The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Saw this brough up in another thread. Out of respect for that thread (if you know which one you'll understand) I've put the topic here instead.
What troubles me about 9/11 is that if it had happened to some financial building in Africa. The coverage wouldn't have been anything like it was.
i have summed it up to people before and they have agreed that it been considered an even worse crime because:
A bunch of rich, white Americans died.
They are somehow more important than other people in the world.
This sickens me and lessens my sympathy for America.
Obviously I'm generalising but I think my point is clear.
What troubles me about 9/11 is that if it had happened to some financial building in Africa. The coverage wouldn't have been anything like it was.
i have summed it up to people before and they have agreed that it been considered an even worse crime because:
A bunch of rich, white Americans died.
They are somehow more important than other people in the world.
This sickens me and lessens my sympathy for America.
Obviously I'm generalising but I think my point is clear.
Page:
The problem is: deep down, man desires war, conflict, a face-off of some kind. Prolonged peace and harmony would bore him to death.
The capitalist system is based on a combat of sorts. There's winners and losers. Success is judged on how many credits of gold you can amass.
Politics is first and foremost about power and the clinging on to that power. Making the world a better place is a secondary concern.
Man wants war. Man wants victory. He wants to win the argument. He wants his football team to stuff the opposition. He wants his wisdom to be more sagacious than the man next to him. He wants to feel superior.
Where's man going? - Into a future where the 'superficial' will change but where the essenec of his nature will fundamentally follow the patterns of yesterday.
Man is flawed. Real change is an illusion.
The capitalist system is based on a combat of sorts. There's winners and losers. Success is judged on how many credits of gold you can amass.
Politics is first and foremost about power and the clinging on to that power. Making the world a better place is a secondary concern.
Man wants war. Man wants victory. He wants to win the argument. He wants his football team to stuff the opposition. He wants his wisdom to be more sagacious than the man next to him. He wants to feel superior.
Where's man going? - Into a future where the 'superficial' will change but where the essenec of his nature will fundamentally follow the patterns of yesterday.
Man is flawed. Real change is an illusion.
Light wrote:
> On that basis, you can't say that Al Quaida have attacked America,
> only elements within the country. And that would be a crock of
> proverbial.
They attacked the Pentagon - a vital part of America, and New York, a major city. Other cells planned or have since tried to attack all over the country. Bear in mind that the stated aim of Bin Laden is to destory the West. Did we go to war against anyone to destroy a whole society ? Nope.
> The US and UK attacked Iraq and Afghanistan to remove the ruling class
> of those nations. That is an attack on an entire country (after all,
> few wars has ever been fought on the basis that "we want to
> attack every person in that country"; the exceptions are brief
> and shambolic wars such as the Cambodian war with Vietnam which was
> based on Pol Pot's lunatic racism and thus the war was literally
> against every Vietnamese citizen), as are the continuing activities of
> Al Quaida (who want to remove the ruling classes of the US, Saudi,
> Egypt, and various others).
Er yeah right, you forget the most recent of examples of attacking an entire country - World War 2...
> On that basis, you can't say that Al Quaida have attacked America,
> only elements within the country. And that would be a crock of
> proverbial.
They attacked the Pentagon - a vital part of America, and New York, a major city. Other cells planned or have since tried to attack all over the country. Bear in mind that the stated aim of Bin Laden is to destory the West. Did we go to war against anyone to destroy a whole society ? Nope.
> The US and UK attacked Iraq and Afghanistan to remove the ruling class
> of those nations. That is an attack on an entire country (after all,
> few wars has ever been fought on the basis that "we want to
> attack every person in that country"; the exceptions are brief
> and shambolic wars such as the Cambodian war with Vietnam which was
> based on Pol Pot's lunatic racism and thus the war was literally
> against every Vietnamese citizen), as are the continuing activities of
> Al Quaida (who want to remove the ruling classes of the US, Saudi,
> Egypt, and various others).
Er yeah right, you forget the most recent of examples of attacking an entire country - World War 2...
Yup, shot in the chest at point blank range by a "fundamentalist".
Nothing to do with him almost promoting peace and harmony between India & Pakistan, which swiftly detoriated into the t!t-for-tat rubbish that exists now.
A man promoting and living peaceful resistance and a campaign of non-violent protest, almost uniting a nation through peace, love and understanding.
Can't have that now can we?
Same as Martin Luther King.
Nothing to do with him almost promoting peace and harmony between India & Pakistan, which swiftly detoriated into the t!t-for-tat rubbish that exists now.
A man promoting and living peaceful resistance and a campaign of non-violent protest, almost uniting a nation through peace, love and understanding.
Can't have that now can we?
Same as Martin Luther King.
I didn't know Ghandi was assassinated
That sucks
That sucks
Practical Magic wrote:
>
> You can't that the West has attacked entire countries, merely elements
> within those countries. If it was attacking entire nations as the
> objective then the campaign's would be very different.
On that basis, you can't say that Al Quaida have attacked America, only elements within the country. And that would be a crock of proverbial.
The US and UK attacked Iraq and Afghanistan to remove the ruling class of those nations. That is an attack on an entire country (after all, few wars has ever been fought on the basis that "we want to attack every person in that country"; the exceptions are brief and shambolic wars such as the Cambodian war with Vietnam which was based on Pol Pot's lunatic racism and thus the war was literally against every Vietnamese citizen), as are the continuing activities of Al Quaida (who want to remove the ruling classes of the US, Saudi, Egypt, and various others).
>
> You can't that the West has attacked entire countries, merely elements
> within those countries. If it was attacking entire nations as the
> objective then the campaign's would be very different.
On that basis, you can't say that Al Quaida have attacked America, only elements within the country. And that would be a crock of proverbial.
The US and UK attacked Iraq and Afghanistan to remove the ruling class of those nations. That is an attack on an entire country (after all, few wars has ever been fought on the basis that "we want to attack every person in that country"; the exceptions are brief and shambolic wars such as the Cambodian war with Vietnam which was based on Pol Pot's lunatic racism and thus the war was literally against every Vietnamese citizen), as are the continuing activities of Al Quaida (who want to remove the ruling classes of the US, Saudi, Egypt, and various others).
I just think Bin Laden should have shot Bush himself.
One on one.
Not use civilians as collateral.
Cowardly on both sides.
One on one.
Not use civilians as collateral.
Cowardly on both sides.
Bin Laden's never actually done anything himself directly, it's always through others.
You can't that the West has attacked entire countries, merely elements within those countries. If it was attacking entire nations as the objective then the campaign's would be very different.
You can't that the West has attacked entire countries, merely elements within those countries. If it was attacking entire nations as the objective then the campaign's would be very different.
Personally I think Bin Laden should have assasinated Bush personally.
Just Bin with a scoped rifle, headshot.
No loss of innocent life, no countries at war....sorry, no Western country pummeling an entire nation in revenge for the actions of hardline fundamentalists originally trained, supplied and equipped by the very same Western country.
Abraham Lincoln is assasinated, Ghandi is assassinated, Martin Luther King is assassinated, Kennedy is assassinated, Malcolm X is assassinated, Bobby Kennedy is assassinated.
Reagan is wounded.
Bush Sr is still alive.
Bush Jr nearly chokes on a pretzel.
This world's karma is seriously out of whack.
Just Bin with a scoped rifle, headshot.
No loss of innocent life, no countries at war....sorry, no Western country pummeling an entire nation in revenge for the actions of hardline fundamentalists originally trained, supplied and equipped by the very same Western country.
Abraham Lincoln is assasinated, Ghandi is assassinated, Martin Luther King is assassinated, Kennedy is assassinated, Malcolm X is assassinated, Bobby Kennedy is assassinated.
Reagan is wounded.
Bush Sr is still alive.
Bush Jr nearly chokes on a pretzel.
This world's karma is seriously out of whack.
Borat Sagdiyev wrote:
> *nods in agreement*
>
> although starving in africa is not really the same as an act of
> terrorism
Understatement of the year.....
Don't forget that the new war on terrorism uses money, money which could have helped those people, and that the media is largely ignoring numerous policies instituted by the West to help poor nations.
A few months backs Bush pushed signed off on $15 billion to AIDS prevention in 14 African countries, and $2 billion for a famine initiative ,as well as gaining good progress on the $5 billion program "Millenium Challenge" that helps struggling nations.
Too many people like to make sweeping statements when they haven't even looked at the issues involved, as this 9/11 topic and the other amply demonstrate.
> *nods in agreement*
>
> although starving in africa is not really the same as an act of
> terrorism
Understatement of the year.....
Don't forget that the new war on terrorism uses money, money which could have helped those people, and that the media is largely ignoring numerous policies instituted by the West to help poor nations.
A few months backs Bush pushed signed off on $15 billion to AIDS prevention in 14 African countries, and $2 billion for a famine initiative ,as well as gaining good progress on the $5 billion program "Millenium Challenge" that helps struggling nations.
Too many people like to make sweeping statements when they haven't even looked at the issues involved, as this 9/11 topic and the other amply demonstrate.
UrkiE-UK wrote:
> Cyclone wrote:
> *Holocaust
>
> i think the holocaust dwarfs any act like the 9/11 attack or the nuke
> bombing, as the 6 million jews and other religious people were all
> executed in the worst way - from the inside.
In terms of numbers, yes it does dwarf 11/9 (:D), but the fact is, col said 'lets forget about it'. Sure the Holocaust was bigger, but the facts are the same. Many many many people died, so you should never really forget it, but you shouldn't over do it either.
Of course, there are conflicts and massacres that are hardly ever heard of. Tibet, Nepal, Congo, dicatators etc.
Heck, during 1945, as the Soviet army pushed accross Eastern Europe, the Germans began a seaborne evacuaiton (the largest ever) from Prussia to Germany and Denmark. A Soviet sub toperdoed a German liner. 9000 people died. Single biggest ever shipping loss. Never hear of it, because it was in war. Titanic, 1500 people died. Tragic yes, but the circumstances so different. And studied studpidly too much as well.
> Cyclone wrote:
> *Holocaust
>
> i think the holocaust dwarfs any act like the 9/11 attack or the nuke
> bombing, as the 6 million jews and other religious people were all
> executed in the worst way - from the inside.
In terms of numbers, yes it does dwarf 11/9 (:D), but the fact is, col said 'lets forget about it'. Sure the Holocaust was bigger, but the facts are the same. Many many many people died, so you should never really forget it, but you shouldn't over do it either.
Of course, there are conflicts and massacres that are hardly ever heard of. Tibet, Nepal, Congo, dicatators etc.
Heck, during 1945, as the Soviet army pushed accross Eastern Europe, the Germans began a seaborne evacuaiton (the largest ever) from Prussia to Germany and Denmark. A Soviet sub toperdoed a German liner. 9000 people died. Single biggest ever shipping loss. Never hear of it, because it was in war. Titanic, 1500 people died. Tragic yes, but the circumstances so different. And studied studpidly too much as well.
Page: