The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
http://www.serendipity.li/wtc.htm
credit for the link to the site has to go to pandaemonium - interesting stuff!
credit for the link to the site has to go to pandaemonium - interesting stuff!
Page:
Well Saddam is not, and never will be, a threat. We stopped that.
We've stopped his regime killing and torturing his own people.
We've found his WMD research and processing facilities - we've stopped that.
Since 9/11 no one has managed an attack on the western world - attacks have occurred in developing countries but not the west - we may be more paranoid and aware of our vulnerability but if we'd been like that in the first place 9/11 may never have happened. Various Irish groups hit the mainland many times but we just never seemed to take it seriously enough.
We've stopped his regime killing and torturing his own people.
We've found his WMD research and processing facilities - we've stopped that.
Since 9/11 no one has managed an attack on the western world - attacks have occurred in developing countries but not the west - we may be more paranoid and aware of our vulnerability but if we'd been like that in the first place 9/11 may never have happened. Various Irish groups hit the mainland many times but we just never seemed to take it seriously enough.
Belldandy wrote:
> We should have gone into Afghanistan earleir, back when Clinton
> floated the idea. In a way that's why we had to go into Iraq - to
> stop such a thing happening again.
There's no guarantee that occupying Iraq has stopped anything. Terrorist sects exist all over the world still, and it's just a matter of time before something terrible happens again.
We've 'freed' the people of Iraq, but as for the war on terror, we've just become more paranoid, less tolerant, and perhaps even more aware of just how open to attack we are. No matter how many terrorists you kill or lock away, there are always more waiting to take their place.
> We should have gone into Afghanistan earleir, back when Clinton
> floated the idea. In a way that's why we had to go into Iraq - to
> stop such a thing happening again.
There's no guarantee that occupying Iraq has stopped anything. Terrorist sects exist all over the world still, and it's just a matter of time before something terrible happens again.
We've 'freed' the people of Iraq, but as for the war on terror, we've just become more paranoid, less tolerant, and perhaps even more aware of just how open to attack we are. No matter how many terrorists you kill or lock away, there are always more waiting to take their place.
Nah
:P
:P
Yeah, that's probably a decent point - it was the fact so many died that gave the US the political will to finally start doing something.
We should have gone into Afghanistan earleir, back when Clinton floated the idea. In a way that's why we had to go into Iraq - to stop such a thing happening again.
We should have gone into Afghanistan earleir, back when Clinton floated the idea. In a way that's why we had to go into Iraq - to stop such a thing happening again.
Belldandy wrote:
> I'd say that was pretty much rubbish as well Duck, the desired effect
> could have been achieved by unmasking the plot beforehand and playing
> up what they would have done...as it was the US needed to
> justification to go after Al Qaeda or Bin Laden,
I disagree. There wouldn't have been the same degree of support for the full on invasion of Afghanistan and there certainly wouldn't have been the support to continue into Iraq. No chance.
Heck, there'd already been at least one failed attempt on the WTC, and no major military action happened on the scale after 9/11.
> and a war is never
> the best thing in politics if you're looking for that elusive second
> term.
Maybe, maybe not. I really do think Bush has been very gung-ho about it all, and he's certainly trying to milk a positive angle from the terrorist attacks and their aftermath with his election campaign ads.
And they always say, war's good for the economy.
Besides which, if you acknowledge that he may have wanted to go into Iraq beforehand, then you can hardly say he'd rather not have gone in after 9/11 !
> I'd say that was pretty much rubbish as well Duck, the desired effect
> could have been achieved by unmasking the plot beforehand and playing
> up what they would have done...as it was the US needed to
> justification to go after Al Qaeda or Bin Laden,
I disagree. There wouldn't have been the same degree of support for the full on invasion of Afghanistan and there certainly wouldn't have been the support to continue into Iraq. No chance.
Heck, there'd already been at least one failed attempt on the WTC, and no major military action happened on the scale after 9/11.
> and a war is never
> the best thing in politics if you're looking for that elusive second
> term.
Maybe, maybe not. I really do think Bush has been very gung-ho about it all, and he's certainly trying to milk a positive angle from the terrorist attacks and their aftermath with his election campaign ads.
And they always say, war's good for the economy.
Besides which, if you acknowledge that he may have wanted to go into Iraq beforehand, then you can hardly say he'd rather not have gone in after 9/11 !
I'd say that was pretty much rubbish as well Duck, the desired effect could have been achieved by unmasking the plot beforehand and playing up what they would have done...as it was the US needed to justification to go after Al Qaeda or Bin Laden, and a war is never the best thing in politics if you're looking for that elusive second term.
I disagree. There are still a lot of people in America who were against the war on Iraq. How can we really hope to accurately guage how far was far enough, or if people involved would see things in the same way as us?
Note again: I'm not saying I believe it happened like that.
This reminds me of another rather less way-out theory, that the whitehouse knew the attacks were planned, but allowed them to take place, in order to use them to justify the foreign intervention they wanted to carry out.
Again, not that I believe that actually happened like that, but while we're on the subject of conspiracy theories...
Note again: I'm not saying I believe it happened like that.
This reminds me of another rather less way-out theory, that the whitehouse knew the attacks were planned, but allowed them to take place, in order to use them to justify the foreign intervention they wanted to carry out.
Again, not that I believe that actually happened like that, but while we're on the subject of conspiracy theories...
The destruction of the World Trade Centres would be enough to convince the herds of sheep in America to support their 'War on Terrorism', the conspiracy around the Pentagon would have been a waste of time and a loss of life and structure for no reason.
I agree that the American government has manipulated the situation to their own advantage but the attacks were no more than hijacked planes I'm afraid.
I agree that the American government has manipulated the situation to their own advantage but the attacks were no more than hijacked planes I'm afraid.
Belldandy wrote:
> ßora† SagdiyeV wrote:
> now that I find nigh on impossible to believe.
>
> It's true - 9/11 changed that.
Maybe Bush himself was isolationist (probably only due to his ignorance of anything outside Texas) but the people in his administration definitely were not. http://www.newamericancentury.org/ spells out their plans for a new imperialism pretty clearly. And Rumsfeld was looking to use 9/11 as a cover for putting these plans into action just hours after the planes hit. "Judge whether good enough to hit SH at the same time. Not only UBL. Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related, and not" --Donald Rumsfeld.
> ßora† SagdiyeV wrote:
> now that I find nigh on impossible to believe.
>
> It's true - 9/11 changed that.
Maybe Bush himself was isolationist (probably only due to his ignorance of anything outside Texas) but the people in his administration definitely were not. http://www.newamericancentury.org/ spells out their plans for a new imperialism pretty clearly. And Rumsfeld was looking to use 9/11 as a cover for putting these plans into action just hours after the planes hit. "Judge whether good enough to hit SH at the same time. Not only UBL. Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related, and not" --Donald Rumsfeld.
Belldandy wrote:
> But anyway... Duck if I were you I'd look at what you're saying....
I mean the targets were symbolic, the intention was to make a show of hitting the targets, not primarily to kill people. (If, of course, you do consider a terrorist act aimed solely at killing people to be 'symbolic').
> But anyway... Duck if I were you I'd look at what you're saying....
I mean the targets were symbolic, the intention was to make a show of hitting the targets, not primarily to kill people. (If, of course, you do consider a terrorist act aimed solely at killing people to be 'symbolic').
Page: