Observations of 9/11

RDAdams > I am proud to be a Canadian.

:-))        meaning, I like that, person proud
For me however, it can make it less proud to be an earthling
My satisfaction level increased when the initial reaction to WTC was not just an american thing, it was global, where people who want to be human do not want to live in a world where that can happen, becoming a generalized moment of silence unrequested, the reaction was just that, it happened, people did without having to be told.

knightEknight >  none of them had put out their flags, which is unusual

Exactly. A little quiet, in the sense of too quiet, ringing memories of SW and the Empire destroying entire planet. Something got too quiet, and that speaks loudly. I can flame those who put up an unusually large flag (illegal) on every used car for sale. I prefer giving favor however to such 'neighbour' unknown to me. There are differnt forms of reaction, where a not putting out flag can be one decided upon, or one may think it time to either raise to half mast or to decide to raise it upside down. I give benefit of doubt and allow that even negligence can reflect pride.

JoeZ430 > Everything was very silent

Thank you                           [confirmation]

> I started to follow  .. All of the news reporters went .. I was glued ..

I mostly ditto/clone all that comment. I was not glued so enduringly, get bored quick, and most of initial stuff later was trash, but I'd gotten up for a drink and noticed some little clusters of people standing around here and there. Listening in here and there, mostly work talk. Normal. My brain said looks normal, is not. What is difference. Over in a corner someone had a tiny tv set up, black & white, sound on low. No one really standing around watching, except I don't give a hoot, and don't watch tv, so I was one stood and watched, let 'em come and flame me. So for what I saw live, I do must lay flame to reporter. The reporter supposedly powerful and famous, one peter jennings was talking os wtc#1 and ten was moving on to talk of pentagon, and got very heated to point of foul language flaming the staff for not putting up the pentagon film. Most times probably splitting the screen in half vertically so we had to watch his pretty face on half, wtc on other. Potential being to split half to wtc live and half to pentagon, but no text to click to tell which is which. I was one not liking him for wanting to switch a view I wanted to watch, and insulted at his impolite curtness on the air. I was watching a plane approaching the buildings. Probably a rerun of what they were talking about. No it cannot be, for one building was afire, so where'd that other plane come from, some other form of split screen? Whazzup wid dat?

Answer was that someone else let the show run its course, got jennings out of the way and wtc went full screen as I watched #2 coming in live and found self going more 'silent'.

On more intellectual or analytical note, the issue became one of reporter talking about what had happened, from historical perspective of earlier happenings, using prepared notes, contrasted to what is happening 'live' and 'news'. When unable to cope with reality he blew his cool on live international telecast. Do with that what you will. I chose to not watch him thereafter, which would be a form of boycott, except I never really watched him before either.

> the solution to defeat

I disagree, thinking there is more to it. I do agree to witness such talk in others, but not for some time, more like days than minutes or even hours. My memory says it just got quiet and stayed that way for a long time, an event that really stands out compared to others before and since. About the only think coming nearest were stories of JFK assassination, but that was more american reaction - everything so quiet. He symbolized idealism and people could be idealistic and agree with him or disagree with him. But assassination? Not acceptable, none wanting to live in such a world where their own leaders can be treated like that. It all got so quiet.

This btw is I think 'officially' called symptom of 'shock', or of being in shock.

TEFKASG > The effect on my life has been negligible, since I'm not in the military

Bottom line I think is I agree. I have not adapted so much in life as result, such as treatment of locks on doors. Adaptations of others has impacted me, generally as anti-terror acts of government takes my contributions to find more things offensive about me, and those who were never military stepped up attempts to prove they be better by their (mis)treatment of vets.

JoeZ430 > I believe America still has the ability to come together

"I'm from Missouri, show me". I am reminded of talk earlier tody on how Alexander was such a great leader, regretfully none so great since. If talk is right, someone like that could come in handy for us all.

> already demonstrated our ability to do this.

or demonstrated ability to be had (gullible)

> I'm not looking for a debate.  I want to hear about your observations regarding this event, on the effect it has had

The prior from me, and possbibly leading to potential debate, but I did not want to only dodge the personal aspect of question. For more gatherings of observations, my preference remains to relay what I have oberved about observances of others, a little different, the rest is not my POV, but collected from people who while not on the scene, were intimate with those who were - not the planes but the neighborhood, ground zero
------------------------
Actually, coworkers were found to be around ground zero, about five were on travel, on ground, but had been at least five blocks away, and had maybe even began to leave the city before the event. Of them, no real news to report then or since, other than a 'safe and sound' report back when.

Person today tells me "you ready? you know what today is" - i figure I am not awake yet. So I find out they are and will be depressed it is the worst day, most depressing day of year.

One of the New Yorkers, family rooted well there, one sibling a firefighter, other on police force. None on scene for initial contact at ground zero, both with duty and work ethic to get there and - well you should know the rest of that part of story, pretty typical, basically people just doing their job. Were it anyone else it could be considered heroic, yadda yadda. So you get the picture. Now here is what I am told are obervations of impact today: depressed. Still having those memories or not knowing. Knowing family had gone in to battle the thing, then minute by minute, hour after hour, the days drag on - not knowing. Nothing. For about a week. After nearly a week word got out that all were alive, among the living, not to worry, but not until much later, well over a week, before they could connect, and from just sound of voice, know to not worry. End result of some physical damage, not too debilitating (yet) but main remnant of event was then and remains through all anniversaries of just ... the not knowing.

Quiet.

I do not get the anniversary thing, memory is memory regardless one's astrological pov. My memory remains that the event was global in impact - a 'world' center, habited by peoples from around the world. This is quite different than situation regarding Pentagon. If only it was pentagon, it would be american event. WTC raised it to world event, and I think that came with the collision(s), not with the collapse and the countings. A subsequent observation, including here in EE is that Some of our friends in Europe only, are referring to this as a US event, sorry it happened to US, all those US casualties, etc., focus on US and its right (or not) to strike back. My sorrow is to not acknowledge too that it was not just americans who suffered and died. I do not recall suc claim of (only) US event from those on other continents.

I may have read too much, seen too many movies, been in too many defense 'exercises'. The first after-events (pundits/talking faces) had it that US got caught with pants down, no one on earth could have guessed such a thing could ever happen. (are these dudes really that dumb, that inept?)  Among my first gripes with that admin was their treating me as being too ignorant and naive and gullible. But they may be right. I missed the 1st plane landing, dunno on a that, I had no word on that, then as I watched the second one gradually making its approach to land I looked. It approached closer. I looked. The plane landed. I wondered still. Where is the vapor trail of the heat seeking missile? Not caught on camera at all. go figure.

Fear is and was non-issue to me, and seems unrelated to lives of others, or if it was that was only temporary or minor issue comparatively. Some react even now with a "nuke 'em, nuke 'em all", but I still think (hope) it is not thought of very many.

Other than that I ditto Graphixer. especially the part about having a holiday from 9-11, part of frustrations of people is they just want to change what is their daily 'news'.

I don't think there is a " nuke them all" attitude with most people. I think most of us would like to see an end to the radicals of Islam with their twisted views. This isn't just an American problem, but a worldwide issue. There is still a fear with me.. If I were to go fly somewhere and I noticed a few young Muslim guys grouped together, I'm going to be watching them.

I don't have a problem with the non radical Muslims. These good Muslims need to come out more to control what is going on with their religion. In some cases where they have polled young American Muslim's views, they seem disturbing. For instance, over 20 % of young Muslims living in America believe instances of suicide bombings are justifiable!?

That's a very weird outlook.

BobSiemens has made an interesting point regarding American pride, and JoeZ430 has actually defined that point more precisely.  Everyone please continue.

While I agree with those last four comments, <er> then again I like 'wierd' and even to point to like 'radical', and 'crazy', so I'd prefer some other descriptor conveying my meaning, such as 'whacko', just not wanting to insult or be thought of as flaming too many too much. For example, does anyone really look to such people you do not know, example of OBL, as 'radical'? As conservative or as liberal? What does being on a power trip have to do with measuring godly beliefs, consider the takeover of Iran by so-called radicals, just ending up by replacing one despot with another despot.

Oh, another comment:

>  Everyone please continue.

I had more but reluctant to dominate, or be too much in dead thread, so given comment, an interim quickie here, not of own expereince but for relatives of people to those telling tales:

There were direct victims of event, some died, some lived. Much money directed to help.victims. Initially those still alive provided medical assistance.

In interim between event and today, the moneys were not divided evenly, but taken solely by the relatives of the dead. Those who survived and continue to suffer, increasingly so, by now, got cut from any aid for medical assistance, and some of those civil servants are no longer so gainfully employed.

Reminds one of the treatment of disabled vets post-event

I'm not at all embarrassed to tell anyone that I am an American.  This isn't to say that everything my country has done is good -- clearly we have made some huge blunders in our short history.  But all-in-all we are a great people and a good nation that has done more for the advancement of good in the world than any other nation or people.  That isn't bragging, it is just an acknowledgement of the obvious.

<<<That's a very weird outlook.>>>

We went from a nation where France's biggest newspaper had the headline "We are all New Yorkers" to a nation where we send people to other nations to be tortured to death.

As I have mentioned before, your main news source is, essentially, propaganda.


Look at the opinions of other nations: http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=247

Look at how hugely that opinion has changed in just 5 years.

Favorable Opinion of the U.S. in 2000 -> 2005:

Canada: 71% -> 59%
Britain: 83% -> 55%
Turkey: 52% -> 23%

Look at how we are ranked as favorable by other nations in comparison with China:

Canada: about the same
French, Germans, Spanish, Dutch, Russia: WORSE

This is CHINA!  More than half of our allies in Britain think worse of us than CHINA!  Except for the fact that we are running out of allies, this would be cause for us to demonize England (Freedom Muffins instead of English Muffins).

For some stupid, stupid, stupid reason, people in the United States think that their evaluation of what is going on is infinitely more acute than people from other nations.

Your opinion is COMPLETELY inconsistent with the international opinion.  Mine is not.

Your opinion isn't regarded as "weird" in the United States.  It should be.  That's embarrassing.  


Something has gone very, very, very, very wrong in five years.  The world agrees with me.

OBL is a Radical along with the other people involved with his atrocious operations. We need to look at this outside of the box. Who initiated the violence, war, and hate mongering? Do you think it was America? Could it be the terrorists themselves? There have been a number of attacks that were conducted against the USA pre 9/11 which people tend to forget about. These attacks weren't only orchestrated against the USA, but Israel as well. Radical Islam has sent a clear message to the West, and they continue to do so.

Should we stand by like nothing is happening? We should be fearful, being fearful is a good thing for Americans at this point. America's security will be tighter because people are fearful of another attack. More people will be aware of pin point signs of somebody acting in suspicious activity.

<<<I'm not at all embarrassed to tell anyone that I am an American.  This isn't to say that everything my country has done is good -- clearly we have made some huge blunders in our short history.  But all-in-all we are a great people and a good nation that has done more for the advancement of good in the world than any other nation or people.  That isn't bragging, it is just an acknowledgment of the obvious.>>>

When a nation like Sudan or Columbia makes huge immoral blunders, I look at them and say "Yep, that's screwed up".  I set the bar higher for my country.

I agree "we are a great people and a good nation that has done more for the advancement of good in the world".  That makes the last five years seem that much more disgusting.  

Lately we have been aggressive in promoting superstition in schools, torturing people, breaking international laws, killing people, demonizing other nations that disagree with us, framing other nations, betraying our own government officials, ....

We have been a good nation.  Then, after 9/11 and Bush, we made a 180° turn.

If you aren't appalled, you haven't been paying attention.

Leave it to Bitter Bob to come in and start a fight.

<<Lately we have been aggressive in promoting superstition in schools, torturing people, breaking international laws, killing people, demonizing other nations that disagree with us, framing other nations, betraying our own government officials, ....>

This sounds like Iran you are talking about.

How do Fox News watchers explain our drop in favorability ratings over the last 5 years???

Canada: 12% drop
Britain: 28% drop
France: 19% drop
Germany: 37% drop
Spain: 9% drop
Indonesia: 37% drop

The only solid rise in favorability is from the nation to whom we export our good jobs: India 17% RISE


My answer is simple: Duh!  We've been doing very badly since Bush took over.

What is yours?

==============================

Here's the PR line:  If someone disagrees with us, pretend they are evil:

Freedom Fries, "Old Europe", corrupt UN, ....

That dog don't hunt.

<<<This sounds like Iran you are talking about.>>>

Very good point.  You and I agree about the very bad nature of Iranian government.  Yes, lately we become a lot more like Iran.  Iran's govenment is stifled under religion.  It lies.  It is aggressive.  It defies international moral standards.  It is belligerent.  

This is the direction that we are moving.  This is my objection.

I don't know about Fox News watchers, but I'm not concerned how the nations of the world choose to mis-perceive us.  They, like you, are entitled to hold unfounded views of this country and what it stand for and the good it is trying to do -- mistakes not withstanding.

Well, if you have big leftist media outlets slandering America along with liberal politicians, then yes I'm pretty sure other people are going to start hating America.

<<My answer is simple: Duh!  We've been doing very badly since Bush took over.>>

My answer is: OBL orchestrated a massive terrorist attack against our country, and the countries you have listed above have huge Muslim populations. If you give out a poll to all Muslims about our Middle Eastern presence, I'm pretty sure you would already know what the answer is going to be. As much as I would love to not have any presence at all in the Middle East, I'm pretty convinced it is needed in the region, because rogue nations in the surrounding areas don't know how to behave themselves.

<<<Leave it to Bitter Bob to come in and start a fight.>>>

This is not a fight.  I present the views of American allies to you.  

Thankfully, America has started to come to its senses and agrees more and more with my position.  

>>Leave it to Bitter Bob to come in and start a fight.

kEk, I am curious about your statement.  Could you explain it to me?  Where is it that Bob is starting this fight?  (And please, I just want the explanation.  There is no need for anyone to further respond to this explanation.)

>>This sounds like Iran you are talking about.

Was 9/11 a breaking point for Iran/International relations?

>>the moneys were not divided evenly, but taken solely by the relatives of the dead.

Where do you think the US gets its tradition of recognizing only the dead?

>>so Georgie punches out some other kid that is also not well liked,

LOL - that's a good analogy.  It would have been in this kid's best interest to curry favor with ill-tempered Georgie just to avoid the beating, right?

>> Where is it that Bob is starting this fight?  

http:Q__22820664.html#19878459

Here the thead went from being about "your observations regarding this event, on the effect it has had on you, your environment, your beliefs, your outlook" to yet another argument about Bob's personal views about Bush.

>> It would have been in this kid's best interest to curry favor with ill-tempered Georgie just to avoid the beating, right?

Hey, the kid wasn't well liked because of his actions in the past, taking lunch money from his smaller but richer neighbors and such, but there was a behavioral intervention plan in place for him, and it seemed to be working.

Looking at the past I'm pretty sure most people can say the region was already radicalized. Yes, the reasons for invading Iraq can be debatable, but we have to look at the current situations at hand. With the intelligence information provided at the time, it had briefly linked Saddam to OBL.

I'm sure we can all agree that Saddam was an evil man that needed to be gone anyways.  I'm sure you can agree Saddam was the king of torture with his cruel methods of punishment, and torture against his own people. Radical Islam has already declared war against the West, and I'm pretty sure we have only seen the beginning of it. Right now we are currently stuck in Iraq with Iran fighting a proxy war against us at the same time trying to develop nuclear weapons.

>kEk
Your point is noted.  Thanks.

>lherrou
You already implied that with "may have been a mild pest in the past, but didn't do anything to him in this case".  I was just thinking that if the kid realized that Georgie was going to throw a punch regardless of a working behavioral intervention plan, the kid could have reacted differently to avoid the beating.  I'm not saying that the kid and/or Georgie are right or wrong, either way.

Moving on...
I am curious how TEGKASG, RDAdams, and SunBow have all stated that they were not greatly affected by 9/11 though they recognize other were heavily impacted.  I do not see this in their observations; I see a deep, subtle attitude that I can't imagine existing in this form pre-9/11.  Could you three please give me examples of what has NOT changed?

Iran has taken full advantage of our attack on it's neighbor. Iran's meddling into our business is going to get them attacked very very soon if they keep it up. Iran has been supplying Explosively formed penetrators to fighters in Iraq, along with combat training to be used against our troops and the new Iraqi security, and army forces. We can't sit there and do nothing about it.

Iran has been feeding off of the US negativity that has been portrayed with all of the leftist media outlets, along with a few leftist politicians. People say we have gotten into an illegal war, but have failed to realize what these countries have been pursuing are illegal. Iran has failed to heed to any U.N resolution that has been passed.

<<<Iran has failed to heed to any U.N resolution that has been passed.>>>

This is not uncommon.  The US also has a lot of power there and so these resolutions aren't apolitical.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=2417


<<<Iran's meddling into our business is going to get them attacked very very soon if they keep it up.>>>

Both Iran and the US are provoking one another.  The US, for example, flies UAVs over Iran (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19820-2005Feb12.html) and has a major naval presence there.  Iran captures Brits and sends explosives into Iraq.

knightEknight > That isn't bragging, it is just an acknowledgement of the obvious.

And I equally respect that, nearly require that. Similarly, considering the ongoing Iranian thread, I would also want to be appreciative of Iranians or Persians in being proud of their 'country'. Pick any country. My question for one like you, given the remaining part of comment, is whether this extends to philosophy of a "My country, right or wrong"?

BobSiemens <<<That's a very weird outlook.>>>

As said in other words, I agree with that comment, I confess I do like wierd, I confess that Bob does not seem wierd to SunBow. Maybe when SunBow disagrees with Bob then Bob thinks of SunBow as wierd. That is OK, Sunbow still likes wierd.

> Look at how hugely that opinion has changed in just 5 years.
> Favorable Opinion of the U.S. in ...
...in US, down to about 22% isn't it? Those Yankees may be slow to react, but they are not so completely ignorant

> stupid reason, people in the United States think that their evaluation of what is going on is

-er, manipulated?

> Something has gone very, very, very, very wrong in five years

er, and people are starting to lose their jobs. What's Rove been up to lately?

JoeZ430 > OBL is a Radical along with the other people involved with his atrocious operations.

Off-topic, but as usual I disagree, not with 'atrocious' but to me giving him credit as a 'radical' is as unwarranted as ginving Charles Manson credit as 'radical'. While certainly not mainstream, and definitely criminal, not really political or religious either one.

> We should be fearful, being fearful is a good thing for Americans at this point

Aside from 'atrocious' this all I disagree to, I select the part more applicable to question. Being fearful can mean hiding behind locked closets and ignoring world, losing one's capability to trust. That is very tragic, so I post memorable quote for post 911 amerigos who missed history class: fear nothing but fear (here:)

      "So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself -- nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance."

http://ask.yahoo.com/20010614.html
FDR's first inaugural address, which contains the full quote in the fifth sentence

For me anyway, a cute sidebar on text from the quotation source, not the speech (here:)

< President Roosevelt was calling for a little irrational exuberance...
&
< He was essentially saying, "if we can't shake our pessimistic .. outlook, it will be tough to turn things around."

BobSiemens > I set the bar higher for my country.

How barbarically Sumerian of you

> Then, after 9/11 and Bush, we made a 180° turn.

I disagree. On dating and order of precedence

JoeZ430 > This sounds like Iran you are talking about.

er, so aren't you disgusted? Who wazzit trained Iran in first place.

BobSiemens > The only solid rise in favorability is from the nation to whom we export our good jobs: India 17% RISE

What about China, aren't they doing better now, like gearing up to buy California or somenthing? Maybe just sell 'em the Southern half, gets the bail raised for the grandchildren.

> This is the direction that we are moving.  This is my objection.

Ditto that that is found to be disgusting

knightEknight > unfounded views of this country and what it stand for and the good it is trying to do

OK, think Ellis Is or think Liberty Statue, what it mean?
Look in news, where today immigrant sent out on a rail out of town because of some paperwork, some disagreements, whatever, afre several years of working hard to make an america to be what it can be. Separate the family unit. Oh great! Although I dunno this specific case well, there have been so too many, such seemingly needless deportations, including hard worker who married american and came into millions. What, make her spend her money in some other land? Nonsense to me. While I do not understand much of Bush, or agree much with him, based on the flamers of his suggestions for handling immigrants, it is among few we may agree on. Although even that is unlikely.

911 is (to me) and was (to all) a world event not an american one. It was world center containing peoples of many countries and beliefs. And that is also main issue on what is an american. Not idigenous, americans are of peoples from many countries who immigrated. East Germany put up barrier to keep people in, US now wanting barrier to keep people out. This is major difference in how each of us distinguishes how the world does behave, how it could or should behave.

JoeZ430 > big leftist media

<yawn>
> the countries you have listed above have huge Muslim populations.

er, US too has muslim, so what, are they now to blame for current administration to be least popular ever in all of history - and (as predecessors) not care?

> rogue nations in the surrounding areas don't know how to behave themselves

? Is that about the coming Turkish invasion of Iraq?

BobSiemens > America has started to come to its senses and agrees more and more with my position

Not ready to agree, either that they now have position or that they never did before, observe that controllers are being removed from the map of this big chess game, or, a people do not look so like puppets when the puppeteers are lacking

> It's been shown again and again that OBL was not connected in any with Iraq

oh come now, he probably is in baghdd in some house not yet thoroughly searched, one more drawer of ladies garments and they may too find a load of uranium 102

rxstef > Where do you think the US gets its tradition of recognizing only the dead?

Not my thought, my report from comments of people on the scene. It, as a result, is actually the converse or opposite of views I'd developed in other experiences, namely, that the living survivers actually involved in trajedy are provided more funds than the dead that 'the system' worked back when. A 'dirty' way 'they' would put it, is that if you have 'accident' and run someone over, then recommendation to run them over again and again to ensure they are dead. rather heinous concept but descriptive of events. Peoples 'punished' less for killing than for maiming, and I had to wonder the what does that encourage? Why not encourage seeking aid, helping take person in 'accident' to hospital or medical clinic?

It is not a 'tradition' I referred to, it was a happenstance of some kinds of people involved in event referred to. To them, they can be pro administation whatever, politics not issue, any flames are against a something like 'lawyers' or 'greedy relatives' (of the dead) who wanted more than their fair share.

This is not my opinion, it is report of opinion of people not searched for with google or found from media, but something ought to be there as well. My opinion was and remains, that my observation was that there were so many willing to give or have funds available, that there can be no such thing as "not enough to go around for all to share". In such a situation, were I there, I'd have to ask: then where did all that money go?

> Was 9/11 a breaking point for Iran/International relations?

No. The break was Khomeini reneging on deals, etc. Goes back a ways. Set hisself up as a god who was only one who ever would know what to do about anything, did so using lies. Essentially being untrustable in the international scene, but that was no concern to him. Tradition set up continues on.

JoeZ430 > With the intelligence information provided at the time, it had briefly linked Saddam to OBL.

Caution on being misled

> I'm sure we can all agree that Saddam was an evil man that needed to be gone anyways.

This is how in America, the innocent are convicted when caught, using justification that they are probably guilty of something, so convict 'em while you can (is this philosophy TA?)

lherrou > Who's the bully now?

Agreeing with others, good pointed analogy

DanRollinsDate:09.13.2007 at 06:48AM GILTExpert Comment

DanRollins: Shocked

That is my best choice of word

> were "down-sized" (by a smart bureaucrat who saw the coming business down-turn).

yeah, seizing 'advantage' to hurt yet once again. Carrying on to this day. My turn

JoeZ430 > Iran has taken full advantage of our attack

er, cross-post? This is not the thread on Iran

> has failed to heed to any U.N

dumb question, does anyone heed UN?

I had a NY anecdote to add but deferring to this here.

rxstef: Moving on...

> I am curious how ___ SunBow ___ stated that they were not greatly affected by 9/11 though they recognize other were heavily impacted.  

First let me think if I agree. Ok I agree so far.

> I do not see this in their observations; I see a deep, subtle attitude that I can't imagine existing in this form pre-9/11.  

Another label applied is 'jaded'. May be slow but not dumb

> Could you three please give me examples of what has NOT changed?

Leaving me out of it, let me first address timeline.  There is 911, pre and post 911. I cannot say it like Bob seems to, 911 is independent of administration or Bush or Iran. Before 911 was Bush. After 911 was bush. Big deal <jaded>.

Before 911, during and after, there were hijackings. Sorry Charlie but this is not news of something no one had ever thought of doing before.

Before 911 there were huge trajedies, lending to one wanting to help, to lend a hand, but so remote that one is unable to help, how to suppress such urge. (actually, for the unaware, general public should not and cannot go provide emergency aid, it can too easy make a bad situation worse, so, just sit back and take it, take those lumps there ain't a Dickens thing you can do about it). So by time of 911 we've all mostly learned to not make that impulsive physical reaction to do something about it. That has not changed since our first thought of trying to help someone else.

Before during and after event there were terrorists. Nothing new or changing much on that front either.

So we discuss what is going on with terrorists and hijackings before 911, we discuss our views today about same old thing.

Difference I note was, during 911 we all shutup. Most of us (stupid pundits excluded of course). It was not a time for arguing about anything any more. It was our 'moment of silence' that we had, that we shared, without having had to get some leader on some stage to direct us that it was time for moment of silence. For that, we did without being told, no 'boss' needed. I can verify for many people, in a reality, for to me I think I said that this 'shock' or moment of silence went global.

I hope that answered at least half your question

>> knightEknight > That isn't bragging, it is just an acknowledgement of the obvious.

>> And I equally respect that, nearly require that. Similarly, considering the ongoing Iranian thread, I would also want to be appreciative of Iranians or Persians in being proud of their 'country'. Pick any country. My question for one like you, given the remaining part of comment, is whether this extends to philosophy of a "My country, right or wrong"?

I'm certain that almost every human being that has ever lived can find some good reasons to be proud of their nation and their heritage.  Nothing wrong with that.

Edit: As you see, no mentioning for Osama, the Taliban and Saddam... Why? Tthere always are 'evil people' existing on this planet, ready to threaten us. All Soviet Unions presidents since WW2, the Chinese and Vietnamese governments. Even in Africa and Europe.

What we need to figure out is, why do some people, create the evil ones and present them as a threat for everyone. Even before answering to 'why this is happening', we must accept that this is really happening...

So if we took Hitler for an example you think he should have been left alone?

No, but that's a totally different case

So when does it make it a different case? Only when the person has already killed millions of people?

I don't understand why you want to compare Hitler with any other leader. Germany started invading neighbor countries and it soon became a menace for the rest of Europe. England, France and the Soviet Union (which were the rest of the Big Powers in Europe at that time) were at war with Hitler and soon after, USA was engaged too along with the rest of the world.

It seems like a totally different case, even though I didn't mention any casualties ;)

>> Germany started invading neighbor countries and it soon became a menace for the rest of Europe.

That is certainly an understatement.  For years before the war fully engulfed Europe, England was telling it like it was -- calling Hitler "evil" and presenting the Nazis as a threat for everyone.   They were right.  Some time later the allies invaded and took over country after country, ultimately taking Germany as well.  But this was in response to Hitler's agression.  Similarly the U.S. action against Japan was in direct response to agression.

By the same token the U.S. is responding to agression today, both from Al Qaeda and Iraq.  Iraq first invaded and plundered Kuwait, routinely funded suicide bombers in Israel, used chemical weapons in war with Iran, and against its own people (Kurds and Shiites), and clearly had intent in the region.

Having said that, for several reasons I think the U.S. invasion of Iraq was a huge mistake in hindsight -- mostly because the perceived immanent threat of WMD turned out to be wrong.

<<Off-topic, but as usual I disagree, not with 'atrocious' but to me giving him credit as a 'radical' is as unwarranted as ginving Charles Manson credit as 'radical'. While certainly not mainstream, and definitely criminal, not really political or religious either one.>>

If you don't consider OBL a radical, then what else would he be? He has extreme views.. Do you agree with them?

<<er, US too has muslim, so what, are they now to blame for current administration to be least popular ever in all of history - and (as predecessors) not care?>>

Not as big as Europe's.. That's besides the point here, my original statement was that 20 % of the younger Muslims that participated in the poll said they agree with some instances of suicide bombing..

I always try and figure out how you people always place the blame on America over and over again... Iran could launch a nuke at Israel and you would blame the USA for it.. You ALL are missing a big problem here with Islamic radicalism spreading fast across the globe. You can blame this on America all you want, but in the realistic world we live in the problem has existed for quite a bit of time now.

<<Aside from 'atrocious' this all I disagree to, I select the part more applicable to question. Being fearful can mean hiding behind locked closets and ignoring world, losing one's capability to trust. That is very tragic, so I post memorable quote for post 911 amerigos who missed history class: fear nothing but fear (here:)>>

Do you think any of our military veterans had fear while fighting in the wars they were a part of? Who do you think is the one to make the mistake first? The soldier who has fear, and is mentally aware of his surroundings, or the careless soldier smoking doobs then going on patrol.

<< Being fearful can mean hiding behind locked closets and ignoring world, losing one's capability to trust>>

Or it could mean being more careful and aware?

The Iraq war was not planned out very well at all, the US definitely could have done things differently. We will never know about the WMD's. For instance, what if the weapons were flown out of the country before the invasion?

KnightEknight, I don't know whether England alone had rung the bell about evil Hitler himself, as a lot of countries had already changed government types during the 30's. Greece had a dictatorship since the mid-thirties for instance. Europe was like a boiling volcano for some years before eventually errupting. But Hitler was the one who started pre-emptive strikes for various ficticious reasons (sounds familiar? ), as Germany was in need of 'air to breethe' If there is any link to these two points in mankind's history, I think that should be the manipulation of a nation in order to drag it into a war.

And as I said before, these actions were planned some years before 9/11 The US army was supposedly after Osama and Taliban in Afghanistan. They failed, but a puppet governemnt was installed. The US army was after WMD in Iraq, they failed, but Saddam got out of the picture and a puppet government was installed. I'm not saying that Saddam or Osama were angels, heroes or martyrs, I'm saying that the States took advantage of the  WTC hit to apply their foreign policy in the middle east.

Personally, I'm pretty positive that some high-ranked people in the US knew about the attack. It sounds cruel and unethical, but it happens all the time in History

>> We will never know about the WMD's. For instance, what if the weapons were flown out of the country before the invasion?

We controlled all flights in and out of Iraq since the first Gulf War. With no-fly zones covering most of the country, our radar surveillance planes and satellites watching all movement, and Iraq having no air force and virtually no commercial aviation, I don't think that is even a possibility.

>> Personally, I'm pretty positive that some high-ranked people in the US knew about the attack.

That says it all right there.   With all due respect to you, I am always amazed at how many people choose to ignore the blatently obvious truth of a situation and choose to believe such wild fantacies instead.  I'm not singling you out -- many people around the world believe as you do.  It is a proposterous notion, but people believe it anyway.

There is no truth whatsoever to the idea that anyone of significance in the U.S government knew specifics about the 9/11 attacks before they happened.  This is simply a fact.

Remember Georges Sada?

Well, I want to make it clear, very clear to everybody in the world that we had the weapon of mass destruction in Iraq, and the regime used them against our Iraqi people...I know it because I have got the captains of the Iraqi airway that were my friends, and they told me these weapons of mass destruction had been moved to Syria. Iraq had some projects for nuclear weapons but it was destroyed in 1981. (When asked if there was any chance there were nuclear weapons or on their way to nuclear weapons when USA invaded, he said): Not in Iraq. [4]

His claims, though, tend to contradict the findings of the Duelfer Report, which "judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place," though analysts were unable to rule out the possibility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Sada

By Kevin McCullough
WorldNetDaily


Kevin McCullough: Gen. Georges Sada, welcome to the WMCA MuscleHead Revolution broadcast.

Georges Sada: Thank you very much, Kevin.

KMC: There is a common conception, that is going around in America today, and I'd like to play you a sound bite from last night's Democratic response to President George W. Bush's State of the Union address.

SOUNDBITE: (Gov. Tim Keane, D-Va.) "We now know that the American people were given inaccurate information about reasons for invading Iraq."

KMC: General, were there weapons of mass destruction ... what had Saddam Hussein done with them, and where did they go?

GS: Well here I can say 2,000 times, that the WMD's were in Iraq, and that they were used against Kurds in the north, and people in the south against Shia people, and these weapons were there up to the summer of the year 2002. When a natural disaster happened in Syria, a dam was collapsed, and Saddam said he wanted to do an air-bridge humanitarian aid to Syrian people, those who were flooded in the area. But that was not true.

The thing he did was, he converted two aircraft, two airplanes, a 747 Jumbo, and a 727 and WMD's, raw materials, many other equipment were put in that two aircraft, by the special Republican Guard, in a very secret way and they were transported to Syria to Damascus and they did 56 flights, to make all  whatever has to do with weapons of mass destruction to be in Syria. AND besides to that, 18-wheel tractor trucks, civilian trucks, were also loaded of what couldn't go in the aircraft, and this was also transported to Syria.

KMC: You're saying 56 flights, 747s and 727s, transported  under the guise of humanitarian aid for victims of the dam break in Syria  Saddam Hussein transported his illegal weapons to Syria via that method, and also some 18-wheel trucks were also used in that effort?

GS: That's TRUE!

KMC: General, simply for telling these things to us today, you run the risk of being retaliated against by Saddam Hussein's friends and allies, why did you choose to speak out particularly at this time.

GS: You see actually, I was not speaking this, I was not even writing the book, but, what happened in year 2004 on 26th of April, when the terrorists wanted to explode many tons of these same chemical weapons that we had in Jordan, Amman, and they were trying to destroy the prime minister's office, and the Jordanian Intelligence and the American Embassy. You see 20,000 people were expected to die of that explosion. As a friendly country, Jordan, the Jordan which I love, this had effected on me very much, and then on Feb. 2, 2005, I was in a conference in Phoenix, Ariz., where I met my two friends, Michael Coleman and Dr. Teddy Lowe of World Compassion. They listened to these stories that I had mentioned in the conference. They came and asked me very warmly to make the book of this because this is very important and these informations. So I was persuaded by their two people to write the book, and since Feb. 2, 2005, till now we have worked on the book.

KMC: Let's talk about who you are ... what was your rank within the Saddam Hussein regime?

GS: I was the air-wise marshall, in the Air Force, (second highest rank in the Iraqi military) and I was one of the people who did not attend the Baath Party. And that's why I was forced to retire in 1986.

KMC: You were never a member of the Baath Party?

GS: No never ... And they asked me in '86, it is not possible to be in this rank and second man in the air force and you are not a Baath Party. I said "sorry I can not attend that party, because you said in your principles that the body of the party is Arab, and the spirit of the party is Islam. And myself am neither Arab nor Muslim. I am an Assyrian Christian; therefore I don't fit in this party. And I'm sorry to tell you. I don't want to bluff you ... I just can not attend."

http://assyriatimes.com/engine/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3165

So how can you totally dismiss Saddam may have flown them out?

Everybody is entitled to an opinion Knight and I wouldn't ever want to start a debate on this thread. I really respect you and everybody else in here but we have different beliefs on the issue, mostly because we live in different continents and see the facts from different perspectives.

With a one minute search on Google, I came across this link. Take your time to read it, During the war on Iraq, I have been searching a lot, had plenty of e-debates and watched the news from as many TV channels around the globe I could. The reason was to see how differently the war has been broadcasted.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

Narrow it down for me Dj -- what about that document makes you think the U.S. knew enough specifics about the 9/11 plot to prevent it, but chose not to do so.

>> your media did not focus on the group of Israeli Mosad that seen happy and clap their hands when they saw the planes hit the building.

You are right, I have not seen that.  Can you provide a link please?

I remember I saw that on many chennels and sorry I do not know a link that mention that.

This project is all about American global leadership and ways to achieve it. I haven't read it all, but it clearly shows what the intentions of USA are, regarding the Persian Gulf (I think you can find it at Chapter Five) Be sure to read the manifest of the project (Page 2). last but not least, check out on page 63, where the authors (don't forget to see who they are) imply that none of these could happen absent a catastrophic event, like a new Pearl Harbor.

Is this unquestionable evidence? Of course not. Were you aware of PNAC? I doubt it... Start searching. You lose time, you discover a lot more ;)

I just did a queck search and founf this: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fiveisraelis.html

Dj, that is a huge stretch to say the least.  Would you not expect any powerful nation to do what it could to maintain its power?  Its a long way from there to saying that the U.S. intentionally allowed 9/11 to happen.

Abdu, you can't be serious.  First of all, what video?  Secondly, read the actual articles cited by that page.  Five men "claimed to be Israeli tourists".  Well, duh.  That is exactly what I would expect a non-Israeli to claim.  Other witnesses said they looked like Arabs.  The entire page is nothing but vague innuendo.  Its just a bunch of conspiracy hooy.

By the way, my opinion isn't at all unusual.  The following search [9/11 exploit fear anniversary] generates 336,000 hits.  Most of them look like the ones below.

One of the most irksome things about 9/11 is that Bush used this event to sell an unrelated war and America fell for it.  I just find that despicable.  The 2002 GOP convention was an orgy of 9/11 manipulation too.



http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=15306
Fear Mongering on the Anniversary of 9/11

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/09/11/misconnecting_the_dots/
The day, with its emotional scars and lessons, is being manipulated, handcuffed to the "war on terrorism." Nearly every battle, every action, every foreign policy, every call to follow the leader, is justified -- no, sanctified -- in the name of Sept. 11.

http://www.fearandignorance.com/bush.php
President Bush can't fix Iraq in the next two months. His only political option is focus solely on spin and PR to try and trick Americans into forgetting what a mess Iraq is. He is desparate to invoke the emotion and fear of 9/11 to win back eroding support for his policy in Iraq.

Fear Mongering on the Anniversary of 9/11

http://blog.case.edu/singham/2006/09/11/picking_at_the_scab_of_911
As I write this (on Saturday, September 9, 2006) the media is gearing up for a full orgy of commemorating the events of five years ago. We see retrospectives, we see TV specials, we hear stories from survivors and from the loved ones of those who perished.

http://media.www.dailylobo.com/media/storage/paper344/news/2003/09/09/Opinion/Columnactions.Still.Wrong.After.911-460496.shtml
Planes are hijacked, buildings crumble, people die, and, as a military rebuttal, America invades two separate nations. What kind of a people are we?  Obviously, a vengeful people.

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/browne.php?articleid=9685
Fear Mongering on the Anniversary of 9/11

Believing that the U.S. used 9/11 to start a second war in Iraq is a plausible but debatable criticism.  I can certainly understand this perception, be it accurate or not.  But saying that the U.S. knowingly allowed 9/11 as a pretext for world domination is just dumb.  Saying the Mosad had anything to do with it is equally void, especially since bin Laden has claimed responsibility for it, as have several of the hijackers in their suicide videos.

Think of it KnightEknight, I am not claiming that Mossad did it, What I am saying that Mossad already knew about what OBL will do and they hide this info. because they saw that US will move for their favor...Wake up. If you review all the wars and actions that US did you will find that Israel is the first feneficiary from them.

feneficiary = beneficiary

The Mosad and the CIA both knew that Al Qaeda was planning something, but neither had enough details to prevent the attack.  It would have been of greater benefit to Israel and (obviously) the U.S. if the attacks had been prevented.  Sorry Abdu, I just don't buy it.

Knight, I already said that this pdf is not proof. Did you read the manifest? Did you read the authors of it (I think you can find him in the appendix)? Did you read about what should be done in the Persian Gulf according to PNAC, and what might trigger it? If you had, you wouldn't say that USA would be better off if the attacks was prevented. At least, from that project's point of view.

I'm not expecting from anyone to see the 'fire', but at least to accept the fact that there is 'smoke' I think we all know that it is very difficult to prove beyond doubt that some people already knew, unless they were captured on a hidden camera. But we laso know about the power of the media. And we know how easily masses can get manipulated. History taught us so in WW2. I am sure that the majority of the German people thought that Poland had to pay for that massacre that took place at a military camp. Of course, later on we learnt that Hitler organised that to launch his attack. We learnt that it was Germans killing Germans...

>It would have been of greater benefit to Israel if the attacks had been prevented

What! Show us how.

>> And we know how easily masses can get manipulated.

Count yourselves among that number.  I see no "smoke".  After any event like this, there is always some way to twist some obscure details of the event into wildly disproportionate alternative theories.  None of what either of you cite above is anything more than that.  Sorry, you've been duped if you believe the U.S. allowed this to happen.

Yup, I don't believe the US would benefit an iota from this kind of event.

DjBasile > say that it was a kind of 'expected' event

Agree with those comments, and associate this one with my initial disgust that administration never could have thought it possible, and there were no defense systems or plans. You've identified a good question to pose

JoeZ430 > if we took Hitler for an example

I was just thinking how to find exception to KEK's "almost every human being that has ever lived can find some good reasons to be proud", and find I must leave it that many Germans still found 'good' reasons for being proud. As far as international politics, he crossed the big line primarily by breaking agreements with other countries and having troops enter lands of others, saying that they were right, they were invited, and they themselves knew what was in the best interests of their god's world. I do not think their being catholic had much to to with it, even though their main designated opponents were not catholic. Still, prejudism was on the main stage, with additional emphasis on their being the super race and the only super power on the planet. 'Insurrectionists' were carted off to be concentrated in special new camps. The opposition took its time, came up with novel military strategies, gradually built up the resistance here and there, and eventually wore the world conquerers of their day down.

He had his way until it was obvious he/they could not be trusted on the global stage. While he got minor countries to officially sign on to his plans, all but one of the major coountries distanced themselves from his plans for a better world, yet the Soviets too got fed up, turned, and dumped their support of the Super Power. Among his problems were that from the start, many of the best of that super race got a clue and split early on, eventually signing on with those bent to rid such influence as his 'shock and awe' to conquest.

knightEknight> ultimately taking Germany as well.  But this was in response to Hitler's agression

Agreed, that it was not engaged in order to assist peoples inside of Germany. This is not to say that such an issue could not have led to same result given time. Allied side had not been granted that time by Axis side. Actually, most did not seem to decide to engage in battle until 'first strike', they were the ones getting attacked.

> Iraq first invaded and plundered Kuwait,

you left out part where your US told him that they have no objection to his invasion of Kuwait

> routinely funded suicide bombers in Israel,

Not so, a misspeak at best. Any 'funding' was for small amounts to the family of those dead, likely less than you'd spend on funeral for one of your family members. Replacing Saddam has increased funding of insurrection with tax dollars of US.

> used chemical weapons in war with Iran

Also approved of by US, encouraging anything to exercise grievance with Iran. Even Rumsfeld directly implicated in that.

> mostly because the perceived immanent threat of WMD turned out to be wrong.

Don't miss the point that at that time no right-thinking person could agree that such an "imminent threat" was possible. The presumed threat was missile, but they had not the rocket propellant. No range. No uranium. Not even a purpose such as what would cause them to make launch against US soil. Maybe they be stupid. No, not a chance, not that stupid. Part of argument also was US had no defense system, zero nada. Anyone watching movies or even live coverage of other wars knew US had missiles on land sea and air (not too sure how well moon and space are armed). Beware deception, for many US also ignored warnings of it being only about getting Iraq oil for America.To winner go spoils and writing of history that they were the ones in the right. War ended, oil flowed, no oil for Americans, and I do not mena just 'profits', but not even for reimbursements of expenditures to make country safe for democracy or for reimbursements for building wells for water of for 'rebuilding', etc. No reimbursements. So beware lest we think troops went there to grab some oil to bring back to their families.

JoeZ430 > If you don't consider OBL a radical, then what else

As you quoted, my word choice is (minimally) 'criminal'. Calling him 'radical' is letting him off too easy. Or in your quote: 'definitely criminal'. That is slightly unfortunate for me, not knowing him that well on a personal level and having this belief in innocence until proven guilty, so I tried also to refer to my comment being based on news reports, not on individual person. He may be nice guy, I dunno. From the stuff I read, it sounds more like criminal than nice.

> my original statement was that 20 % of the younger Muslims that participated in the poll said they agree with

I may post some poll as well, but I remain firm that polls are also deceptive, not even close to error rate even when that reported. You at least did the wise move of including "that participated in", meaning most of us do not get surveyed, many prefer "no comment" (not counted in survey) and the word choices used in surveys are usually 'steering' answers, no objectivity in the slightest. This is not to say that the actual number is not 20%, even here in EE we have had such type of response, it is just to comment on polls, their accuracies, and how to translate them. You did not respond to remainder you quoted on the number being similar to what is published for support of Bush, Administration, et al.

> I always try and figure out how you people always place the blame on America over and over again

Who you think is 'you'. huh? I do not think I blame 'America' in such situation where I claim that America funds rebuilding Iraq and gets no funds for oil and gets no oil in return. I may be disgruntled with an american or have grievance with an american, but that is no different than finding disagreement with an approach of a Hitler or an OBL, not blaming Germans for attrocities. Crimes are generally committed by individual people, not by the companies or corporations that they say that they are working for.

> Iran could launch a nuke at Israel and you would blame the USA for it..

Not a chance. That is like saying that if you do not support your president then you are a traitor to your country because you are aiding enemies unknown.

> Do you think any of our military veterans had fear while fighting in the wars they were a part of?

It's not so unlike movies, there can be fear, it can overpower, it can be tamed. Essentially, and more to point of question, you either do your job or find find one you can do. In a 911, for example, firefighters and police force went there in glory of mentality that, it is their duty to deal with emergency no matter what. Where there can be a fear, they cannot go hide in some closet. Do your job and there is no fear. There is no guessing games to play you do or don't get to play.

Here is my grievance: those performing their duty at ground zero, were told that the air was clean and ok to breathe, when everyone knew it to be an outright lie. Survivors to this day are suffering from lung damage, for example, and being denied medical benefits probably for their lack of 'proof'. This is something I cannot comprehend. Familes of victims to this day support that their government had to lie to them. They also support my claim that all the troopers at ground zero would have stayed and done their job no matter the hazard, even if told the truth about the junk in the air they were breathing. Such people are rank & file and more often supportive of administration in my own surveys, which by nature are limited, just accept it is not pushing my POV upon you, it does not really even support my POV. But bringing this back, I have no cause to lay a blame on rank & file americans or on america. Same for your republicans. I may make case of opposition to a republican, please do not take that as flaming all republicans. Apply same to religions and cultures, nothing against the rank & file, for I am in agreement with concept that most people on planet just want to get through their lives peaceably, getting respect and giving it, a chance to work for a living and have some time for R&R and enjoying life while we can.

> Who do you think is the one to make the mistake first? The soldier

The one without sense of duty, the ones dodging 'practise' and learning exercises, the ones playing 'cowboy',,,, want more? treat it as a job, not as a game, this is not a board game called Risk. Recognize it is about the hell of life and death and maiming and coffins and amputations and hospitalizations and move on to do the job. It is not about prejudice or superiority or loot or 'getting away with'. And none do it better than americans.

> Or it could mean being more careful and aware?

yeah, look over your shoulder, THEY are trying to get you on something or anything. From my examples in other threads, my opine is that a better response is to stand taller in the saddle, not to be seen cowering, think of the report on the day Saddam was found by the troopers. Old habits hard to break

DjBasile > Hitler was the one who started pre-emptive strikes for various ficticious reasons

agreed

> Germany was in need of 'air to breethe'

I don't think so. That argument used for more ancient times such as applied Greece making landfalls is different. I suggest it was more about hunger for additional resources, identifying someone else for public to blame, and probably more about the problem with the pyramid scheming more acceptable to the western mentality, namely, too many people wanting to be at top, and not enough bodies at the bottom to support them. Their process eliminated too many people who could have helped to support them, wittingly, willingly, or not, so they did not need room for their excess bodies, they needed more bodies to support their preferred lifestyle. Not to mention a doing it just because they can. Or thought they could.

> the manipulation of a nation in order to drag it into a war

:-((                        (agreeing <sad> append "continuing")

> It sounds cruel and unethical, but it happens all the time in History

Pearl Harbor for example, meaning as similar in what gets suggested and asked about

lherrou > We controlled all flights in and out of Iraq since

Actually, I would still use most of same arguments were they found. The not-finding when claiming knowledge of where to look turns it comically into a trajedy, or trajically into a comedy, While more soldiers continue to die after end of war and most evil weapons never used in wars now for over half century.

knightEknight > With all due respect to you, I am always amazed at how many people choose to ignore the blatently obvious truth of a situation

What is real? You know and accept the fact that your government lied to you and continues to lie to you. With all due respect you seem to still be ok with that, which makes me wonder.

try this on 911/WTC, as the 1st plane hits the alarm rings and squadrons immediately launch heading east to get the next (potential) threat. The minutes are counting and second plane makes it through small window from the north, hitting and raising alarm.

Government goes public to say there were no plans and no defense anywhere. As prior argument I flame that as banal lie, but I am not asking you on that this time. To me, in my way of thinking, this is disgusting, but the lies being so frequent I've become more jaded to them.
 
> I'm not singling you out

Thank you, your identifiable wisdom is growing

> the U.S government knew specifics

there's specifics
then again
there's specifics

there's also purgery

JoeZ430> my friends, and they told me these weapons of mass destruction had been moved to

<yawn> and US had its iraqi sources that said invasion would have no casualties for everyplace they went they'd find the open arms of welcome, please stay as long as you wish. Yeah yeah.

GS: Well here I can say 2,000 times, that

er, that is not the way a truther would speak
it is more like the way someone says "trust me, I am not lying to you this time"

JoeZ430: So how can you totally dismiss Saddam may have flown them out?

Try to not give such disrespect. While one cannot 'totally dismiss' much of anything, had a flight taken off it is more likely that it would not have been airborne of sufficient duration to land safely, and one cannot totally dismiss that none of us would have information concerning event. Where some Iraq had any semblance of reason, it could be simpler in argument to suggest arms were loaded onto trucks. In fact, that argument is present in discussions, although if it has been done lately in EE I have missed it. Trying to prove they had to be on a plane to get out of country is another form of comedy.

DjBasile > ever want to start a debate on this thread

Too late. I tried. Best is attempts to adapt discussion to return to original question. Not so easy any more.

> to see how differently the war has been broadcasted.

I had fortune to have people near who exercised habits of foreign language, including not only webpages but subscriptions to printed matter. Yes, different. Deferring actula link, still catching up on comments to date

knightEknight > makes you think the U.S. knew enough specifics

Oh, reminds me, update my Pearl Harbor comment to include Oklahoma

knightEknight > Would you not expect any powerful nation to do what it could to maintain its power?  Its a long way f

Remember the Lusitania
Remember the Alamo

BobSiemens >  I just find that despicable.  

I (still?) agree
For author of question, part of way I've been responding is to answer question on me being essentially little more than couch potato lurker to one, while not activist, gets those motivationals (hormones? rising?)

> President Bush can't fix Iraq in the next two months. His

ungh, not so sure. Suppose there was a fix, suppose it was a known, in my view the sitting president (title) can do. Realistically, this is a person, and there are vested interests. So, if he could, if he wanted to and tried to, my bet has is that he would not be allowed to.

knightEknight > I can certainly understand this perception, be it accurate or not.

and thank you for that, your stock is rising

> Sorry Abdu, I just don't buy it.

actually I agree with you. Only problem is all the holes government left to contribute to such a conclusion

DjBasile > the fact that there is 'smoke'

I did not read for all context yet, still concluding from readin observations of others that it is worse than smoke, the flames are lighting it up.

JoeZ430: Yup, I don't believe the US would benefit an iota from this kind of event.

Again, it has nothing to do with rank & file americans, this is about a 'the elite', of any land, who think they are so far above all the rest that that can do anything, and have some motivation to be abusive as they go on about enforcing their view of the world. See also anyone's comments on who benefits from US control of oil fields

Synthetics > one of the crashes as "the good clip". Clearly

I agree. Apparently being your elder, perhaps not wiser, I held same thought seeing it live, apparently you also had to suffer any selected editing. We could have been also seeing different coverages, there being more than one camera. Credit and kudos to those handling cameras.

> the media and general public seemed to forget about the actual death and destruction and sorrow in order to place blame and exact retribution.

Ditto, and to that I discredit the government for perpetrating, as they began to and continued to lay discredit on their citizens of blue, be it military or police or firefighter, this went straight to engagement of administration vs the rest of the world, including the nation's own.

The military prepped its missiles to contain the success rate of using commercial liners to one event. Their 'misses' may indicate luck or fault or even intentional bad planning. But to say that they were not even up to trying, no, I cannot accept, such words cannot come from office of any 'real' commander in chief

I am not 100% in finding fault, so let me counter that thought by saying I do appreciate that many in administration actually did the stay-out-of-the-closet to point of actually travelling to Iraq at this time and that time. That gets them additional stock in my sense of bookkeeping, as I said, my vote goes to responding by standing tall.

For Synthetics, you may then have missed out on what I found to be the most enjoyable experience at time of event.

People early on started suggestions to do something to memorialize the dead. One would say put up a monument of names, one might say to have sculpture, one to rebuild, one to make dedicated park, etc. Then, right after I got aerial phot of the before and after came the link to a view of the aftermath showing...... new towers something like twice as tall as the former (suggestions got to adding ten floors), and that one was done so well it got me: "Stand tall", in a caption or sign on the building I read something to effect of: "Here we are OBL, come and get us!" and I lost it, I do not recall laughing out loud so much since then, I knew instantly that were anything still holding me back, or out, that I was back, and could take on anyone, serve at leisure of president, attack an armed bunker with a popsicle stick or whatever. I was back. So I likely also was under influence of 'shock', and found laughter to be good medicine.

The latter part of comment also for author and the parts of comments about being jaded or without care when and where etc. As a footnote, knowing how in past when EE was under assualt the Carafe stood tall and effectively stuck out chin and said Here I am, come and get me you blankety-blank (<insult>) I tried to convey such a soltution to our friends experiencing aftermath of the subsequent bombings in London, and learned that they could not, to our sorrow. They more rather needed that time for a time-out.

>> you left out part where your US told him that they have no objection to his invasion of Kuwait

Not so.  The diplomatic language used was far to vague, but was not a free pass on an invasion.  My how convenient it is to blame the U.S. for everything.

Knight, I can't persuade you, which wasn't my original attempt, so I guess I rest my case here. I provided you with a link; take your time and read it. I'm sure that some answers and definitely a lot of questions will pop up concerning internal US affairs (for instance, the motives of raising the funds on military and weapons and the way presented to American people).

Sunbow, I referred to Germany that needed air to breethe in quotes. I did so to highlight the exact words of Hitler. Cheers :)

Dj, I'm not completely unfamiliar with the material you present.  It has been floating around in the states in one form or another for years.

<<<>It would have been of greater benefit to Israel if the attacks had been prevented>>>

This is very wrong.  Except for the fact that Bush's efforts have been massively, massively incompetent, the more that America is pitted against Arabs the better it is for Israel.

That being said, it's crazy to think that Israel is going play any part in this.  Information leaks and if there was even a solid rumor that Israel could have stopped 9/11 it could easily mean the end of Israel.  That would be a crazy-stupid risk that no one would take.

No conspiracy theory takes Occam's Razor into effect.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
    All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the right one

I play backgammon online and I often hear how the server "cheats" by giving good rolls to some players and bad to others.  My argument is that the company would go out of business if such a thing could be shown to be true.  One guy even argued that the server does not just give good (high pip doubles) when needed but actually monitors the game looking for "perfect" rolls such as 6-2 when that's the only roll that could help.  I just laughed.

In the case of 9/11, the simplest solution is the one where a few terrorists quietly formulated and then executed the plan.  It wasn't that difficult of a plan.  And it would not have been particuarly difficult to keep the secret with such a small group -- all of whom were willing to die to protect that secret and to implement the plan.

>> the simplest solution tends to be the right one

The 9/11 conspiracy advocates have fallen into the very fallacy Occam seeks to avoid.  They have started with a remotely possible conclusion and then sought evidence to support it.  In this case, one of  many  contingency plans (e.g. "what-if" scenarios) drawn up by the U.S. (similar to those drawn up by many other countries) is cited as possible evidence that the U.S. knew the details of the 9/11 plot ahead of time.  Quite a leap to say the least.  In order for this scenario to be true, a large number of high ranking U.S. government officials and military brass would have to be in on the plan in order to take full advantage of the aftermath.  Each conspirator would know that if they are caught in such treason, the punishment would likely be death.  The odds of all of them keeping mum knowing that thousands of their countrymen will die is none.  Much simpler (and much more consistent with actual evidence) to believe that the U.S. simply did not have the information needed to prevent the attack.

Thank you all for your comments.

KEK > Not so.  The diplomatic language used was far to vague, but was not a free pass on an invasio

Thank you for that, obviously I should dispute a 'not so' but you agree to the occasion, so I shan't dispute. It was as good as a free pass, but not to taking over the country, just for acreage involved in a border dispute, with Iraq claiming both prior ownership and need for the frontage. Among reasons were that, disput it or not, like it or not, the Iraq of Saddam was more progressive to their desired goals for democratization, more so I think for women's rights and education and even more balanced legal system than those across border, and neighbours, not only Jordan and Syria, but especially Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Language was not so vague as to not achieve agreement or the basis for it, or even for approval or backing, but the reasoning was also present. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia have since made some progress, but not yet perhaps to where Iraq had been back when. the language was not offering approval, it was of not making a major disapproval for a small land grab. Not agreeing it was right, but not offering resistance either, it would let Kuwait complain to world about loss of some of the disputed territory. Come what may, The invasion was not left at the land grab, they went for all out takeover, whether the military did it independently or it was a political decision made in advance, and I do not think record is so vague that the act was not covered by the language used. If nothing else, their nation became instantly less trustworthy. But still, an offering of giving no resistance to land grab, or only of token resistance, can have been thought of as sign of weakness or lack of concern for other actions conceived of by some of the key players in Iraq. There was defacto approval for invasion=land-grab, not for invasion=takeover_country. Iraq would have also had to continue progress on some issues (not all) for heading the people towards the benefits experienced in free world, reducing the more barbaric customs and enabling more (not all) freedoms, do please contrast Iraq neighbours before raising objection. Remember Saudi children died in fire in school because they were not dressed properly for being in public. Do you think that would happen in Iraq?

DjBasile > Sunbow, I referred to Germany

I assume we are not in disagreemnt, but in exchange of use of language (& use of POV)

BobSiemens > it could easily mean the end of Israel.  That would be a crazy-stupid risk that no one would take.

Yet we do must remember one, that there are crazy people who would do that, and that some people who appear ok today can go flippy tomorrow. Quick example (1) Israeli captain goes bonkers and shoots unarmed arab for 'crime' of sitting down (2) coworker goes home and shoots all family, then commits suicide. Explanation to me on one I had met was that earlier in life he had been shot in the head, endured surgery and ended up with metal plate for skull (unnatural). Meaning, something physical in his internal wiring may have contributed to dramatic change.

DanRollins > I just laughed.

Well I know computer games cheat, we should know, but while I dunno your game I'd like to think I'd agree. Such board games seem to have more sixes and five show up, even in pairs, rather dramatic and conspiratoril but it is true science that they should come up more frequently even if ones opponent thinks they have manipulated the role (which to other players, not to them, seems to be a cheat, well, maybe not for another manipulator in game)

> And it would not have been particuarly difficult to keep the secret with such a small group -- all of whom were willing to die to protect that secret

That can be ok util you try to connect the dots, like the immediate language to pursue the terrorists flying planes into buildings. For me it seemed a little late to do that, trying to figure out haw to merge together enough body parts to lock up into prison. OTOH, there remain New Yorkers convinced that a subsequent missile launch took aout one of their commercial liners, with the cover story that US deliberately chose to not inform people of all the facts because they knew it was not good for public (censorship goals to meet need to support plans), OTOH if you want it too simple, then you lose the stretch to rope in an OBL as well. Such people, btw, also remaining supportive of administration despite their perceived facts and doubts.

knightEknight > They have started with a remotely possible conclusion and then sought evidence to support it.

Then for counter what you should do is actively collect any and all 'evidence' and then connect dots (simply) to form conclusion. I would disagree you have done so, getting programmed is so much easier.

> Quite a leap to say the least

I do agree most such conspiracies are found lacking, by this one who prefers to think they like conspiracies, meaning good ones having substance, some for Lincoln & JFK are so much more better founded, even if remaining incomplete, but then again there has been more time to play around with dots and shells.

> Much simpler (and much more consistent with actual evidence) to believe that the U.S. simply did not have the information needed to prevent the attack.

Disagreeing this way, in a given bureaucracy where there are turf issues and command questions it can become more difficult to transfer collected information to those who may be in the need to know... call it even political if you like.

robyncoffey > how important it is to live one's life as fruitfully and positively as possible

Good observation, not true at first in my experience, but later on such comments were more often heard, more representative of public perception than of (initial) mistrust of any government

rxstef: Thank you all for your comments.

OK then, shortly after my last comment a week ago I had heard an answer for me for the question. Intended to post it over the weekend, but perhaps more appropriate for some in audience to be post-award-conclusion for my final remark. With thoughts of that for censorship and suggestion of experience being 'quiet', I submit the following editation as representative of my response. Maybe still too long but gotta do what one's gotta do....

   long, long time ago...

     I can still remember

with every paper I'd deliver,
Bad news on the doorstep;
I couldn't take one more step.

I can't remember if I cried
when I read about his widowed bride,
But something touched me deep inside,

And do you have faith in god above,
If the bible tells you so?

I was a lonely teenaged bronking buck,
With a pink carnation and a pickup truck,
But I knew I was out of luck,

Oh and while the king was looking down,
The jester stole his thorny crown,
The courtroom was adjourned;
No verdict was returned.

Helter skelter in a summer swelter.
The Byrds flew off for the fallout shelter,
Eight miles high and falling fast.

It landed foul on the grass.
The players tried for a forward pass,
With the jester on the sidelines in a cast.

We all got up
Oh, but we never got the chance

Oh, and there we were all in one place,
A generation lost in space,

With no time left to start again.
'Cause fire is the devil's only friend.

Oh, and as I watched him on the stage
My hands were clenched in fists of rage.

No angel born in hell
Could break that satan's spell.

And as the flames climbed high into the night
To light the sacrificial rite,

I saw satan laughing with delight
The day the music died.

He was singing,
bye bye Miss American Pie,

I met a girl who sang the blues
And I asked her for some happy news,
But she just smiled and turned away.

I went down to the sacred store
Where I'd heard the music years before,
But the man there said the music wouldn't play.

And in the streets, the children screamed,
The lovers cried, and the poets dreamed.

But not a word was spoken;
The church bells all were broken.

And the three men I admire most:
The father, son, and the holy ghost,
They caught the last train for the coast,
The day the music died.

And they were singing....
Bye bye Miss American Pie,
Drove my Chevy to the levee, but the levee was dry.
Them good ole boys were drinking whiskey and rye,
Singing, "This will be the day that I die.
This will be the day that I die."

So
Bye
bye
Miss American Pie,
Drove my Chevy
to the levee,
but the levee was dry.
Them good ole boys
were drinking whiskey and rye,
Singing,
"This will be the day that I die."

As I heard it I knew it meant me back when, and while I then thought the editing would need word or sentence rearrangement for POV, when I sat down to do it I found deletions sufficient, leaving order as-was, proof should be here

http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=1193

Which meant for me I might need another, having mentioned the shock issue and the addressing of that. The next one I thought would do it, but for editing I leave as-was, it is important for event in any case, let it stand on own regarding aftermath of event.

http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=5386

Far, we've been traveling far
Without a home, but not without a star

Free, only want to be free
We've huddled close to hang on to a dream

Everywhere around the world
They come into America
Every time that flag's unfurled
They come into America

Home, well it seems so far away
But we're travelling light today
In the eye of the storm
In the eye of the storm

Home, to a new and a shining place
Make our bed and we'll say our grace
Freedom's light burning warm
Freedom's light burning warm

On the boats and on the planes
They come into America
Never looking back again
They come into America
Got a dream to take them there
They come into America
Got a dream they've come to share
They come into America

They come into America
They come into America
They come into America
They come into America, today

Today
Today
Today

My country tis of thee (today)
Sweet land of liberty (today)
Of thee I sing (today)
Of thee I sing, today

Today (repeated to fade)

"This is a tribute to immigration in America, where people from all over the world were welcome to come and seek opportunity. Diamond grew up in Brooklyn, New York, where many Europeans arrived. His father was a Jewish immigrant."

[maybe you had to be there....argue with 'success' if you like]
"a patriotic song about American pride"
"a hero's welcome"
http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=1014
 


Nowhere to run ain't got nowhere to go

Born in the U.S.A.
I was born in the U.S.A.
Born in the U.S.A.
I'm a long gone Daddy in the U.S.A.

Born in the U.S.A.
Born in the U.S.A.
Born in the U.S.A.
I'm a cool rocking Daddy in the U.S.A.



_____________________________________
"This is the first song and title track to one of the most popular albums ever - Born In The U.S.A. sold over 18 million copies"
"Chrysler offered Springsteen $12 million to use this in an ad campaign"
"Springsteen considers it one of his best songs"
"With the rollicking rhythm, enthusiastic chorus, and patriotic album cover, it is easy to think this has more to do with American pride "
"Eight minutes were cut from the song"
"Bruce felt they had a constitutional right to say "
"Born In The U.S.A. was the first CD manufactured in the United States for commercial release."
"Bruce performed solo, acoustic versions on his tours in 1996 and 1999. He wanted to make sure the audience understood the song."

SunBlock the spammer!

The simplest policy is to simply ignore all of that verbal diarrhea.  I've never found anything worth reading in any of SunBow's posts.

Exactly.

Nice that some can find path to agreeability

indeed

SunBlock, It's easy for DanRollins to find other agree with him when he makes sense.
o)