I see your point and I think it’s valid. I’ll disagree but both sides have merit.
With regards to the New Yorkers seeing things different, it’s just the way it is. Much like your analogy of being a boxer, until you have experienced an attack on your city, twice, it’s hard to understand how it makes you feel.
I think New Yorkers and NJ residents will put up with more inconvenience due to the melting pot nature of the city and the fact that it is in the symbolic crosshairs of the enemy. We get searched at bridges, tunnels, buildings and now the subway. We fully expect to get hit again and if it is a WMD, I’m pretty sure that NYC, DC or maybe LA are going to be the epicenter of the assault rather then some of the other less densely populated states.
[quote]AZMojo wrote:
Thanls for the assist Neph. That is the essence of what I was saying.
To Snipeout,
Let me extend your metaphor. As a former Army and Golden Gloves boxer, I feel as qualified as anyone to speak about getting punched in the face. The worst thing you can do in that situation is panic and lose your cool. It gives your opponent an advantage. That’s exactly what this country did after 9/11. We got sucker-punched and totally freaked out, without assessing the real danger or the best way to fight it. Now look at the mess we’re in.
People like the woman who wrote the series of articles discussed above, and conveniently now a book, only perpetuate the problem. We don’t know the reality of the situation, only her perception of it, so let’s not rush to take what she says as gospel.
And this is where I touch a nerve, but I need to get it off my chest.
I’m a little tired of people from the tri-state area telling everybody they don’t understand because they weren’t there. Enough already! We get it, you smelled the smoke.
The entire nation felt the pain of that day, not just New Yorkers. Try to remember that the soldiers who are dying because of 9/11 are from all over the U.S., not just NY. Please consider that you may be speaking to somebody who lost a son or brother in Iraq next time you start spouting off about how we don’t get it.
[/quote]
I’m glad to hear that you served in the Army and boxed golden gloves. I speak from experience having done 6 years in the Army and being deployed multiple times. If you think we overreacted you are crazy. My “don’t get understand it” refers back to many other posts, on how most people outside of this area(NYC and DC) have a totally different view on sacrificing insignificant little freedoms for a little more security. Terrorism is very realistic from the Lincoln tunnel, Holland tunnel, Brooklyn Bridge, The subway system, Baltimore Harbor tunnel to the nations capital. I’m sorry if you lost a loved one in Iraq or Afghanistan. You being in Arizona and probably having never been in the WTC before they collapsed you don’t truly understand how real the threat is and that it’s not something that happens in the Gaza strip. I myself am a little tired of people who were nowhere the City when the towers were hit stating “you can’t live in fear because an attack may happen” BULLSHIT!! Easily said from Arizona or Indiana or Idaho. Try having family members in the Towers when they were hit, or family members who travel the subway daily. Then you might actually realize how real terrorism is. As for your Military comparison, I have news for you pal, just like me when I signed the contract way back in '95 these people volunteeres and should have known what they were in for. I support our troops and the military 100%, but your number one job as a soldier, marine, airman, or seaman is to protect this country against all enemys foreign and domestic.
I’m glad to hear that you served in the Army and boxed golden gloves. I speak from experience having done 6 years in the Army and being deployed multiple times. If you think we overreacted you are crazy. My “don’t get understand it” refers back to many other posts, on how most people outside of this area(NYC and DC) have a totally different view on sacrificing insignificant little freedoms for a little more security.
Which of your freedoms do you consider insignificant?
Terrorism is very realistic from the Lincoln tunnel, Holland tunnel, Brooklyn Bridge, The subway system, Baltimore Harbor tunnel to the nations capital. I’m sorry if you lost a loved one in Iraq or Afghanistan. You being in Arizona and probably having never been in the WTC before they collapsed you don’t truly understand how real the threat is and that it’s not something that happens in the Gaza strip.
There you go again, talking before thinking. Like most Arizonans, I’m not a not native. I lived in South River for 12 years, and yes I have been to the WTC. I am not saying that 9/11 wasn’t unique. I saying it was, that’s why the overreaction.
I myself am a little tired of people who were nowhere the City when the towers were hit stating “you can’t live in fear because an attack may happen” BULLSHIT!! Easily said from Arizona or Indiana or Idaho.
I live 20 miles from one of the largest nuke plants in the country. Many also consider this a potential target, since Phoenix does have like 3 million people. We’re not exactly a sleepy little ghost town. Contrary to what I know you believe, the entire universe does not revolve around NYC.
Try having family members in the Towers when they were hit, or family members who travel the subway daily. Then you might actually realize how real terrorism is.
I’m not saying terrorism isn’t “real”, I’m saying the threat is overstated. I’ve known people killed in drive by shootings, but I don’t walk around afraid it’s going to happen to me, because I know the odds are it won’t.
As for your Military comparison, I have news for you pal, just like me when I signed the contract way back in '95 these people volunteeres and should have known what they were in for. I support our troops and the military 100%, but your number one job as a soldier, marine, airman, or seaman is to protect this country against all enemys foreign and domestic.
–and imagined? You think that makes it easier on their families. [/quote]
[quote]nephorm wrote:
doogie wrote:
The difference between the occasional dumb redneck and actual Islamic terrorists is that the Islamic terrorists think God wants them to destroy everyone who is not Islamic. Rednecks just get pissed every so often and do something stupid. God doesn’t tell them to do it.[/quote]
Well, apparently God did tell Bush to attack Iraq, correct?
Terrorism is imagined now? Pre-Iraq war we as a country didn’t believe Hussein to be a genuine threat to America? Hell even the incompetent Clinton admin recognized Iraq as a threat.
Former United Nations weapons inspector and Marine Scott Ritter appeared on The Alex Jones Show and stated that he wouldn’t rule out the possibility of the Bush administration staging a terror attack in order to jolt a wavering foreign policy agenda back on track.
[/quote]
Funny… I could have swore that was what the first attack was…
Act one, scene one: the first plane hits, drawing all eyes around the globe to the World trade center…
Act one, scene two: after all media has been given enough time to “set up”, plane two hits for all the world to see the dastardly deed done to the US on LIVE television. (picture moustashe twisting and the girl tied to the train tracks, except since this is Hollywood of the 21st century, the girl gets run over leaving a bloddy mess).
In this movie though, the hero doesn’t show up until after all the damage has been done. Some viewers would say, “Gee, our hero has just received loss and devistation so far beyond comparison or comprehension, so a wrathful vengance is to be expected. I suppose he’s entitled to it.”
Hindsight being what it is, the “holes in the pentagon” are starting to show.
There have already been other government organized attacks. I wouldn’t doubt every “attack” since 9/11 is just that. Why have another attack in your own country, when attacks in others breed the same fear and consumption at home. Are you not concerned about your own wealfare when your neibhour or a co-worker gets robbed? Makes ya want to buy another deadbolt, dosen’t it? Why not just move to a different color of alert?
Former United Nations weapons inspector and Marine Scott Ritter appeared on The Alex Jones Show and stated that he wouldn’t rule out the possibility of the Bush administration staging a terror attack in order to jolt a wavering foreign policy agenda back on track.
Funny… I could have swore that was what the first attack was…
Act one, scene one: the first plane hits, drawing all eyes around the globe to the World trade center…
Act one, scene two: after all media has been given enough time to “set up”, plane two hits for all the world to see the dastardly deed done to the US on LIVE television. (picture moustashe twisting and the girl tied to the train tracks, except since this is Hollywood of the 21st century, the girl gets run over leaving a bloddy mess).
In this movie though, the hero doesn’t show up until after all the damage has been done. Some viewers would say, “Gee, our hero has just received loss and devistation so far beyond comparison or comprehension, so a wrathful vengance is to be expected. I suppose he’s entitled to it.”
Hindsight being what it is, the “holes in the pentagon” are starting to show.
There have already been other government organized attacks. I wouldn’t doubt every “attack” since 9/11 is just that. Why have another attack in your own country, when attacks in others breed the same fear and consumption at home. Are you not concerned about your own wealfare when your neibhour or a co-worker gets robbed? Makes ya want to buy another deadbolt, dosen’t it? Why not just move to a different color of alert?
Iraq a threat? Too whom? The kurds maybe, but not the U.S… Discoveries, or lack thereof, after the invasion have pretty much confirmed that. Everybody knows that Bush had a hard-on for Iraq all along and 9/11 provided an easy way to justify attacking them, even if it involved a lot of smoke up the American wazoo.
Afghanistan is another matter. I do believe their regime was a legitimate terror threat, and our retaliation justified. Our attack on them yielded much better results, as far as capturing of killing terrorists is concerned. How many known active terrorists have been caught or killed in Iraq? Just because they’re arabs doesn’t make them terrorists.
Please stop kidding yourself about Iraq. It’s embarassing.
Oh, and if you want tinfoil hat material, consider this:
Some speculate that we shot down the plane over PA on 9/11. It’s crash was not caused by the heroic acts of a few passengers, but an F-16. They say the debris field was spread over too wide an area for a ground impact, some was found several miles away. This is not consistant with past debris fields caused by impact, i.e PAN-AM in Scotland.
No al qaeda in Iraq, your definitely right there too, al zarqawi must be a figment of someones imagination. Oh yeah and it was US launched missiles that hit the Pentagon and demo teams that took down the WTC’s… My god you sound like a liberal Bush hating fucktard.
I could waste hours pointing out how ignorant you are and how your actually part of the problem in this world, let alone country, but what would that accomplish? You’re clearly not into rational thought.
So, just sit in bed with the covers pulled up to your eyes waiting for the next attack.
Hey, maybe we’ll kill all those arab bastards anyway. Then you’ll never have to worry about anything again, right?
Terrorism is the new Communism, a boogeyman. Once we kill enough innocent people and leave enough countries in ruin, we’ll move on to a new “ism” and start the cycle all over again. Thanks for helping perpetuate it.
I’m not implying that 9/11 was orchestrated by our government or anything crazy like that, but it couldn’t have come at a more convenient time for the Bush administration.
“Of course the people don’t want war. But after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. 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.”
– Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
If the US government faked 9/11 in order to attack Iraq, why didn’t they just blame Iraq instead of Bin Laden and al Qaeda?
The complete and utter lack of logic from the lunatic fring is staggering.
Of course lack of logic on the lunatic fringe is expected, otherwise they wouldn’t be lunatics.[/quote]
The Republicans couldn’t just attack Iraq, because of their own political posturing. In the inital months of their new office, the government couldn’t stop patting themselves on the back for how well they were handeling Iraq, and how they had effectivly removed all the WOMD, and how Saddam was no longer a threat (ad nausium). If America had attacked them immidiately, many people would have formed a collective “HuH?” right off the bat.
By making an “evil” link to Osama, it gave for an “out” on the previous statements. Essentailly “Boy, that tricky Saddam had us all duped! Guess we better show him!”
The lies were good enough to last till now. Now look at the mess with Carl Rove… the new lies don’t have the same effect, since so many people are waking up.
I think the funniest thing of all this is that you and I probably would get along fairly well if we ever met in person, we just differ on this issue.
Back in '99 while in the Balkans(yugoslavia, kosovo, albania and montenegro) we had an intel briefing that centered around al-qaeda operatives meeting Iraqi intelligence agents. Although I never saw it, the CIA agents at the time assured us it was going on in Belgrade and Serbian dominated enclaves in Kosovo. I know alot of you won’t believe what I wrote but I don’t care, I really just wanted to clarify that there was definitely belief by our side as far back as '99 that these two sides were getting together. This is my first hand experience not a story. Let me make it clear, I did not witness it.
[quote]Papa wrote:
…
I think the funniest thing of all this is that you and I probably would get along fairly well if we ever met in person, we just differ on this issue.
[/quote]
I suspect you are right. I don’t let politics get in the way of friendship.
This forum is actually one of the few safe outlets for political opinion.
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
As many of you on here have figured out, I am all for political correctness when it comes to respect for others, but when it is put above the health and safety of the people, then enough is enough! Use some common sense! If you have passengers doing suspicious things like this, then every passenger on the plane should have a free pass to stomp the shit out of them![/quote]
My thoughts exactly. The shoe bomber got stomped and he was a big dude. IMHO the passengers are the reason another incident hasn’t occured in the skies since 9/11. Until armed air marshals can be on every flight (won’t happen), we’re on our own. I don’t believe racial profiling is right but if I’m on a plane and see someone of Middle Eastern descent, I would definitely keep my eye on them.
It’s unfortunate for the many Middle Eastern passengers who are upstanding citizens but until some 90 year old Grandma hijacks a plane, what are you supposed to do? Furthermore, this is exactly why we need to finish our jobs in Iraq & Afghanistan. Then we need to make sure Syria, Iran, and all the other terrorist harboring countries are on our short list of countries to liberate.
[quote]snipeout wrote:
No al qaeda in Iraq, your definitely right there too, al zarqawi must be a figment of someones imagination. Oh yeah and it was US launched missiles that hit the Pentagon and demo teams that took down the WTC’s… My god you sound like a liberal Bush hating fucktard.[/quote]
Dude, you sound like a fucktard. I, and many others have never denied Al Qaeda was in Iraq or any of the middle-eastern countries for that matter. A scapegoat has to be real for it to work, dumbass. Fibbing your parents should have talught you that any lie is more beleavable if it’s based in truths.
By the way, it sounds like your conservatives have been “Bush hating” too, ever since he tried to put his “grandma” on the supreme court. Your beeing spoon fed and you don’t even know it. There’s four stages to learning my frend, and you are stuck in stage one: unconscious incompetence.
[quote]Papa wrote:
snipeout wrote:
No al qaeda in Iraq, your definitely right there too, al zarqawi must be a figment of someones imagination. Oh yeah and it was US launched missiles that hit the Pentagon and demo teams that took down the WTC’s… My god you sound like a liberal Bush hating fucktard.
Dude, you sound like a fucktard. I, and many others have never denied Al Qaeda was in Iraq or any of the middle-eastern countries for that matter. A scapegoat has to be real for it to work, dumbass. Fibbing your parents should have talught you that any lie is more beleavable if it’s based in truths.
By the way, it sounds like your conservatives have been “Bush hating” too, ever since he tried to put his “grandma” on the supreme court. Your beeing spoon fed and you don’t even know it. There’s four stages to learning my frend, and you are stuck in stage one: unconscious incompetence. [/quote]
Spoken like a true liberal. I know when I’ve gotten to you when all you have is to call me a dumbass. By the way, since your little country has nothing to do with Iraq and you do little to stop the flow of terrorism why don’t you NOT worry what MY President and MY country due in response to 9/11 and terrorism.
[quote]giblet wrote:
You can do all the research you want but the bottom line is that there has always been and always will be a chance for 9/11.[/quote]
I think the next one is scheduled between September 10 and 12, 2006.