America Attacked Aftermath and news
Wednesday, September 12, 2001 by Frogboy | Discussion: WinCustomize News
Having been to the World Trade Organization on numerous occasions, I find myself completely stunned by the events. To imagine that gigantic building full of people simply gone is just horrifying.At the same time, the civilized world seems to have come together to join the United States in what may become a coordinated crusade to eradicate terrorism. Such a thing seems impossible but consider this:
If the United States and the world community can retaliate in such sufficient force, then political terrorists will have to weigh their goals versus the inevitable response. History has shown that massive retaliation does work. As barbaric has it has been in history, it was an effective means of keeping terrorism under control. Terrorism has always been with us and will be. But perhaps if the proper response can be achieved, it can be seen in the same light that we see nuclear weapons, that terrorism is so horrible and the consquences of it so painful, that it won't be used as a political tool.
Of course, this all assumes that there was a political ends being sought in some sick way rather than simply pure madness.
NATO has activated article 5. This has never been done. This means that NATO considers what has occurred as an act of war. This means Germany, UK, France, Spain, Italy, Greece, etc. all consider this attack as an attack on themselves and will respond accordingly. It is unprecedented.
Whoever did this, wherever they are, I do not think they realize the whirlwind they have just sewn.
What do you think?
 |
|
Page 4 of 4 | |
|
|---|
_Martin_
Reply #62 Friday, September 14, 2001 10:55 AM
Reply #62 Friday, September 14, 2001 10:55 AM
SSL_tin,
Then that is unfortunate. Reading all the comments I think you will see much call for moderation and a focused approach to justice (not retaliation ... not revenge).
There are occassion extreme comments, but short term they can be excused to some extent due to anger, as long as in the longer term the approach is more rational.
Comments here are made on latest information. It has not been confirmed who carried out the attacks and therefore no specific reference to people or nations will be entirely accurate at this time.
Then that is unfortunate. Reading all the comments I think you will see much call for moderation and a focused approach to justice (not retaliation ... not revenge).
There are occassion extreme comments, but short term they can be excused to some extent due to anger, as long as in the longer term the approach is more rational.
Comments here are made on latest information. It has not been confirmed who carried out the attacks and therefore no specific reference to people or nations will be entirely accurate at this time.
feline
Reply #63 Friday, September 14, 2001 11:11 AM
Reply #63 Friday, September 14, 2001 11:11 AM
_Martin_ - The UK media is definitely focussing on the international tragedy, but the way to avoid to mentality of "it was an attack on the US" is to strike home the local impact.
craeonics - Many of you would not have lost one moment of sleep over this, had it happenen in say, Cambodya.
in a sence this is the point i was trying to put into words. this tragerty has just clarified my perspective on this. it seems that one uk death is more news worthy (in the uk) than several deaths in france, and any number of deaths in a 3rd world contry.
i would like to think that this is just the way the media works, but i have the suspision that a lot of people think this was as well, even when all the people involved in a tragerty are strangers.
on the slightly different front of a reaction, i have encountered bullies over the years who would only respond (i.e. leave me alone) in the face of overwhelming threat. i found i had to either accept being a victim, or give the impression i was prepared to kill to make them go away. based on this, i can see the logic of devistating retaliation.
however, my actions were based on the fact that the bullies i was facing didnt want to die, and were ultimately weak. i stongly suspect that the threat of death would be far less effective against a group that has members prepared to make suicide attacks.
for this very reason i do hope that any american response is "sensible", and doesnt inflaim the situation. what i dont want to see is the "terrorists" acting in retaliation to a retaliation to a retaliation . . .
this seems to be what has happened with the terror groups in ireland, and such cycles can be self sustaining and esculating. and their real tragerty is that it is mainly (presumably) inocent bystanders who suffer
craeonics - Many of you would not have lost one moment of sleep over this, had it happenen in say, Cambodya.
in a sence this is the point i was trying to put into words. this tragerty has just clarified my perspective on this. it seems that one uk death is more news worthy (in the uk) than several deaths in france, and any number of deaths in a 3rd world contry.
i would like to think that this is just the way the media works, but i have the suspision that a lot of people think this was as well, even when all the people involved in a tragerty are strangers.
on the slightly different front of a reaction, i have encountered bullies over the years who would only respond (i.e. leave me alone) in the face of overwhelming threat. i found i had to either accept being a victim, or give the impression i was prepared to kill to make them go away. based on this, i can see the logic of devistating retaliation.
however, my actions were based on the fact that the bullies i was facing didnt want to die, and were ultimately weak. i stongly suspect that the threat of death would be far less effective against a group that has members prepared to make suicide attacks.
for this very reason i do hope that any american response is "sensible", and doesnt inflaim the situation. what i dont want to see is the "terrorists" acting in retaliation to a retaliation to a retaliation . . .
this seems to be what has happened with the terror groups in ireland, and such cycles can be self sustaining and esculating. and their real tragerty is that it is mainly (presumably) inocent bystanders who suffer
_Martin_
Reply #64 Friday, September 14, 2001 11:24 AM
Reply #64 Friday, September 14, 2001 11:24 AM
Feline,
Agree entirely. Most people cannot relate to this sort of thing, and obviously never will be able to unless directly involved.
I don't think that anyone here could honestly say they would feel the same if this tragedy was somewhere they had barely heard of involving people they cannot easily relate to. I'm not saying this is a correct attitude, just that it is true.
The more the press can more the incident a 'local' issue the more people can relate, the more they can sympathise
Agree entirely. Most people cannot relate to this sort of thing, and obviously never will be able to unless directly involved.
I don't think that anyone here could honestly say they would feel the same if this tragedy was somewhere they had barely heard of involving people they cannot easily relate to. I'm not saying this is a correct attitude, just that it is true.
The more the press can more the incident a 'local' issue the more people can relate, the more they can sympathise
koop
Reply #65 Friday, September 14, 2001 11:56 AM
Reply #65 Friday, September 14, 2001 11:56 AM
I saw the observance at Buckingham Palace yesterday. It was symbolic and very touching. I felt moved on a personal level. I just want to thank all of our friends across "the pond."
Not to leave anyone out, but Canada has also been very supportive, as well as Israel.
Not to leave anyone out, but Canada has also been very supportive, as well as Israel.
mariuss
Reply #66 Friday, September 14, 2001 1:02 PM
Reply #66 Friday, September 14, 2001 1:02 PM
The Skins Factory and Frogboy, you seem to be very keen on going to war.
I don't think you have any clue what war means, probably you imagine it to be a video game where your weapon is a joystick. War means exactly what happened in New York, death and destruction. It usually happens somewhere else, that is why you are so shocked. Well, most of the world must live with this kind of shock on a daily basis and in most cases all this suffering is perceived by those people as being caused by US. If you understand this, then may be you will understand why some palestinians where happy.
To what extent suffering in today's world is really caused by US is a different question. Those people really believe this in the same way that US citizens really believe that their government is actually out there to help them. I think that both are extremes and that the truth is somewhere in the middle.
So, The Skins Factory and Frogboy, if you want to go to war, the first thing you should do is understand your enemy. Who is he? What makes him tick? Why is he your enemy? Why does he hate you? How is he perceiving you?
The media's response to these questions is that they are some religious fanatics that hate freedom and democracy. Really? Isn't this rather simplistic? Why are they after you and not somebody else? Do you know what those people's life is like?
Did you get a chance to read the Guardian article? Here is the link again:
guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,551086,00.html
I don't think you have any clue what war means, probably you imagine it to be a video game where your weapon is a joystick. War means exactly what happened in New York, death and destruction. It usually happens somewhere else, that is why you are so shocked. Well, most of the world must live with this kind of shock on a daily basis and in most cases all this suffering is perceived by those people as being caused by US. If you understand this, then may be you will understand why some palestinians where happy.
To what extent suffering in today's world is really caused by US is a different question. Those people really believe this in the same way that US citizens really believe that their government is actually out there to help them. I think that both are extremes and that the truth is somewhere in the middle.
So, The Skins Factory and Frogboy, if you want to go to war, the first thing you should do is understand your enemy. Who is he? What makes him tick? Why is he your enemy? Why does he hate you? How is he perceiving you?
The media's response to these questions is that they are some religious fanatics that hate freedom and democracy. Really? Isn't this rather simplistic? Why are they after you and not somebody else? Do you know what those people's life is like?
Did you get a chance to read the Guardian article? Here is the link again:
guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,551086,00.html
paxx
Reply #67 Friday, September 14, 2001 1:12 PM
Reply #67 Friday, September 14, 2001 1:12 PM
mariuss, this discussion is impossible in present times. To have an impartial position, one needs to be completely cold-headed, and right now you can't ask that of anybody.
Lets let some water under the bridges and discuss this at a later time.
Lets let some water under the bridges and discuss this at a later time.
TheSkinsFactory
Reply #68 Friday, September 14, 2001 1:30 PM
Reply #68 Friday, September 14, 2001 1:30 PM
mariuss this is war. You must be assuming i'm some little kid who is just spouting off. I am not. I know who is America's and the free world's enemies are. I know their views on our foreign policies and why they have anger towards America. I read. While some of their anger may be legitimate, there will never be, NEVER BE any justification for the murder they have committed. I firmly support any action that rids our world of people who consider random murder, hate and violence a justifiable means to voice their anger. For the governments who support these kind of people i will watch their countries fall and consider it justice.
TheSkinsFactory
Reply #69 Friday, September 14, 2001 1:46 PM
Reply #69 Friday, September 14, 2001 1:46 PM
typo: was supposed to read who consider violence a justifiable means to express their anger.
mariuss
Reply #70 Friday, September 14, 2001 1:47 PM
Reply #70 Friday, September 14, 2001 1:47 PM
"While some of their anger may be legitimate, there will never be, NEVER BE any justification for the murder they have committed. I firmly support any action that rids our world of people who consider random murder, hate and violence a justifiable means to voice their anger."
This is my point as well, I totally agree!
The reason I am posting on this thread is because I see most of the people here expressing they anger through violence, and that saddens and scares me.
This is my point as well, I totally agree!
The reason I am posting on this thread is because I see most of the people here expressing they anger through violence, and that saddens and scares me.
datarat
Reply #71 Friday, September 14, 2001 4:33 PM
Reply #71 Friday, September 14, 2001 4:33 PM
Mariuss:
Your doctrine of non- or limited-violence is simply wrong. You're speaking from the point of view of someone who believes this violence to be wrong, and think that if the causes of this hatred are addressed then the violence will stop.
In the view of these Muslim fanatics we are not evil because of what we've done, we're evil because of what we are. We've sided with Israel and for that simple reason must be destroyed. Changing that will not change the attitude, because we are still infidels whose government is not ruled by Islam.
In many interviews Osama bin Laden has criticized his own home of Saudi Arabia because the government does not prevent evil behaviour like drinking. This is one of his main themes, and he blames the US for SA's policy on this. He hates his home for the respect that women are beginning to receive, as the Koran tells him that women are meant to serve their husbands.
Do you see that this has less to do with policy than it does with ideology? As Americans we strive (not always successfully) to secure freedoms in many ways. In the fanatical Islamic culture every aspect of life is overseen by your knowledge of scripture, and if you're unsure you must consult an elder to interpret for you. These views are diametrically opposed.
It takes two to make peace, but only 1 to make war. Nothing we can do will secure us, short of eradicating the threat. I'm sorry, but this is basic human nature.
Your doctrine of non- or limited-violence is simply wrong. You're speaking from the point of view of someone who believes this violence to be wrong, and think that if the causes of this hatred are addressed then the violence will stop.
In the view of these Muslim fanatics we are not evil because of what we've done, we're evil because of what we are. We've sided with Israel and for that simple reason must be destroyed. Changing that will not change the attitude, because we are still infidels whose government is not ruled by Islam.
In many interviews Osama bin Laden has criticized his own home of Saudi Arabia because the government does not prevent evil behaviour like drinking. This is one of his main themes, and he blames the US for SA's policy on this. He hates his home for the respect that women are beginning to receive, as the Koran tells him that women are meant to serve their husbands.
Do you see that this has less to do with policy than it does with ideology? As Americans we strive (not always successfully) to secure freedoms in many ways. In the fanatical Islamic culture every aspect of life is overseen by your knowledge of scripture, and if you're unsure you must consult an elder to interpret for you. These views are diametrically opposed.
It takes two to make peace, but only 1 to make war. Nothing we can do will secure us, short of eradicating the threat. I'm sorry, but this is basic human nature.
noneofurbusiness
Reply #72 Saturday, September 15, 2001 4:18 PM
Reply #72 Saturday, September 15, 2001 4:18 PM
################################################
He hates his home for the respect that women are beginning to receive, as the Koran tells him that women are meant to serve their husbands.
#################################################
Women being submissive is in almost all religions. Take this guy and his camp out. You will only do a favor to all. Being Mosmel I know this guy should be punished by the people around him. Instead, they are lawding him. This will be a favor to all including Moslems.
He hates his home for the respect that women are beginning to receive, as the Koran tells him that women are meant to serve their husbands.
#################################################
Women being submissive is in almost all religions. Take this guy and his camp out. You will only do a favor to all. Being Mosmel I know this guy should be punished by the people around him. Instead, they are lawding him. This will be a favor to all including Moslems.
noneofurbusiness
Reply #73 Saturday, September 15, 2001 4:42 PM
Reply #73 Saturday, September 15, 2001 4:42 PM
Correction:
*Mosmel
Moslem
I had family friends killed in that attack. And I'm not gonna get over this soon.
*Mosmel
Moslem
I had family friends killed in that attack. And I'm not gonna get over this soon.
mariuss
Reply #74 Saturday, September 15, 2001 7:40 PM
Reply #74 Saturday, September 15, 2001 7:40 PM
datarat,
Yes, it takes two for peace and one for war.
Yes, dim Laden is a monster.
So you go to war against Afghanistan. You will use Pakistan as a base. After hundreds of thousand killed through bombings and starvation, you will be satisfied (with or without killing bim Laden). After you leave there is going to be a war for many years between Afghanistan and Pakistan, more killed. At the end there will be millions dislocated, with their lives destroyed. Now you can turn to the families of the 5000 victims from New York and tell them: you are revenged, you should feel much better now.
As for those millions, all are potential terrorists.
So what do you achieve? You just proved that you are the toughest gorilla in the jungle. Because other than satisfying your ego, you do nothing. As somebody else mentioned here, eventually you will have to nuke the whole planet to get rid of terrorists. I hope that there is another way.
If you really care about those 5000 victims, and not your ego, then you won't be so hasty to kill again.
As for bim Laden, after all he was trained by CIA and he was a business partner of your leaders for many years (same story with Sadam). As long as he serves your interests he's fine. When he turns against you he suddenly becomes a monster. Well, he was a monster all along, but he terrorized some other people and probably he was called a partisan at that time.
Yes, it takes two for peace and one for war.
Yes, dim Laden is a monster.
So you go to war against Afghanistan. You will use Pakistan as a base. After hundreds of thousand killed through bombings and starvation, you will be satisfied (with or without killing bim Laden). After you leave there is going to be a war for many years between Afghanistan and Pakistan, more killed. At the end there will be millions dislocated, with their lives destroyed. Now you can turn to the families of the 5000 victims from New York and tell them: you are revenged, you should feel much better now.
As for those millions, all are potential terrorists.
So what do you achieve? You just proved that you are the toughest gorilla in the jungle. Because other than satisfying your ego, you do nothing. As somebody else mentioned here, eventually you will have to nuke the whole planet to get rid of terrorists. I hope that there is another way.
If you really care about those 5000 victims, and not your ego, then you won't be so hasty to kill again.
As for bim Laden, after all he was trained by CIA and he was a business partner of your leaders for many years (same story with Sadam). As long as he serves your interests he's fine. When he turns against you he suddenly becomes a monster. Well, he was a monster all along, but he terrorized some other people and probably he was called a partisan at that time.
Luis AV
Reply #75 Saturday, September 15, 2001 8:42 PM
Reply #75 Saturday, September 15, 2001 8:42 PM
JUST IN A FEW MONTHS OR EVEN DAYS WE WILL BE AT WAR . WHO KNOW MIGHT THIS BE THE END OF THE WORLD. AFHGANISTAN IS THE TARGET NOW KNOWN BUT THE ENEMY IS NOT. BIN LADEN IS SURE A CRAZY MAN TO US. BUT DO WE KNOW THAT THAT TERRORIST MIGHT BEFORE WE ATTACK HIM OR THOSE WHO SUPPORT TERRORIST ACTIONS ATTACK U.S.A. AGAIN. BIN LADEN HAS CURRENTLY ABOUT 300 MILLION DOLLARS BUT HE OFTENLY LIVES IN CAVERNS AND EATS VERY LITTLE. HE HAS MEN THAT ARE PROBABLY VERY WELL TRAINED AND ARE WILLING TO DIE JUST TO KILL THOUSANDS OF THEIR ENEMYS. THIS WILL BE THE BIGGEST WAR IN HISTORY OF MAN BUT IT WILL NOT BE THE LAST I REGRET. I HAVE FEAR THAT EVERYTHING WILL BE DESTROYED AND THAT PEOPLE INNOCENT HAVE TO PAY THE CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT SINNERS HAVE DONE.
WELL THAT IS ALL I HAD TO SAY.
AND I HOPE THE VICTIMS DON'T HAVE TO SUFFER. AND THE ONES THAT DIED R.I.P.
WELL THAT IS ALL I HAD TO SAY.
AND I HOPE THE VICTIMS DON'T HAVE TO SUFFER. AND THE ONES THAT DIED R.I.P.
Frogboy
Reply #76 Saturday, September 15, 2001 9:59 PM
Reply #76 Saturday, September 15, 2001 9:59 PM
Marius, your ignorance is astonishing. Bin Laden was not a US partner at any time. He was part of the rebel force fighting the Soviet Union in the 80s and that force received US aid but we didn't train them to murder civilians, we trained them how to defend their homeland from foreign military invaders.
Before commenting in the future mariuss, I suggest you get more informed on the issues.
Before commenting in the future mariuss, I suggest you get more informed on the issues.
mariuss
Reply #77 Saturday, September 15, 2001 10:32 PM
Reply #77 Saturday, September 15, 2001 10:32 PM
Frogboy,
What exactly is the difference between training to kill civilians and training a rebel force? As I said, at that time he was a partisan/rebel, now he is a terrorist. Because you were at war with the soviets (cold war) and you did not want to get involved directly you pushed others to do it for you.
All this is history now, why do I bring it up? We are all concerned with what happened recently and if we want to solve it we have to look at the root of the problem and not to the symptoms. In my opinion the root is the inequity in today's world and the symptom is terrorism. Probably you have to deal with the worst symptom first, but if you ignore the real problem then the symptom will just get back.
What exactly is the difference between training to kill civilians and training a rebel force? As I said, at that time he was a partisan/rebel, now he is a terrorist. Because you were at war with the soviets (cold war) and you did not want to get involved directly you pushed others to do it for you.
All this is history now, why do I bring it up? We are all concerned with what happened recently and if we want to solve it we have to look at the root of the problem and not to the symptoms. In my opinion the root is the inequity in today's world and the symptom is terrorism. Probably you have to deal with the worst symptom first, but if you ignore the real problem then the symptom will just get back.
SSL_tin
Reply #78 Sunday, September 16, 2001 7:13 AM
Reply #78 Sunday, September 16, 2001 7:13 AM
Sorry, but I can't hold it within...
What the?!..
What war are you talking about? Wasn't it the US who continuosly said that the best way to deal with terorists is negotiations, not war?! US tried to convince Russia that it mus NEGOTIATE with chechens -- and now, even when the enemy is not clear -- US PREPARES FOR WAR?!
God...
Maybe US prepares for something, but I can't call it a WAR. When you answer for terrorism by bombing some countries -- it ALSO IS THE TERRORISM.
Therefore, America prepares for terrorism, not war.
What the?!..
What war are you talking about? Wasn't it the US who continuosly said that the best way to deal with terorists is negotiations, not war?! US tried to convince Russia that it mus NEGOTIATE with chechens -- and now, even when the enemy is not clear -- US PREPARES FOR WAR?!
God...
Maybe US prepares for something, but I can't call it a WAR. When you answer for terrorism by bombing some countries -- it ALSO IS THE TERRORISM.
Therefore, America prepares for terrorism, not war.
SSL_tin
Reply #79 Sunday, September 16, 2001 7:15 AM
Reply #79 Sunday, September 16, 2001 7:15 AM
By the way, Frogboy...
Maybe it is YOU who must dig for information...
I AM from Russia, and what Marius says it complete truth.
US Trained Taliban and was preparing it for terrorism acts in Afgan and Russia.
What facts do you need? Numbers? Give me two days and number will be presented to you.
Should I?
Maybe it is YOU who must dig for information...
I AM from Russia, and what Marius says it complete truth.
US Trained Taliban and was preparing it for terrorism acts in Afgan and Russia.
What facts do you need? Numbers? Give me two days and number will be presented to you.
Should I?
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 4 of 4 | |
|
|---|
Reply #61 Friday, September 14, 2001 9:52 AM
It is _paxx_ only, who understand the US policy -- bomb Jugoslavia (hiting chinese embassy) for it's inner affairs, support terrorist (thinking the guns will never be turned against US), planning the leveling of Afgan (or maybe Palestina) thinking the terrorists are somwhere in there.
Don't you all see the difference? There is no difference.
Bye.