Oh, and I’m sure this is neither here nor there, but…
Seconded! I’m glad someone finally said it.
To let you know, not every American is over reacting to your post either. I got what you said and I understood what you meant. September 11th 2001 was a bad day, as was March 11th 2004.
Martin Hyde’s post was more offensive than your post, even if you meant it as you were accused. It shames me that he will be associated with me just because we’re both Americans.
I know this is the pit, but is no one going to address this little piece of utter ignorance? In fact, I remember we had dispelled this in a prior thread on this very board.
You have my sympathies, Nava, but hey, the SDMB is a US based board, I’m sure you saw it coming.
I was addressing what you were saying, not what Nava was saying. You said you thought it was reasonable that flights were grounded in the U.S., but unreasonable that Nava’s coworkers were grounded in London. I was merely pointing out that it’s possible the company had very good reasons to keep them there, one of which may have been they needed them in an operational manner (she did say they were “logistics” people).
I’m also hoping you weren’t addressing the “tear her a new one” comment at me because I haven’t at all commented on what she said.
No reactive thoughts here.
And when morons keep parroting it like you have in this thread, it becomes almost meaningless, just another sound bite.
Especially when it’s offered in the context of posts, like yours, that try to turn this into some sort of “My country suffered worse than your country” pissing contest, as pointed out ably by WhyNot in post #50 of this thread.
It looks to me like Nava apologized, unequivocally, in that post. At this point, I think everyone should be able to let it go, and not let this thread get even nastier than it has been. For my part: apology accepted.
Are you 100% certain that no Japanese military personnel were in Hiroshima?
Your argument still doesn’t make any sense, since there were civilians in the Pentagon. They were non-combatants in every sense of the word.
I think that because it was said by Martin Hyde, a lot of eyes rolled, but no one felt compelled to throw the dog a bone.
Flights maybe but every sort of transport? From London to the continent? Yep. OTT IMO.
I wasn’t. That was a general comment.
You do realize that “running around like chickens with their heads cut off” if a common American expression referring to randomness and ineffectuality of action, and not directly referring to the slaughter of the chickens? Right? Because that’s the case.
I grant that it’s a poor choice of words in this context, but this:
is ridiculous. It’s not by any means the most logical interpretation.
.
How can you debunk fact? Spain gets attacked and then elects someone who guarantees them he’ll shamefully run out of Iraq to make Spain even more irrelevant on the world stage than it already was. The attacks happened immediately prior to the election, the idea that a significant number of voters wouldn’t be impacted by their own internal cowardice after being attacked is doubtful. In America, a pacifist candidate who was advocating we essentially do what the terrorists want us to do would be humiliated at the ballot box. Such a candidate becomes Prime Minister in Spain as his party is swept in to power on a wave of pacifist desire to roll over and play dead.
It’s true, Dudley you won’t believe how stupid he can get.
Anyway, I was curious how What Exit? would judge something an act of terrorism. Is it that an army can’t commit terrorism? Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds because there really was an armed separatist movement there, although there was no declared war.
The firebombing of Dresden served no military purpose, and only terrorized the pouplation. What is it that differentiates it from the attack on the Kurds? Is it the use of gas? I’m pretty sure that inhaling 800º air is no more pleasant. Is it because the Germans did worse things? Or is it because it’s us?
Where did I say “military personnel?” (I actually said 95% were civilians)
It makes perfect sense. Go back re-read the thread. Civilians died in the Pentagon; active duty military died in the Pentagon. There are not equally “non-combatants.”
Do you get it? Let me spell it out for you, in much clearer terms.
- The Pentagon attack caused the deaths of over 100 people.
- Some dead were civilians.
- Some dead were non-active duty military.
- Some dead were active duty military.
- Not all dead were non-combatants.
DudleyGarrett, you have demonstrated to my satisfaction that you have no idea what “non-combatant” means, despite my helpful posting of a dictionary definition earlier. Thanks. And to both you and mhendo, I agree that the people in Hiroshima and the civilians in Iraq were non-combatants. That doesn’t have any bearing on what Mr Bus Guy said, in my opinion.
You are a stupid fuck.
There are some interpretations of Al Qaeda’s actions that indicate Bin Laden was attempting to precipitate a war between “the West” and “the Ummah”. Invading one Islamic nation (legitimately, IMO), and then another one (illegitimately, IMO) could also be seen as doing what the terrorists wanted. There are few other reactions I can really see that would have fulfilled his wishes so neatly as that undertaken by your government at the time.
Wow. You really, actually believe that shit, don’t you? I thought it was impossible for you to surprise me with your idiocy, but kudos, you’ve managed it.
And given a choice between “shamefully run[ning] out of Iraq” (your assertion about Spain) and shamefully running into it (a la the US), well, you work out which one has done the most damage.
Woe is me, I haven’t demonstrated to Judge Crotalus’ satisfaction that I know what non-combatant means. Perhaps it’s because that I was both a combatant and a non-combatant that I understand the term goes much deeper than what can be comprehended from an on-line dictionary.
Good on you, Judge Crotalus, you’ve the wisdom simply unattainable by the proletariat.
No you’re wrong.
After the attack the government tried to put the blame on ETA for political gain. They were caught doing this and paid the price. A angry populace voted them out. The party that was voted in was always anti-war as was the majority of the Spanish population.
There were obviously people who thought like you are accusing them of but that’s not why the government fell. Kinda like the way you a ignorant jingoistic fuckwit but there are millions upon millions of level headed human beings or menches (for want of a better word) in the US even though you and your ilk sometimes shout the loudest.