Anti American sentiment

Post Reply New Topic

Again with the jokes??? As if you are the authority on everything, you offer only oppinion, i see no facts whatsoever.

Im just not viable in this world i live in. Anyone else not viable? We can make up a club or a website that is inviable if we put our heads together on the matter.

Is that a fact? At best you have came up with opinions. I have produced facts, figures and well reasoned judgements.

How old are you exactly?

Uh, exactly where are you getting your numbers if the US doesnt "do body counts" and if you say we dont have a 100% accurate figutre, then why did you quote it in the first place?

Who told you that the US didnt do body counts? I am curious as to the source of this information.

And honestly, the "American Media Giants" are out to sell them selves, not the truth. So much of the reporting is skewed one way or another.

You'll have to read this entire post to get what Im trying to say. Please bear with me.
Im going to interject this as food for thougth:

We live in a global economy that is effected by many variables. If one major market is instable, the instibility is felt world wide. this can been seen in the stock markets, banking, etc.

Technology has made our world "smaller" and "faster". If one market were to crash, the effects are felt the world over in a matter of hours, not days or weeks as in the last 100 years.

The global marketplace is interdependant. Each componant depends on another and so on in such a way that if one componant is removed or damaged, the entire globla market is at risk of collapse, or at the least severe damage.

In the last 100 years this has been aparent. One example: World War I was followed by economic depressions in Europe, and the United States in varing capacities. The Stock Market Crash in 1929 was an indirect (or direct depending on your school of though) result of the severe economic issues in European nations following WWI.

Our world economy is far larger now than in 1920, and effects move quicker thanks to technology.

All that said. The events on 9-11 were not just aimed at killing and maiming as mant Americans as possible. They were also aimed at the economy. The World Trade center is very close to Wall Street, both physically and in business. One of the goals of the terrorists was to shut down Wall Street by toppeling the Twin towers into the buildings around them, as well as distroy the companies that were vital to the functioning of the economy that resided in the Trade Center. Then there was the shock factor of having an American land mark, and global icon of freedom and trade distroyed.
The other planes were aimed at other vital targets: the Pentagon is the physical representation of the might of the US military, and to distroy it would be, again a morale issue, as well as, in theroy, cripling tothe military might of the nation.
The plane that was crashed in Penn. by the brave and couragous men and women in an attempt to prevent another attack (cell phones let them know what transpired before them) was targeting the governing body of the United States. This hit would have gone far beyond Morale, it would have left an entire nation, had it succeded, with out national leadership and possible thrown the country into chaous.
Other planes, that were grounded or emergency landed after the intial attacks, also held terror suspects. One other known target was the arch in St. Louis. That would have been a morale thing mostly. And there were other targets.

The wisest thing our president ever did was to shut down Wall Street Trading for a few days to prevent a major crash. People are panicky creatures in mass and the mass dumping of stocks would have caused major, crippling effects to both the US economy and the economies abroud.

Being that the global economy is SO interdependant, HAD the worst case senerio as planned out by the terrorists happened, not just the United States would have suffered, but the entire world. some nay sayers are going to argue that the economy doesnt revolve around the United States. And it doesnt, entirely, but it does depend on each and everymajor player. and even if you dont like it, the United States is a mojor player. A massive shutdown of the ecomony here WOULD adversly effect the world. Would it be perminate? No, but the effects would have been seen for years, and it would take a major restructuring on the part of every nation to circumvent the long lasting effects if the US were taken out of the picture for an extended peroid of time all of a sudden.

ALL that in mind, the physical attacks on 9-11 were aimed at the US. But the overall attacks were aimed at the ENTIRE FREE WORLD. These people that formulated the attacks are no less intelegent than you or I, they are perhaps more dedicated to their cause. They can see what any student of economics, government and history can see: Taking out a major player will ruin the game.

Its not ALL about the US, people, its about the world economy as a whole. Sure upsetting the public with a few well placed attacks on unsuspecting commuters, as was done in London, wont stop the econimic gears from turning, but it DOES upset the people, and IT CAN, by way of poor consumer confidence affect the economy. But a direct attack on a nations leading body and on the global economy as well? THAT, spells war no matter how you add it up. Thank God it didnt turn out as it very well could have.

We live in a GLOBAL ECONOMY, we must not let bickering and fingerpointing and "I hate you because..." stop us from standing as a whole and stopping the next attacks. And yes, there will be more, they arent done. It might not be on the huge scale as was 9-11, but they will strike again, and again, and again if WE, as a world of free citizens dont stop them, and those that fund and support them.

Any attack on US soil would affect wall street.
This one had the major fallout of affecting air travel and forcing a high alert on security freezing all economic activity.

The only thing worse then a terrorist attack for air travel is a deadly airborn disease.
Lets have vigilance for Avian Flu.

Agreed. biological issues are more crippling than any thing else anyone can dish out. nature is far more deadly than anything we can create.

And if you combine Nature with modern technology the result is disasterous.
Smallpox

I just re-read this thread from the beginning.

It is a very good thread. Lots of voices have spoke out. Lots of reasoning went into peoples posts. Lots and lots of good, entertaining stuff. This thread has taken on a life of its own.
I believe in all of the views that i have stated in this thread, especially early on.
But i feel shame for how i cunducted myself, especially towards RobertN.

I think his points of view are narrowminded, but i also believe in his right to have them.
One of the greatest threads (in its entirety) on the whole site, and also one of the worst. Some of the heat that came from it led to many people being disciplined, or even having their account suspended for two weeks.
So many opinions and opinions that likely won't be changed. And this is why i feel shame. To reiterate, i believe in my comments, i have come to disagree with my methods. I did not know the situation of RobertN and past conflicts and past brushes with the authority. But that is irrelevent. I baited him with my flaming words and i was wrong. And i have no excuse for not keeping my end of the debate, civil.
Such a great thread, with such aweful results.
RobertN is going to be back shortly. And i would like to offer my apology. But i still disagree with your reasoning, i had no right to take the debate in the direction i did.

And eamonn, where where you in the beginning?

With all due respect, I disagree with everyone that has stood up for RobertN. Maybe it's just that I fail to see how "I can't wait for another terrorist attack to kill thousands of stupid fat americans" or whatever it was he said is acceptable under any circumstance. That isn't free speech, that's being childish and insulting when you know better. He got suspended for it, and that was the perfect response. If he does it again, I hope the moderators do the exact same thing.

Out of question, would you people who've been standing up for his right to make ignorant blanket statements about Americans, stand up for my right to make blanket statements about "stupid foreigner who shouldn't be allowed to talk about America because they don't know anything about it" if I chose to start talking like that? (which I wouldn't, I don't even think that, it's a hypothetical example)

Absolutely! Actions are a seperate matter.

Which leads me to the disclaimer at the end of your post.
The fear you demonstrated is what has me worried

As i explained, i disagree with the narrowminded blanket statements

It was my actions of baiting, which i condemn.

His words and the words that began this thread spawned a great bit of rational dialogue as well.

When i involved myself in the initial stages of this thread, i was seeing each post as a seperate entity, each in their own box (each a seperate part). Just now as i read the entire post and i was able to see the entire thred as one entity, i was able to see the escalation of a heated event, spurred by my baiting.

Which leads to a whole seperate set of debates and AS characteristics, this site and the community it has created.

Many times people with AS tend to dwell on the parts of objects. Also, poor communication skills, and tunnel vision (all things are black and white with no grey area). Thus i would conclude that in the midst of a battle, i assume that diplomacy is not considered like it should be. Diplomacy involves compromise which i would define as grey.

There is more to this debate certainly, but my brain is crashing from a sudafed high, and i cannot keep my focus.
I am clear oin the fact that his opinion were mere words. My baiting was more than words. They were uncivilized actions, intent on flamming the situation. I was wrong. At the time it was not clear, viewing the parts of the sum. But after reviewing the Thread as one single entity, it became obvious, my error.

Once again. I do not agree with his statements. It is an anti american statement to deny him the right to speak his beliefs.. The Supreme Court of America, after all, has deemed the burning of an American Flag as a legal right, supported by the Constitution.

Its still free speech.

Oh, really??? Where?? point them out, i dont see any.
However,
I have shown facts, not just oppinions.

It's been verified by the Supreme Court before that the right to free speech is not a right to say whatever you want whenever and however you want.

Public profanity in areas populated by small children isn't protected by free speech, nor is shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater.

With rights come responsibilities.