You got turned down by a nubile young senorita, didn’t you? 
Well, then, never mind.
I believe that she meant that her company didn’t allow their Spanish employees who were in London to use the ferries, not that the ferries weren’t running at all.
I read Nava’s post, albeit linked from the OP in this thread, and took it to mean exactly how she explained herself later in this thread. It was obviously a bad idea to post that thought in that particular thread but I got what she meant. It’s funny because I often have a difficult time making sense out of her posts but I did get that one.
Wait a second. I thought your reference to **Americans ** running around like headless chickens was a reference to the over-reactions in the hours/days after the attacks.
Why bring up what happened at your office if it’s not related to over-reacting Americans.
I am not especially surprised about Nava’s tone given what I’ve heard from her in previous posts about her country vis-a-vis the U.S. The “fun” post is a good reminder that the accepted wisdom about universal European sympathy toward the U.S. post-9/11 is urban legend, and that there was a considerable righteous undertone of hostility and “America gets its comeuppance” (the 9/12/01 editorial in the Guardian being one notorious example).
What was “horrifying” to some was the very idea that the U.S. might actually strike back at terrorists (even in Afghanistan, to begin with), rather than simply curl up, apologize, and promise to redress the wrongs it had committed upon the world community. :rolleyes:
And yeah, I know one is horrified yet fascinated by those schmaltzy/sentimental, overly patriotic, violent Americans, but one must realize, dear, they’re just that way, poor benighted creatures.
Asshole. 
Over-reacting “American individuals”. Not every single American national over-reacted, not every single reaction was over-the-top.
It truly boggles the mind. It really does.
Where did she say that it was the whole country? She said it was her memory of 9/11. Americans acting silly. Not every American. The ones she was talking about. She didn’t base anything on anything.
You’re not just a hateful cunt. You a stupid hateful cunt.
To me, the biggest immediate changes caused by 9/11 were:
Unless you know she works for an American company, you don’t see that. She doesn’t mention Americans (well actually americans) until the chickens with their heads cut off line.
You do realize that a headless chicken is one that has been slaughtered? Right? Their heads (the chicken’s) don’t fall off due to natural causes.
Now I’ll admit that the US, our government and members of the general population have made loads of mistakes, all in reaction or related to 9/11. Heck, myself included.
But they way that is written, there inturpetation that she had fun watching the people run in fear from the collapsing towers, is the most logical. Maybe she is a lousy writer, but her posts since then, blameing the US for ETA, and saying that the people in her country are basically braver because they have delt with terrorism more than Americans actually add to the idea that the people running in fear is what she found fun.
That is what she fucking said.
I think someone must have pissed in Martin Hyde’s chips when he went to Torremolinos.
A very telling thread title.
I remember writing in a journal on that Tuesday that I had the feeling that there were people who would be thrilled about the towers collapsing. I wasn’t thinking about Bin Laden or Sadaam, I was thinking of the people who would see it as an overdue comeuppance.
I toyed with the idea of starting a pit thread today about the unstoppable sluice of God bless this and they-were-the-real heroes that and raising the flag to full staff so it can be lowered to half-staff, AGAIN! The title was going to be, gWb commemorates 9/11 tragedy by staring at his fingernails and wondering if getting a manicure makes him gay.
In a lot of ways, I suspect that the people who are most pleased by the events of that day are the people making speeches and appearing on talk shows and in front of crowds of mourning 'Mericans.
I don’t track Nava’s posting style, but if one were to remove everything from before the ‘,’ in this thread title, it would be just as accurate.
(FTR, the original thread was in MPSIMS and while it may have skewed toward a memorial, the last line of the OP was: So what do you think about this six year milestone, the 9/11 generation, what can they teach you, what can you teach them. Let’s stay true to ourselves as all of us were this summer on the Board. Never loose sight of what really is important…everything but only in focus. After all, it’s only another Tuesday.)
Just what was this over reaction, exactly? You’ve provided no examples of the United States overreacting in any unreasonable way.
Turning down donations they didn’t need? That doesn’t sound to me like running around in a panic. There’s nothing panicked about that at all.
Wouldn’t you?
Nope, I’ve never been in the military. That doesn’t have any bearing on my understanding of the terms being discussed. Mr Bus Guy said that the folks in the Pentagon were non-combatants at the time of the attack. They were. Some of them almost certainly became combatants eventually, but on that day, they were non-combatants. Many were civilians.
What US did you think our managers were in, Brazil or Mexico?
There was a group of kids visiting the Pentagon that day 
those were definitely non-combatants.
You forgot to say “Out of the clear blue sky.”
Really?
Why am I making a leap here? The managers are in the US, hmmm lets assume they are Americans as that makes sense in context of the rest of the post. . There are a huge amount of US mutinationals over here. I’ve worked for two myself.
It’s also a common expression to mean people doing things haphazardly.
I’m not defending her posts in this threads. Just arguing with people who continue to get the actual content wrong. like uummm …you.
When the United States started bombing Iraq in 2003, many of the people killed were not members of the Iraqi armed forces.
Do they qualify as “non-combatants” and “civilians”? Or does the United States have unilateral authority to define who falls into those groups?
And now she is backpedaling, she was most certainly trying to insult America and Americans. You know, there’s really nothing wrong with that, if that’s the type of person you are. Some times insults are deserved, I personally do not think America did anything particularly insult-worthy the day of 9/11/01, all things considered. Certainly nothing as egregious as agreeing to bend over for terrorists like Spain did after Al-Qaeda struck at them.
If you’re going to insult a country, at least have the nerve to admit it when it is perfectly clear to everyone that is what you were trying to do. Playing the “oblivious” card, or trying to rephrase it such that everyone will interpret it as you being mad at “a few specific Americans who made your day slightly inconvenient” is cowardice–typical from a Spaniard.
Well, shit if that phrase ever had meaning, both literally and figuratively, it was on 9/11/2001
Many were civilians, many were active duty personnel. The fact that you’re part of the military, on active duty, makes you a combatant in its essence. It doesn’t matter if you’re a pencil-pusher or not, you still have to train physically, you still have to fire weapons annually and qualify, you still have to study strategic and tactical aspects of warfare, and your total existence is supporting, and carrying out when called upon, an aggressive foreign policy.
If you disagree, then the point stands that 100% of those who died in Hiroshima were non-combatants as there weren’t any active battles occurring in Hiroshima at the time of the atomic bomb detonation.