5 years

They desire to see America defeated in the Middle East out of personal political interests and hatred for that which they owe their gratitude. If it'll get the Republicans and their counterparts out of office, if it'll bring America down a notch or five, they'll gladly accept a nuclear exchange in the Middle East, nuclear and biological detonations in the West, and an Islamist Europe.

Yet, we are barely closer to winning the war against Islamism because of the useful idiots in the West who wish to undermine the necessary effort. They have allied themselves with the women-enslaving, gay-butchering, Armaggedon desiring, theocratic Islamists for reasons that defy the rational mind. Their hatred and guilt for the nations that have given them everything, the end of their political power focused into an anti-Bush fury, and their fear of the Islamists has led them to decide "an enemy of my enemy is my friend" even as that enemy stands against everything they claim to, and will not hesitate to eliminate them after they've exhausted their usefulness.

9/11 was supposed to change it all. The West was supposed to band together and crush another threat against Western Liberalism. Instead half the West responded after Afghanistan with "That was it right? We're done and can go back to 9/10?" Even after Madrid, London, Bali, Beslan, France, Denmark and Theo van Gogh and attempts in Berlin, Britian, India and elsewhere much of the West keeps asking when is it just going to be over.

This is the Western defeatest culture. Built on guilt of the past, instead of the promise of the future. We aren't working for victory, we're asking when we can go back to 9/10. We have the might, the means, the moral standing, the mission, but we do not have the will. If we cannot find it, then 9/11 will not be a "tragedy" or an "attack" but the day when Western Civilization and Liberalism, and not merely four planes, began their final descents.

Quite simply, Benji's post is amongst the best I've seen in the history of NLSC. I have a few thoughts on september 11 though. Obviously it's an important time to respect the victims and the hero's of that day. But as Ben eluded to, people say "never forgot", and if they feel that day was that horrific (as it was), why would they oppose ways to prevent terrorism? I'm not even talking about the war on Terror, but even simple steps such as the ability to tap into phone conversations?

That leads me to my true thoughts: the fear of what could happen should be greater than the fear of what will happen. Considering what could happen can be prevented with the right percautions, people often say "well it might not happen, so why bother?". To me thats a lazy and cowards excuse. Whether it's terrorism, speeding (or attempting not to) or buying the right tv, knowing that you did everything you could to prevent somthing negative happen is indeed consilation if somthing does go wrong.
I'll just use one example: You're waiting at a bus stop and you see an old couple in the city. They're trying to cross a busy street. There is the possibility of somthing bad happening that could be prevented. Imagine if you see them walking right into a moving car, and the guilt you feel becuase you didn't help. Now compare that to if the same couple died of a heart attack or natural causes, something you really have no control over. The end result is still the same, the couple is dead, but the amount of personal guilt is so much different when you compare the two situations.

Now to use that line of thinking with terrorism. As ben said, people are siding with terrorism for poilitcal agendas (luckily they are not the majority). I wonder if they themselves will hold themselves accountable if a terror attack hits their country that could have been prevented? My opinion is no, they wouldn't. Thats the difference, they are too close minded to realise the situation is that serious that one law, one peice of legislation could in fact stop a terrorist attack. I guess ignorance still is a bliss to some.

But, on this day, I relaised my pereception has changed. When I think of september 11, the first thoughts are of the american flag being raised at the pentagon. I know about the people dying. I know about the conspiracy theories. I know about how the world hates america for having a set of balls. But I think its admirable and downright couragous how they are. I'd never trade being an australian, but part of making me so proud of being and aussie is the close relationship with america, and also seeing how similar we are to them. Not in the way we talk, or our love of sports, but we're just the same. We are so confident in who we are that we basically laugh off criticism from the loud minorities and the rest of the world, and we accept almost all walks off life. The only other nation I can think of with that level of security is England.

As for the majority of Europe, Middle East, some parts of asia and canada, I have no respect for them. They try to use hindsight to justify their opinions. And as I type all this, it looks like the US Embassy is Syria is under attack. I'm awaiting B hort, Amo, and any other "freedom fighter" out there to justify this. Imagine the outcry if America just decided to raid and blow up embassies within their own country. Just remember that you hypocritcal fucks.

Do you live anywhere near New York?

Where I am, we have signs, bumper stickers, car magnets, ads, etc. all the time in rememberance. Again, we were the ones most effected, but to say we've forgotten is rather rude, when unless you're from here, you can't really understand the magnitude of what happened. I was in the Bronx on 9/11, I breathed in the air from the result of the attack -- so don't tell people they've forgotten, due to "the response of the War on Terror and the War in Iraq" -- this isn't some political debate -- let's show some respect and not turn it into one.

You are an idiot. Of course New York will remember it because it happened to them. What about other places though? In Minneapolis nobody ever talks about it. We don't have bumper stickers that say that. I understand New York City would still remember it but you must understand that there is more in the world besides New York City!

I'm not being rude and I am not showing disrespect. America, in general, has lost focus on the War in Terror mostly because the citizens have forgotten about the impact and horror of 9/11. They should be reminded more of it besides on that date once a year.

On the anniversary of such a terrible day, it makes you wonder why basketball is so important. It makes you realize that, actually, it's not.

LOL, you shouldn't need such an anniversary to realize that there are more important things than basketball.

Anyways, it was just a usual day for me probably because 9/11 didn't and doesn't affect me directly. It was my best friend's birthday again so we drank a couple of beers. That's about it. I understand it's a sad day for heaps of people but you can't change the past so people should rather focus on the future.

Do you live anywhere near New York?

Where I am, we have signs, bumper stickers, car magnets, ads, etc. all the time in rememberance. Again, we were the ones most effected, but to say we've forgotten is rather rude, when unless you're from here, you can't really understand the magnitude of what happened. I was in the Bronx on 9/11, I breathed in the air from the result of the attack -- so don't tell people they've forgotten, due to "the response of the War on Terror and the War in Iraq" -- this isn't some political debate -- let's show some respect and not turn it into one.

You are an idiot. Of course New York will remember it because it happened to them. What about other places though? In Minneapolis nobody ever talks about it. We don't have bumper stickers that say that. I understand New York City would still remember it but you must understand that there is more in the world besides New York City!

I'm not being rude and I am not showing disrespect. America, in general, has lost focus on the War in Terror mostly because the citizens have forgotten about the impact and horror of 9/11. They should be reminded more of it besides on that date once a year.

Riot I agree with you. You very very smart man.

We never forgot in Michigan. We are reminded of 9/11 everyday. I'm sure you watch or read the news right? The war on terror, the war in Iraq to name a few. these are results of 9/11. People dont need to be reminded of the horror of 9/11. Everyone I know can remember that day like it was yesterday. The whole country felt vulnerable and was in panic. Actually I'm really not sure what you mean by being reminded more and I will not make any atttempt to guess, personally I have enough reminders of that day. All more reminders of 9/11 will do is keep the tight grip of fear on the American public.

Ole English, the fear is justified. Look at what happened on 9/11. Look at the recently foiled plan in england on american bound planes. It's not some propaganda spin, this is a war believe or not and there people out there willing to kill themselves to kill civillians. It's just that simple. Whether you accept that fact or not, its upto you.

I accept the fact that we are at war, but to live in fear is not the answer. Fear is a powerful tool. It can, has, and is being exploited for personal and political gain.

You dont think that the other side is exploiting for political gain as well, using ignorance rather then fear?

And I'm not saying people should live in fear. I don't live in fear. However I respect that terrorism is alive and is a real threat. If you ignore it, like frankensteins monster, it doesn't go away.

You dont think that the other side is exploiting for political gain as well, using ignorance rather then fear?

I could not disagree more with this statement.

And I'm not saying people should live in fear. I don't live in fear. However I respect that terrorism is alive and is a real threat. If you ignore it, like frankensteins monster, it doesn't go away.

On the other hand i totally agree with this one. I didn't mean to imply to ignore terrorism.

-- this isn't some political debate -- let's show some respect and not turn it into one.

Agreed.

We should probably drop this conversation in this thread and pick it up another time.

R.I.P. to all the 9/11 victims.

Don't you guys remember the weeks and months after 9/11? How the country was so united and how as a country we vowed to stand together to fight those responsible. We cheered when our president said that terrorism will not stand. We are five years later and that has not been the case. The country is divided again and we are fighting ourselves just as much as we are fighting the terrorists. That is why I question whether or not we remember 9/11 because it appears to me that we have not learned a damn thing.

Hell, there are people in this country that don't believe terrorism is a real threat. Are you telling me they remember 9/11?

this isn't some political debate -- let's show some respect and not turn it into one.

It's called "The Path to 9/11." Half of the four hour movie really makes you hate and blame the government, but once they show this scene with George Bush talking to the kids, you really want to kill this idiot of a president.

Did you watch the entire six hour film? If you did, how could you get so angry at Bush you want to kill him? I feel you didn't understand that 2/3rds of the film took place from January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001. Also known as the Clinton years.

People are going to whine about "political debate" turning. This is interesting because what has been stated in this thread is a desire for the West to defeat Islamism by a handful of posters. It's sad that desiring to keep our culture (even if we may quibble on the details) is decried as a "political debate" instead of supported wholeheartedly.

Infact, demanding "respect" by not discussing "politics" (i.e merely saying we "feel" for the victims, instead of addressing the issues forced upon us) is in and of itself a "poltical debate" in most regards. This is the most important issue of our time, whether we will stand for our culture or surrender it and let it fall to ruin. The great "political debate" out of 9/11 is between those who feel it was an abberation, a disaster, a one-time event, much like a hurricane or earthquake. On the other hand are those who recognize the global clash between Western Civilization and Islamism, and wish to determine how to prevent further 9/11s.

Delving deeper into the thread, we see that myself, Matthew and Riot infact did not begin a "political debate" as the only politics (in terms of actual political recourse) entered with Shep blatantly, later mvpshaq32 by implication. The only "debate" was over the "remembering" of 9/11 which Jugs first used to score personal points with. Then it degraded into a misunderstanding. People like Axel and bigh0rt are speaking of remembering the actual event, whereas I believe Riot was speaking of remembering the important meaning behind 9/11 not simply the event. (Which allows someone like bigh0rt to state, "well, I WAS THERE so therefore my opinion matters more" in implied terms.) (EDIT: I see Riot has started to directly articulate that point in the post he made while I was working on this.)

Nevertheless, I wish to get back to the film mvpshaq32 brings up. This will lead to things that will be savaged as "political" but in reality is a simple recounting of historical facts, with a conclusional analysis to follow.

Being angry at Bush for gathering his thoughts and containing panic for five minutes while the children finished reading is the most absurd thought to have. Especially the desire to kill him because he allowed the children to finish before leaving the room. (Should he, as many have implied, jumped out of his seat, screamed "WE'RE UNDER ATTACK!!!" and ran out? Then hopped on a plane to New York and held the towers up himself?)

I know what you're really saying however. You're angry at Bush for not preventing 9/11 from coming to pass. Blaming one man, and this one specific man, for an event years in the making. I left to assuming you did infact view the film in it's entire length on both nights, and took all the governmental failures displayed and proscribed them all directly on one man. George W. Bush.

Before we asign blame to anyone regarding 9/11, and this is of utmost importance in a "remembering" of 9/11 and it's meanings, let's examine the facts before us and draw conclusions from them.

While there had been Islamist terrorism in the world prior to the Clinton Administration, it did not begin in ernest and directly against the West until that point. (Infact, the Middle East was not overly Islamist and thus there was much infighting, in the wake of expanded Islamist or Islamist allies in the Middle East the focus turned against the West.) The end of the Iraq-Iran War and the beginning of the Gulf War is essentially the flash point for the Islamist war against the West. In the wake of the start of the war, Islamist forces launched a new campaign against the West with the intent of it's destruction and not simply regional concerns as Middle Eastern terrorism had previous been focused. While smaller attacks were in many numbers there are a number of major attacks or attempts against the West and the United States in particular. Seven of these could be considered direct acts of war. (And the failed attempt would certainly have been one had it succeded. With the final attack finally being considered one.)

First Attack:
Thirty-eight days into the Clinton Administration in 1993, on the second anniversary of the cease fire in the Gulf War, the World Trade Center was bombed by Ramzi Yousef and a rag-tag bag of terrorists. Evidence strongly suggets that Yousef was an IIS agent. Easy arrests come because of the morons Yousef used, one was captured trying to get a refund on the truck used in the bombing. The New York FBI believes the men were intended to be caught to protect connections. Despite a later attack against the UN building, Holland and Lincoln Tunnels being uncovered and a same day bombing in Cairo, the Clinton Administration quashed the investigation into state connections preferring it to be a small group of terrorists. Even after Iraqi intelligence attemps to assassinate former President Bush in Kuwait, the CAdmin stops further investigations and it's only response is to bomb an empty building in Iraq.

Second Attack:
In 1994 Yousef arrives in the Phillipines, after his arrival a mall, the Miss Universe pageant, a Wendy's, Greenbelt Theatre and finally Phillipine Airlines Flight 434 are all bombed. An attempt was also made to bomb the Israeli embassy in Bangkok. In 1995, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed his "uncle" arrives in the Phillipines and they begin work on "Operation Bojinka." Bojinka would have began with an assassination of The Pope, then President Clinton, followed by bombings of twelve US airliners, before ending with a small plane filled with bombs flown into CIA headquarters. Further ideas discussed were hijacking planes and flying them into the Sears Tower, The Pentagon, The Capitol, The White House, the Transamerica Building and the World Trade Center. They were caught after a chemical fire, Murad (that day) and Yousef (a month later in Pakistan after lower level officials overruled the Clinton Adminstration) were caught while KSM fled to Qatar. This is the only response to the Bojinka plot.

Later that year the US Mission to the Saudi National Guard was bombed killing two Indians and five Americans. The biggest boming in Saudi history, the Saudi's blamed Iraq due to the sophistication of the attack. The same day Egyptian diplomat is killed, an dsix days later the Egyptian embassy in Islamabad was bombed, fifteen killed. The same cover group claimed responsibility for all the attacks.

Third Attack:
In April of 1995, the Federal Building in Oklahoma City is bombed. Despite plenty of witnesses and mountains of evidence of a "third party Middle Eastern man" involved in the bombing and planning, the official story becomes that Terry Nichols (who traveled to the Phillipines and met with Abudl Hakim Murad (Yousef's right hand man) a number of times prior to the bombing) and Timothy McVeigh acted alone. The Clinton Adminstration destroys physical evidence and halts the local FBI and investigators from persuing the investigation futher.

Fourth Attack:
Three years after the US bombing of IIS headquarters (in retailation for the Bush attempt), Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia was bombed, killing 19 US servicemen and one Saudi. The United States blames Hezbollah and thus by proxy Iran. Saudi's believe Iraq or Iran responsible. The Clinton Adminstration quashed further investigations into connections as they were attempting to improve relations with Iran at the time. Not until June 21, 2001 under the Bush administration did the US government issue indictments in relation to the bombings.

Off-Season, the Seeds of the Next Attacks:
1997-early 1998 can be considered the off-season for Islamist terror, as they made deals and al-Qaeda picked up a key free agent. The deadliest attack ever committed in Egypt occurs in this year when six gunmen entere the Hatsheput Temple and for 30 minutes methodically shoot and knife tourists trapped inside. 58 tourists are murdered along with three police officers and a tour guide. Local militants had been crushed a year earlier. Two months later Iraq starts a new UNSCOM crisis, in this crisis Egypt switches and moves towards Iraq's position. No follow up attack ever occurs despite initial beliefs it was a new wave of terror.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would join al-Qaeda in 1997, becoming head of the military committee and effectively the brains of the operation. (He planned all the attacks that followed.) Within months Ayman al-Zawahiri (then bin Laden's number two, he's the guy who's in all the videos nowdays) visited Baghdad and met with the Iraqi Vice President and further meetings with bin Laden representatives were planned. (No information on if these meetings did infact come to happen however.) Four days after a memo detailing the setting up of these meetings bin Laden issued a new fatwa on the plight of Iraq, urging followers to attack the United States inorder to lift sanctions on Iraq. Bin Laden's first message in support of Iraq (he had previously been antagonistic versus Saddam before reaching a non-aggression treaty of sorts in 1993) comes after the arrival of KSM and meetings with Iraqi officials. KSM's arrival would also begin the transformation of al-Qaeda from a militant group who botched all their early terror attempts and was little more than a funding operation into super-terrorists who would strike Embassies, Warships and finally America itself.

Fifth Attack:
In August of 1998, US embassies in Dar Es Salaam and Nariobi are bombed, over 250 are killed and 4000 injured. The Clinton Adminstration responds by indicting various al Qaeda members, bombing an empty training camp in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan with no ties to terrorism or chemical weapons. At roughly the same time Iraq attempts to bomb Radio Free Europe in Prague, forces UN Weapons Inspectors out and is bombed by the US and UK for three days in response. Afterwards Faruq Hijazi, the deputy director of IIS, met with bin Laden in Afghanistan and offer safe haven. Two IIS agents assigned to the Embassy in Pakistan travel to Afghanistan twice and arrangements were made to meet further, they stress strenghting ties between Iraq, bin Laden and the Taliban.

Congress passes and President Clinton signs the Iraqi Liberation Act making it official policy of the United States to remove Saddam Hussien from power.

bin Laden also famously declares war on the United States this year.

Sixth Attack:
The so-called "Millennium Plot" of three attacks was thwarted in two instances and aborted in the third. Four sites in Jordan were to be bombed targeting US and Israeli tourists, however Jordianian intelligence and police broke up the plot arresting 16 including Boston taxi driver Raed Hijazi believed to be the ringleader of the operation. Ahmed Ressam is caught at the Canadian border on the way to bomb LAX, he and three others arrested. In Yemen, an attempt was made to bomb USS The Sullivans with a boat filled with explosives, but the boat was overloaded and sank before detonating. Richard Clarke and other Clinton Administration officials admit they got lucky in thwarting the two direcly American related areas of the plot as they had no prior indications.

Seventh Attack:
On September 22, 2000, bin Laden and other members of terrorist groups appear on a tape on Qatar TV making threats to attack American ships. On October 12, 2000, the USS Cole was bombed by a small craft that approached the side and exploded. 17 were killed and 39 injured. President Clinton declares it an "act of terrorism" and (not an "act of war") vows to "hold [those responsible] accountable." Clinton states "America is not at war" and never mentions any threat by name. Sandy Berger does not mention al-Qaeda on "Meet The Press" the weekend of the attack. Madeleine Albright and William Cohen rebuke Richard Clarke believing attacking al-Qaeda will derail the Israel-Arab peace process. The Clinton Administration does not respond in anyway.

On November 3, 2002, a Predator fired a Hellfire missle at a vehicle containing a suspected planner of the plot killing him. The US also in 2004, following his sentence to death in Yemen, acquired Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri the local operational mastermind and holds him in custody.

9/11:
Mohammed Atta makes numerous trips into Prague to meet with an IIS agent who the Czechs expell thereafter. On July 21, 2001 a state controlled newspaper in Iraq, Al-Nasirya, makes vieled threats at the Pentagon, White House and World Trade Center. The State Department issues "worldwide caution" for US citizens regarding terrorist attacks expiring on September 22nd. In the first week of September the Bush Administration discusses the Taliban and regime change. September 9th, Ahmed Shah Massoud, leader of the Northern Alliance is assassinated. The Events of 9/11/2001. On September 20, Uday Hussein predicts an extensive campaign against Afghanistan and implies a biological attack could be carried out soon. Later that night the Bush Doctrine is delivered. Late that September a series of advanced high level anthrax attacks occur throughout the United States. On October 7th, the United States and it's allies invade Afghanistan. 18 months later they remove Saddam Hussein from power.

And we all know the rest. Bali, Beslan, Denmark, France, London, Madrid and many smaller attention attacks. Attempts in Berlin, Britian, India and throughout the globe. Iranian proxy wars in Afghanistan, Lebanon and Iraq.

The blame here is not on the Bush Administration, nor even the Clinton Administration. The entire West was to blame. We were stuck in the mindset of the past. When small groups of terrorists would hijack planes until they got their demands. We fit all terrorism into this mold, even if we had to force it and ignore the parts that spilled out. Even when there was clear state related work like Libya in the 80s, we ignored those lessons and went back to our old mold.

While it is true that the Clinton Administration wished to not suffer political fallout from having to engage the enemy. It is true that Clinton was haunted by Vietnam and didn't want to commit to any sort of military operation that put boots on the ground. So for eight years we tried to kick the war down the road, embolding the Islamists as they got progressively more daring (embassies and warships are the most daring terrorist attacks you can pull off...short of attacking the homeland itself...) and it is not a failure of any one man. Aside from a relative few we all missed the growing terror. After the contenous election of 2000, Bush was attempting to smooth out the differences, leaving many of the Clinton Administration at their posts, continuing many of Clinton's foreign and domestic policies as the administration set up. Early the administration was focused on working with Democrats in Congress and the Hainan Island incident. The 2000 election was completely untouched by the Cole bombing and was never a major issue. With both Bush and Gore stating they supported the Clinton Administration in handling the case.

The real question of 9/11 should not be looking at our failures and using them to assign blame. But instead looking at what we could learn from them. Instead of looking at the years before 9/11 and understanding how the threat was growing then, we look back a month before 9/11 and blame Bush for all Islamist terrorism. We shouldn't even look back eight years and blame Clinton however.

What we should do and did in the wake of 9/11 was determine what we would do to combat the Islamist threat. Regardless of how he adheared to it, Bush gave us the Bush Doctrine which presented a policy of eliminating the terrorists and the states that support them. An indirect acceptance of the already declared war by Islamist forces.

A "political debate" is necessary in any "rememberance" of 9/11 for it is not an event that just happened and that's it. It is an event that must spur what we will do to ensure the defeat of the Islamists. We have the Bush Doctrine and it's similars with those who want to destroy the Islamist threat on it's soil. We have those who acknowledge the Islamist threat but simply want to hide at home behind ineffective defenses that will eventually always be circumvented. (This includes those who want to return to the Clintonian policies. Kinda strengthen the home while also weakening it with "The Wall" and quashing investigations, have loads of irrelevant peace talks, reduce our power in the world, and most importantly believing terrorists act without state support) And we also have those who deny the Islamist threat and want to weaken our defenses.

That's not counting the ones who we shouldn't speak of, who take up arms in various means against Western Liberalism on the side of the Islamists.

This is how we should remember 9/11, by determining what we're willing to do to prevent, or allow it again. Are we, is Western society, willing to do whatever it takes to defeat Islamism and defend our culture from the barbaric medieval one they're offering?

Don't you guys remember the weeks and months after 9/11? How the country was so united and how as a country we vowed to stand together to fight those responsible.

Everyone did, but it was all directed at bin Laden and the Taliban, not Hussein or Iraq/Iran/Syria/Lebanon/Saudia Arabia/Pakistan/North Korea.

We cheered when our president said that terrorism will not stand.

Is that why he gave the Taliban about a two month head start?

We are five years later and that has not been the case.

Well its 5 years later and we still have no clue how to fight terrorists.

The country is divided again and we are fighting ourselves just as much as we are fighting the terrorists.

Pro-war vs. anti-war is slightly different from troops fighting terrorists. The only similarity is that neither side listens to the other.

That is why I question whether or not we remember 9/11 because it appears to me that we have not learned a damn thing.

What exactly should we have learned? That we should expect death at every corner? That we should suspect everyone of being a terrorist? That we don't deserve privacy? That the concept of a united country is more important than an individual's quality of life? Or maybe just that the word of the government shouldn't be taken as the word of god.

Hell, there are people in this country that don't believe terrorism is a real threat. Are you telling me they remember 9/11?

I think it's more that they question the threat of Iraqi terrorists, considering Jamacians had attacked the US just as many times.

I'd quote benji's essays too but its all nonsensical jibberish.

The war on terror is a tricky situation. Let me first star off by stating that Iraq did not have anything to do with 911. Bush has publicly stated this as well. My second point would be that were in the situation of "you break it you buy it" which Colon Powel stated to bush senior when he was the president and wanted to inade Iraq. The Iraq buisness all happened when Saddam killed turkish people with musstard gas in Iraq because they wanted land. Do I think it was a good idea to capture Saddam hell yes, But the fact of the matter is that Iraq actually had no Wmd's, they had little to no ties to 911, and this war was dissapproved by the UN. What does this have to say about our president when he says war on terror and Iraq in one sentence?

My main point would be that we need to capture Ossama and his group, and not forget what they did. We need to be more educated on the situation and keep to the war on terror not the war to capture all the bad guys in the world (IE Saddam)

Im trying real hard to be more sensitive to the situation, and i hope that we being Riot and NLSC can at least aggree on some of the points im bringing up. From now on no more fighting from me. Peace

I never fully realized at the time how truly horrific the events were. There is a documentary made by guys who were following a rookie firefighter and had cameras in the world trade centers as the entire thing was going down.

As they entered the tower after the first plane hit they ran by two people lying on the ground screaming who were on fire from the flames that shot down from the elevator shafts. While the guys are the lobby you keep hearing this loud thumps on the roof and its from people jumping or falling out of the towers.

There were firefighters on top of the Mariot hotel who said that body parts were raining down on them.

Anyone who hasnt seen the documentary should see it. It really gives you a feel for how bad the day really was.

Everyone did, but it was all directed at bin Laden and the Taliban, not Hussein or Iraq/Iran/Syria/Lebanon/Saudia Arabia/Pakistan/North Korea.

It has to be directed at all terrorist groups. Like Benji said, this is a copycat world and you are ignorant if you think on Al-Qeada is crazy enough to pull something off on us or our allies. It is the War on Terrorism, not the War on Al-Qaeda.

Is that why he gave the Taliban about a two month head start?

The Taliban are pretty much out of power. They are no longer housing and protecting terrorist cells.

Well its 5 years later and we still have no clue how to fight terrorists.

What do you suggest? Talking with the terrorists and asking them politely to stop? The only way to win is to combat them on Middle Eastern soil. That is the only solution that is best for us. If you can give me another solution to this crisis then go ahead but I highly doubt you will be able to.

Pro-war vs. anti-war is slightly different from troops fighting terrorists. The only similarity is that neither side listens to the other.

We are still fighting ourselves. Just because we aren't in arms against each other doesn't mean we aren't fighting. The focus of the War on Terror has more to do with President Bush than it does with catching the terrorists. I think some people really couldn't care less if we caught terrorists or not.

What exactly should we have learned? That we should expect death at every corner? That we should suspect everyone of being a terrorist? That we don't deserve privacy? That the concept of a united country is more important than an individual's quality of life? Or maybe just that the word of the government shouldn't be taken as the word of god.

We should have learned that we are vulnerable and that the Islamic facists are a real threat. A threat that cannot be fought on American soil because they will use any means they can to destroy human life. We have to learn that sometimes there aren't easy solutions or easy answers to our problems. As much as the liberals like to think, there is no easy way out of Iraq. Americans tend to think that we can just press our Staples Easy Button and everything will be okay. Won't happen.

I think it's more that they question the threat of Iraqi terrorists, considering Jamacians had attacked the US just as many times.

It's even all about the War in Iraq. Even the War on Terror has had it's critics. Plus, some people think the War in Iraq is a crictical part of the War on Terror.

I'd quote benji's essays too but its all nonsensical jibberish.

I would hardly call Benji's posts nonsensical jibberish. The guy makes great points and beats you in almost every agrument. Why don't you man up and reply to his post? Perhaps the reason why you don't is because you can't? Either way, it is not jibberish.

The Path to 9/11 is a bias film. Richard Clarke and others have said numerous times that the film has scenes that are complete fiction to blame Clinton soley for 9/11. If anyone thinks that this film is actually based on the real facts they are mistaken. It is a "dramatization" of the 9/11 commision report with help from a devote republican who was on the commision. People can say that it is Clinton's fault and they would partly be true. But to not blame Bush is the biggest line of bullshit I have ever heard.

http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/pdb080601.pdf

Are we, is Western society, willing to do whatever it takes to defeat Islamism and defend our culture from the barbaric medieval one they're offering?

We can't fight facism with facism. And if you don't think the Bush Adminstration are boardering on if not step over the boundary of facism then look up the definition. Taking away the rights that makes us Americans and torturing people (Water Boarding for example) is not the way to win the war on terror.

It's even all about the War in Iraq. Even the War on Terror has had it's critics. Plus, some people think the War in Iraq is a crictical part of the War on Terror.

The war in Iraq has become critical in the war on terror. By our government destroying the foundation of Iraq has led to more hostility towards the United States. Iraq has now become a breeding ground for terrorists.

Actually, terrorists aren't being breeded in Iraq they are being recruited to go fight in Iraq. There is a difference. Most of the violence is by outsiders who have crossed the border through Iran.

I dont want to get into all this politcal talk so Ill make mine short. RIP to everyone who died there and it was an emotional day back 5 years ago. I was only in 3rd grade, but fully understood errthing. I salute the firefighters and police for trying to save lifes, but lost their own on that terrible day.

It has to be directed at all terrorist groups. Like Benji said, this is a copycat world and you are ignorant if you think on Al-Qeada is crazy enough to pull something off on us or our allies. It is the War on Terrorism, not the War on Al-Qaeda.

Firstly, I doubt there is anything beyond the 'craziness' of any terrorist. They willingly blow themselves up. You don't get any crazier than that.
Secondly, I know that Al-Qaeda is a large part of the problem, but your point was that Americans came together when it seemed like the government wanted to bring the Taliban and bin laden to justice. So why would you expect the same response from the public who still had no closure on the first tragedy?

The Taliban are pretty much out of power. They are no longer housing and protecting terrorist cells.

Is that why the past two months have seen the highest death toll (both NATO forces & taliban insurgents) since the initial invasion?

What do you suggest? Talking with the terrorists and asking them politely to stop?

Somehow you mistook my response as an indication that I had the answer. No one has the answer. There has never and will never be peace in the middle east, as good as your intentions are. It's not like we can look back to a period of time when there was peace, because its never happened. This isn't a case like WWII, when we recognized and began removing Nazism within 6 years. The middle east has seen dozens of conflicts over the past 70 years. It wasn't recognized then, and it was allowed to grow. Maybe it wasn't as obvious to the world because of the larger ongoing wars/conflicts, but the superpowers then did not have the foresight or economics to deal with it. It is not possible to both bring peace to the region and sustain it, while at the same time leaving enough of the population and infrasturcture intact in order to build a new middle east. Not to mention the gigantic financial strain and long term military investment it would require.

The only way to win is to combat them on Middle Eastern soil. That is the only solution that is best for us. If you can give me another solution to this crisis then go ahead but I highly doubt you will be able to.

I don't think anyone thinks any kind of war should be fought on North American soil, so I don't know where you're going with that one. But no, again, there is no solution for the crisis, other than a Nazi-like genocide of the entire region. But if you are sick enough to consider that as a logical solution in the first place, you're not smart enough to consider the reprocussions of something like that.

We are still fighting ourselves. Just because we aren't in arms against each other doesn't mean we aren't fighting.

5% of the population and the majority of media having redundant debates is not fighting.

The focus of the War on Terror has more to do with President Bush than it does with catching the terrorists. I think some people really couldn't care less if we caught terrorists or not.

I think people have a hard time believing a guy who the majority saw as an idiot before 9/11 took genius pills and became a leader smart enough to fix one of the biggest conflicts in human history.

We should have learned that we are vulnerable and that the Islamic facists are a real threat.

People knew that before 9/11, and even more know it now, mainly because its crammed down their throats at every opportunity. But you shouldn't expect every american to live their life in fear, or to support any ideal a government suggests.

A threat that cannot be fought on American soil because they will use any means they can to destroy human life.

Have you practiced being this redundant or are you just naturally skilled at it? No one has ever suggested welcoming an Iraqi invasion of the US. For one thing, it could never and would never happen. No army in the world would be that stupid. And secondly, there will never be a point in history when you can say you have eliminated the threat of terrorism. Whether there are 1,000 members of Al-Qaeda left or 100, its not like it takes an army of them to cause destruction. After all, it only took 19 to start all of this.

We have to learn that sometimes there aren't easy solutions or easy answers to our problems.

Or sometimes realize that there are no answers at all.

As much as the liberals like to think, there is no easy way out of Iraq.

Don't group together all democrats/liberals like that. Its obvious that only the most ignorant representatives of that demographic believe that we should just back off and shut down all operations overseas. That would clearly be more damaging then "staying the course." The only opportunity I would see as a time we could get out is if more leaders of al-qaeda were killed and the level of violence was comparable to pre-9/11. The significant difference of course would be the absence of Saddam.

I would hardly call Benji's posts nonsensical jibberish. The guy makes great points and beats you in almost every agrument. Why don't you man up and reply to his post? Perhaps the reason why you don't is because you can't? Either way, it is not jibberish.

I guess I should have used the [sarcasm] tags, because I could see that it was one of the most well-thought out arguments I've read here, and pretty much needed no rebuttal. Plus most of it was facts, so it didn't require an opposition.

Somehow you mistook my response as an indication that I had the answer. No one has the answer. There has never and will never be peace in the middle east, as good as your intentions are. It's not like we can look back to a period of time when there was peace, because its never happened. This isn't a case like WWII, when we recognized and began removing Nazism within 6 years. The middle east has seen dozens of conflicts over the past 70 years. It wasn't recognized then, and it was allowed to grow. Maybe it wasn't as obvious to the world because of the larger ongoing wars/conflicts, but the superpowers then did not have the foresight or economics to deal with it. It is not possible to both bring peace to the region and sustain it, while at the same time leaving enough of the population and infrasturcture intact in order to build a new middle east. Not to mention the gigantic financial strain and long term military investment it would require.

I hate to be cynical, but it's true. While it's somewhat admirable that an attempt to slow down or "remove" terrorism for global peace, the approach taken by the American government was a high-risk low-reward move. The American government could have spent that money improving its domestic situation in financial, economic, and security sectors rather than fall prey to the military-industrial complex. The government could have looked into future considerations by developing self-sustaining, energy efficient technology to slow down that huge mass consumerism problem that's going in and all the waste that's going out. The problem is, North America's not looking into future considerations, but are only concerned with the problems of present day.

I'm not saying we should ignore terrorism, but I believe better steps and cooperation with world organizations could have been done. The UN and NATO haven't taken initial measures, it can still be done if given some more time and patience, while putting pressure on them rather than going right into it as soon as possible.

Firstly, I doubt there is anything beyond the 'craziness' of any terrorist. They willingly blow themselves up. You don't get any crazier than that.
Secondly, I know that Al-Qaeda is a large part of the problem, but your point was that Americans came together when it seemed like the government wanted to bring the Taliban and bin laden to justice. So why would you expect the same response from the public who still had no closure on the first tragedy?

President Bush also said that all terrorists will be brought to justice and the countries who harbor them. The country had no problem with that speach and that policy 4-5 years ago.

Is that why the past two months have seen the highest death toll (both NATO forces & taliban insurgents) since the initial invasion?

Yes. The Taliban is on the run and losing it's power. They are fighting harder and harder to try to sustain it but they will not.

Somehow you mistook my response as an indication that I had the answer. No one has the answer. There has never and will never be peace in the middle east, as good as your intentions are. It's not like we can look back to a period of time when there was peace, because its never happened. This isn't a case like WWII, when we recognized and began removing Nazism within 6 years. The middle east has seen dozens of conflicts over the past 70 years. It wasn't recognized then, and it was allowed to grow. Maybe it wasn't as obvious to the world because of the larger ongoing wars/conflicts, but the superpowers then did not have the foresight or economics to deal with it. It is not possible to both bring peace to the region and sustain it, while at the same time leaving enough of the population and infrasturcture intact in order to build a new middle east. Not to mention the gigantic financial strain and long term military investment it would require.

I don't get it. You bash President Bush's solution to the problem yet you don't have one for yourself. What do you want the country to do to fight the War on Terror? Do you suggest we stop fighting the War on Terror? There has to be a solution. If you do not like the current administrations policies against terrorism then come up with your own because this is the world we live in and the problems we face. You can't give up and say there is no answer.

I don't think anyone thinks any kind of war should be fought on North American soil, so I don't know where you're going with that one. But no, again, there is no solution for the crisis, other than a Nazi-like genocide of the entire region. But if you are sick enough to consider that as a logical solution in the first place, you're not smart enough to consider the reprocussions of something like that.

You get upset at me for putting words in your mouth and then you go ahead and put words in my mouth? When did I say I wanted to destroy and level the Middle East? I said I want to go in there and clear out the bad guys so that region can no longer be a breeding ground and operation headquarters for terrorists. The best way to stop terrorism is to get them on the run, which is what Al-Qaeda and other groups are doing right now. If you can get them to run and cut off the majority of their finances then you can weaken them significantly. That is what we are doing right now.

5% of the population and the majority of media having redundant debates is not fighting.

If you think only 5% of this population is fighting then you need to flip on the radio, my boy. The country is divided and we are yelling and screaming at each other about the War in Iraq and about who is to blame for 9/11, etc. It is stupid and it's causing most of us to lose focus on the task at hand. I don't care if you aren't fighting or if people around you aren't fighting. Hell, we're fighting right now.

I think people have a hard time believing a guy who the majority saw as an idiot before 9/11 took genius pills and became a leader smart enough to fix one of the biggest conflicts in human history.

Well, let me say this. I feel a hell of a lot more confident in President Bush then I would with John Kerry or yourself as Commander in Chief. Atleast Bush has a plan and a goal...that is something the democrats have not come up with. The democrats who have attacked President Bush about his policies have not offered alternatives to the problems. That is what bugs me.

People knew that before 9/11, and even more know it now, mainly because its crammed down their throats at every opportunity. But you shouldn't expect every american to live their life in fear, or to support any ideal a government suggests.

Do you really think the average American thought about terrorist attacks before 9/11?

Have you practiced being this redundant or are you just naturally skilled at it? No one has ever suggested welcoming an Iraqi invasion of the US. For one thing, it could never and would never happen. No army in the world would be that stupid. And secondly, there will never be a point in history when you can say you have eliminated the threat of terrorism. Whether there are 1,000 members of Al-Qaeda left or 100, its not like it takes an army of them to cause destruction. After all, it only took 19 to start all of this.

What makes you think I was talking about Iraq? I was talking about the War on Terror in general. If we do not fight the terrorists there then the terrorists will fight us here. When I said they will use destroy all human life here with no regard I meant terrorists bombings and attacks. I did not speak of Iraq.

Or sometimes realize that there are no answers at all.

LOL...Do you really give up this easily in real life? "Oh, there is no answer...meh, oh well." We are facing the biggest challenge of our generation and you just want to give up and say there is no answer. I'm glad our generation is willing to stand up and answer the fucking call.

Don't group together all democrats/liberals like that. Its obvious that only the most ignorant representatives of that demographic believe that we should just back off and shut down all operations overseas. That would clearly be more damaging then "staying the course." The only opportunity I would see as a time we could get out is if more leaders of al-qaeda were killed and the level of violence was comparable to pre-9/11. The significant difference of course would be the absence of Saddam.

Then maybe you should tell the democrats to stop giving the ignorant ones the microphone because A LOT of democrats have mentioned bringing the troops home. What the people don't understand is there are more than two options! Most people seem to think that it's either A. stay the course or B. go home. That is not true. You can change the way we approach and fight the War in Iraq, which actually might not be a bad idea. However, none of the democrats has come up and given a better plan to win the war. If a democrat could do that then he would win the election. Hands down. If he can offer a better solution to win this war, not pull out, then he should be the candidate running against the Republicans.

I would have to agree with Riot that the US needs to stay there and clean up their mess. It would not be good if the troops had to leave behind their problems. The bad thing is, it'll be many years or decades before "peace" can be restored. My opinion is that the US should have never invaded in the first place, because not only they're inheriting a problem, but they're creating new problems: national insecurity, international disdain, debt, death, and a new breeding ground for hate. At least they gain control over the world's most valuable resource.

President Bush also said that all terrorists will be brought to justice and the countries who harbor them. The country had no problem with that speach and that policy 4-5 years ago.

But to the average American, the policy seems more like a rebuilt Iraq than justice on guilty terrorists. And so far they've affected two harboring countries with Iraq and Afganistan. But the rest of the governments in Israfghyianonanaq have grown in power, and have faced little to no reprocussion for harboring terrorists.

Yes. The Taliban is on the run and losing it's power. They are fighting harder and harder to try to sustain it but they will not.

While I agree they are not as powerful as when all this started, the fact that they are still killing NATO forces and still have large insurgencies and power in Afganistan tells me that they are not finished yet. For them to be completely powerless, you would have to see a period of at least a ful year with no more insurgencies or violence in that region.

I don't get it. You bash President Bush's solution to the problem yet you don't have one for yourself.

I bash him for not realizing the gravity of the situation and going ahead with a plan destined to fail.

What do you want the country to do to fight the War on Terror? Do you suggest we stop fighting the War on Terror?

Oh my god, stop calling it that. It's not a war, it can barely be considered an actual war, and saying its enemy is terror is ridiculous rhetoric. What's next, the War on Jealousy?

There has to be a solution. If you do not like the current administrations policies against terrorism then come up with your own because this is the world we live in and the problems we face. You can't give up and say there is no answer.

I'm not giving up, I've just said that it would appear that as of yet there is no solution to removing an ideal and hate 70 years in the making without sacrificing the rights and livelihood of the population of the free world.

You get upset at me for putting words in your mouth and then you go ahead and put words in my mouth? When did I say I wanted to destroy and level the Middle East?

I didn't mean you, I meant anyone in general who would believe such a plan would be feasable.

If you think only 5% of this population is fighting then you need to flip on the radio, my boy. The country is divided and we are yelling and screaming at each other about the War in Iraq and about who is to blame for 9/11, etc. It is stupid and it's causing most of us to lose focus on the task at hand. I don't care if you aren't fighting or if people around you aren't fighting. Hell, we're fighting right now.

Well 5% would be about 15 million, and somehow I doubt you've heard that many radio calls. And its not as if people are in the middle of the street arguing, yelling or shaking their fists at each other about the war.

Well, let me say this. I feel a hell of a lot more confident in President Bush then I would with John Kerry or yourself as Commander in Chief.

I wouldn't want John Kerry either, but he'd probably be better than Bush. It would still be a mess of epic proportions. It's fairly easy to realize that the democrats are a party of no ideas, while the republicans are a party of bad ideas.

Atleast Bush has a plan and a goal...that is something the democrats have not come up with.

His plan is still to "stay the course." His goal is to Americanize a region that despises Western culture, and that is incapable of sustained peace. Simply having a plan and goal is not admirable, having realistic ones would be.

Do you really think the average American thought about terrorist attacks before 9/11?

Firstly, the average american thinks that the bible was written by god. And secondly, coverage of middle eastern conflicts and their anti-american views were still prevalent before 9/11. And considering the previous attack was only 8 years earlier, everyone still knew it was a possibility.

What makes you think I was talking about Iraq? I was talking about the War on Terror in general. If we do not fight the terrorists there then the terrorists will fight us here. When I said they will use destroy all human life here with no regard I meant terrorists bombings and attacks. I did not speak of Iraq.

Sorry, what I meant was Al-Qaeda, not Iraq specifically. And it sounded like you were using that famous phrase, "we'll fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here." They have never wanted to "fight us" here. They're never going to send ships over here with their militants ready to fight. With tighter airport security they have very little means to attack again, besides the possibilities available to every american (guns, homemade bombs, etc.)

LOL...Do you really give up this easily in real life? "Oh, there is no answer...meh, oh well." We are facing the biggest challenge of our generation and you just want to give up and say there is no answer. I'm glad our generation is willing to stand up and answer the fucking call.

I don't want to give up, I just don't see any realistic solutions at this point, and I see acting without caution like we have as more damaging than not acting and simply planning.

Then maybe you should tell the democrats to stop giving the ignorant ones the microphone because A LOT of democrats have mentioned bringing the troops home. What the people don't understand is there are more than two options! Most people seem to think that it's either A. stay the course or B. go home. That is not true. You can change the way we approach and fight the War in Iraq, which actually might not be a bad idea.

Finally, we agree.

However, none of the democrats has come up and given a better plan to win the war. If a democrat could do that then he would win the election. Hands down. If he can offer a better solution to win this war, not pull out, then he should be the candidate running against the Republicans.

At this point I think that all it would take for a democratic victory would be a candidate who showed the slightest hint of common sense. Since they still come nowhere close in terms of smear campaigns compared to the republicans, they'll have to find someone who knows a little bit more about the situation there than they've shown in the past. I don't know about you, but personally I'd like to see a John McCain vs. Barack Obama race in 2008. From what I've seen and read, they might be the only two who could have an intelligent debate without resorting to the same old rhetoric we've been privy to the past...25-30 years?

Obama is the most overhyped politican I've seen. The guy has done nothing since he was elected and he is a huge hypocrite when it comes to alternate fuels. If the democrats have either Hillary Clinton or Obama running for the Presidency in 2008 they will lose. They need to put the best candidate out there and not worry about a publicity stunt. They are too focused on getting a minority to run that they are blowing their chance to beat out the Republicans.

And McCain will not run as a Republican...he is too liberal for most Republicans.