Nick Against the World (52 Viewers)

[Seven]

++ [ originally posted by Andy ] ++


Well don't then. And you seem reluctant to tell me why you're still here talking about 9/11 if you don't care. You're just here to stir up a stupid argument.

I think I've explained why lots of times. Just read my posts again, Andy. And don't let anger influence you that much. Try to see it from a different point of view and think about it.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Seven]

++ [ originally posted by Andy ] ++


Well don't then.

I meant it isn't fair you expect us to.

 

[Bjerknes]

++ [ originally posted by Seven ] ++


Terrorists HAVE attacked Africa lots of times. Where have you been the past twenty years? And of course Africa has big buildings. The only reason everyone is talking so muc about 9/11 is because it happened in America. Are you going to deny that?

Not on such a large scale though. Truck bombing an Embassy isn't the same thing as hijacking planes and flying them into standing structures. Takes a lot of coordination you know.

 

[Bjerknes]

++ [ originally posted by Seven ] ++


I think I've explained why lots of times. Just read my posts again, Andy. And don't let anger influence you that much. Try to see it from a different point of view and think about it.

But see, you chose to let your opinions be heard on this day. Figures. Wouldn't happen on any other day.

 

[Seven]

++ [ originally posted by Andy ] ++


Not on such a large scale though. Truck bombing an Embassy isn't the same thing as hijacking planes and flying them into standing structures. Takes a lot of coordination you know.

True, but nobody even remotely cared about the attacks in Africa. You got to admit some people did overreact after 9/11. Like George W Bush.

And you got to admit that man is incapable of doing his job and a danger for the world. I don't know how you feel about him in America, but here in Europe we're pretty scared. And we're absolutely not scared by terrorists.

 

[Bjerknes]

++ [ originally posted by Seven ] ++


I meant it isn't fair you expect us to.

So that means we shouldn't care if people in Africa die of starvation right? Look at it in both ways Seven.

 

[Seven]

++ [ originally posted by Andy ] ++


But see, you chose to let your opinions be heard on this day. Figures. Wouldn't happen on any other day.

Well, no one ever brought it up on another day and I wouldn't have started about it. I just about had it with all that 9/11 stuff. I've heared so much about it, read so much about it, watched so much about. Every day I have to hear about that war against terrorism-crap, while Bush could be out there saving lives instead of sacrificing them.

What disturbs me is that you seem to think, Andy, that I don't agree that you remember this day. I do and I do find it sorry that you lost someone that day, but things should remain in proportion you know. The situation in Africa and other parts of the world is a lot more urgent than the war against terrorism.

And I believe we would even fight terrorism by fighting world hunger.

 

[Bjerknes]

++ [ originally posted by Seven ] ++


True, but nobody even remotely cared about the attacks in Africa. You got to admit some people did overreact after 9/11. Like George W Bush.

And you got to admit that man is incapable of doing his job and a danger for the world. I don't know how you feel about him in America, but here in Europe we're pretty scared. And we're absolutely not scared by terrorists.

:LOL: Yeah like we are the ones who will go bomb train stations in Europe, right? I'm sure Bush is thinking of some insane plot to take over the whole world.

 

[Seven]

++ [ originally posted by Andy ] ++


So that means we shouldn't care if people in Africa die of starvation right? Look at it in both ways Seven.

Well first of all, most of us don't really care do they? But I meant to say it isn't fair we should care more about 9/11 just because it's 9/11 than about famine.

 

[Seven]

++ [ originally posted by Andy ] ++


:LOL: Yeah like we are the ones who will go bomb train stations in Europe, right? I'm sure Bush is thinking of some insane plot to take over the whole world.

He destroyed Afghanistan and Iraq. Later evidence proved none of those nations were dangerous. Europe did not give permission to invade Iraq.

That seems like a dangerous incapable president to me.

 

[Seven]

++ [ originally posted by Andy ] ++


:LOL: Yeah like we are the ones who will go bomb train stations in Europe, right? I'm sure Bush is thinking of some insane plot to take over the whole world.

You're not going to vote for Bush are you?
And I'm only telling you the general consensus here. We're scared of stupidity so we're scared of Bush. Who knows what he'll do?

 

[Seven]

Anyway Match Of The Day .

 

[Bjerknes]

++ [ originally posted by Seven ] ++


He destroyed Afghanistan and Iraq. Later evidence proved none of those nations were dangerous. Europe did not give permission to invade Iraq.

That seems like a dangerous incapable president to me.

Afghanistan was the home of the Taliban and one of the homes of Al-Queda. How is that place not dangerous?

 

[Torkel]

The US had wide consensus to attack Afghanistan, there's not much reason to question that operation.

Iraq is a whole other story.

 

[Henry]

++ [ originally posted by Seven ] ++


He destroyed Afghanistan and Iraq. Later evidence proved none of those nations were dangerous. Europe did not give permission to invade Iraq.

That seems like a dangerous incapable president to me.

That's for sure!! Good old Saddam-just a slightly eccentric guy, right? nothing dangerous about him! NO, of course not! And well, Afghanistan, we all know how well they were doing under the Taliban! And of course, Al-Qaeda had nothing to do with Afghanistan! no connections to the Taliban!


And so bloody what if Europe did not give the US permission to invade!!!! bloody hell!! is Europe the US's parent or something? Bush did something he believed was necessary to aleviate the security concerns of our country. And then Europe complains because Bush wanted to limit the contracts for rebuilding Afghanistan to America companies??? very logical

 

[Torkel]

++ [ originally posted by HWIENIAWSKI ] ++
And so bloody what if Europe did not give the US permission to invade!!!! bloody hell!! is Europe the US's parent or something? Bush did something he believed was necessary to aleviate the security concerns of our country. And then Europe complains because Bush wanted to limit the contracts for rebuilding Afghanistan to America companies??? very logical

I don't want to start a political debate about this, certainly not here and certainly not today, but you seem to have missed the plot here. Ever heard of the security council or NATO? We have tried to build up a system in the world where one country can't attack another whenever they want. It's not up to Bush to limit who get's build up Afghanistan or Iraq either, in fact obstructing the free market is quite rich coming from a right-winger.

But could we please end it here? Today is (or was in my case) a day for rememberance and mourning, not debate.

 

[Henry]

you are right, but one thing-the longer it took for the security councel et all to authorize the US, the more time Saddam had to prepare for war, and, in the thinking of the time, conceal any evidence of wmd (which, of course now it looks like the CIA fecked up on that, but Bush didn't know that at the time) anyway, I'll leave it at that

 

[Martin]

Henry, I seemed to have missed something. What war was he preparing for again?

 

[Henry]

sorry, I didn't make that clear-he would have been stupid to realize that the US wasn't going to attack him, and that's all I meant

 

[Henry]

in other words, prepare for the US attack that was bound to come