<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Sep 11 2003, 03:33 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Sep 11 2003, 03:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Xzilen+Sep 11 2003, 01:12 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Xzilen @ Sep 11 2003, 01:12 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> This sounds a little bit too much like Michael Moore there Grendal. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> And how's that a bad thing?
. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> How is it a bad thing?
Simple, Michael Moore is a sleazy writer who tries the age old tactic of touching on emotions while still slipping in messages that are just fit to his ideals. He believes that money grows on trees, and companys should never be able to lay off people, because it doesn't matter how bad the shape of the company is, money does in fact, grow on trees.
He's a flat out jerk, an ****, and fat. I hope he dies of a heart attack (oh what a nice rhyme). If he's so concerned about these laid off workers, why doesn't he go on a diet and give the extra money to those people? I mean, after all, his money should grow on trees to.
He basis so many of his arguments on un true facts, such as his "open letter to Bush" stating that if you asked 10 people on the street if they wanted to go to war with Iraq, not a single one of them would say yes, when recent polls at the time stated that 58% of America wanted to go to war with Iraq.
He wants absolute government control over guns. A man SHOULDN'T have the right to protect himself, and criminals should be given their food on a golden platter, because after all, they are human to, even if they did shoot up an office building, or destroyed 30 little girls.
I hate him. With every bone in my body, if there is ONE person on this entire planet that I would WILLINGLY KILL, thats right, KILL, it would be Michael Moore. He stands for everything that I despise, and everything that is throwing the world down the shitter. **** you Michael Moore, I hope you see this, then drop dead.
As for this:
QUOTE We live in a Capitlistic society, and while that does encourage some greed, many of your accusations against those corporations are old, sterotypes brought up in newspaper editorals by blatent liberals across the nation. The corporations may get a little out of hand, but they aren't *as* evil as some people make them out to be. Hell, if it weren't for them, I wouldn't have had a job, as crappy as it is.
Is there anything you can back that "stereotypes brought up in newspaper editorals by blatent liberals" up with? I'm honestly getting fed up with this constant political paranoia: Something doesn't fit in your opinion? It's got to be propaganda by the other side. Life isn't that easy, fellas.
Your right it does, because it isn't moderate either. The media is flat out liberal. Remember 60 mins interviews with Bob Dole and Bill Clinton where they went so light on Clintons questions, yet constantly proded into Doles personal life?
I could give you many links to other facts of the liberal media, but I'll give you just one simple suggestion. Read "Bias" a book on the liberal media, it should sum EVERYTHING up for you. Of course, the liberal inside of you will deny it all, but hey, at least conservatives have balls enough to admit that Talk radio is in their favor <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Melatonin+Sep 11 2003, 05:05 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Melatonin @ Sep 11 2003, 05:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> ok. the average american citizen doesnt rape wealth from the poor. sadly this is not the case in the average american corporation (well i shouldnt say average). what i mean to say is, just beacause you hae no knowledge of it, doesnt neccesarily mean its not going on. you think the wealthy dont look out for their interests? that they are just holding their money in banks letting interest grow? not actively 'doing over' people who are far away (read, 'that dont matter'). the point is american citizens and american corporations are not the same thing, dont take this personally, i dont think hes trying to blame you in particular. im gunna stop here, but you get the point. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Thank God someone at least has some common sense. I'm so sick of the old accusations of everyone who has anything must have taken it from the poor BS.
The point of talking about this is.....what? To try to get other people to believe the same things you do? Not gonna happen. Do you have a voice on a global level that could actually affect anything about this? Doubtful. Therefore anything to do with 9/11 past or present is pointless. It happened, can't travel back in time and stop it. And what's going on now would've happened eventually anyway, cause we generally don't like Saddam.
After typing this, I'll have tpo delete a few posts to steer the topic back on course as it's no discussion of Xilzens temper, nor of Maddoxx' site.
Anyway, Xzil, you first write
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Simple, Michael Moore is a sleazy writer who tries the age old tactic of touching on emotions while still slipping in messages that are just fit to his ideals.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
then, you write
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->He's a flat out jerk, an ****, and fat. I hope he dies of a heart attack (oh what a nice rhyme). If he's so concerned about these laid off workers, why doesn't he go on a diet and give the extra money to those people? I mean, after all, his money should grow on trees to.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Savor the irony.
I've read Moores books and open letters, I watched his movies, and while I disagree with him on a lot of topics, he is capable of stringent argumentation. Yes, he uses rethoric. So does everyone else. If you wish to drag this discussion out, I'd suggest a seperate thread, as it'd quickly burst this ones.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I could give you many links to other facts of the liberal media, but I'll give you just one simple suggestion. Read "Bias" a book on the liberal media, it should sum EVERYTHING up for you. Of course, the liberal inside of you will deny it all, but hey, at least conservatives have balls enough to admit that Talk radio is in their favor <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First thing first, I am <i>not</i> liberal, nor am I a hippy, nor any of the other left-field buzzwords that'll come to your mind. Try to keep in mind that I'm a person, not some stereotyped political movement. Second, your example only shows a bias towards certain partys (the Dems / the GOP). This does not mean that 'the media is liberal', nor that 'the media is conservative', as both parties left their traditional political grounds long ago. If this media bias extends to nothing but party-bashing, as your example of the Clinton - Dole interview, which I never watched, did, it is not in any way liberal (nor would it be conservative), but simply opportunistic.
Okay first I should point out that I retracted my statement about crushing the miserable. It wasnt consistent with my posts in religious threads, so to end the hypocracy in my arguements I retract my very harsh views upon the poor and abused in other countries.
And thank you Mel. Sums my statements up perfectly.
And electric
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->My question was how can you stop it if you don't know whats happening?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You cant stop it, and you dont want to. If you think American exploitation begins and ends with Nike shoes then you're way off track. Americans dont know, and do care where their really really cheap bananas come from. The fact that some small carribean country is entirely dependant upon America for its banana exports, and thus the Americans get to dictate insanely cheap prices for the bananas means little to nothing to Joe average.
And perhaps to add a little more insight into September 11, another "think about it from the terrorists view" comment.
These people feel that they are being hurt by America. They want revenge. They want America to hurt the same way they do. So they bomb an embassy. Americans really dont care. They bomb a boat, still the Americans dont care. Then they blow up a pair of huge towers right smack bang in the middle of corporate America. And NOW the infidels are hurting, now they are paying attention.
America does a lot of things that hurt these people, and you have just been given a taste of what they go through. Its really not cool to have you cities bombed. Now I'm not saying America isnt justified in supplying the Israeli's with bombs, but looking from the terrorists POV, they wanted your attention. They wanted revenge. And they got it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Read "Bias" a book on the liberal media, it should sum EVERYTHING up for you. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Did. Then I read <a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465001769/qid=1063382170/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/002-1480850-9824038?v=glance&s=books&n=507846' target='_blank'>this</a>. It isn't quite as clear cut as you might think, and the implications of a 'conservative' media and a 'liberal' media are quite different, actually.
But, that's only if you want to explore two different viewpoints. If you're used to reading just that which agrees with you and enforces your world view, then by all means, stick with 'Bias'.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->He wants absolute government control over guns. A man SHOULDN'T have the right to protect himself, and criminals should be given their food on a golden platter, because after all, they are human to, even if they did shoot up an office building, or destroyed 30 little girls. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, it's obvious that you didn't take the time to watch 'Bowling for Columbine' (Michael Moore is a lifelong member in good standing in the NRA, mind you, who hardly calls for absolute government control over guns), so can you at least point us to the mangled 'review' you used to base this opinion?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Simple, Michael Moore is a sleazy writer who tries the age old tactic of touching on emotions while still slipping in messages that are just fit to his ideals.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow. Sounds like conservative talk radio.
Sorry, Nem. I am guilty of joining in the pull to drag this off-topic. I am a bad person.
Edit: Also, in re-reading this, my tone is a bit too combatative. I wrote this before I had any coffee, so there you go.
<!--QuoteBegin--BathroomMonkey+Sep 12 2003, 11:10 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Sep 12 2003, 11:10 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Read "Bias" a book on the liberal media, it should sum EVERYTHING up for you. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Did. Then I read <a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465001769/qid=1063382170/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/002-1480850-9824038?v=glance&s=books&n=507846' target='_blank'>this</a>. It isn't quite as clear cut as you might think, and the implications of a 'conservative' media and a 'liberal' media are quite different, actually.
But, that's only if you want to explore two different viewpoints. If you're used to reading just that which agrees with you and enforces your world view, then by all means, stick with 'Bias'.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->He wants absolute government control over guns. A man SHOULDN'T have the right to protect himself, and criminals should be given their food on a golden platter, because after all, they are human to, even if they did shoot up an office building, or destroyed 30 little girls. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, it's obvious that you didn't take the time to watch 'Bowling for Columbine' (Michael Moore is a lifelong member in good standing in the NRA, mind you, who hardly calls for absolute government control over guns), so can you at least point us to the mangled 'review' you used to base this opinion?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Simple, Michael Moore is a sleazy writer who tries the age old tactic of touching on emotions while still slipping in messages that are just fit to his ideals.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow. Sounds like conservative talk radio.
Sorry, Nem. I am guilty of joining in the pull to drag this off-topic. I am a bad person.
Edit: Also, in re-reading this, my tone is a bit too combatative. I wrote this before I had any coffee, so there you go. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually I did watch the movie. Watch through it again, he obviously isn't in the NRA to support Charles Heston's views of how the NRA should be run.... Or at least how he USED to think it was run before he forgot everything from 10 minutes ago and before.
I'll post more when I get the chance, right now, I have to finish up some homework for English.
<!--QuoteBegin--MMZ>Torak+Sep 9 2003, 04:24 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MMZ>Torak @ Sep 9 2003, 04:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> There are numerous parallels between 9-11 and Pearl Harbor. No one calls Pearl Harbor terrorism for a few reasons: 1) Pearl Harbor was a Military target 2) The decision to attack the US was made by a government, not a single religious radical hiding in a cave 3) It was carried out by military persons, and even though innocents died there #1 still holds true. If, by some miricle, the attacks of 9-11 were launched with military hardware, by another government, it surely would have been seen as an Act of War. Using civillian aircraft, in a suicide attack on an economic target and landmark is not a valid course of action. It is terrorism.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->America was shocked cause this was the first time casualties were on their soil.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In actuality, it was the second greatest loss of life in America's history, on American soil. To find the biggest you have to go all the way back to the Civil War. .
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Thousands of civilian casualties were sustained by Afghanistan during the "War on Terrorism".<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Had planes not been crashed into buildings, none of them would have lost their innocent lives. No bombs or munitions were manufactured in the WTC. The WTC was neither a political or military target. By your reasoning, I can go destroy the local grocery store because it is muslim owned and they are sending money to Al Queda
If your religion states that murder of people not of your religion is acceptable, then it's your interpretaion of your religion that is a problem.
BTW I didn't shed a single tear for victims in the Pentagon, and I truly believe that the flight heading for the White House was shot down by an American fighter. The whole "Let's Roll" story was a convienent cover story. I have friends that worked very close to the WTC. One of them walked, rather ran, from his office to see an entire jet engine in the street infront of his office. There was no debris found or shown (to my knowledge) near the pentagon. Had that plane hit the White House I would have been saddened by the loss of the history connected with the building, but nothing more.
The WTC was not a valid target by any stretch of the imagination. Having been here in NYC the day of the attack, and lived here all my life; having seen office supplies drifting down in my neighborhood (some 15 miles away from ground zero), like some surreal evil snowfall, I will never believe it was a valid target. My house smelled like a campfire for a week afterward. A pall of smoke covered the city for almost 2 weeks afterward.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->When people wage wars, innocent people die. Army bases have cleaners, cooks and medical personnel who aren't in the armed forces, just like the World Trade Centre. The loss of innocent life has never been a serious issue during warfare. That's why they call it warfare, rather than cuddling.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Every last one of those people assume that risk by working in a military establishment.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Not wearing a uniform doesn't make you guiltless or a non-military target. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Earning money in the United States does not make you a military target either.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The WTC contained the head offices of a large number of corporations who were either partly or directly responsible for continued economic exploitation of third world countries and the deaths of at the very least thousands if not millions of citizens of those countries.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
By this logic, blowing up the residence of these same people, could also be considered a valid milatry target. I mean, the Corporate President <i>is</i> there.
In my opinion, the rest of the world got off "lucky" that the US was attacked.
<!--emo&:angry:--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm glad I heard this. Thanks man, this is the post I came here to read. I'm glad I heard it from a New Yorker, who experienced it, because the foreign people didn't know what it was like. Sure they saw the tapes, but you were there. And to me, that right there makes your whole opinion several times more valid than anyone elses. And I completely agree with you. Sorry Grendel, but I do think your post is rather sick.
Do you Americans think you have cornered the market on human suffering or something?
Do you think the worst event in history was 9/11? Over 10000000 can die in one flood in China and your mere 6000 you consider big?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm glad I heard it from a New Yorker, who experienced it, because the foreign people didn't know what it was like<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
OMG! Foreign people dont understand 9/11? The people that did this to you were trying to give you a taste of what you had been giving them. Thousands of people have died as a direct or indirect result of American foreign policy, often with bombings of their towns and homes, and you think they dont understand? You think they say, ahh well thats fair I guess we were in the wrong after all?
They thought what you thought. This is terrible, this is aweful, those are my friends and loved ones in that building, this is my home and its been attacked. And then they go looking for revenge.
For you guys, 9/11 is a big issue. For the many many other nations in the world who have been affected by American policy, its just another day.
Us Aussies lost over 100 people in the Bali bombing. And we are over it already. People die all the time, killing and bombings are common. Its always a shock when it happens to you, but its been blown out of proportion.
I'm sorry, I know its hard to believe, but 9/11 is nothing in terms of human suffering. Just because it happened to America doesnt make it special, its just it dont happen to you guys too often. Dont pretend no-one can truely understand you guys, there are millions of people world wide to whom shock and devestation is just run of the mill.
<!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Sep 14 2003, 01:33 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Sep 14 2003, 01:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm sorry, I know its hard to believe, but 9/11 is nothing in terms of human suffering. Just because it happened to America doesnt make it special, its just it dont happen to you guys too often. Dont pretend no-one can truely understand you guys, there are millions of people world wide to whom shock and devestation is just run of the mill.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> When you consider that many of the people who died in the WTC weren't even US citizens, and that US citizens are worth more than people from other nations, you'll come to the conclusion that 9/11 wasn't so bad after all, casualty-wise.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Actually I did watch the movie. Watch through it again, he obviously isn't in the NRA to support Charles Heston's views of how the NRA should be run.... Or at least how he USED to think it was run before he forgot everything from 10 minutes ago and before. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fact is that MM is actually a lifetime member of the NRA, as mentioned before. Just because he asked Charlton Heston some uncomfortable questions doesn't mean he suddenly hates guns. If you had watched the movie you'd have realized that he didn't blame guns. Actually, he didn't really blame anything, the movie was more of an exploration of the ideas people have about what is to blame for such incidents. If MM were trying to blame guns, why would he point out that Canada has more guns, but still has a lower rate of gun related deaths? Why would he go to canada and make a point of asking a barretta owner how easy it was to get one?
darnit... look what you made me do? Now i've gone and posted off topic. If you insist on bashing MM some more, you should probably make a separate thread.
GrendelAll that is fear...Join Date: 2002-07-19Member: 970Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, NS2 Playtester
<!--QuoteBegin--ThE HeRo+Sep 14 2003, 06:32 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (ThE HeRo @ Sep 14 2003, 06:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm glad I heard this. Thanks man, this is the post I came here to read. I'm glad I heard it from a New Yorker, who experienced it, because the foreign people didn't know what it was like. Sure they saw the tapes, but you were there. And to me, that right there makes your whole opinion several times more valid than anyone elses. And I completely agree with you. Sorry Grendel, but I do think your post is rather sick. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> No, I wasn't in New York at the time. I was in a bar, in Birmingham, where I proceeded to watch the news. My first thought at the time was "someone's going to get the **** bombed out of them for this".
You can imagine my suprise at the way things panned out.
I <b>have</b>, however, lived in the UK for the past 27 years. We are not a stranger to terrorism. My family are Irish and I myself am Catholic. We've lived with US sponsored terrorism for decades. I've in fact been picked up by the police and questioned over a terrorist attack. Half the towns in Britain no longer have dustbins in public places because of terrorism, just to give you an idea of the everyday, pervasive nature of the threat. It's something you have to get used to if people in your country deliberately exploit another populace for their own benefit.
Approximately 3,523 lives have been lost in Northern Ireland, mainland Britain and the continent. My family home (Omagh, Co Tyrone, NI) had most of the main highstreet destroyed by a bombing which killed a measly 29 people and injured a few hundred.
I've had plenty of experience of terrorism and most of the terrorism I've experienced has been paid for or supported by the Irish population of America.
Was the WTC a legitimate target? Depends on the view (as always)... "Technically" or from the point of law WTC was not a legitimate target, because Terrorists can not declare war. Nemesis pointed this out clearly.
So now that it was not a legitimate target... was WTC a GOOD target? Hell yes it was! Assuming the crashed plane was aimed at the white house (or congress?) we have three targets with high symbolic value:
- White House The "Head of the State". Symbol of the American leadership.
- Pentagon Symbol of America's military and strength.
- WTC Symbol of America's wealth and (from a terrorists point of view) symbol for all the suffering America caused in other lands to become more wealthy.
These targets are not civil targets although most of the people in WTC were civillians. Those targets were/are symbolic targets.. showing the Americans "This is what your country is based on... look how fragile it is / how easy it can be destroyed". While White House and Pentagon are military targets, the WTC itself may not be a military target, but as a symbol for America's wealth it is also a symbol for what makes all this military power available to America.
But beside all that symbolic character, those targets all follow a more or less clear military plan: If your enemy is overwhelming in technology and/or troops, you have to strike at their production facillities and try to cut of the commanding level from the troops. White House being the place where desicions are made (with a little chance to kill the head of state himself, too) totally makes sense to me. Pentagon as most important control institution for the militry is a good target, too. Now that we hit the Commanding level, we need to strike the production facillities... but wich one?? We would need a hundret of planes to hit all their factories. So, if we can't hit their production directly, we need to strike at their resources... but wich one?? A coal mine? A chip factory? A fuel refinery? Again we cannot really cause much damage that way. So, if we can't hit their resources directly, we need to strike at a thing that is needed during the production process... and something that is needed even after the production process... something that is needed for America to come to our caves and throw bombs at us. Money! It's all about money!
If I were a terrorist and had four planes I would have used them in a similiar way... The White House would be target Nr.1 The Congress would be target Nr.2 The Pentagon would ne target Nr.3 And instead of the WTC I would have hit Wall Street.
So... WTC maybe not a legitimate target (depending on the point of view and the definition of when war is officially a war), but it was a good target... maybe not the best but a good one. And WTC was chosen because of military, economically and symbolic reasons... not to kill as many Americans as possible.
Comments
And how's that a bad thing?
. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How is it a bad thing?
Simple, Michael Moore is a sleazy writer who tries the age old tactic of touching on emotions while still slipping in messages that are just fit to his ideals. He believes that money grows on trees, and companys should never be able to lay off people, because it doesn't matter how bad the shape of the company is, money does in fact, grow on trees.
He's a flat out jerk, an ****, and fat. I hope he dies of a heart attack (oh what a nice rhyme). If he's so concerned about these laid off workers, why doesn't he go on a diet and give the extra money to those people? I mean, after all, his money should grow on trees to.
He basis so many of his arguments on un true facts, such as his "open letter to Bush" stating that if you asked 10 people on the street if they wanted to go to war with Iraq, not a single one of them would say yes, when recent polls at the time stated that 58% of America wanted to go to war with Iraq.
He wants absolute government control over guns. A man SHOULDN'T have the right to protect himself, and criminals should be given their food on a golden platter, because after all, they are human to, even if they did shoot up an office building, or destroyed 30 little girls.
I hate him. With every bone in my body, if there is ONE person on this entire planet that I would WILLINGLY KILL, thats right, KILL, it would be Michael Moore. He stands for everything that I despise, and everything that is throwing the world down the shitter. **** you Michael Moore, I hope you see this, then drop dead.
As for this:
QUOTE
We live in a Capitlistic society, and while that does encourage some greed, many of your accusations against those corporations are old, sterotypes brought up in newspaper editorals by blatent liberals across the nation. The corporations may get a little out of hand, but they aren't *as* evil as some people make them out to be. Hell, if it weren't for them, I wouldn't have had a job, as crappy as it is.
Is there anything you can back that "stereotypes brought up in newspaper editorals by blatent liberals" up with? I'm honestly getting fed up with this constant political paranoia: Something doesn't fit in your opinion? It's got to be propaganda by the other side.
Life isn't that easy, fellas.
Your right it does, because it isn't moderate either. The media is flat out liberal. Remember 60 mins interviews with Bob Dole and Bill Clinton where they went so light on Clintons questions, yet constantly proded into Doles personal life?
I could give you many links to other facts of the liberal media, but I'll give you just one simple suggestion. Read "Bias" a book on the liberal media, it should sum EVERYTHING up for you. Of course, the liberal inside of you will deny it all, but hey, at least conservatives have balls enough to admit that Talk radio is in their favor <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
you think the wealthy dont look out for their interests? that they are just holding their money in banks letting interest grow? not actively 'doing over' people who are far away (read, 'that dont matter').
the point is american citizens and american corporations are not the same thing, dont take this personally, i dont think hes trying to blame you in particular.
im gunna stop here, but you get the point. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thank God someone at least has some common sense. I'm so sick of the old accusations of everyone who has anything must have taken it from the poor BS.
Anyway, Xzil, you first write
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Simple, Michael Moore is a sleazy writer who tries the age old tactic of touching on emotions while still slipping in messages that are just fit to his ideals.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
then, you write
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->He's a flat out jerk, an ****, and fat. I hope he dies of a heart attack (oh what a nice rhyme). If he's so concerned about these laid off workers, why doesn't he go on a diet and give the extra money to those people? I mean, after all, his money should grow on trees to.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Savor the irony.
I've read Moores books and open letters, I watched his movies, and while I disagree with him on a lot of topics, he is capable of stringent argumentation. Yes, he uses rethoric. So does everyone else. If you wish to drag this discussion out, I'd suggest a seperate thread, as it'd quickly burst this ones.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I could give you many links to other facts of the liberal media, but I'll give you just one simple suggestion. Read "Bias" a book on the liberal media, it should sum EVERYTHING up for you. Of course, the liberal inside of you will deny it all, but hey, at least conservatives have balls enough to admit that Talk radio is in their favor <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First thing first, I am <i>not</i> liberal, nor am I a hippy, nor any of the other left-field buzzwords that'll come to your mind. Try to keep in mind that I'm a person, not some stereotyped political movement.
Second, your example only shows a bias towards certain partys (the Dems / the GOP). This does not mean that 'the media is liberal', nor that 'the media is conservative', as both parties left their traditional political grounds long ago. If this media bias extends to nothing but party-bashing, as your example of the Clinton - Dole interview, which I never watched, did, it is not in any way liberal (nor would it be conservative), but simply opportunistic.
And thank you Mel. Sums my statements up perfectly.
And electric
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->My question was how can you stop it if you don't know whats happening?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You cant stop it, and you dont want to. If you think American exploitation begins and ends with Nike shoes then you're way off track. Americans dont know, and do care where their really really cheap bananas come from. The fact that some small carribean country is entirely dependant upon America for its banana exports, and thus the Americans get to dictate insanely cheap prices for the bananas means little to nothing to Joe average.
And perhaps to add a little more insight into September 11, another "think about it from the terrorists view" comment.
These people feel that they are being hurt by America. They want revenge. They want America to hurt the same way they do. So they bomb an embassy. Americans really dont care. They bomb a boat, still the Americans dont care. Then they blow up a pair of huge towers right smack bang in the middle of corporate America. And NOW the infidels are hurting, now they are paying attention.
America does a lot of things that hurt these people, and you have just been given a taste of what they go through. Its really not cool to have you cities bombed. Now I'm not saying America isnt justified in supplying the Israeli's with bombs, but looking from the terrorists POV, they wanted your attention. They wanted revenge. And they got it.
Did. Then I read <a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465001769/qid=1063382170/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/002-1480850-9824038?v=glance&s=books&n=507846' target='_blank'>this</a>. It isn't quite as clear cut as you might think, and the implications of a 'conservative' media and a 'liberal' media are quite different, actually.
But, that's only if you want to explore two different viewpoints. If you're used to reading just that which agrees with you and enforces your world view, then by all means, stick with 'Bias'.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->He wants absolute government control over guns. A man SHOULDN'T have the right to protect himself, and criminals should be given their food on a golden platter, because after all, they are human to, even if they did shoot up an office building, or destroyed 30 little girls.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, it's obvious that you didn't take the time to watch 'Bowling for Columbine' (Michael Moore is a lifelong member in good standing in the NRA, mind you, who hardly calls for absolute government control over guns), so can you at least point us to the mangled 'review' you used to base this opinion?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Simple, Michael Moore is a sleazy writer who tries the age old tactic of touching on emotions while still slipping in messages that are just fit to his ideals.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow. Sounds like conservative talk radio.
Sorry, Nem. I am guilty of joining in the pull to drag this off-topic. I am a bad person.
Edit: Also, in re-reading this, my tone is a bit too combatative. I wrote this before I had any coffee, so there you go.
Did. Then I read <a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465001769/qid=1063382170/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/002-1480850-9824038?v=glance&s=books&n=507846' target='_blank'>this</a>. It isn't quite as clear cut as you might think, and the implications of a 'conservative' media and a 'liberal' media are quite different, actually.
But, that's only if you want to explore two different viewpoints. If you're used to reading just that which agrees with you and enforces your world view, then by all means, stick with 'Bias'.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->He wants absolute government control over guns. A man SHOULDN'T have the right to protect himself, and criminals should be given their food on a golden platter, because after all, they are human to, even if they did shoot up an office building, or destroyed 30 little girls.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, it's obvious that you didn't take the time to watch 'Bowling for Columbine' (Michael Moore is a lifelong member in good standing in the NRA, mind you, who hardly calls for absolute government control over guns), so can you at least point us to the mangled 'review' you used to base this opinion?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Simple, Michael Moore is a sleazy writer who tries the age old tactic of touching on emotions while still slipping in messages that are just fit to his ideals.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow. Sounds like conservative talk radio.
Sorry, Nem. I am guilty of joining in the pull to drag this off-topic. I am a bad person.
Edit: Also, in re-reading this, my tone is a bit too combatative. I wrote this before I had any coffee, so there you go. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually I did watch the movie. Watch through it again, he obviously isn't in the NRA to support Charles Heston's views of how the NRA should be run.... Or at least how he USED to think it was run before he forgot everything from 10 minutes ago and before.
I'll post more when I get the chance, right now, I have to finish up some homework for English.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->America was shocked cause this was the first time casualties were on their soil.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In actuality, it was the second greatest loss of life in America's history, on American soil. To find the biggest you have to go all the way back to the Civil War. .
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Thousands of civilian casualties were sustained by Afghanistan during the "War on Terrorism".<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Had planes not been crashed into buildings, none of them would have lost their innocent lives. No bombs or munitions were manufactured in the WTC. The WTC was neither a political or military target. By your reasoning, I can go destroy the local grocery store because it is muslim owned and they are sending money to Al Queda
If your religion states that murder of people not of your religion is acceptable, then it's your interpretaion of your religion that is a problem.
BTW I didn't shed a single tear for victims in the Pentagon, and I truly believe that the flight heading for the White House was shot down by an American fighter. The whole "Let's Roll" story was a convienent cover story. I have friends that worked very close to the WTC. One of them walked, rather ran, from his office to see an entire jet engine in the street infront of his office. There was no debris found or shown (to my knowledge) near the pentagon. Had that plane hit the White House I would have been saddened by the loss of the history connected with the building, but nothing more.
The WTC was not a valid target by any stretch of the imagination. Having been here in NYC the day of the attack, and lived here all my life; having seen office supplies drifting down in my neighborhood (some 15 miles away from ground zero), like some surreal evil snowfall, I will never believe it was a valid target. My house smelled like a campfire for a week afterward. A pall of smoke covered the city for almost 2 weeks afterward.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->When people wage wars, innocent people die. Army bases have cleaners, cooks and medical personnel who aren't in the armed forces, just like the World Trade Centre. The loss of innocent life has never been a serious issue during warfare. That's why they call it warfare, rather than cuddling.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Every last one of those people assume that risk by working in a military establishment.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Not wearing a uniform doesn't make you guiltless or a non-military target. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Earning money in the United States does not make you a military target either.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The WTC contained the head offices of a large number of corporations who were either partly or directly responsible for continued economic exploitation of third world countries and the deaths of at the very least thousands if not millions of citizens of those countries.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
By this logic, blowing up the residence of these same people, could also be considered a valid milatry target. I mean, the Corporate President <i>is</i> there.
In my opinion, the rest of the world got off "lucky" that the US was attacked.
<!--emo&:angry:--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm glad I heard this. Thanks man, this is the post I came here to read. I'm glad I heard it from a New Yorker, who experienced it, because the foreign people didn't know what it was like. Sure they saw the tapes, but you were there. And to me, that right there makes your whole opinion several times more valid than anyone elses. And I completely agree with you. Sorry Grendel, but I do think your post is rather sick.
Do you think the worst event in history was 9/11? Over 10000000 can die in one flood in China and your mere 6000 you consider big?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm glad I heard it from a New Yorker, who experienced it, because the foreign people didn't know what it was like<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
OMG! Foreign people dont understand 9/11? The people that did this to you were trying to give you a taste of what you had been giving them. Thousands of people have died as a direct or indirect result of American foreign policy, often with bombings of their towns and homes, and you think they dont understand? You think they say, ahh well thats fair I guess we were in the wrong after all?
They thought what you thought. This is terrible, this is aweful, those are my friends and loved ones in that building, this is my home and its been attacked. And then they go looking for revenge.
For you guys, 9/11 is a big issue. For the many many other nations in the world who have been affected by American policy, its just another day.
Us Aussies lost over 100 people in the Bali bombing. And we are over it already. People die all the time, killing and bombings are common. Its always a shock when it happens to you, but its been blown out of proportion.
I'm sorry, I know its hard to believe, but 9/11 is nothing in terms of human suffering. Just because it happened to America doesnt make it special, its just it dont happen to you guys too often. Dont pretend no-one can truely understand you guys, there are millions of people world wide to whom shock and devestation is just run of the mill.
When you consider that many of the people who died in the WTC weren't even US citizens, and that US citizens are worth more than people from other nations, you'll come to the conclusion that 9/11 wasn't so bad after all, casualty-wise.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fact is that MM is actually a lifetime member of the NRA, as mentioned before. Just because he asked Charlton Heston some uncomfortable questions doesn't mean he suddenly hates guns. If you had watched the movie you'd have realized that he didn't blame guns. Actually, he didn't really blame anything, the movie was more of an exploration of the ideas people have about what is to blame for such incidents. If MM were trying to blame guns, why would he point out that Canada has more guns, but still has a lower rate of gun related deaths? Why would he go to canada and make a point of asking a barretta owner how easy it was to get one?
darnit... look what you made me do? Now i've gone and posted off topic. If you insist on bashing MM some more, you should probably make a separate thread.
No, I wasn't in New York at the time. I was in a bar, in Birmingham, where I proceeded to watch the news. My first thought at the time was "someone's going to get the **** bombed out of them for this".
You can imagine my suprise at the way things panned out.
I <b>have</b>, however, lived in the UK for the past 27 years. We are not a stranger to terrorism. My family are Irish and I myself am Catholic. We've lived with US sponsored terrorism for decades. I've in fact been picked up by the police and questioned over a terrorist attack. Half the towns in Britain no longer have dustbins in public places because of terrorism, just to give you an idea of the everyday, pervasive nature of the threat. It's something you have to get used to if people in your country deliberately exploit another populace for their own benefit.
Approximately 3,523 lives have been lost in Northern Ireland, mainland Britain and the continent. My family home (Omagh, Co Tyrone, NI) had most of the main highstreet destroyed by a bombing which killed a measly 29 people and injured a few hundred.
I've had plenty of experience of terrorism and most of the terrorism I've experienced has been paid for or supported by the Irish population of America.
Depends on the view (as always)...
"Technically" or from the point of law WTC was not a legitimate target, because Terrorists can not declare war. Nemesis pointed this out clearly.
So now that it was not a legitimate target... was WTC a GOOD target?
Hell yes it was!
Assuming the crashed plane was aimed at the white house (or congress?) we have three targets with high symbolic value:
- White House
The "Head of the State". Symbol of the American leadership.
- Pentagon
Symbol of America's military and strength.
- WTC
Symbol of America's wealth and (from a terrorists point of view) symbol for all the suffering America caused in other lands to become more wealthy.
These targets are not civil targets although most of the people in WTC were civillians.
Those targets were/are symbolic targets.. showing the Americans "This is what your country is based on... look how fragile it is / how easy it can be destroyed".
While White House and Pentagon are military targets, the WTC itself may not be a military target, but as a symbol for America's wealth it is also a symbol for what makes all this military power available to America.
But beside all that symbolic character, those targets all follow a more or less clear military plan:
If your enemy is overwhelming in technology and/or troops, you have to strike at their production facillities and try to cut of the commanding level from the troops.
White House being the place where desicions are made (with a little chance to kill the head of state himself, too) totally makes sense to me.
Pentagon as most important control institution for the militry is a good target, too.
Now that we hit the Commanding level, we need to strike the production facillities... but wich one??
We would need a hundret of planes to hit all their factories.
So, if we can't hit their production directly, we need to strike at their resources... but wich one??
A coal mine? A chip factory? A fuel refinery? Again we cannot really cause much damage that way.
So, if we can't hit their resources directly, we need to strike at a thing that is needed during the production process... and something that is needed even after the production process... something that is needed for America to come to our caves and throw bombs at us.
Money!
It's all about money!
If I were a terrorist and had four planes I would have used them in a similiar way...
The White House would be target Nr.1
The Congress would be target Nr.2
The Pentagon would ne target Nr.3
And instead of the WTC I would have hit Wall Street.
So... WTC maybe not a legitimate target (depending on the point of view and the definition of when war is officially a war), but it was a good target... maybe not the best but a good one.
And WTC was chosen because of military, economically and symbolic reasons... not to kill as many Americans as possible.
-my2cent-
Hyper