|
|
Post by Naselus on Sept 11, 2006 12:28:13 GMT
Today is the fifth aniversary of the WTC attack. Anyone feel safer now than we did then?
|
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Sept 11, 2006 14:05:26 GMT
Well, I've thought this through by taking considerable time and putting painstaking attention to detail into it, and I think my answer, having taken all the relevant data into consideration, can be summed up thusly;-
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO F*CKIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINN' CHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNNNCCCCCCCCCCCEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If there are any inner details in the above that people would like me to go into, please let me know.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thanatos on Sept 11, 2006 16:25:38 GMT
Today is a very special day: the first anniversary of the fourth anniversary of 9/11.
|
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Sept 12, 2006 13:59:09 GMT
Bush used yesterday's anniversary address to re-re-re-re-recycle his old speeches about the War Against Terror And For Democracy, as though repeating the same old rallying cries somehow gets the blood pumping.
His latest claims, that the future survival of the USA hinges entirely on the outcome of the war on the streets of Baghdad, seem laughably simplistic, but then that's the attitude that Dubya's best at. He insisted that were allied troops to leave Iraq, the USA would have no defence against terrorism, and that the conflict would not end simply because of that. While I don't believe allied troops should withdraw yet, he is quite wrong. Contrary to the myths put about by Western politicians, the vast bulk of 'al-Qaeda' terrorists do not have any wish to destroy the Western way of life, merely to expel it from the Middle East; US military use of Saudi Arabia in the first Gulf War was the main reason why Osama bin-Laden turned against the West in the first place. Were the Allies to leave Iraq, terror attacks would almost certainly not follow them. (Not that the current threat posed to the West is as great as Bush wants us to believe anyway.)
The Middle East, said Dubya, faces "terrorist states and radical dictators armed with nuclear weapons". He failed to mention that the total of these nuclear-powered dictators in the Middle East at present is all of... one. He further avoided the issue that the only other power in the region with nuclear weapons is an ally of the USA.
"It is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st Century and the calling of our generation," he said. "It is a struggle for civilisation. We are fighting to maintain a way of life enjoyed by free nations." However, this struggle has done almost nothing to harm the way of life enjoyed by free nations at all. It is his approach to defending Democracy - by eroding it from within - that has done far more to harm the US way of life. It doesn't protect the USA at all, and instead merely 'lowers the bar' for other countries to claim they are as Democratic as America.
And let us once again notice the methods of fighting T W A T. Is use of torture an act for civilisation? Is declaring a Global War On Terror, and then using it as an excuse to override the sovereignty of Law in other countries, a civilised form of diplomacy? I have never regarded Democracy as an end in itself, but one of the many building blocks that a free and fair society must be built on (and which has still never been built anywhere). But in any case, if this is democracy and civilisation, and where they lead to, I'll take barbarian tyranny, thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by modeski on Sept 14, 2006 6:28:03 GMT
I don't feel safer here. If anything, less so. If I feel any less safe that I did five years ago, it’s directly because of the increased threat of terrorism resulting from the ridiculous War on Terror. To be perfectly honest, the only way that my life changed as result of September 11th is that I am more vigilant and scrutinising of the US, UK (and now Australian) governments than I ever was.
The erosion of civil liberties and human rights, increased intolerance and racism, and the chipping away of democracy has done more damage in the past five years than Osama Bin Laden, bless his little dialysis machine could ever have dreamed of.
But no, largely I don't feel much different either way than I did five years ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Oct 21, 2006 21:05:10 GMT
It is true that the world is less safe as a result of the war. Two countries at least – Iraq and Afghanistan – have been destabilised as a result of the war, and it has also arguably spawned a multitude of conflicts and crises in other regions. These include the Lebanon conflict, the purported development of nuclear technologies by nations such as Iran, and the tube bombings (or attempted bombings) in London last year. Furthermore, it has probably radicalised large numbers of Muslims, especially in Iraq.
As for our own safety however, I personally feel no less or more safer than I did five years ago – perhaps because no terrorist would bother attacking Nuneaton.
|
|
