The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
We all saw that news story yesterday, right? I know I did, three times in ten minutes to be precise.
But, forgive me for seeming heartless and uncaring, believe me, I hate to see anyone lost their life, but why are we making such a fuss over one American solider dying in conflict?
Do we do this for every soldier who dies in conflict? Moreover, do we do it for everyone who dies?
It wasn’t like cold-blooded murder and the usual atrocious deaths that reach the media. He was a soldier. Last time I checked solder’s are meant to take risks. Soldiers know that they are risking their lives by joining the army. Soldiers have a choice to take part in conflict if they wish to.
But some people don’t. Hundred and thousands of people from war-torn countries die everyday, hundreds and thousands of people die of things that we take for granted everyday: lack of food, measles, dirty water.
When a disaster happens it makes the news, we hear the death toll and we all regret that something terrible has happened and mourn for them and their families.
But, read this quote..
“There were two 'Reigns of Terror', if we could but remember and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passions, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon a thousand persons, the other upon a hundred million; but our shudders are all for the "horrors of the... momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty and heartbreak? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief terror that we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror - that unspeakable bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves”
..and try to comprehend what it means.
There are places in the world were approximately 200,000 children are killed in conflict each year, where due to lack of medical help 515,000 women die of child birth each year and where over 1,100 million people don’t have access to clean water.
I know I sound like an Oxfam advert at the moment, but when you see the horrors and sadness of the “momentary terror” on the news, spare a thought or two for the thousands of people in the world who continue to die through lack of clean water and diseases which can be easily cured in the western world.
I feel strongly about the way the world is, I feel strongly about the way it isn’t equal. I feel strongly about how the media seems to portray that the death of a westerner is more important then the continuing deaths of thousands of people. I’m quite aware that “2,7000 people died of measles today in developing countries again” doesn’t make the news, because it’s always happening. The media likes to broadcast new things, like that death of that soldier. But we forget, I think, about the thousands each day when all that we see on the news is the “momentary terror”
All I want of the world is to be a little more equal and to remember the terror that lasts for thousands of years and claims the lives of many each day. I know it’s wishful thinking and I doubt the world will ever be perfect, far from it. I just don’t want to ignore it, even though there’s little I can do, I don’t want to stop being angry about the world like it is.
Don’t think I don’t feel sorry for that solider killed in Afghanistan, I do, I really do. He’s just one of the thousands of people’s deaths I feel sorry for.
Who wrote that quote? Mark Twain. Around a hundred years ago and still today it is true. The world hasn’t changed for the better in those years.
But, forgive me for seeming heartless and uncaring, believe me, I hate to see anyone lost their life, but why are we making such a fuss over one American solider dying in conflict?
Do we do this for every soldier who dies in conflict? Moreover, do we do it for everyone who dies?
It wasn’t like cold-blooded murder and the usual atrocious deaths that reach the media. He was a soldier. Last time I checked solder’s are meant to take risks. Soldiers know that they are risking their lives by joining the army. Soldiers have a choice to take part in conflict if they wish to.
But some people don’t. Hundred and thousands of people from war-torn countries die everyday, hundreds and thousands of people die of things that we take for granted everyday: lack of food, measles, dirty water.
When a disaster happens it makes the news, we hear the death toll and we all regret that something terrible has happened and mourn for them and their families.
But, read this quote..
“There were two 'Reigns of Terror', if we could but remember and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passions, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon a thousand persons, the other upon a hundred million; but our shudders are all for the "horrors of the... momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty and heartbreak? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief terror that we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror - that unspeakable bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves”
..and try to comprehend what it means.
There are places in the world were approximately 200,000 children are killed in conflict each year, where due to lack of medical help 515,000 women die of child birth each year and where over 1,100 million people don’t have access to clean water.
I know I sound like an Oxfam advert at the moment, but when you see the horrors and sadness of the “momentary terror” on the news, spare a thought or two for the thousands of people in the world who continue to die through lack of clean water and diseases which can be easily cured in the western world.
I feel strongly about the way the world is, I feel strongly about the way it isn’t equal. I feel strongly about how the media seems to portray that the death of a westerner is more important then the continuing deaths of thousands of people. I’m quite aware that “2,7000 people died of measles today in developing countries again” doesn’t make the news, because it’s always happening. The media likes to broadcast new things, like that death of that soldier. But we forget, I think, about the thousands each day when all that we see on the news is the “momentary terror”
All I want of the world is to be a little more equal and to remember the terror that lasts for thousands of years and claims the lives of many each day. I know it’s wishful thinking and I doubt the world will ever be perfect, far from it. I just don’t want to ignore it, even though there’s little I can do, I don’t want to stop being angry about the world like it is.
Don’t think I don’t feel sorry for that solider killed in Afghanistan, I do, I really do. He’s just one of the thousands of people’s deaths I feel sorry for.
Who wrote that quote? Mark Twain. Around a hundred years ago and still today it is true. The world hasn’t changed for the better in those years.
Page:
Iguana wrote:
> America believe in a President who had never been to >Europe before he was
> elected. Leaders often don't take part in the wars they >start. Far too
> often.
Too right. I don't think Osama Bin Laden was on either of those planes, do you ?
>The problem is America -doesn't- listen to the little >countries. That
> is way thwy went to such extremes to make a point. There >have been problems with
> terrorism for years and years, why did it take an attack >on America for them to
> wake up to the problem?
Er, well actually America and Britain HAVE been tackling the problem, just not in the glare of the media spotlight. It takes an attack like this to get political support for a massive operation like Enduring Freedom. The military of many countries have made it clear they wanted terrorism tackling but up until now it wqould have been political suicide. America, and other freedom loving countries are certainly not even going to try to listen to small, terrorist harbouring, states now are they ? Bush and Blair have made it clear: no negotiations, you either agree to our demands or face the consequences.
>I don't know about your
> idea of justice, but mine doesn't involve the murder of >innocents, nor does it
> involve the murder of the people who did it.
Okay; a)The civilian casualties are not murders as they are not being purposelly targeted, its collateral damage. b) hte civilians wouldnt be hit if the Taliban and Al Queda didnt locate their hideouts and equipment IN civilian areas. c) The "people who did it" are not being murdered - unless you have evidence of US soldiers executing people. This is war. IN war if you do not surrender and will not negotiate then your forces are attacked and killed/captured. The only murders were those on 9/11 and the several journalists murdered by the taliban and their associates.
You are ignoring the fact that Bush/NATO gave SIX weeks of warnings to Afghanistan before commencing operations in Afghanistan. The Taliban, quite clearly on TV, said they would repel the Americans and that hundreds of US soldiers would be killed. Osama Bin Laden has continued to issue threats via video, there is video proof of his guilt, and he issued a bounty on any US Servie personnel who could be killed. I think it pretty clear there is only one bunch of murderers in this war and they are hiding in caves.
> America believe in a President who had never been to >Europe before he was
> elected. Leaders often don't take part in the wars they >start. Far too
> often.
Too right. I don't think Osama Bin Laden was on either of those planes, do you ?
>The problem is America -doesn't- listen to the little >countries. That
> is way thwy went to such extremes to make a point. There >have been problems with
> terrorism for years and years, why did it take an attack >on America for them to
> wake up to the problem?
Er, well actually America and Britain HAVE been tackling the problem, just not in the glare of the media spotlight. It takes an attack like this to get political support for a massive operation like Enduring Freedom. The military of many countries have made it clear they wanted terrorism tackling but up until now it wqould have been political suicide. America, and other freedom loving countries are certainly not even going to try to listen to small, terrorist harbouring, states now are they ? Bush and Blair have made it clear: no negotiations, you either agree to our demands or face the consequences.
>I don't know about your
> idea of justice, but mine doesn't involve the murder of >innocents, nor does it
> involve the murder of the people who did it.
Okay; a)The civilian casualties are not murders as they are not being purposelly targeted, its collateral damage. b) hte civilians wouldnt be hit if the Taliban and Al Queda didnt locate their hideouts and equipment IN civilian areas. c) The "people who did it" are not being murdered - unless you have evidence of US soldiers executing people. This is war. IN war if you do not surrender and will not negotiate then your forces are attacked and killed/captured. The only murders were those on 9/11 and the several journalists murdered by the taliban and their associates.
You are ignoring the fact that Bush/NATO gave SIX weeks of warnings to Afghanistan before commencing operations in Afghanistan. The Taliban, quite clearly on TV, said they would repel the Americans and that hundreds of US soldiers would be killed. Osama Bin Laden has continued to issue threats via video, there is video proof of his guilt, and he issued a bounty on any US Servie personnel who could be killed. I think it pretty clear there is only one bunch of murderers in this war and they are hiding in caves.
America believe in a President who had never been to Europe before he was elected. Leaders often don't take part in the wars they start. Far too often.
The problem is America -doesn't- listen to the little countries. That is way thwy went to such extremes to make a point. There have been problems with terrorism for years and years, why did it take an attack on America for them to wake up to the problem?
Saying "They were done for the right reasons" is not a way of justifying what they did that day. If you want to get good marks on a test and cheat, then you've done it for the right reasons, but gone about it the wrong way. Understand now?
I don't know about your idea of justice, but mine doesn't involve the murder of innocents, nor does it involve the murder of the people who did it.
The problem is America -doesn't- listen to the little countries. That is way thwy went to such extremes to make a point. There have been problems with terrorism for years and years, why did it take an attack on America for them to wake up to the problem?
Saying "They were done for the right reasons" is not a way of justifying what they did that day. If you want to get good marks on a test and cheat, then you've done it for the right reasons, but gone about it the wrong way. Understand now?
I don't know about your idea of justice, but mine doesn't involve the murder of innocents, nor does it involve the murder of the people who did it.
Stranger In Paradise wrote:
> cannot negotiate like civilised people
To be honest I don't think we can really call anyone civilised at the moment, can we? We live in what seems like a morally void world and rarely prcatice tolerance ourselves.
I agree with Iguana, in that I can see why something happened. I can see why an extremist could justify their attacks. I am not an extremist and so I would say that the attacks were absolutely unjustified. Recently, however, American Foriegn policy has descended into obscurity. Long gone are the days of Kissinger, and even Clinton when America cared about what happened elsewhere. The BUsh presidency has revealed a mammoth lack of any understanding of other cultures. Bush, in his ineloquent way, continually made mistakes of rhetoric to imply that the civilised world was under attack from Islam. Bush's implications were that civilised and Christian were synonymous which is a fallacy.
There are problems in the world that America is perpetuating. This is why extremists hate America. It is a clumsy and often hypocritical country that does what it likes where it likes. This is NOT justification to go and fly airliners into buildings. But if there is a Muslim extremist who has been told that they will go to heaven after commiting an atrocity, then that is justification enough. America has to realise that it cannot provoke terrorists, as they are often irrational. America needs to look at its foreign policy to make sure that this type of thing does not happen again.
America has to realise that it has a duty to ensuring that the world is a safe place. It cannot negate that duty or terrible, terrible things will happen. I don't see how you can disagree with this, and please do not quote me out of context. I will say once again, I do not believe the attacks were justified, but I can see why they happened.
> cannot negotiate like civilised people
To be honest I don't think we can really call anyone civilised at the moment, can we? We live in what seems like a morally void world and rarely prcatice tolerance ourselves.
I agree with Iguana, in that I can see why something happened. I can see why an extremist could justify their attacks. I am not an extremist and so I would say that the attacks were absolutely unjustified. Recently, however, American Foriegn policy has descended into obscurity. Long gone are the days of Kissinger, and even Clinton when America cared about what happened elsewhere. The BUsh presidency has revealed a mammoth lack of any understanding of other cultures. Bush, in his ineloquent way, continually made mistakes of rhetoric to imply that the civilised world was under attack from Islam. Bush's implications were that civilised and Christian were synonymous which is a fallacy.
There are problems in the world that America is perpetuating. This is why extremists hate America. It is a clumsy and often hypocritical country that does what it likes where it likes. This is NOT justification to go and fly airliners into buildings. But if there is a Muslim extremist who has been told that they will go to heaven after commiting an atrocity, then that is justification enough. America has to realise that it cannot provoke terrorists, as they are often irrational. America needs to look at its foreign policy to make sure that this type of thing does not happen again.
America has to realise that it has a duty to ensuring that the world is a safe place. It cannot negate that duty or terrible, terrible things will happen. I don't see how you can disagree with this, and please do not quote me out of context. I will say once again, I do not believe the attacks were justified, but I can see why they happened.
Iguana wrote:
>I did NOT say they wre right to do it, did I? I
> just said I understood WHY they did it. If you can't >understand that there is a
> difference there, then I have no faith in anything you >say either.
You said "they were done for the right reasons". That is justifying it.
>That is
> the problem with this war. People aren't asking WHY they >did it and WHY they
> wanted to attack the trade centre and loose their lives.
Well, Intelligence suggests that only the actual hijackers in control of the planes knew what was going to happen. The problem with this war are all the people who think it will never happen in this country so want to do nothing. If no action is taken then it will happen, and I dont want that. They wanted to attack the WTC to kill people, plain and simple. They did it because they believe in a man who is so brave he hides in caves and never commits any act himself. This is a man who has perverted a religion to his own self centred ends.
>They just want revenge.
Justice is what is wanted. The Taliban were given six weeks to find a man whom they claimed they knew well until September 12th. They wouldn't surrender him and break up Al Queda so America and her allies will.
> The attackers had a reason for it. Find out why they >hated America enough to
> attack and maybe we'll get somewhere, but I don't see >that question being
> asked.
That is because it is an unjustifiable reason. they hate America, and her allies, and cannot negotiate like civilised people, or talk about differences, or tolerate other cultures. There is no room in this world for such hate filled murderous people who think it is their god given right to fly airliners into buildings. No one is asking the question because there is no question to ask, no higer reason that is worth even considering. No group can be tolerated that would sponsor such acts as those on 9/11. The motives of such people are akin to those of murderers, does anyone ever question why murderers do what they do or ask if maybe their wishes should be catered for ? No, and just because this bunch of murderers gives itself a name, Al Queda, and uses a modified form of a tolerant religion they should not be even listened to.
>I did NOT say they wre right to do it, did I? I
> just said I understood WHY they did it. If you can't >understand that there is a
> difference there, then I have no faith in anything you >say either.
You said "they were done for the right reasons". That is justifying it.
>That is
> the problem with this war. People aren't asking WHY they >did it and WHY they
> wanted to attack the trade centre and loose their lives.
Well, Intelligence suggests that only the actual hijackers in control of the planes knew what was going to happen. The problem with this war are all the people who think it will never happen in this country so want to do nothing. If no action is taken then it will happen, and I dont want that. They wanted to attack the WTC to kill people, plain and simple. They did it because they believe in a man who is so brave he hides in caves and never commits any act himself. This is a man who has perverted a religion to his own self centred ends.
>They just want revenge.
Justice is what is wanted. The Taliban were given six weeks to find a man whom they claimed they knew well until September 12th. They wouldn't surrender him and break up Al Queda so America and her allies will.
> The attackers had a reason for it. Find out why they >hated America enough to
> attack and maybe we'll get somewhere, but I don't see >that question being
> asked.
That is because it is an unjustifiable reason. they hate America, and her allies, and cannot negotiate like civilised people, or talk about differences, or tolerate other cultures. There is no room in this world for such hate filled murderous people who think it is their god given right to fly airliners into buildings. No one is asking the question because there is no question to ask, no higer reason that is worth even considering. No group can be tolerated that would sponsor such acts as those on 9/11. The motives of such people are akin to those of murderers, does anyone ever question why murderers do what they do or ask if maybe their wishes should be catered for ? No, and just because this bunch of murderers gives itself a name, Al Queda, and uses a modified form of a tolerant religion they should not be even listened to.
I think what Jess means is that they were standing up for hat they believed in - she never said she agreed with the attacks, far from it: "the completely wrong ways to go about it". She was just saying that she applauded the fact that they had the will to go up against a nation like America, which I agree with...but this is straying a little from the point of the topic, an event that came and went in a moment completely overshadowing the ongoing suffering of those dying around the world every day.
Look, read what I said again.
I did NOT say they wre right to do it, did I? I just said I understood WHY they did it. If you can't understand that there is a difference there, then I have no faith in anything you say either.
That is the problem with this war. People aren't asking WHY they did it and WHY they wanted to attack the trade centre and loose their lives. They just want revenge. The attackers had a reason for it. Find out why they hated America enough to attack and maybe we'll get somewhere, but I don't see that question being asked.
I did NOT say they wre right to do it, did I? I just said I understood WHY they did it. If you can't understand that there is a difference there, then I have no faith in anything you say either.
That is the problem with this war. People aren't asking WHY they did it and WHY they wanted to attack the trade centre and loose their lives. They just want revenge. The attackers had a reason for it. Find out why they hated America enough to attack and maybe we'll get somewhere, but I don't see that question being asked.
Iguana wrote:
>
>if you ask me I think the attacks on the WTC
> were done for the right reasons, but the completely wrong >ways to go about it.
>
I've just lost all belief in anything you say if that is your opinion. There is NO justification for attacking the WTC, Pentagon and the other unknown target, NONE WHATSOEVER. There is NO right way to go about it, indeed even to think about it is a terrible thing to do. NO reason is good enough as an excuse, those terrorists and those behind them committed mass murder. Now Al Queda and every supporter is learning the price of that act is high, every civilian casualty is their fault. America and Nato did not start this, but they'll finish it. I hope that operation Enudring Freedom continues until every last little link with Al Queda is captured or removed.
>
>if you ask me I think the attacks on the WTC
> were done for the right reasons, but the completely wrong >ways to go about it.
>
I've just lost all belief in anything you say if that is your opinion. There is NO justification for attacking the WTC, Pentagon and the other unknown target, NONE WHATSOEVER. There is NO right way to go about it, indeed even to think about it is a terrible thing to do. NO reason is good enough as an excuse, those terrorists and those behind them committed mass murder. Now Al Queda and every supporter is learning the price of that act is high, every civilian casualty is their fault. America and Nato did not start this, but they'll finish it. I hope that operation Enudring Freedom continues until every last little link with Al Queda is captured or removed.
Why primarily with them? You've just proved my point. People feel more sorry for people caught in "Momentary Terror" as I said in my original post. Yes they were innocent people. So are those caught in the cross-fire of war.
What if I personally don't think that bombing Aghanistan is thr right way to react (Which I don't think I do). I still respect people who stand up for what they believe it, right or wrong. if you ask me I think the attacks on the WTC were done for the right reasons, but the completely wrong ways to go about it.
Don't get me wrong, I have never said that those people who died on the 11th of september weren't worth feeling sorry about, but, going back to my original point:
- About 3000 (depends on your sources..) died in the World Trade centre attacks.
yet 24,000 (aprox.) died of hunger that day. Another 9000 of diarrhoea and measles. People seem to forget that in face of the "Momentary Terror" I was talking about in my original post.
Argue what you like, both groups of people were innocent, they all died that day, let's feel sorry for them all.
What if I personally don't think that bombing Aghanistan is thr right way to react (Which I don't think I do). I still respect people who stand up for what they believe it, right or wrong. if you ask me I think the attacks on the WTC were done for the right reasons, but the completely wrong ways to go about it.
Don't get me wrong, I have never said that those people who died on the 11th of september weren't worth feeling sorry about, but, going back to my original point:
- About 3000 (depends on your sources..) died in the World Trade centre attacks.
yet 24,000 (aprox.) died of hunger that day. Another 9000 of diarrhoea and measles. People seem to forget that in face of the "Momentary Terror" I was talking about in my original post.
Argue what you like, both groups of people were innocent, they all died that day, let's feel sorry for them all.
Iguana wrote:
> Ah, but the Taliban believed what they were doing was >right. So they stood up
> for what they believed in.
Without wanting to have a go to much, so did Hitler....
>The Taliban are a self-appointed government. Which makes >me feel
> worse for the Afghans, who didn't appoint them, but >nevertheless are caught in
> this conflict.
Ha ha ! The Taliban WERE a government, they WERE even a fighting force. But nobody is interested in a near extinct government so they have been thrown out of power. And while we're all feeling sorry for the Afghans lets not forget about 2000+ who died on 9/11, and their families who have to continue without them. It sounds cruel, but my sympathy lies primarily with them.
> Ah, but the Taliban believed what they were doing was >right. So they stood up
> for what they believed in.
Without wanting to have a go to much, so did Hitler....
>The Taliban are a self-appointed government. Which makes >me feel
> worse for the Afghans, who didn't appoint them, but >nevertheless are caught in
> this conflict.
Ha ha ! The Taliban WERE a government, they WERE even a fighting force. But nobody is interested in a near extinct government so they have been thrown out of power. And while we're all feeling sorry for the Afghans lets not forget about 2000+ who died on 9/11, and their families who have to continue without them. It sounds cruel, but my sympathy lies primarily with them.
Ah, but the Taliban believed what they were doing was right. So they stood up for what they believed in.
War is complicated. I'm not taking sides, I just feel sorry for all the people who were killed needlessly, regardless of what side they're on.
My point with the American soldier is he was named. If a person fighting on the other side died, they would not be named on the media.
This isn't about who's right or wrong, just who's death gets mentioned and who's don't
The Taliban are a self-appointed government. Which makes me feel worse for the Afghans, who didn't appoint them, but nevertheless are caught in this conflict.
That was pretty random, but it might have made sense..
War is complicated. I'm not taking sides, I just feel sorry for all the people who were killed needlessly, regardless of what side they're on.
My point with the American soldier is he was named. If a person fighting on the other side died, they would not be named on the media.
This isn't about who's right or wrong, just who's death gets mentioned and who's don't
The Taliban are a self-appointed government. Which makes me feel worse for the Afghans, who didn't appoint them, but nevertheless are caught in this conflict.
That was pretty random, but it might have made sense..
Page: