Agent.M
Newbie
- Joined
- May 24, 2004
- Messages
- 1,180
- Reaction score
- 0
ROFL funniest thing Ive heard in a while!
It doesn't seem like five years ago.
- Thread starter Raziaar
- Start date
ROFL funniest thing Ive heard in a while!
JNightshade
Newbie
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2004
- Messages
- 2,277
- Reaction score
- 0
Yes. Yes he does.
Fliko
Newbie
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2003
- Messages
- 2,708
- Reaction score
- 0
JNightshade
Newbie
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2004
- Messages
- 2,277
- Reaction score
- 0
The odd thing is, it didn't really affect me much then, and it doesn't now. I've met people who've lost friends and family in the attacks, and even so, it just... doesn't have the effect it should :/
Slacker
Newbie
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2006
- Messages
- 1,698
- Reaction score
- 0
Same.
Hell, the attacks happened when I was just eleven, so I really had no idea just what all the fuss was about at the time. Then again, I've never really been patriotic, so yeah.
theotherguy
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2003
- Messages
- 5,107
- Reaction score
- 1
Now that I look back, It all seems so disgusting to me. I remember being caught up the nationalism, the cries for blood, the cries for revenge, the patriotic songs, bushes' ramblings...and it just got worse and worse.
Why do we call them "attacks"? I remember very clearly the moment they happened thinking of them as criminal acts, as "hijackings" and "bombings" and that's what the news media called them for the first few minutes...but then when the administration started talking about "attacks from a brutal enemy", we instantly were caught up in the fallicious lie that we were "attacked" by a foreign nation, and that allowed us to be coerced into seeking blood abroad in afghanistan and Iraq.
I can only imagine how it would have turned out if we had treated it for what it was: a criminal act of terrorism which had to be brought to justice through the civilian court system, diplomacy, and proactive civil foreign policy, instead of through invasions, wiretapping, closing off of borders and fervent nationalism.
The nationalism, in hindsight, just makes absolutley no sense to me. Here we were, with hijacked planes crashing into buildings, not much different (but a lot more extravegant) than the oklahoma city bombings, or the first trade center bombing, and all of the sudden we responded with flags, songs, and blind patriotism. Since when has a terrorist bombing been enough to warrant such blind nationalism?
I don't know...but it disgusts me now.
Why do we call them "attacks"? I remember very clearly the moment they happened thinking of them as criminal acts, as "hijackings" and "bombings" and that's what the news media called them for the first few minutes...but then when the administration started talking about "attacks from a brutal enemy", we instantly were caught up in the fallicious lie that we were "attacked" by a foreign nation, and that allowed us to be coerced into seeking blood abroad in afghanistan and Iraq.
I can only imagine how it would have turned out if we had treated it for what it was: a criminal act of terrorism which had to be brought to justice through the civilian court system, diplomacy, and proactive civil foreign policy, instead of through invasions, wiretapping, closing off of borders and fervent nationalism.
The nationalism, in hindsight, just makes absolutley no sense to me. Here we were, with hijacked planes crashing into buildings, not much different (but a lot more extravegant) than the oklahoma city bombings, or the first trade center bombing, and all of the sudden we responded with flags, songs, and blind patriotism. Since when has a terrorist bombing been enough to warrant such blind nationalism?
I don't know...but it disgusts me now.
