that happens in the world on the us, when the intellectually honest truth is the blame was partial and minor to the us, and a lot of other nations and people were doing evil things, means you don't solve a single problem at all

Nope, and that's the important point. You oversimplify with the words "partial and minor". The US is (and has been for a while) the biggest military force in the world. Last estimations I heard of is that the american military force is roughly 50% of the military force in the world. So that's not "partial and minor". Foreign US actions are big, and the bad things that happened because of these actions are important. The problem I expect to solve by discussing these things is opening the american conscience that they should be aware of the rest of the world, because the actions taken by american leaders can be of big influence outside the US.

[ Parent ]
if the us disappeared tomorrow (5.00 / 1) (#483)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 07:56:57 PM EST

into a big lake

POOF

will al qaeda celebrate and become provincial farmers?

or will they go right on with their murderous agenda?

bali, saudi arabia, kenya, ambon

look around you dude, i am not oversimplifying by looking at al aqaeda as a source of evil in the world that must be destroyed before anything is said about the us

you are the oversimplifying and still stuck in cold war history by framing everything that happens in the world in opposition to what the us does or does not do

the world is more than just the usa

i seem to understand that better than you do


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

right (5.00 / 1) (#328)
by Xiol on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 06:51:05 AM EST

Nice.
-- The Quote Machine
[ Parent ]
22 and a half years (5.00 / 1) (#334)
by QuantumG on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 08:22:57 AM EST

that's how long it takes for a tragedy to become funny, at least to an american.

Gun fire is the sound of freedom.
[ Parent ]
Blah, Blah..... (5.00 / 1) (#359)
by discopete on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 12:36:00 PM EST

Not knowing where you are from I can't point this directly at you, but perhaps you'd have a better understanding of why we remember and why we care if some prick had plowed a plane into one of your country's greatest mounuments, killing thousands of your countrymen.

What if they'd chosen the Eiffel tower?
Or Buckingham palace?
Or maybe Mecca?

[ Parent ]

Yeah, whatever. (5.00 / 1) (#419)
by Xiol on Sat Sep 13, 2003 at 09:02:58 AM EST

I'm in the UK.

And I still wouldn't give a shit if they plowed it into Buckingham Palace.

It doesn't affect me, why should I care?
-- The Quote Machine
[ Parent ]

How about Dresden? Oops? (3.00 / 2) (#424)
by Antiorganic on Sat Sep 13, 2003 at 12:49:49 PM EST

2-14-45 NEVER FORGET

I'm so tired of the 9/11 nonsense as well. Only 3,000 people died. While any number of deaths is a great tragedy, I need only remind you that the accepted amount of civilian casualties we caused in Dresden in 1945 dwarfed this number by about 50 times.

I'm not drumming up a liberal "The US is worse than Stalin" shitstorm, but this is something to keep in perspective before our hypocrisy gets out of hand.

"But Antiorganic," you plead, "that was war!"

And how is this any different? A recent figure I've seen informs me that since the 1980s, we have given Israel over $3,000,000,000,000 to kill "militants" (a euphemism we use for "Palestinian women and children") and run over protestors with tanks. They're at war, and they're just creeping up the supply chain. Done. End of story.

"I know! Remember when the US had a drug problem and then we declared a War on Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
-David Rees, "Get Your War On"

Bandwagon patriot since 9-11-01

[ Parent ]
Um, this is a joke, right? (4.50 / 2) (#426)
by epepke on Sat Sep 13, 2003 at 01:11:01 PM EST

A recent figure I've seen informs me that since the 1980s, we have given Israel over $3,000,000,000,000 to kill "militants" (a euphemism we use for "Palestinian women and children") and run over protestors with tanks.

That's 3 trillion, a little less than half the size of the U.S. national debt. That's close to a million dollars for every man, woman, and child in Israel.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
September 11 (4.00 / 5) (#200)
by pythagoras on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 09:51:10 PM EST

Cry me a river.  Let's not forget that the good ol' USA is not above using terrorism itself, when it
suits its purpose:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/chile/story/0,13755,1038615,00.html

"Two days after this document was written, top CIA officials proposed a terrorist campaign to stun the Chilean people into accepting a military
regime.

"Concur giving tear gas cannisters and gas masks ... working on obtaining machine guns," reads a CIA memo dated October 18 1970.

"Use good officers ... Some low-level overflights of Santiago and bomb drops in areas not likely to cause casualties could have great psychological effect and might swing balance as they have so many times in past in similar circumstances.""

For more than a decade following the coup, the country had a brutal right-wing dictatorship that killed with impunity.  More than 3,000 civilians died at the hands of a government that came to power because of the US.


hello ideologue #3,129,002 (5.00 / 2) (#204)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 10:09:33 PM EST

flying airliners into office towers is not justifieable or comparable to the actions of any sovereign nation

let this be the litmust test for where your ideology overwhelms your sense of reason

you seem to be drowning in something, my friend, and the stink of that agenda overpowering obvious plain-as-day reason dooms you to irrelevancy

enjoy your lonely, patehtic existence, your words only wall you off from the rest of the world


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Free Pass ? (5.00 / 2) (#210)
by blackpaw on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 10:38:04 PM EST

flying airliners into office towers is not justifieable or comparable to the actions of any sovereign nation

You seem to be saying that Nations have a free pass when it comes to horrific acts.

Also - the 9/11 attackers considered themselves represntative of a nation

[ Parent ]

no nation would do this (4.00 / 2) (#211)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 10:39:35 PM EST

and if they did, they would be punished by all of the others

afghanistan's taliban comes to mind


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Delibrately avoiding the question (5.00 / 2) (#217)
by blackpaw on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 10:51:19 PM EST

I can't help feeling you are doing this - or maybe your mind has closed up, a pity after that admirable article.

The question is not that would nation fly airliners into building, nations have far better ways of causing worse destruction, and have employed them, the US being the most notable example with nukes, but most of the other nations are as capable and guilty.

The question is why do you seem to think it is acceptable for nations to commit atrocious acts, or perhaps its they are not atrocious if performed by nations ?

[ Parent ]

remedial education for you then (4.50 / 2) (#220)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 10:54:21 PM EST

actions taken on behlaf of a lot of people are justifieable, smply because a lot of people justify them by approving of the actions

actions taken by a small minority, in pursuit of an agenda antithetical to a vast majority, in the form of violent and sudden attacks, is not jusitfieable

what the hell is your problem with this assertion?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Proves their point (5.00 / 2) (#224)
by blackpaw on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 11:00:31 PM EST

actions taken on behlaf of a lot of people are justifieable, smply because a lot of people justify them by approving of the actions

Al Queda's action were taken on behalf of a lot of people and approved of by them (remember that part of the world that is not the us or europe ?), so I guess they were right and moral after all

actions taken by a small minority, in pursuit of an agenda antithetical to a vast majority, in the form of violent and sudden attacks, is not jusitfieable

Proves the US was wrong to invade Iraq as bugger all people approved of that, and I really doubt it was for anyones benefit but BushCo

Of course that whole calculus you just espoused is bullshit - Majority, Belief or Might do not make right.

[ Parent ]

if you really think (5.00 / 1) (#226)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 11:03:55 PM EST

that the actions of al qaeda speaks for a majority of anyone in the islamic world, then all you have proven is how out of touch with the world you are

you really do need a remedial education, at least in intellectual honesty

you need less ideology too, it completely overwhelms your ability to reason


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Remedial history for you.. (4.00 / 4) (#236)
by felixrayman on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 11:22:38 PM EST

actions taken by a small minority, in pursuit of an agenda antithetical to a vast majority, in the form of violent and sudden attacks, is (sic) not jusitfieable (sic)

And that is why the people who undertake those actions in democratic countries hide them from the electorate. Do you think what the US did in Chile to help bring about a military dictatorship was common knowledge during the time it was happening? Nonsense. Some of it is only now coming to light, more will come out later.

The actions of Kissinger during the Nixon era were antithetical to the vast majority of US voters. They were also, according to Kissinger himself as quoted in Christopher Hitchen's book The Trial Of Henry Kissinger, illegal. Kissinger in declassified documents quoted in that book, admits to breaking the law in Indonesia. The US public never "approved of those actions". They were simply hidden.

This is the same man who helped to bring about a military dictatorship in Chile. His actions there helped to bring about a situation where a small minority, in pursuit of an agenda antithetical to the vast majority of Chileans, carried out sudden and violent attacks to overthrow a government that was approved by the people of Chile. He did this because in upcoming elections, the party he wanted to win was likely to lose. He justified this by saying that he didn't see any reason a country should (quoting Kissinger) "go Marxist" because "its people are irresponsible".

So my problem is not with your assertion - it is with your hypocrisy.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
intellectual honesty (3.50 / 2) (#242)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 11:38:36 PM EST

try it for once:

the us does good in the world

the us does bad in the world

if you do not agreew ith me on those two points, there is no talking with you, as your ideology has overwhelmed your sense of reason

believe it or not, what happened in chile 30 years ago might have happened because of CHILEANS more than AMERICANS

the us was involved

do you not understand the value of my pointing out the simplistic, constant, pathetic mentality so many people have in portraying of the us as this evil actor on the world stage, acting unilaterally to do evil things everywhere, wihtout any input from anyone else?

not even chileans?

there is no talking to you, nor is there any relevancy to your position- not to me, or other americans, but to simple unadulterated intellectual honesty, until you admit to that what happens in chile, or anywhere else that the us is involved in, is primarily the fault OF THE CHILEANS

are chileans brain dead cowards unable to change the course oftheir own country? is the us possessing of some magical technogy that they have turned the country intot he possession of the united states with no knowledge of chileans or anyone else?

so you are telling me chileans have absolutely NO RESPONSIBILTY for the fate of their own country? that it all lies on the foot of a foreign power thousands of miles away?

what a demented, simplistic, teenager-level mentality view of the world you have

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

But, but, but... (5.00 / 2) (#430)
by baron samedi on Sat Sep 13, 2003 at 06:54:33 PM EST

What were the people Chile supposed to do, exactly, to prevent Pinochet's coup, and what were they supposed to do after the coup?

Allende was elected by the people of Chile, fair and square. They took care of that responsibility for their future. Some right-wing, moneyed interests opposed him, but they were unable to win an election. The CIA offers to help Pinochet seize power in a coup d'etat that promises to firmly place those moneyed interests in power again (and allow ITT to keep its copper mines in Chile), and is successful. Then Pinochet rounds up anyone who might dissent, or otherwise prove to be a problem, and kills/tortures/imprisons/disappears them.

Then you claim that this must have been the people of Chile's fault for not standing up to this murderous dictator? Just how, exactly, were they supposed to have done that, without being rounded up and killed?

Yes, there are examples of things that the U.S. has done that are very positive internationally. The Peace Corps, the United Nations, educational opportunities for foreign students, the list goes on.

But the deliberate subversion of another country's democratic process to obtain results more favorable to U.S. corporate interests is not ever an example of how the U.S. does good things abroad.


"Hands that help are better by far than lips that pray."- Robert G. Ingersoll
[ Parent ]

Please stop using the same line! (5.00 / 1) (#214)
by Xiol on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 10:43:33 PM EST

flying airliners into office towers

I'm sick of reading that in your comments.
-- The Quote Machine
[ Parent ]
if your sick of reading it, stop reading (5.00 / 1) (#216)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 10:50:29 PM EST

if you didn't notice, the article here has something to do with september 11th

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Remember its 9/11 (5.00 / 1) (#232)
by blackpaw on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 11:12:17 PM EST

There's going to be a lot of debate on the Chile coup in 1973.

oh and the 2001 Trade Tower attack

[ Parent ]

the chile thing (2.66 / 3) (#234)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 11:14:35 PM EST

happened 30 years ago

the wtc is more relevant

not an ideological observation of mine, a chronological one

of course, you can color it with ideology and say they are equal in value, or that the allende thing is more important

but then again, ideology overwhelms a lot of people's sense of reason


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Dude (5.00 / 3) (#246)
by blackpaw on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 11:49:05 PM EST

Or my friend if your prefer,

its more relevant to *you*, becuase it effected you personally. The coup in Chile is a lot more relevant to the chileans because it effected them personally. To many other's they are *both* relevant because they illuminate different facets of the worlds sole remaining superpower.

The fact the people keep bringing up Chile should be a clue that it *is* relevant.

[ Parent ]

it is not relevant (2.66 / 3) (#259)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 12:12:53 AM EST

it happened 30 years ago

and your transparent ideolgoy shows in that you wouldn't even be bringing this up if you couldn't use it to run counter to what everyone else is reacting to that happened 2 years ago

  1. years ago?
  2. years ago?
does that mean anything to you?

i think most chileans would agree with me in fact


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Ignore history at your peril (5.00 / 1) (#411)
by kcbrown on Sat Sep 13, 2003 at 12:11:12 AM EST

it is not relevant

it happened 30 years ago

Ah, good. That means that World War II, which happened 50 years ago, is also irrelevant. We should remember that the next time anyone claims that the world owes the U.S. for saving its ass from fascism back then.

You wanna educate us on exactly what it is about the way things are in the U.S. today that would make actions like those that the U.S. took in Chile 30 years ago impossible today? Because if anything, it seems to me that it would be easier for the U.S. to pull the same crap now than it was then.

BTW, where in the world does this naive blind faith of yours that the actions of the U.S. government strongly reflect the desires of its people come from? Why do you believe that? Or am I mistaken in saying you do?

One other thing: I think your original article was exceedingly well thought out and well written. I wish you'd put the same amount of thought and care into most of your responses, because I think we'd all be enriched by it.

[ Parent ]

the cold war is over (5.00 / 1) (#449)
by circletimessquare on Mon Sep 15, 2003 at 12:20:15 PM EST

yet it is still important in history

but not as important as what happened 2 years ago

so what exactly is the problem with that position?

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Here's some relevance-by-chronology for ya (4.66 / 3) (#407)
by cicho5 on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 11:17:20 PM EST

Try this:

April 11, 2002. Bush administration attempting to do in Venezuela very nearly the same thing that the Nixon aministration had done in Chile, for about the same reasons, too. No cold war excuse this time, though. (Here's some more)

Like your mantra goes, the US does some good things and the US does some bad things. But just because something happened 30 years ago or more doesn't make it irrelevent. Consider also that different cultures have different perception of history. What seems so long-gone as to be irrelevant to you, may be yesterday's tragedy to lots of people.

[ Parent ]

Speaking of ideology (5.00 / 2) (#326)
by pyramid termite on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 06:11:07 AM EST

circletimessquare on exporting democracy to the Middle East - "We should do it. The Iraqis will learn to be democratic just like Germany and Japan did after world war 2.

circletimessquare on the U.S. helping to overthrow a democractically elected Chilean government - "It's irrelevant."

Actually, it's not. The U.S.'s actions then raise the very important question - if the Iraqis should democractically elect a government that the U.S. doesn't approve of, will we permit them to keep it? History would seem to indicate we won't.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
ok, you've placed your bet on the future (5.00 / 1) (#370)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 01:22:18 PM EST

i say you will eat crow in a few years when your bet turns out wrong

hey, i could be wrong

think of me and this moment in the future dude when i turn out to be right

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

oh shit, my grandma stubbed her toe (2.66 / 3) (#205)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 10:10:08 PM EST

must be the us's fault


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Unfuckingbelievable (3.20 / 5) (#221)
by felixrayman on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 10:57:51 PM EST

The US sponsors the overthrow of a democratic government to help install a dictatorship responsible for tens of thousands of murders, and you think it incomprehensible that the US should ever be held responsible for what it has done. Not only that - it shouldn't even be mentioned. Those who mention it should be mocked. I mean who cares right? This after whining like a baby about the US suffering 3000 casualties. Unfuckingbelievable. Despite what you wrote above, you haven't learned a fucking thing. Terrorism committed by the US is something people should suffer the way they suffer a stubbed toe. Get over it, it happens, don't bother me with it. It is no person's fault. Terrorism committed in YOUR neighborhood, on the other hand, is a call for you to impose on us the sappy, interminable bleating of someone with the sweeping knowledge of history that a few nights of PBS can give a person.

Unfuckingbelievable.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
intellectual honesty (5.00 / 1) (#223)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 10:59:20 PM EST

the us does alot of good in the world

the us does a lot of bad in the world

if you say anything more or less, you are drowning in ideology, and are lost to reason

oops, looks like i spoke too soon ;-P


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

intellectual honesty? you should try it (3.60 / 5) (#237)
by felixrayman on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 11:26:40 PM EST

Muslims do a lot of good in the world.

Muslims do a lot of bad in the world.

If it is OK for you to complain about terrorism in your neighborhood, it is OK for others to complain about terrorism committed by the government of the country in which you live in their neighborhood.

When you compare someone noting the involvement of the US in bringing about a military dictatorship to someone complaining about stubbing their toe, you reveal either your ideology or your ignorance, I will not profess to be able to determine which.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
huh? (4.00 / 2) (#241)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 11:32:24 PM EST

i agree with you, 100%, so what is your problem?

surely, you do not think there is no value in me pointing out the obvious lack of intellectual honesty from those who constantly harp on all of the bad the us does, and none of the good

is it your assertion that those who constantly harp on the us always doing evil all over the world do not exist? or are intellectually honest?

you see no value in my call for simple intellectual honesty from these people?

no value in my argument at all?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Problems with online forums (5.00 / 1) (#247)
by blackpaw on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 11:51:29 PM EST

And email for that matter,

Communication is off obfusticated by the lack of expression availble in the medium, compounded by the ease of firing off a reply.

You both actually seem to hold the same values ...

[ Parent ]

Nope (3.00 / 3) (#250)
by felixrayman on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 11:53:56 PM EST

I don't hold his values. I think terrorism is wrong when it is committed against my country. I think terrorism is wrong when it is committed by my country. circletimessquare only believes one of the above.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
Be interesting to see his reply to this (5.00 / 1) (#256)
by blackpaw on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 11:59:45 PM EST



[ Parent ]
this is why i win this argument (4.00 / 3) (#262)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 12:20:12 AM EST

  1. chile: 30 years ago, wtc: 2 years ago. aks any chilean which seems obviously more important to reflect on right now on the world stage, especially considering what is happening right now in the news politically.
  2. comparing and finding similarity between the morally reprehensible actions taken unilaterally by a small group of people in a foriegn country versus a policy undertaken by chileans with american and other south american and foreign support in the backdrop of the cold war. one was designed to cause horror in reaction to a dramatic event. the other was happening in the backdrop of a worldwide struggle of communism versus the west. the us was not trying to kill innocents. al qaeda was trying to kill innocents. to find no difference in this simple observation is morally irresponsible.
  3. you wouldn't even be talking about allende right now if it were not for what everyone else is talking about today, simple as that.
simple, obvious observations:

your ideology overwhelms your sense of reason

your agenda is more important to you than your morality

you are not intellectually honest in your simplistic portrayal of the us as unilateral and evil

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

You can't type two lines w/o an ad hominem attack (3.66 / 3) (#271)
by felixrayman on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 12:50:37 AM EST

aks any chilean which seems obviously more important to reflect on right now on the world stage, especially considering what is happening right now in the news politically.

Perhaps you should "aks" the Chileans who are trying in court, at this very point in time, the people responsible for crimes committed during the 1970s.

the us was not trying to kill innocents. al qaeda was trying to kill innocents.

General Rene Schneider was innocent. He was kidnapped and killed, according to The Trial of Henry Kissinger, at the direct order of, and with weapons supplied by Kissinger and the US government.

you wouldn't even be talking about allende right now if it were not for what everyone else is talking about today, simple as that.

You are correct, if the thread of the day on Kuro5hin was "the shape of the world" and you were arguing "Flat! Flat! Flat!" I would be talking about that. But this is certainly not the first time I have heard of what the US did in Chile in the 1970s - I didn't just run out today and buy Hitchen's book.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
stop (3.50 / 4) (#279)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 01:22:58 AM EST

take a deep breath

listen

i have demonstrated care for victims of terrorism

in my story above

you have demonstrated only hatred of me

i want to see demonstration that you actually care for the victims of pinochet (who, all of the sudden, is the sole actor of the united states, and whose actions the us is 100% responsible for in your eyes- intellectual dishonesty on your part)

until then, you are all hatred, and no caring

such a person as you is a shallow, shrill, one-dimensional ideological tool, with no real weight behind their words

you don't actually care about the victims of pinochet, you patronize their suffering to further your attacks on me... on september 11th... under a story about the victims of the wtc terrorist attacks... that i wrote!

hello? does strike you as gee, i dunno, only slightly ideologically transparent on your part?

what is your goal? to make me care less for victims of terrorism?

i must care more about something that happened 30 years ago than what happened 2 years ago, in front of my eyes, before i am relevant to you?

no, this is what is going to happen: you must demonstrate YOU actually care about ANYONE- victims of pinochet, or victims of al qeada... ANYONE, before you are even worth talking to!

i have shown i care, above, in my story, well-received on kuro5hin

all you have shown is you care about attacking me

you are empty, there is no wiehgt behind your words, demonstrate in your mind my colossal hypocrisy all you want, but for your gallons of attacks on my ability to care about the vicitms of pinochet, i have not seen one drop of care for them from you

in short, you are an ideological tool, you bear no weeght except in your mind for your ability to mentally masturbate your teenage-level righteous indignation


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

wrong (3.50 / 2) (#257)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 12:02:08 AM EST

wehat the us did or does is not terrorism

you equate flying jetliners into office towers to the policy of a government as supported by americans, chileans, other south americans

you do consider the goals of either group

you are morally reprehensible in your comparison

in short, your ideology overwhelms your sense of reason

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Great post. (4.20 / 5) (#268)
by felixrayman on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 12:42:30 AM EST

wehat the us did or does is not terrorism

And this of course is official US position. It is their definition. If the US does it - it isn't terrorism. A kidnapping of a Chilean offical that ends in his murder, carried out at the direction of and with weapons supplied by the US? It isn't terrorism. If a US citizen, at the direction of and with weapons supplied by Al Qaeda kidnapped and murdered a US government official would it be terrorism? Of course.

So what you said here is very instructive, it is in fact the official position. What the US did or does is not terrorism. Period.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
ok, you win (2.66 / 3) (#270)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 12:48:02 AM EST

the us is as evil as al qaeda

good luck selling that ideology

it is so far from obvious reason and common sense there is no talking to you


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Another ad hominem. Grow up. (3.50 / 4) (#274)
by felixrayman on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 01:01:55 AM EST

Again, simply an ad hominem attack. I at no time stated the US was as evil as Al Qaeda. I simply pointed out a very specific incident that, if carried out by the US, you would not call terrorism. And, I noted if it was carried out by another country against the US, you would call it terrorism. That's called hypocrisy. You can certainly make those arguments, and in your post you accidently made that argument very explicitly, which was quite humorous. But don't expect much sympathy from the rest of the world if your definition of terrorism is "That which I don't like that is done to me, but which I don't mind so much when I do it to others".

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
there is absolutely no hyocrisy in my words (4.00 / 2) (#276)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 01:12:35 AM EST

what is done in the name of country against other countries bears no resemblance to what is done by a cult in the name of killing innocents

intent- what does that mean to you?

you are laughable

you com e into this thread with great indignance at my lack of caring for victims, when above you is my story, a paeaen to vicitms

you insist i cower before you and say to you: "i am sorry for caring about victims of sept 11th when i should be caring about victims of pinochet" i mean er, the us, because CLEARLY (!?) what minochet did lands SQUARELY 100% in the doorsetep of the us (!?)

and yet, what do i see from you? do i see real concern for the victims of pinochet? no, isee a pit bull attacking me. i'll tell you what, you are worth talking to, and your position is worht considering, when you actualyl demonstrate care for the vicitms of pinochet, and carefor the victims of 9/11

until then, you are an ideological pit bull, with no real weight of care or reason or integrity behind you

all simplsitic attacks and teenage elvel nihilism

so much hate, so little actual caring

so go on attacking me dude if it makes you feel better

but it's a poor preplacement for a real conscience

you patronize pinochet's victims for your ideolgical diatribe agains tme for caring about the wtc victims of 9/11, and not a shred of actual caring for the victims of 9/11

you are so shallow and uncaring

why do you honestly believe you have a shred of any morality to stand on?

try caring first, and your teenage-level righteous indignation will mellow into real morality and real conscience

until then kid, your just a funny one dimensional nihilistic ideological song and dance


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Correct, no hyocrisy. For what that's worth. (3.33 / 3) (#282)
by felixrayman on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 01:31:30 AM EST

what is done in the name of country against other countries bears no resemblance to what is done by a cult in the name of killing innocents

I have already mentioned the name of one of the innocents that, if Hitchen's book was accurate, was kidnapped at the direct order of and with weapons supplied by an acting official of the US government, and then murdered. I fail to see why there is no resemblance.

you com e into this thread with great indignance at my lack of caring for victims, when above you is my story, a paeaen to vicitms

There were victims in Chile too. They were victims of a crime for which you have already admitted the US was partly responsible. And you mocked them. On 9/11, the anniversary of the crime against them, you mocked them. "oh shit, my grandma stubbed her toe. Must be the US's fault". Why should anyone show the victims in your country more respect than you show the victims of your country? You are simply a hypocrite. As long as you want to argue, I will bring it back around to that point.

You wrote a good article. As I was reading it, I almost forgot what a total retard you usually are on this site. Then, two comments down you reminded me.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
context (1.88 / 9) (#285)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 01:42:41 AM EST

do you know what that is?

pythagoras had a comment about allende's overthrow in which he seemed to place all of the blame onto the lap of the us

so when i took umbrage to that simplisitic reading of who was to blame... you took that comment as what?

a reading that i don't care about those who died in chile?

and i'm the retard?

pleas explain your creative interpretation of my words

otherwise, it stands you are stupid

stupid for misunderstanding the obvious meaning of my post

and stupid for going off on me in a high holy ideological war for caring about victims of al qaeda in  front of my very eyes 2 years ago more than something that happened 30 years ago that was not 100% THE FAULT OF MY COUNTRY

chileans would agree with me! christ!

get YOUR FUCKING HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS AND STOP THINKING YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO SPOUT YOUR IDEOLOGICAL BULLSHIT WITHOUT REASON OTHER THAN YOUR TEENAGE LEVEL OF RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION

you don't actually care about the vicitms of pinochet (oh, i'm sooooooo sorry, i mean vicitms of the us becuase OBVIOUSLY P{INOCHET'S ACTIONS ARE ENTIRELY THE FAULT OF THE US!)

WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DO YOU FUCKING UNDERSTAND INTELLECTUAL HONESTY YOU STUPID TEENAGER!!!????

all you concern yourself about the victims of pinochet is to use them as an ideological tool to see how far you can vent your one-dimensional teenage level righteous indignation on me

YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT THE VICTIMS OF AL QAEDA

YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT THE VICTIMS OF PINOCHET

YOU ONLY CARE ABOUT SPOUTING YOUR RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION YOU STUPID FUCKING IDEOLOGICAL TOOL

frankly, you should apologize

but not to me

you should apologize to chileans for using the memory of their distant fallen country man in your stupid misplaced vendetta aginst a story about the victims of al qaeda

christ you are an ignorant fuck

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

i'm sorry, rephrase (1.40 / 10) (#287)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 01:49:01 AM EST

from my "context" post

you are the most incorrigible ignorant fuck i have come across in a long time

apologize you stupid fuck

apologize now

not to me

apologize to chileans for using the memories of their long ago fallen countryman in your personal ideological vendetta against me for caring about victims of a terrorist attack i witnessed in front of my eyes

you are a really, really ignorant, uncaring fuck

i can say that to a lot of people, but never more have i felt the weight of those words more than thinking about your stupid words

you really are stupid and intolerant fuck

i mean, REALLY

as demonstrated by your words and actions here


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Ummmmm (2.75 / 4) (#290)
by felixrayman on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 01:57:19 AM EST

You can't use the word fuck on kuro5hin you fucking fat ass.

If you post something with any actual content, I will respond to it more intelligently.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
apologize NOW you stupid fuck (1.57 / 7) (#292)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 02:04:27 AM EST

apologize you stupid fuck

apologize NOW!

not to me

apologize to chileans for using the memories of their long ago fallen countryman in your personal ideological vendetta against me for caring about victims of a terrorist attack i witnessed in front of my eyes

you are a really, really ignorant, uncaring fuck

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

apologize NOW you stupid fuck (1.40 / 10) (#289)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 01:55:22 AM EST

apologize you stupid fuck

apologize NOW!

not to me

apologize to chileans for using the memories of their long ago fallen countryman in your personal ideological vendetta against me for caring about victims of a terrorist attack i witnessed in front of my eyes

you are a really, really ignorant, uncaring fuck

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Terrorism (5.00 / 1) (#330)
by transport on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 07:30:28 AM EST

What the US does is not terrorism, because the US is a nation, i.e. a well defined enemy. The terror in terrorism comes mostly from the perception that it is impossible to protect yourself from it, because you don't know in advance who the terrorists are.
 
The closest a nation can come to performing terrorism is guerilla warfare. What the US does is war, imperialism, liberation, oppression, call it what you will, except terrorism.

[ Parent ]
Syntactically correct, semantically irrelevant (5.00 / 2) (#410)
by kcbrown on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 11:51:37 PM EST

wehat the us did or does is not terrorism
I suppose you could say that, and even make it stick. The same would have to be true for any other government, too, yes?

But in the end, it doesn't matter.

Because either way, whether it's the U.S. forcibly replacing a government it doesn't like with one that later kills tens of thousands, or a terrorist organization flying airliners into a couple of buildings and killing thousands, the end result is the same: the deaths of many people and a great deal of pain and suffering.

Whether it can be called "terrorism" or not doesn't matter. What matters is the end result.

The Mafia can kill as many people as it wants and say that it's "just business, nothing personal". But I've got news for them and for you: it's always personal, because in the end real people are always personally affected.

The sooner people truly understand that, the better off we'll all be.

[ Parent ]

morality (5.00 / 1) (#482)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 07:53:12 PM EST

you are oversimplifiying things

you don't have morality, you have a teenager's righteous indignation based on idealism, not based on reality

when you grow up, and develop a nuanced understanding of the complex problems in the world, get back to us

when you understand why people wage war to win peace, and always will wage war to win peace, and always did, and you understand the deeper meanings behind the surface level contradictions in that statement, then get back to us

because right now your position is akin to a kindergartener or a beauty pageant finalist's understanding of how the world really works, how it always works, and how it always will, as long as it is populated by human beings


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

You're ignoring something (5.00 / 4) (#252)
by godix on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 11:54:35 PM EST

There was a cold war on at that time. While it doesn't excuse US actions is does cast a different light on it. It's interesting to note that in trying to demonizing the US you quote a part of the memo mentioning we specifically attempted to avoid casualties then try to say that's equivalent to a group that attacked America for the specific purpose of causing casualties. The US wasn't some monsterous devil out to fuck over Chile and pretending it was just makes you look like a raving madman.

Incidently, Chile wasn't a paradise before the coup. It's not like the country magically started sucking the second the US became involved.

I don't understand spending all that money for a fancy shot ... when pregnancy ain't nothing that a good coathanger or a pair of steel toed boots can't fix<
[ Parent ]

So are you (3.20 / 5) (#260)
by felixrayman on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 12:15:01 AM EST

The US actions were in Chile were intended to achieve the United State's political objectives. These actions led to the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent civilans. The actions of the terrorists who carried out the WTC attacks were intended to achieve their organization's politcal objectives. These actions led to the deaths of a few thousand innocent civilians. You think one of these is wrong. You think the other so trivial that it should not even be mentioned.

I don't see where anyone has made the argument the US supported a military dictatorship just for shits and grins. That is simply your straw man argument. How about addressing the real argument that is being made here: that anyone who complains about terrorist attacks against the US while SIMULTANEOUSLY dismissing similar actions carried out by the US against other countries as too trivial to even mention is simply a hypocrite.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
Not really (5.00 / 2) (#272)
by godix on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 12:58:35 AM EST

These actions led to the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent civilans.

Your first post says ~ 3,000. Can you pick a number and stick to it?

Regardless of the number of citizens killed, I'm not defending US actions or saying they are trivial. I am pointing out that they aren't as black and white as you seem to think and that they are not equivelent with 9/11. Almost every case of the US supporting dictators was done in opposition to Russia, they were matters of supporting a lesser evil to fight a greater evil. Notice that now Russia is gone not only has America quit supporting ruthless dictators, we've repeatedly gone to war to remove those we used to support. Chile was just a battleground in a greater war and people on battlegrounds can and do die. It's sad and it doesn't change the fact that America did support a dictator, but it's certainly a different situation than a sneak attack on civilian targets. The other big difference to note is that the US attempted to avoid civilian casualties as your own quotes show while the hijackers on 9/11 went out of their way to cause civilian casualties. A third and important difference is that one event happened a generation ago and the US generally doesn't do those actions anymore white the other happened two years ago by a group that has shown no sign they've changed at all.

See, what you call being a hypocrite is really just a matter that I can see shades of grey while you live in a black and white world. Try viewing the world as full of humans that sometimes do bad things for good causes instead of saints and demons and you might be able to see the grey as well.

I don't understand spending all that money for a fancy shot ... when pregnancy ain't nothing that a good coathanger or a pair of steel toed boots can't fix<
[ Parent ]

er, whoops (5.00 / 1) (#273)
by godix on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 12:59:54 AM EST

Ignore that 3,000 killed thing, for some reason I thought you were the author of the parent comment. My mistake. I still wonder how over 7000 people got added to the death toll in a couple posts though.

I don't understand spending all that money for a fancy shot ... when pregnancy ain't nothing that a good coathanger or a pair of steel toed boots can't fix<
[ Parent ]
Nice try (2.33 / 3) (#277)
by felixrayman on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 01:14:15 AM EST

Notice that now Russia is gone not only has America quit supporting ruthless dictators, we've repeatedly gone to war to remove those we used to support.

I guess you think Saudi Arabia is a democracy?

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
You're point is? (5.00 / 2) (#281)
by godix on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 01:29:20 AM EST

I guess you think Saudi Arabia is a democracy?

A) It's a monarchy. There are more types of governments than democracy and dictatorship you know. Well, given your tendency to see only black and white I guess you don't know. Just trust me on this one, democracy and dictatorship aren't the only options avalable.

B) America originally got into Saudi Arabia because the first Bush felt that his coalition wouldn't support continuing the first Gulf War. If Bush Sr had the balls to go it alone like his son does then America wouldn't have had to sit on our asses in Saudi Arabia for 12 years, wouldn't have had Bin Laden attacking us, and woulnd't have had the arguements over the second Gulf war. The entire Iraq issue could have been resolved over a decade ago but Bush Sr decided to go with the UN and EU instead.

C) America has mostly withdrawn from Saudi Arabia. It was one of the more benificial side effects of the second Iraq war.

D) Saudi Arabia and the US aren't really allies and the leaders of both nations know it. It is possible, although unlikely, that at some point in the future the US will be overthrowing the same Sauds we supported.

I don't understand spending all that money for a fancy shot ... when pregnancy ain't nothing that a good coathanger or a pair of steel toed boots can't fix<
[ Parent ]

None, I'm just practicing typing (2.33 / 3) (#286)
by felixrayman on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 01:43:05 AM EST

A) It's a monarchy.

Ohhhhhh, so we don't support dictatorships, but we'll support a monarchy. Thanks for clearing that up.

America originally got into Saudi Arabia because the first Bush felt that his coalition wouldn't support continuing the first Gulf War.

America has supported Saudi Arabia for decades.

America has mostly withdrawn from Saudi Arabia. It was one of the more benificial side effects of the second Iraq war.

America got booted out. The Saudis were in the news in January of this year saying to the US "If you invade Iraq, we will support you during the war and ask you to leave when it is over". The day after Bush made his announcement that major combat was over, it was announced US troops would be leaving Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia and the US aren't really allies and the leaders of both nations know it. It is possible, although unlikely, that at some point in the future the US will be overthrowing the same Sauds we supported.

At which point, Saudi Arabia will be called a dictatorship, it will be reported every 3 minutes on Fox news how many people have been beheaded in Saudi Arabia over the last 20 years, and the loudspeaker will blare "We are at war with Saudi Arabia! We have always been at war with Saudi Arabia!"

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
Ah, ok, well good typing then. (4.66 / 3) (#294)
by godix on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 02:04:51 AM EST

Ohhhhhh, so we don't support dictatorships, but we'll support a monarchy. Thanks for clearing that up.

You needed me to clear that up? Couldn't you tell that the US supports England, Denmark, Sweden, and other monarchies without my aid?
America has supported Saudi Arabia for decades.

You apperently don't know much about the OPEC/US fights in the late 70's. America usually has uneasy dealings with OPEC nations, Saudi Arabia included.
America got booted out.

Phrase it how you wish. America got into the second Gulf War knowing full well that at the end our troops would be based in newly conquered Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia. If you want to define that as getting booted out instead of leaving I'm not going to argue about it.
At which point, Saudi Arabia will be called a dictatorship, it will be reported every 3 minutes on Fox news how many people have been beheaded in Saudi Arabia over the last 20 years, and the loudspeaker will blare "We are at war with Saudi Arabia! We have always been at war with Saudi Arabia!"

I don't have the gifts of time travel or precognition so I can't agree or disagree definately. It's a posability but unless you care to share you magic capabilities to read the future so clearly I'm not going to view it as a certainty. Actually, as I said, I find it unlikely that Saudi Arabia and the US will be at war in the near future. I personally suspect Saudi Arabia has a civil war in it's future rather than a war with us.

I don't understand spending all that money for a fancy shot ... when pregnancy ain't nothing that a good coathanger or a pair of steel toed boots can't fix<
[ Parent ]
lmao (3.33 / 3) (#295)
by felixrayman on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 02:10:17 AM EST

If you can't tell the difference between the "monarchy" in England and the one in Saudi Arabia I won't bother you with any further debate.

Cheers!

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
Whats the difference? (5.00 / 2) (#331)
by TheModerate on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 07:56:33 AM EST

And I thought England was a parliamentary system.

"What a man has in himself is, then, the chief element in his happiness." -- Schopenhauer
[ Parent ]

The Arabs do not hate us for Saddam. (5.00 / 7) (#228)
by crunchycookies on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 11:04:45 PM EST

The Arabs do not hate us because Saddam Hussein was a ruthless thug. They hate us because Ariel Sharon is a ruthless thug. The hate us for the thugs that we impose on them, not for the home grown thugs. Things look grim, what do we do about it?

Lets step back a moment and consider what is going on here. We live in truly amazing times. The USSR and Apartheid South Africa are gone. The collapse of the USSR had been predicted so often that it had become a joke. Everyone knew that the USSR would always be with us. Then it was gone!

What is going on? The answer: nothing new!

What we are witnessing is the collapse of a long standing US foreign policy in the Middle East. We prop up friendly tyrants and plot to overthrow the unfriendly leaders. The worst of them, Israel, we continue to shower with mountains of money and arms.

It is easy to recognize a foreign policy that is failing. Things could have been accomplished by subtle persuasion and diplomatic means in the past require military force today. Yet, even military force does not work. This requires even more military force. Failure. We have run out of options. We take refuge in our own lies and propaganda.

Those of us with a little gray hair will remember this scenario from Viet Nam. Everything that we tried failed. When they did not understand the rightness of our cause we bombed them. They were not convinced. They were evil. We bombed some more.

The solution to Viet Nam, is obvious to us now in retrospect, leave. Quite simple. The solution to our problems in the Middle East is the same, leave. Our puppets will be faced with a hard choice, reform or be overthrown.

Israel faces the same choice; reform or be overthrown. They can give the Palestinians their rights and become a true democracy or they can have their worst fears realized. Israel, as the worlds last racist state, must realize that time is running out for them. Their choice is the same faced by, the second to the last racist state, South Africa. When the white South Africans finally faced their choice, they did the right thing.

As our Middle eastern policy collapses, let us hope that we do the right thing. At one time in our history we were the friend of liberation movements. When the old African colonies were throwing off their European masters, we cheered. When Gandhi told the British to go home, we applauded. How have we gone so wrong?



god pleae please please (3.00 / 4) (#239)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 11:29:14 PM EST

i ask oh god pleae, that i do not have to ask for the 1,000,000th time for some pure simple INTELLECTUAL HONESTY from the ideologues out there:

the us does bad things in the world

the us does good things in the world

everything bad that happens in the world is not automatically the fault of the us

everything good that happens in the world just might sometimes be due to the actions of the us

see that? intellectual honesty. as soon as i see some scat such as the post above this one departing from the simple, pure, unadulterated intellectual honesty i have outlined here, then it becomes immediately

WRONG

not in my eyes, not in the eyes of americans, but in the eyes of INTELLECTUAL HONESTY


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Oh god pleae buy me a spell checker (3.66 / 3) (#261)
by felixrayman on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 12:19:23 AM EST

the us does bad things in the world

the us does good things in the world


And, good things are done to the US and bad things are done to the US. You dismiss the bad things the US does as too trivial to mention - you mocked someone who brought them up with the phrase "My grandma stubbed her toe - must be the US's fault!" or something like that. Why should other people not similarly dismiss the bad things that are done to the US? Why should anyone care about your article? A bunch of people died and you lost your job. Boo hoo, my grandma stubbed my toe, must be the 9/11 attackers fault. Is that a reasonable response? Or is it only a reasonable response when it is your response to the deaths inflicted on another country, in part by the government of the country in which you live?

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
my observations (3.50 / 2) (#263)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 12:23:01 AM EST

are obviously framed against the backdrop of those who simplistically portray the us as unilateral and evil. when i cry for intellectual honesty, you cannot say to me i am not being intellectually honest, because i am being so: the us does good and bad. pray tell, where have i observed wrong oh great wise one?

it is ok to argue with me, but find some footing first.


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

The US does good and bad. (5.00 / 1) (#366)
by crunchycookies on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 01:11:28 PM EST

Of course the US does both good in the world and bad. The US is cheered when we do good. We should expect to be condemned when we do bad. We cannot expect to be granted a exemption for the bad that we do just because of the good that we do.

The war in Viet Nam was bad. The Vietnamese had a right to fight to drive us out of their country. We may fight hunger in the world and may have fought hunger in Viet Nam but that did not give us the right to occupy the country.

Our invasion of Iraq is wrong. The Iraqi's have the right to fight our invasion. The fact that we may build a school in Iraq does not justify our military presence.

Our support of Israel is wrong. The Palestinians have a right to fight the Zionist invaders. Just because the US decided that Israel has a right to exist does not make it so. The Palestinians and their Arab supporters have a right to fight against Israel and Israel's supply line (that is us). We don't like it but that is intellectual honesty for you. Sometimes we don't look so good when we look in the mirror.



[ Parent ]

oh my god, epepke where are you??? HAHAHAHA (5.00 / 1) (#369)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 01:18:47 PM EST

http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2003/9/10/22402/7194/363#363

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
"Good" and "Bad" (5.00 / 1) (#375)
by Grognard on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 02:00:58 PM EST

The war in Viet Nam was bad.

By what standard?  By virtue of the fact that people were killed?  You're aware of the fact that a lot of French people died as a result of Allied bombing of occupied France, right?  Was the liberation of France bad?  Or is the standard whether or not you agree with the goal?

The Vietnamese had a right to fight to drive us out of their country.

Even if the majority of those fighting were from the North, rather than residents of South Vietnam?  I find it hard to believe the US was so universally despised when people were risking their lives to get out of Vietnam and into the US during (and for many years after) the fall of Saigon.

The same questions arise in terms of Iraq.  Is your approval the arbiter of good and evil?  The majority of the resistance appears to be coming from remnants of the old regime and foreign imports, rather than the Shiite majority or the Kurds.

And as to the US support of Israel, we're rather late to that game.  The UN decided Israel had a right to exist in 1948.  Until the late sixties, France and the UK were much more supportive of Israel than the US.

[ Parent ]

Damn facts! (5.00 / 2) (#385)
by epepke on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 03:34:46 PM EST

And as to the US support of Israel, we're rather late to that game.  The UN decided Israel had a right to exist in 1948.  Until the late sixties, France and the UK were much more supportive of Israel than the US.

Can't have facts. They could lead to thought, and thought is the enemy of happiness.

Can't point out that there was an arms embargo against Israel during th Eisenhower years. That would be BAD!

Can't point out that France encouraged Israel to invade Egypt, because France is good, and France is strong, and France is the best of everything.

No, the United States dug up Nikola Tesla, who was stolen from Bosnia-Herzegovina (LeVar Burton played Tesla in the TV version), convinced him to make the Time-Travel Zoobie Ray Machine, going back almost a hundred years in the past to force the French and the English to do what they did in the Middle East.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
Yep... (5.00 / 1) (#386)
by Grognard on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 03:44:40 PM EST

dogma does tend to find facts to be very inconvenient.


[ Parent ]
You should check the mirror again. (5.00 / 3) (#420)
by falloutboy on Sat Sep 13, 2003 at 10:52:03 AM EST

Just because the US decided that Israel has a right to exist does not make it so.

Are you talking about Israel or Israelis or Jews in general? Who the fuck are you to decide who has a right to exist?

Were you even aware of the racism inherent to your statement?

[ Parent ]

additionally (2.00 / 4) (#264)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 12:27:07 AM EST

i win because my position is more in line with actually caring about other people

while you seem to have this teenage-level nihilistic cynicism which only argues for a reason not to care about other people

you're a teenager, and if you are not, your moral development was stunted in your teenage years and you haven't grown much beyond that point

you talk in simplistic stereotypes and you arguer against caring about victims ON september 11th UNDER A STORY for the victims of september 11th WITH THE AUTHOR OF THE STORY

prove you don't care and it's just a big boo hoo hoo:

go away


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Hmmm, all caps. You're about to blow a gasket. (3.66 / 3) (#266)
by felixrayman on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 12:35:01 AM EST

First of all - get a grip. Seriously.

Second of all, how caring was it to the victims of the other September 11 attack ( the one in Chile ) to say, while admitting the US was involved in that tragedy, "My grandma stubbed her toe - must be the US's fault". Again - you are simply a hypocrite.

Your accusations about being a teenager are silly and irrelevant. Let's stick to the primary issue at hand here. You believe the entire world should feel outraged at the attacks against the US. You simultaneously believe that the admitted ( by you ) involvement of the US in such incidents as the overthrow of a democratic government in Chile to install a military dictatorship that resulted in far more deaths than the 9/11 attacks is too trivial to mention, and that those that do mention it should be mocked.

So lets address a clarifying point here. Which do you think was greater, the United States' involvement in the installation of a military dictatorship in Chile, or Iraq's involvement in the 9/11 attacks?

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
a number of things (3.00 / 2) (#269)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 12:44:36 AM EST

you accuse me blowing a gasket, you make fun of my typos (sorry i'm not paying more attention to care, lol) yet you seem all to happy to debate right on with me

so don't say i'm getting upset when your blood seems to be happily boiling right along with me, hypocrite ;-)

secondly
you want me to "stick to the primary issue at hand here" you say

fine, why do you bring up "Iraq's involvement in the 9/11 attacks"?

hypocrisy #2, all within one little post, how quaint

now that we have established the ice you stand on is as thin as the ice you think i stand on is thin, let's get right to it:

  1. chile: 30 years ago, wtc: 2 years ago. aks any chilean which seems obviously more important to reflect on right now on the world stage, especially considering what is happening right now in the news politically.
  2. comparing and finding similarity between the morally reprehensible actions taken unilaterally by a small group of people in a foriegn country versus a policy undertaken by chileans with american and other south american and foreign support in the backdrop of the cold war. one was designed to cause horror in reaction to a dramatic event. the other was happening in the backdrop of a worldwide struggle of communism versus the west. the us was not trying to kill innocents. al qaeda was trying to kill innocents. to find no difference in this simple observation is morally irresponsible.
  3. you wouldn't even be talking about allende right now if it were not for what everyone else is talking about today, simple as that.
i would wager that if you went to the streets of santiago, and framed my position versus yours, a majority of residents would agree with me

you are transparent my friend, your ideology overwhelms your reason

again: you are transpanrelty ideoligcal, and you argue with the author of a piece about the loss of the victims of a terrorist attack and you believe you are doing right? good? what do you honestly believe you are doing or proving by arguing with me? you want me to break down and say "oh you are right, the us is evil" or "oh you are right, the us deserved 9/11" or what is it you are trying to get me to admit/ say?

you are transparently ideological, while argue for the victims of terrorism

chile's victims? i am cognizant of them

i have admitted a num,ber of times, in intellectual honest,y the us's role in that

and you are the one who insists on shoving that issue here, in this story

you

are

transparently

ideological

if you were the SLIGHTEST BIT intellectually honest or if you ACTUALLY CARED ABOUT VICTIMS OF TERRORISM ANYWHERE you would show the SLIGHTEST INTEREST in the victims at the wtc on 9/11 BUT YOU DO NOT EVEN DO THAT

again:

you

are

transparently

ideological

you do not actually care about the victims of pinochet, or chileans, you merely patronizingly use them to further your ideolgical gripe


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Maybe you should read the news (5.00 / 4) (#327)
by pyramid termite on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 06:16:56 AM EST

1. chile: 30 years ago, wtc: 2 years ago. aks any chilean which seems obviously more important to reflect on right now on the world stage, especially considering what is happening right now in the news politically.

SANTIAGO, Chile - Violent protests erupted in several working class neighborhoods of the capital as Chileans marked the 30th anniversary of the coup that deposed President Salvador Allende and brought Gen. Augusto Pinoche to power.

I think that settles the question of what's more relevant to the Chileans.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
Come on, Allende was no communist (5.00 / 1) (#429)
by baron samedi on Sat Sep 13, 2003 at 05:42:14 PM EST

A Socialist, yes. He was going to nationalize many industries in Chile. ITT was going to lose their copper mines, getting rid of Allende was the way to prevent it. You can dress it up in the whole cold war stopping Communism schtick, but the coup in Chile had more to do with protecting ITT's investment than preventing the spread of 'Communism'.

Since you're immune to ideology, surely you can admit that. I mean, you claim to have transcended ideology, but yet you buy the whole "stopping Communism" argument as if that was really what was operating here. You also mention that other South American countries wanted Allende out as well. That wouldn't have anything to do with them being Fascist dictators of military juntas would it? If I was Alfredo Stroessner or Juan Peron, I'd want Pinochet in charge of Chile, too.

Allende was far from the next Mao or Stalin, and the coup in Chile is one of the most shameful chapters in recent U.S. history. Pretty much indefensible. We didn't even do it for the right reasons.


"Hands that help are better by far than lips that pray."- Robert G. Ingersoll
[ Parent ]

Of course... (5.00 / 1) (#437)
by Grognard on Sun Sep 14, 2003 at 09:25:53 AM EST

pay no attention to Allende's ties to Castro and the fact that Chile provides a choke point between the Atlantic and the Pacific (for carriers too wide to transit the Panama Canal).  

None of that matters, it's all about the greedy capitalist war-mongers. The Soviets were never a threat.  Left is right, right is wrong...

Please.

[ Parent ]

Umm (5.00 / 2) (#278)
by baseball on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 01:20:49 AM EST

There's no evidence that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks.  Bush keeps trying to imply it but, like much of what he says or implies, it's just not true.

* * *
Bush is a liar, Rumsfeld a war criminal.
[ Parent ]

true (5.00 / 1) (#280)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 01:26:31 AM EST

but if you don't see how 9/11 handed the neocons in the us all the pretense there was needed to attack iraq, you are blind

if you honestly think the us would have invaded iraq if sept 11th didn't happen, you are blind

9/11 was the immediate cause for invading iraq, period, no matter saddam did or didn't do with al qaeda

therefore, you must look at the deeper evil at work destabilizing the world today: violent international religious fundamentalism


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Partly true and partly not (5.00 / 1) (#296)
by baseball on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 02:12:55 AM EST

You're right that 9/11 gave the neocons the pretense they wanted to attack Iraq.

I don't know whether the US would have invaded Iraq if 9/11 had not occurred or not. Certainly many in the Bush Administration wanted to attack Iraq long before 9/11.  If I had to guess, I'd say it was more likely than not that Iraq would not have been invaded without 9/11, but that's not because of any lack of desire in the Bush administration to invade but simply because they probably would not have been able to marshal enough public support to invade without the WTC attacks.

I don't think 9/11 was the "immediate cause" of the attack on Iraq.  I think it was an event that made the attack easier from a public opinion perspective, but the immediate cause was that Rumsfeld, Cheney and others in the Bush administration had long wanted to attack Iraq and they and Bush were cynical and dishonest enough to use the 9/11 national tragedy as a tool to permit them to fulfill that desire.

I agree that "violent international religious fundamentalism" is a major destabilizing force in the world today.  I think, however, that the ill-conceived and dishonest policies of the Bush administration are also an enormous destabilizing force.  There is no doubt that, throughout the world, religious violence has caused the most deaths.  But the prospect of further damage to world peace and stability flowing from the Bush administration's policies should not be underestimated.  I have no doubt that, if the pacification of Iraq after the war had been as clean and easy as the Bush administration had predicted, we would be at war today with Iran or Syria.

* * *
Bush is a liar, Rumsfeld a war criminal.
[ Parent ]

evils in the world (5.00 / 1) (#297)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 02:16:59 AM EST

neocon arrogance is evil: established

al qaeda is evil: established

i assert to you al qaeda is the greater evil, capable of doing more evil than the neocons

therefore, i put my weight behind fighting them, before i focus on bush

i will get more results that way, fighting the greater evil

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I agree with you (5.00 / 2) (#303)
by baseball on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 02:34:14 AM EST

that the response to 9/11 should have been a focused, unremitting attack on al qaeda.  All the necessary resources possessed by the US should have been devoted to finding and capturing or killing bin Laden.  Nothing should have diverted us from that effort.  One of the tragedies of the Iraq war is that it did just that, focusing our energies and resources on a nation that was essentially harmless to us (Iraq) instead of on a religious fanatic (or opportunist using religion to pursue his personal ambition of taking over Saudi Arabia) bent on killing innocent American civilians.  That is one of the reasons I find Bush's constant refrains about the war on terrorism so galling.  If fighting terrorism was his true goal, he would have pursued bin Laden instead of invading Iraq.

In terms of getting results, who knows?  The Bush administration pursues its own agenda, labelling everything as being part of the war on terrorism.  Maybe we'd get more results voting him out and replacing him with someone who would actually go after terrorists threatening the US instead of pursuing his own unstated goals.

* * *
Bush is a liar, Rumsfeld a war criminal.
[ Parent ]

agreed (5.00 / 2) (#304)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 02:55:20 AM EST

except i think the world really is better off without saddam hussein, whatever the pretense for getting rid of him, regardless of who did it

otherwise i agree with you wholeheartedly


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

You are guilty (5.00 / 1) (#308)
by felixrayman on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 03:20:40 AM EST

Amazing. The world is better off without Hussein. Of course. But would the world have been better off without Pinochet? You insulted the poster who suggested such a thing. The kicker: the US supported both of them, neither could have survived without US support.

And in the end whose pain is real? The Chileans who suffered under Pinochet? No, their pain isn't real to you, when someone brought it up you said "oh shit, my grandma stubbed her toe, must be the us's fault". Is the Iraqis pain real? You said "true" when someone mentioned there was no evidence Iraq was responsible for the WTC attacks. Is the Iraqis pain real? Or is it only yours? From what you've written so far, that is the case. Only your pain is real.

In your article, you wrote:

And I hate the doves for being so naive and blind to their complicit nature to evil men and regimes who bank on their weakness, who depend upon good men doing nothing

The people in the US government who were complicit in the murders of innocent people in Chile ( not just the people in the US government who allowed such things to happen - the people who actively helped commit such acts ) counted on just such doves. Doves like you. Murders were committed by people who counted on "good" men like you to do nothing. They were not disappointed.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
you are persona non grata (5.00 / 1) (#310)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 03:26:37 AM EST

until you apologize to chileans you fuck

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
apolgize to the chileans? (5.00 / 1) (#311)
by felixrayman on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 03:28:48 AM EST

Why? Oh shit, my grandma stubbed her toe, must be the us's fault!

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
apologize to chileans you fuck (5.00 / 1) (#312)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 03:31:13 AM EST

you are an ideologue

you have no heart


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Direct quote. (5.00 / 1) (#313)
by felixrayman on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 03:33:48 AM EST

Those were your words.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
remedial transcript for you (5.00 / 1) (#314)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 03:35:07 AM EST

http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2003/9/10/22402/7194/285#285

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
greater evil (5.00 / 1) (#476)
by turumbar on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 09:46:41 AM EST

you have to also take into account potential evil. the US government is, without doubt, the peopple with the most potential evil in the world. They comand impressive ammounts of resources. And history has proved they are not very careful with their use (ie, 100+ was in the 20 century). Even more, recen events (post sep 11) show these people care even less for the rest of the world, even for the US population, thant hey used to, and they care more for their wallets/power: they are moving towars a more evil position. shouldn't we be afraid?

[ Parent ]
YHBT. (5.00 / 1) (#323)
by tkatchev on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 05:34:41 AM EST

The parent poster is a known troll.

   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

They don't all hate us (5.00 / 5) (#244)
by godix on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 11:46:52 PM EST

Something to note: different Arab groups hate the US for different reasons. Kurds hate us for abandoning them in 1991. Iran hates us for all the shit before their revolution. Palestinians hate us for supporting Israel. Bin Laden hates us for basing troops in Saudi Arabia. Some Iraqis hate us for the first Gulf War, 12 years of sanctions, and the second Gulf War (some Iraqis love us for getting rid of Saddam). Some Afghans hate us for overthrowing the Taliban and killing citizens (some Afghans love us for overthrowing the Taliban and killing less citizens than they were). Some Arabs don't even really hate the US, despite popular opinion there are a few brown skinned people in the world that like the US.

Israel is the cause of a lot of terrorism, both against it for simply being and by it in a warped view of 'defense'. The key thing to remember about that violence is that it is directed towards or by Israel. The only time America was attacked because of supporting Israel was when we had US Marines based in Lebanon. Since we've pulled out the troops we haven't been attacked. 9/11, the Cole, the embasy bombings, and other attacks were for different motives totally unrelated to Israel.

What we are witnessing is the US cleaning up it's messes from the cold war, although I doubt this is a conscious decision. From Iraq to Panama to Afghanistan most US military actions since the USSR fell were against dictators that we supported in the cold war. I personally find cleaning up our own mess a much more mature action than fucking up an entire region then walking away to let them deal with it. I agree that we should not make what basically would be a protectorates out of Iraq but before we go we need to remove our dictators and warlords.


I don't understand spending all that money for a fancy shot ... when pregnancy ain't nothing that a good coathanger or a pair of steel toed boots can't fix<
[ Parent ]

Shameless link (5.00 / 5) (#238)
by banffbug on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 11:28:45 PM EST

Link
To a guardian.co.uk article written by michael meacher about sept 11th, containing his beliefs of PNAC and the current state of american foriegn policy. It was published in the Calgary Herald today, under the title "Pax Americana?" i giggled, seeing this in mainstream media brings a light of hope to the future.

Shameless indeed. (5.00 / 1) (#253)
by Apuleius on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 11:57:53 PM EST

Refuted here.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
Hardly an unbiased source....nt (5.00 / 1) (#339)
by JohnnyCannuk on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 09:01:36 AM EST


We have just religion enough to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another - Jonathan Swift
[ Parent ]
Unbiased sources don't exist [nt] (5.00 / 1) (#378)
by tlhf on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 03:05:31 PM EST



[ Parent ]
What did Gavrilo Princip want? (4.50 / 4) (#251)
by Apuleius on Thu Sep 11, 2003 at 11:54:13 PM EST

He wanted full independence for Serbia. 90 years later, NATO fought two wars against the Serbs to put an end to that idea, once and for all. NATO established that Serbia would never be fully independent, and neither would anyone else in the region. What looks like independence is in fact held in check by the demand that each country comply with certain norms about the treatment of minorities, and that there will be dire consequences if those norms are violated. What did the 19 hijackers want? They wanted the restoration of the Islamic Caliphate, along the lines of the Taliban government. And now the US is working to crush any hope of such a monstrosity. Sometimes, knowing what a man wants, and why, only makes you want to kick his ass harder. That is the lesson of Sarajevo, 1914.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
Indeed (5.00 / 3) (#335)
by Grognard on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 08:30:59 AM EST

I have a real problem with the idea that independence includes the right to commit crimes against humanity.  If imposing an end to genocide is "imperialist", then bring on the empire (and before anyone asks - I would have supported US intervention in Rwanda just as much as I did in Kosovo).

Gavrilo and Slobo wanted the same things - a Serbia free to dominate its region and expand at the expense of its neighbors (it's funny that Serbia was in fact an independent nation in 1914 and that Franz Ferdinand was killed in Bosnia by a Serb militant).

Bin Laden, likewise, is hardly some idealist "fighting the good fight" against the yanquis, rather he wants to be the new Saladin.  Pretending that if the US just gives him what he wants all the trouble will end is beyond simplistic.


[ Parent ]

Thoughtful story (4.50 / 4) (#284)
by baseball on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 01:39:53 AM EST

but I don't think that 9/11 is the earth-shattering event that you seem to believe it to be.  It was a tragedy.  The perhaps greater tragedy is the cynical use made of it by Bush, Rumsfeld and others in the Bush administration to convince the American public to engage in military adventurism which has caused far more civilian and military deaths than resulted from the WTC attacks.

In my view, the more significant event, at least if Bush is re-elected, may prove to be his election in the first place.  This is the worst administration by far in my lifetime.  It has no ethics and its most notable characteristics are its arrogant insistence that it knows best about everything and its lust for bullying other nations and the world.  If Bush is re-elected, he, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and their fellow travelers could do real damage to America and the world.

* * *
Bush is a liar, Rumsfeld a war criminal.

yes but (5.00 / 1) (#288)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 01:53:49 AM EST

you are 100% correct

but look at the deeper source of the evil in the world here

violent international well-organized, well-funded religious fundamentalist terrorism

if al qaeda had attacked shanghai in support of the muslims in china's far west that are suppressed by the atheist government in beijing, absolutely everything you say about bush could apply to china's government in any action, of whatever for, they took in response

therefore, yes, bush and neocons are to blame for lots of bad things

but if you really, really want to fight and express outrage at evil at work in the world, find the deeper source of the instability that allows the asshole neocons to do their thing:

violent international religious fundamentalism


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

yes but (3.75 / 4) (#291)
by felixrayman on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 02:02:25 AM EST

if al qaeda had attacked shanghai in support of the muslims in china's far west that are suppressed by the atheist government in beijing, absolutely everything you say about bush could apply to china's government in any action, of whatever for, they took in response

I kind of doubt China would have used it as an excuse to invade Iraq.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
you haven't apologized yet you stupid fuck (2.33 / 3) (#293)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 02:04:35 AM EST

apologize you stupid fuck

apologize NOW!

not to me

apologize to chileans for using the memories of their long ago fallen countryman in your personal ideological vendetta against me for caring about victims of a terrorist attack i witnessed in front of my eyes

you are a really, really ignorant, uncaring fuck

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Chile? (5.00 / 1) (#337)
by Gallowglass on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 08:46:25 AM EST

Enk??? Where did Chile come from. The parent to your comment was talking about Chile, as far as I can see.

[ Parent ]
you have to understand the comment (5.00 / 1) (#344)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 09:46:07 AM EST

of me butting heads with this felix character for 20,000 posts

look over some other comments in this thread

he's an ideologue, here, read the thread above this comment to get a flavor for our problems:

http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2003/9/10/22402/7194/279#279

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I have a hard time disagreeing (5.00 / 1) (#299)
by baseball on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 02:22:55 AM EST

with you about the problems with violent religious fanaticism, and I certainly don't want to minimize the dangers it presents.

But from a purely American perspective, I'm far more concerned about the Bush administration.  It's economic policies are nonsensical, its ethics are non-existent, and its willingness to kill civilians in other countries and to put the lives of America soldiers at risk is appalling.  I doubt that bin Laden will ever be able to replicate the damage done on 9/11 to Americans (although he might be able to do it to innocent people in other countries).  I have no doubt at all about the Bush adminisration's ability to do further damage at least to the American and world economies.  I also have no doubt about the administration's desire, at least, to attack Iran and Syria, although I expect the problems now being experienced with Iraq will prevent it from ever being able to marshal the public support needed for such attacks.

* * *
Bush is a liar, Rumsfeld a war criminal.
[ Parent ]

well that's ok (5.00 / 1) (#300)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 02:24:47 AM EST

i just think you get more bang for your evil-fighting buck making yourself busy fighting al qaeda than you do fighting bush


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
violent religious fundamentalism = BUSH (5.00 / 1) (#374)
by fritz the cat on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 01:37:36 PM EST

George Bush and his neocons buddies are religious fundamentalists too, and indeed they are violent
there is no much difference betweent them and the talibans (one side wants to give all power to large corporations, the other wants the give it to their brand of clergy)

besides, bin laden, saddam hussein and co. were all originally armed by the u.s. - that would be bush senior and the rest of the gang

DOING NOTHING FUCKING SOMETHING
[ Parent ]

you have problems (none / 0) (#491)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 09:11:21 PM EST

perspective

cause

effect

compare

contrast

try to understand these concepts, you are drowning in dogma and propaganda


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

whatever (none / 0) (#493)
by fritz the cat on Thu Oct 16, 2003 at 02:37:19 PM EST


DOING NOTHING FUCKING SOMETHING
[ Parent ]

The Mod Bomb (3.66 / 6) (#302)
by felixrayman on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 02:32:00 AM EST

Also known as what you do when you can't debate on the facts

What a coward.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

apologize to chileans (3.00 / 2) (#306)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 03:10:51 AM EST

and all mods are reversed

fyi thread, for those who do not know what this man's problems are...

http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2003/9/10/22402/7194/205#205


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

hello kuro5hin (1.53 / 13) (#307)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 03:13:17 AM EST

i have modbombed felixrayman's last 30 comments, due to his words in this thread:

http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2003/9/10/22402/7194/205#205

if he apologizes to chileans, all mods will be removed

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

To be honest... (5.00 / 2) (#315)
by dipipanone on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 04:07:27 AM EST

I really don't feel as though any ofthese people would actually want an apology.

I rather suspect they'd have some sense of gratitude that someone was keeping the memory of their suffering alive.

--
Suck my .sig
[ Parent ]
good point (5.00 / 1) (#316)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 04:24:11 AM EST

it's 30 year old history

which is a fact which escapes the ideologues who smirk while they posit this as important to note as the al qaeda attacks 2 years ago

simple chronology, not ideology: the wtc attacks are more important to remember on sept 11 right now than 30 year old history

i think any chilean would agree with me

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Can you explain this? (4.50 / 2) (#340)
by bil on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 09:04:51 AM EST

How does this system work? I mean is 9/11 more important then say WW1 which happened almost 90 years ago? what about WW2? Is this a stirctly temporal system where the older events are by definition less important then new events (making the WTC less important then the assasination of the Swedish foriegn minister which happened a couple of days ago, and ww1 very unimportant) or is some sort of weighting applied so that the more deaths the more important the event.

deaths/time = importance

kind of thing.

Just curious.

bil

bil
Where you stand depends on where you sit...
[ Parent ]

chronology, not ideology (5.00 / 1) (#341)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 09:07:08 AM EST

what happened 2 years ago seems more important than what happened 30 years ago

what's the big problem?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

No problem (4.50 / 2) (#347)
by bil on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 10:26:30 AM EST

I just dont agree, just because an event happened recently dosn't mean its is important any more then an event being old makes it less important (I'm sure we agree that the Swedish foreign ministers death is a tragedy but less important then a world war for example).

Pinochets coup lead to the deaths of thousands of people (estimates seem to vary between 3 and 30 thousand) and the torture and inprisionment of tens of thousands more. More importantly (at least in terms of current affairs) it is the most blatent example of the US's lack of intellectual honesty (to steal your phrase) in that they overthrew a democratically elected government to replace it with a vicious dictatorship because it served their political purposes at the time, showing that their retoric about protecting the fre, democratic world against the evil USSR was just propaganda, and that any concern for the welfare of non-US citizens was fake.

This leads many people to regard the US's current retoric about liberating the people of Iraq and Afghanistan and making the world safe for democracy and freedom with suspicion. Thus the Chiliean coup, and other similar cold war events, are still very relevant to today.

The coup may still have happened without US help in which case nobody outside Chile would remember it (sad but true), but the US did help and so the events of 30 years ago are still important today.

bil

bil
Where you stand depends on where you sit...
[ Parent ]

this is true (4.00 / 2) (#349)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 10:31:17 AM EST

only if you believe that the rise of pinochet lands squarely on the feet of the us

do chileans bear any responsibility for their govt?

do other world powers/ powers in south america?

how can you blame the us 100% for pinochet in intellectual honesty?

the us does bad

and the us does good

to view the us as the sole source of evil in the world, which is required if we are to believe that pinochet is 100% the fault of the us, is simplistic and wrong

and yes, i say to you, something that happened 30 years ago is less important than something that happened 2 years ago, or yesterday, as with the swedish politician

i honestly don't see what the problem with that comment is

take into account how many died? obviously! but it's not like a math equation, and even if it was, it wouldn't be so simple as time/ # of deaths or some such simplistic shit

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

A Euro5hin guide (4.37 / 8) (#363)
by epepke on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 01:00:33 PM EST

  1. WWI was not ideologically relevant, because it's hard to blame on the U.S. It's possible, but it requires too much tedious history.
  2. 9/11 is not a tragedy, because do I have to remind you how many people die of starvation every year? Nobody would remember it if it weren't on American soil. The fact that it was the single biggest one-day slaughter of civilians in peacetime doesn't matter. For some reason.
  3. The murder of the Swedish politician is a tragedy. Because Sweden is so safe. And a Swede did it, so it couldn't be political. Because Swedes don't do that, because Sweden is so safe. Anyway, the Stockholm mall is in a junkie neighborhood. Which couldn't exist, because there are no violent junkies in a country with a liberal drug policy. But anyway, he must have been from there. Except that he can't have been. And if you disagree, you're a stupid American.
  4. 30 Palestinians who get killed are a tragedy. Because otherwise, what are you, some sort of Zionist Kike, part of the International Conspiracy of Communist Jewish Bankers? I didn't say "Kike." You said it. What, you think that someone who criticizes Israel is automatically an anti-semite? You BASTARD!
  5. 30 Israelis who get killed are a joke. Because they deserved it, because of Sharon. How many Kikes fit in a Volkswagen? Depends on how fine you burn 'em. Hahahahaha. No, I didn't say "Kike." You did. You think that anybody who objects to Israel's policies is an anti-semite. You BASTARD!

The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (5.00 / 1) (#367)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 01:14:06 PM EST

jumping jebus christoff on a cream colored pogo stick wrapped in abstract art fabric

you are my personal jebus


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Nice verbiage (5.00 / 1) (#398)
by Amesha Spentas on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 06:42:57 PM EST

Interesting that you can write something as eloquent as the article above, and then respond to comments in such a childish way. Curious.

Registered to die for the government at 18, and had to pay postage on the registration form - AnalogBoy
[ Parent ]

this is a joint account (5.00 / 1) (#414)
by circletimessquare on Sat Sep 13, 2003 at 05:49:06 AM EST

it's used by donald rumsfeld and ozzie osbourne

sorry, but since you've figured me out, we have to send over our local illuminati representatives to make you disappear

is that a knock at your door?

;-P


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

a sane5hin guide (3.60 / 5) (#372)
by fritz the cat on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 01:28:59 PM EST

  1. WWI is not ideologically relevant because there was no much difference between the two sides - besides, the frech brits and germans have been at each other for centuries.
  2. Nobody would remember 9/11 it if it weren't on american soil. The list is of peacetime tragedies which caused hundreds of casualties is endless, and more innocent people have died in your revenge attack on the talibans then in the 9/11 bombing (the taliban themselves, meanwhile, seem to have managed to escape).
Btw, the " single biggest one-day slaughter of civilians in peacetime" wasn't 9/11 -  it was the Bhopal massacre in India. I guess there won't be much coverage of that on the 3rd of december .
  1. what has that got to do with anything?
  2. 30 Palestinians who get killed are a tragedy. Becase otherwise you are some brainless obese american bible-reading fascist twat.
  3. 30 Israelis who get killed are a tragedy. Criticizing Israel and the butcher Sharon doesn't mean being anti-semite.

DOING NOTHING FUCKING SOMETHING
[ Parent ]

To be sane, Bhopal was a tragedy (5.00 / 3) (#373)
by epepke on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 01:36:12 PM EST

But it wasn't deliberate. And I would hope that everybody does remember it on December 3. I'll even make a personal commitment to write a story here if nobody else does.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
intellectual honesty (5.00 / 2) (#377)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 02:18:00 PM EST

is lacking in you

if september 11th happened in the eiffel tower instead of the wtc, you can be sure we would be talking about it today

being reflexively kneejerk antiamerican is a simplsitic worldview

not everything that happens in the world revolves around america

funny how those who hate america thinks it does more than anyone else

it reveals the transparency of their simpleminded empty hatred and ideological posturing

the world is complex, develop a more complex understanding of it please


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

you are obsessed with 'kneejerk antiamericans' (5.00 / 1) (#443)
by fritz the cat on Mon Sep 15, 2003 at 07:59:17 AM EST

> being reflexively kneejerk antiamerican

> funny how those who hate america...
you seem very concerned about people hating america, but it's not about that

my problem is that neocons in the u.s. use the 9/11 tragedy to justify all sort of evil policies at home, and also use it to put pressure on governments abroad to do the same  - very similar to how  zionists use the holocaust tragedy to justify their treatment of palestinians

everytime i hear the media banging on about 9/11 i always remember two things - something herman goering said at the nürberg trials:

'Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger'

and something adolf hitler wrote in the mein kampf:
'The efficiency of the truly national leader consists primarily in preventing the division of the attention of a people, and always in concentrating it on a single enemy'

incidentally, 'reflexively kneejerk' is a repetition

DOING NOTHING FUCKING SOMETHING
[ Parent ]

two small problems with your position (5.00 / 2) (#481)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 07:46:58 PM EST

first: people really, really were attacked

you can talk about the horrible power of propagandizing to the people they were attacked, and how they then rally around the leader to do something awful

and then you can talk about the fact people were really attacked, and they rally around their leaders, because they are scared of terrorists

what is that? psychological manipulation? or about exactly what the fuck happened?

i addressed this in my shpiel. you are right there with me, now take the next step: see how the source of the evil in the world is not the dangerous overreaction of americans, but THE ISLAMONAZIS WHO DROVE AIRPLANES INTO OFFICE TOWERS

say whatever you want about america, gw bush, etc. but you cannot in the least say the us would have invaded iraq if it were not for sept. 11th. so what is the REAL source of evil then? gw bush is but a secondary consideration to al qaeda in terms of problems int he world. look around you. bali, kneya bombings, etc. why do you focus on the the us and it's evil when there is a larger evil at work in the world? why do you think everything al qaeda does is framed in opposition to the greater evil, the us, when the truth is the other way around?

secondly, you are dangerously close to triggering godwin's law


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Fuck Godwin's Law (none / 0) (#492)
by fritz the cat on Thu Oct 16, 2003 at 09:31:14 AM EST

Yes people were attacked - but not by the Iraqis.
Creating a false connection between the tragedy on the 11th of September and Iraq's regime is manipulation - the same kind Hitler and his lot were talking about.

you say the source of the evil in the world is "THE ISLAMONAZIS WHO DROVE AIRPLANES INTO OFFICE TOWERS". But what is the source behind THEIR evil?
Two things: the weapons and training the US gave them when they were using them to fight against the Soviets; and the anger caused by the US support for Israel and various puppet regimes in the Middle East.

Therefore "source of the evil in the world" is American foreign policy.

As for Godwin's Law, you can shove it up your backside.

DOING NOTHING FUCKING SOMETHING
[ Parent ]

Wrong, Sweden has a neoconservative drug policy-nt (5.00 / 1) (#380)
by tlhf on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 03:14:17 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Color me shocked! [n/t] (5.00 / 1) (#382)
by epepke on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 03:20:06 PM EST


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
How about he colors you wrong? [n/t] (5.00 / 1) (#397)
by Amesha Spentas on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 06:38:39 PM EST


Registered to die for the government at 18, and had to pay postage on the registration form - AnalogBoy
[ Parent ]

What colour is shocked, and what colour is wrong? (5.00 / 1) (#400)
by tlhf on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 07:53:59 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Red, probably [n/t] (5.00 / 1) (#416)
by epepke on Sat Sep 13, 2003 at 08:07:03 AM EST


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
hahaha (5.00 / 1) (#435)
by Chi on Sun Sep 14, 2003 at 08:18:53 AM EST

i hate to post pointless messages like this, but that red comment deserves recognition.

[ Parent ]
Please let's not overdramatize ... (4.40 / 5) (#322)
by oliveo on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 05:32:39 AM EST

The wound does not heal because we are in the hands of an imcompetent doctor.

Things may be about to get a lot worse, as you say. This could be the beginning of a catastrophe like the world war i or the civil war.

But there is no inevitability about it.

Now it was not GWB's fault that the nuts of 9/11 took away some of our privacy, freedom. That would have happened under any president in an emergency like this. (eg Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the civil war.)

But it is his fault to deliberately bankrupt the government at such a critical time by giving away obscene tax cuts to his class - yes, he is a "class president" as Maureen Dowd observed.

It is his fault to waste lives and precious resources in an unnecessary and illegal war against Iraq. (The war in Afghanistan on the other hand was of course justified.)

It is his fault to behave like a arragont bully towards the world and to fritter away the good will the world felt towards the us after 9/11 instead of using it to build bridges and a bullwark against terrorism. He and his neocons chose instead the path of perpetual war

But let's work to put Bush to retirement and look forward to a time without him. There is cause for hope: What makes u think the next president will be stupid? I can only think of two stupid us presidents in the second half of 20th century: One, on my side of the political spectrum, Jimmy Carter, who is redeemed slightly by the fact that he is a man of outstanding decency and the other, GWB, in whom I see no redeeming qualities. Bill Clinton was a competent president; so was FDR and others too even on the right side of the spectrum - I grudgingly admit.

There is no inevitability towards anything now. Other countries in the advanced sector, Italy, Germany etc survived much worse onslaughts from terrorism. Yeah, terrorism can inflict damage but only we can defeat ourselves if we lose our cool and sanity. That's why leadership change is so important now.



well said (5.00 / 1) (#343)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 09:44:18 AM EST

but i keep waiting for the other shoe to drop

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Simple case of USians not knowing what is... (3.28 / 7) (#332)
by hummassa on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 08:14:12 AM EST

The Right Thing to Do.
  1. withdraw all troops in all muslim countries;
  2. remove support of any kind to Israel;
  3. ask the UN to put muslim troops in Palestin isolating Palestinian and Israeli soldiers; even pay for it in cash if necessary.
simple, eh? too bad no USian administration has the balls to do this.


doesn't work, will never work (5.00 / 2) (#333)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 08:20:59 AM EST

you missed the part about the world getting smaller every day in my shpiel

conflicts don't end at the borders of your little ethnic enclave

no nation is an island

neoisolationism is the absolute stupidest move to take

proof?

september 11th: the terrorists came to a foreign country to do their bidding- why is that? clearly because of what the us did? or because they have an agenda all their own?

if you honestly think that all the problems of the world land squarely at the foot of the us, that al qeada attacked the us only because of what the us did, you are drowning in oversimplification

if the us disappeared into a giant lake tomorrow, would al qaeda celebrate and then become provincial sheep farmers?

no, they would go right on with their murderous agenda

iamgine that, not everything in the world is centered in kneejerk fashion for or against the us

neoisolationism won't work, it's a staggeringly oversimplification of the world's problems

simple solutions never work

complex solutions to complex problems do


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Some days, I'd love to (5.00 / 2) (#338)
by epepke on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 08:48:45 AM EST

Get out of the Middle East. I guess it would be maybe a month before the Israelis, all by their lonesome, solved the problems in the Middle East once and for all. It might, indeed, be a better world after that, albeit a somewhat warmer one.

But then I quickly remember that I don't actually hate Palestinians, Muslims, Arabs, or whoever else in the region is going to have to deal with the fallout. Nor do I feel the need to use a cynically feigned sympathy to support simplistic, armchair solutions.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
Neutron Bombs (5.00 / 1) (#413)
by /dev/niall on Sat Sep 13, 2003 at 02:59:31 AM EST

Actually, Isreal has quite a few neutron bombs, giving it the ability to wipe out populations in a highly targeted manner with a minimum of fallout. Makes a lot of sense for them considering their situation (just look at a map).
--
"compared to the other apes, my genitals are gigantic" -- TheophileEscargot
[ Parent ]
Wording (5.00 / 1) (#415)
by epepke on Sat Sep 13, 2003 at 06:55:46 AM EST

I thought of writing "fallout, both literal and figurative," but I thought that would have been belaboring the point. Anyway, there will be plenty of fallout, even if only a small amount of it consists of radioisotopes in the atmosphere.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
"The Right Thing", huh? (5.00 / 5) (#362)
by Grognard on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 12:56:01 PM EST

withdraw all troops in all muslim countries;

Like Kosovo and Bosnia? Heartless bastards we are, preventing the local muslims from achieving martyrdom at the hands of the Serbs.

remove support of any kind to Israel;

Because if Israel is eliminated, all the problems in the region go away, right?  

Please.  That would only mean that the local demagogues would be required to find a new scapegoat for why there is no grand Islamic empire ruling things.

Not to mention that the argument ignores the fact that there is no widespread terror campaign directed against the Russians (who have managed to kill many more Muslims over the years than Israel).

ask the UN to put muslim troops in Palestin isolating Palestinian and Israeli soldiers; even pay for it in cash if necessary.

The UN has had troops there before - I'll leave it to you to read up on the circumstances under which they were pulled out.


[ Parent ]

no shit (5.00 / 2) (#392)
by josephgrossberg on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 05:03:53 PM EST

"That would only mean that the local demagogues would be required to find a new scapegoat for why there is no grand Islamic empire ruling things." Ya mean like how Hizbollah quickly switched its ambitions from "get Israel out of Lebanon" to "get Israel out of Israel" once Ehud Barak withrew the IDF troops?

JoeGrossberg.com
[ Parent ]
Bingo! (5.00 / 1) (#393)
by Grognard on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 05:13:01 PM EST

We have a winner!

[ Parent ]
Re: scapegoat (5.00 / 2) (#404)
by strlen on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 10:11:07 PM EST

Any idiots who would force their children to blow themselves up over territory the size of Israel, when there's Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq and Jordan readily available deserve whatever is coming to them.

I really like this poster, pretty much sums up the extent at which the Arab leaders are using Israel as a scapegoat to cover up the fact they haven't the Middle Ages:

[ http://www.protestwarrior.com/poster_sets/sign_11.pdf ]

--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
[ Parent ]

Err wrong poster (5.00 / 2) (#405)
by strlen on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 10:14:22 PM EST

Funny nonetheless, but the link should be

[ http://www.protestwarrior.com/poster_sets/sign_24.pdf ]

--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
[ Parent ]

Man, that's good (5.00 / 1) (#421)
by epepke on Sat Sep 13, 2003 at 11:49:42 AM EST

Eye-wateringly good. Wanting to sound like George Clinton good. Worth reading Kuro5hin good.

Only I'd either have left out the Israeli flag or else included all the other flags.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
The funny thing is... (5.00 / 1) (#422)
by epepke on Sat Sep 13, 2003 at 11:57:11 AM EST

I looked at the website, and I disagree with most of the viewpoints. But that poster is spot on.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
Heh (5.00 / 1) (#427)
by strlen on Sat Sep 13, 2003 at 01:58:14 PM EST

Their videos and protest galleries are funny as well. I'm not a big fan of their viewpoints either, but I'd take em over the anti-war left any time.

--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
[ Parent ]
Here's some more suggestions (3.50 / 6) (#403)
by strlen on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 10:03:07 PM EST

  1. Censor our books and television and make our women our chatel.
  2. Gas the Jews.
  3. Kill ourselves anyway, as we're infidels!
Nice suggestions, but I preffer an alternative
  1. Kill Islamonazis
  2. Repeat step 1


--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
[ Parent ]
The big challenge of our lives (4.50 / 2) (#399)
by stevecrossan on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 07:11:03 PM EST

will be avoiding the next war. Yes, of course, its here already. It never stopped. There's a continuum between war and peace, the challenge is to push it towards peace. And to avoid catastrophe. The last 4 centuries have begun with major world/euorpean wars. But we can do this! People don't instinctively want to annihilate each other. We especially, who live in democracies (even deeply flawed ones) can make the difference. The road is long, hard and complicated but we mustn't give in to despair, however beautifully expressed. Political movements take a long time to mature. *Get engaged*. At least.

bit alarmist (4.66 / 3) (#401)
by lavian on Fri Sep 12, 2003 at 08:10:06 PM EST

I'm sorry, but I do not understand some of the writer's ideas here. I certainly agree that the direction America has take under George Bush's foreign policy is somewhat wrongheaded. Invasion of Iraq, undermining the UN, and unconditional support of Isreal are all steps taken in the opposite direction of many of the key points of the administration's own national security doctrine. In so doing we have wasted vast swaths of our soft power, the fundemental aspect of any attempt to deter the great threats in the world today. But to suggest that the present day threats to the world dwarf the danger that existed during "the relative quiet of the cold war" is absurd. True there may indeed be a higher likelihood of terrorist attack today than in the cold war, but even the most dire threats posed by Osama bin Laden and Co. do not begin to reach the peril we faced during the cuban missile crisis. We must focus on maintaining our attractiveness to the rest of the world presently because the anarchic trend existing in the world requires what only alliance building and international cooperation can achieve, but the greater threats to America will be longer term in nature. The potential threat to the US and to the world will arise from the possible economic or military leapfroging of one of the great powers who do not have America's historical tendency toward benign hegemony. I mean specifically by this the potential instability that superpower versions of China, Japan, India, or certain potential evolutions of the European Union. It would be to greatly to the US's and the world's advantage to maintain a situation in which the world welcomes our hegemony, as opposed to resenting it.

what else can be said except... (4.00 / 4) (#425)
by puhleezz on Sat Sep 13, 2003 at 12:52:04 PM EST

i had the most amazing turkey sandwich last night for dinner
Honesty is an important trait. But honestly, it's not that important
Personal Medications on September 11th (5.00 / 1) (#433)
by Pluto on Sun Sep 14, 2003 at 02:14:23 AM EST

Xanax 5 mg
Celexa 40 mg
Ritalin 5 mg
Another 5 mg Xanax
Inderal 20 mg
Another 5 mg Ritalin
20 mg Lexapro booster
One Quarterpounder with cheese
Two 120 mg Xenical
20 mg Lipitor
Ambien 10 mg
Unisom booster
One Correctol
_______________________________________
Burgeoning technologies require outlaw zones... deliberately unsupervised playgrounds for technology itself. -- William Gibson
Oh yes, I get it! (5.00 / 1) (#456)
by oliveo on Mon Sep 15, 2003 at 10:25:51 PM EST

Meditation/Medication lol

And cheeseburgers do make good anti-depressants!

[ Parent ]

hey! (5.00 / 2) (#480)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 07:39:35 PM EST

you stole my line!

have you seen the numerous paranoid schizophrenic responses to my story?

have ytou seen their alternate reality suppositions that sept. 11th was planned/ allowed by neocons?

if i need medication, what the hell do those fucks need?

geez


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

more insight for you (4.50 / 2) (#441)
by manhattanite on Sun Sep 14, 2003 at 10:15:29 PM EST

If your topic is Sept. 11th, 2001 and you choose to mention Pearl Harbor you should be aware of a few things. Before really getting into any "new" information, let me say that I think the comparison is a valid one and should be explored.

I followed the link that was supplied for the Pearl Harbor reference and was very disappointed. Try this one instead:
http://www.liberty-tree.org/ltn/dayofdeceit.html
Here you will find a brief write up about the book "Day of Deceit:The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor", published in 2000.

I'll keep it brief here, so if you're not already aware of the true nature of Pearl Harbor you really should read the whole book. The evidence presented in Day of Deceit is mostly based on Freedom of Information Act requests granted by the US Navy. The research the following facts are based on is entirely unimpeachable.

Facts:
PH was not a surprise(far from it); PH was approved by FDR(the president); PH was planned by the Office of Naval Intelligence; all Japanese communications were completely deciphered as early as August 1941; the Japanese fleet was monitored during it's entire Pacific journey; the commanders of PH were chosen to be patsies; and much much more.

But what purpose did Pearl Harbor serve? This is also detailed. The purpose it served was to get an isolationist American public to participate in a war they didn't want. And it worked perfectly. For the politicians the lives and hardware lost were an acceptable cost. This is not my opinion. It is documented.

Now ask yourself about parallels to 9/11.

I'll leave it at that and hope reader's have enough curiosity to investigate/think for themselves. Otherwise I enjoyed reading the essay. Thumbs up on the Khalil Gibran poem. Plenty of good reader comments too.

and we didn't land on the moon (5.00 / 1) (#442)
by circletimessquare on Mon Sep 15, 2003 at 07:48:32 AM EST

and nazis didn't burn any jews in ovens

and jfk was killed by the masons

c'mon dude, do you understand what paranoid schizophrenia is?

but please, just ignore me, i'm just an agent of our illuminati overlords trying to suppress the "truth" lol

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

If it were not for Pearl Harbor ,,, (5.00 / 1) (#444)
by oliveo on Mon Sep 15, 2003 at 09:45:15 AM EST

the descendants of Hitler would be in control of Europe now and it would be a much different - much worse - world all around. D-day was difficult enough to pull off accross the channel it would have beem impossible accross the Atlantic.

So I am quite willing to believe that the FDR crowd looked the other way while the evidence was pouring in that Japan was getting ready to attack.

And I think they did the right thing. They followed Napoleon's dictum: Never interfere with the enemy when he is in the middle of making a huge mistake.

An interesting aside. The Japanese ambassador's daughter was a student then at my alma mater and she simply disappeared without saying anything to anybody a week b4 the attack.

[ Parent ]

stop supposing and do some reading (5.00 / 1) (#450)
by manhattanite on Mon Sep 15, 2003 at 12:33:30 PM EST

Re: If it were not for Pearl Harbor
Interesting point that you can see the reason for PH. The author, R. Stinnet, agrees with you. Did you assume he didn't?

"FDR crowd looked the other way" However this is incorrect. I really meant it when I stated those are FACTS. If you still have objections to my posting you should READ THE BOOK. What I posted was not opinion. I realize it is hard for people to give up what they've been taught, I went throught that too.

Re: And we didn't land on the moon
"and nazis didn't burn any jews in ovens"
Those are your words buddy, not mine. I've often seen this reaponse. When people can't argue with the facts they try to put words in other peoples mouths.

Read the book, then you might have something useful to say. Frankly, I'm surprised at your hate/slander speech.

[ Parent ]

hate/ slander speech (5.00 / 1) (#479)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 07:37:43 PM EST

paranoid schizophrenics need to have their computer priveledges suspended, so the rest of us don't have to listen to the "reasonable arguments" they spew all over the damn place

you're a stupid paranoid fuck

there's some hate/ slander speech for you, asswipe

what, am i supposed to respect your mental problems?

i'd rather kick you in the head


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Don't believe your own eyes, circle? (none / 0) (#488)
by esrever on Tue Sep 23, 2003 at 07:13:17 PM EST

I suggest you go here:
http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Sep2001/
and take a good long look around. You will notice that this is the official website of the Department of Defense.
Perhaps I could direct your attention to a few of the more interesting items:
http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Sep2001/010912-D-9880W-041.html
BIG version: http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Sep2001/010912-D-9880W-041.jpg
http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Sep2001/010912-D-9880W-073.html
BIG version: http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Sep2001/010912-D-9880W-073.jpg
http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Sep2001/010914-F-8006R-001.html
BIG version: http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Sep2001/010914-F-8006R-001.jpg

The last one I especially love, it's sort of like the grown-ups equivalent of 'Where's Waldo' except that Waldo is an airplane, and there is no Waldo.
Goody.


Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
[ Parent ]
dietrologia (none / 0) (#490)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 09:09:53 PM EST

http://what.really.happened.at.german.pages.de/

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Shame the government was behind it all (3.50 / 4) (#445)
by EricLivingston on Mon Sep 15, 2003 at 11:38:45 AM EST

I've become firmly convinced of the US government's involvement in 9/11 as an overt method to gain phenomenal power over its own people (which is has done in spades, and continues to propose in Patriot II), and as an excuse to slap the middle east around and protect our oil and other monetary interests of the major US powers.

I'm no conspiracy theorist or whacko. I have simply examined the evidence (mostly publicly available video and photo evidence from multiple sources, like CNN, etc). Do just a bit if research and it becomes obvious, for instance, that it wasn't a passenger liner that hit the Pentagon, regardless of what the government cover-up story would have up believe.

It's tragic that we have this kind of corruption in our government, and even more so that most americans lie down and swallow whatever they're fed to cover it up. I figure they can get away with just about anything at this point...

and we never landed on the moon (5.00 / 1) (#459)
by circletimessquare on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 12:45:00 PM EST

and the nazis never burned jews in ovens

and jfk was killed by masons

you're not a conspiracy theorist?

if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck

paranoid schizophrenia is no excuse for your stupidity

but ignore me friend, i'm just an agent of the illuminati overlords trying to suppress the "truth"

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Interesting theory you have... (5.00 / 1) (#460)
by EricLivingston on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 01:09:58 PM EST

Apparently, what you're saying is that if there is one conspiracy theory around that's easily debunked (like the moon landing thing), then all of them are easily debunked. That as long as it's true that the theory "the nazis never burned jews in ovens" is false, then the logical conclusion is "the government had a hand in 9/11" is also false?

Hmmm. Well, I don't really subscribe to that belief. Have you actually looked into any of those theories you discount out of hand, or do you simply rely on CNN to give you the straight story in all cases, with complete and blind faith?

Look - take the Pentagon hit. The plane which was captured on publicly, widely viewed footage taken from the security camera that witnessed the plane's approach and impact clearly shows that the plane cannot be a Boeing passenger liner. It's a trivial proof - the 757's body is 7 times the length of the base of the tail fin. The video clearly shows that the airplane in question could not have had a body length of greater than 5 times the length of the tail fin.

That's it. Very simple, and very straightforward. It's simply impossible that the plane that hit the Pentagon was a 757. Regardless of whether you think me a radical, paranoid, or whatever, there really isn't any way you can dispute the very clear, very public video data that captured that plane's approach.

I don't know what did hit the Pentagon, but I know that a 757 did not. And since the government isn't making any noise about that at all, one can only conclude they are deliberately misleading or suppressing data, which makes them a party to it.

It's really not paranoia that drives my conclusions, but rather quite obvious, indisputable, and basic evidence.

[ Parent ]

the way to beat logic (5.00 / 1) (#464)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 12:14:19 PM EST

is to pile on the verbiage

that's how you proceed, along with everyone else with delusions such as your own... that's why i brought up the other examples

on sept 11, 2001, al qaeda scored an impressive victory by flying passenger airlines into us landmarks

that's what happened

i'm not going to spend 20 paragraphs dismantling your paranoid fantasies, as the walls are probably built of such strong self-reinforcing fallacies there is no way i could even get through them if i argued with you for 200 pages

so, here's the nugget of truth: you're a kook, a crackpot, a loony

enjoy your alternative reality, you stupid quack fuck


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Don't believe your own eyes, circle? (none / 0) (#487)
by esrever on Tue Sep 23, 2003 at 07:12:24 PM EST

I suggest you go here:
http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Sep2001/
and take a good long look around. You will notice that this is the official website of the Department of Defense.
Perhaps I could direct your attention to a few of the more interesting items:
http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Sep2001/010912-D-9880W-041.html
BIG version: http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Sep2001/010912-D-9880W-041.jpg
http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Sep2001/010912-D-9880W-073.html
BIG version: http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Sep2001/010912-D-9880W-073.jpg
http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Sep2001/010914-F-8006R-001.html
BIG version: http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Sep2001/010914-F-8006R-001.jpg

The last one I especially love, it's sort of like the grown-ups equivalent of 'Where's Waldo' except that Waldo is an airplane, and there is no Waldo.
Goody.


Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
[ Parent ]
dietrologia (none / 0) (#489)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 09:09:30 PM EST

http://what.really.happened.at.german.pages.de/

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
I hope the flaming tragedy that is this OP-ED (3.40 / 5) (#457)
by tonedevil05 on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 03:43:41 AM EST

Will help people to remember not to vote up anything by circletimessquare. The poor guy goes nuts and you people who egg him on, by voting his story FP, must truly shoulder the blame here. This man needs to be given his meds, he does not need to be given things like this story and it's attendent comments on the FP. I had avoided reading this story because it was yet another 9/11 changed everything blah blah woof woof and I hadn't wanted to read anymore. All the histrionics two years ago were bad enough, but I really could use some shutting up about it now. However when I saw that it was my good friend circletimessquare I had to peek, I look at bad accidents too. No one says there is anything wrong with a circletimessquare comment or even diary, but for the love of all that is frosty cold and blended, please, please, never, never again vote a story by this man FP(+1), think of the ocelots.

Thank you

you have a right not to like me or anything i say (5.00 / 1) (#458)
by circletimessquare on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 12:41:59 PM EST

pray tell, would you mind telling us why we should listen to you?

i wrote a story, it went front page, i think that speaks for itself

in the immortal words of janet jackson, what have you done for us lately?

i'll let democracy speak for me, as for you, you always have yourself

yes, there is me, circletimessquare, the incorrigible troll

and then apparently there is you, troll hater extraordinaire, without much else to speak for yourself

xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox

smooches honey

i may suck in your eyes, but you matter less than me


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

You should not listen to me. (5.00 / 2) (#463)
by tonedevil05 on Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 07:45:01 PM EST

In fact please cover your ears and sing lalalalala. My plea is to the community of K5 to stop the maddness. circletimessquare I have enjoyed many of your comments, I have even found diary entries of yours a reasonable diversion, for the brief momment they appeared on the FP. Your stories however create a vast malstrom wherein you are shouting over and over "appologize now you stupid fuck" and modbombing accounts because your delicate sensibilities have been offended. For these reasons I ask whatever you do don't vote this guy's stories out of the que.

One more thing circletimessquare, I thought that this was clear from one of our earlier encounters , I hate to have to be so insistent, but I am not receptive to your homosexual advances. Not that there is anything wrong with it I am just not receptive, so therefore I don't want you sucking on my eyes or anywhere else. Thanks for understanding, I just don't ride the way you like to ride.

[ Parent ]

this is the truth for you (5.00 / 1) (#465)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 12:23:07 PM EST

i submitted a story that went front page

i've done it a number of times

then i play like a glorious troll underneath my stories with folks such as yourself

that's what i do, that's me, that's circletimessquare

but none of that behavior detracts form the fact that the stories i wrote are good enough to go +1 fp

why?

i don't have to tell you why, the weight of the democracy that is kuro5hin is behind me- they voted it +1 fp, not me, not you

the very weight of that fact outweighs everything you say

what do you have behind your words against me?

nada, nothing, just your negative bile, just your little sycophantic self attaching yourself to my personality to make up for the lack of a personality on your part

there is nothing new to people like you, the psychological underpinnings of the existence of people like you are as old as the sands of time- stalkers

you do not have a personality of your own, so you attach parasitically onto the personalities of others, and threaten hatred and violence and such negative things that define your existence

so i rest on my laurels, and enjoy smacking down little ankle-biting trolls such as yourself

what defines me in the eyes of kuro5hin?

my +1 fp stories

what defines your existence in the eyes of kuro5hin, what can we say about your existence here?

apparently, not much beyond hating me

remember, my front page stories stand out as more impressive than anything else i do or say here

remember, you are the one making me an issue, not me

so it is quite obvious that you have much consideration for me in your mind

meanwhile, i don't even know who you are or care who you are or care what you do- i honestly don't give a fuck about you in the least

but you, apparently do

i'm glad you care so much about me!

smooches, troll lover xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Two things (5.00 / 2) (#467)
by tonedevil05 on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 02:09:29 PM EST

Get over yourself and please stop trying to kiss me.

[ Parent ]
i will get myself just fine (5.00 / 1) (#468)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 02:17:39 PM EST

as soon as YOU get over me

remember, it was your UNSOLICITED personal attack on me that started this all

so you are the one who obviously cares too much

learn this simple lesson kiddo: if you attack me, unsolicited, then at issue is your obsession with me, nothing else

and you never come over anymore honeybuns

HAHAHAHA ;-)

i so enjoy squashing little stalking sycophantic trolls such as yourself

xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Troll hater, troll lover, troll (5.00 / 2) (#469)
by tonedevil05 on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 02:32:28 PM EST

I have been all this to you in one thread. It is so fun to see you all wound up. I come not to learn lessons from circletimessquare, but to mock him.

[ Parent ]
pray tell (5.00 / 1) (#470)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 02:38:46 PM EST

what lack of a personality makes you come at all?

i can say the most stupid, ridiculous things about myself

who cares?

well, obviously you do

above all these issues, in the mind if anyone else reading this stupid thread is WHY DO YOU CARE

remember, my lonely, stalker-psychology sycophantic friend, i am not sitting in front of mirror talking about myself

i am in a conversation

with YOU

ABOUT ME

thus the homoerotic bullshit: it's an attempt to reveal to you WHAT YOU LOOK LIKE TO EVERYONE ELSE READING THIS

dude, i am defending myself

you are making me the issue, your hatred of me was UNSOLICITED

so it remains, clear as day, over everything else that is said here: WHY DO YOU HATE/ LOVE/ LIKE/ FEEL/ CARE SO MUCH FOR ME TO BE IN THIS MORONIC THREAD IN THE FIRST PLACE???

if you didn't really care, you wouldn't be in this insipid conversation

so obviously, you do

you're a sycopahnt, you have no personality, so you latch yourself like parasite onto personalities that are stronger than yours

i fear for any woman you meet, she has no idea what she is in store for

you're just a scary sick bottom-sucking fuck

but please, by all means, rpely to this my sweet, sweet lover

WE REALLY REALLY CARE WHAT THE FUCK YOU HAVE TO SAY ABOUT ME

NOT


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

You are a funny little guy (5.00 / 2) (#471)
by tonedevil05 on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 02:43:23 PM EST

and a lot more fun to tease than any of the other nutcases.

[ Parent ]
i am a glorious troll and proud of it (5.00 / 1) (#472)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 02:52:52 PM EST

and you're a little follower of mine, apparently

maybe someday you'll develop a personality

in the meantime, enjoy following mine

maybe i should start a cult and start charging membership, since it's hard to get the little parasitical leeches off once they have latched onto you

i'm glad you like me, little sycophant, keep following me around

it's nice to know that my ego can feed more than one

xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I have known trolls... (5.00 / 2) (#473)
by tonedevil05 on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 02:59:04 PM EST

and you sir are no troll. You are a rantaholic, very probably the most prolific one I have ever seen. Tata for now and thanks for all the fish.

[ Parent ]
call me what you like (5.00 / 1) (#474)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 17, 2003 at 04:07:33 PM EST

but whatever i am, it remains obvious that you like to follow me around

making me the issue is your deal, not mine

thus, no matter i do or say, it remains that you have more issues than me

i am a fool, i am troll, i am whatever you want to call me

that's my intellectual honesty

apparently, you behave in a manner not unlike me but you believe sunshine shines out of your asshole

you indulge yourself in behavior you chastise me for (look back on this thread... do you see your alias there? talking to me?) yet apparently i am the only one who should be chastised for said behavior in your eyes

who is the bigger fool?

the fool? or the guy talking to him?

you started this thread, now end it: stop talking to me

hypocricy is so common, yet it always rankles me


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

intelectual honesty (5.00 / 1) (#475)
by turumbar on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 09:41:08 AM EST

circle master has made several commetnas about "intelectual honesty". Well, he should know that intelectual honestly also has to be applied to discusion, and that when in a discussion, one attacks the oponent, just because of who he is, not what he is saying, it is a falasy, and therefore, not honest:
..you're a teenager, and if you are not, your moral development was stunted in your teenage years and you haven't grown much beyond that point...
Please, lets try to keep the flames and personal wars to a minimum.

[ Parent ]
intellectual honesty (5.00 / 1) (#478)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 19, 2003 at 07:35:00 PM EST

you're a moron ;-P

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Personal Meditations on September 11th, 2 years Later | 490 comments (449 topical, 41 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!