What does 9/11 mean to you?

[Boldek]

atari is right, as long as people(me,finrod,gambit) jabber over politics, people will get discouraged from posting here.
I apologize for lengthening an argument as old as the hills(dating back to 2001) to anyone who gave up on sharing what 9/11 meant to them.

before I sign off and leave this thread, I will answer a question or two I find very important: 'we' as the government didn't pay blackwater. politicians who wanted protection did. all mercenaries have bad reputations (look up hundred years war for starters) and yes, I agree that there was plenty of scandals including blackwater. but it wasn't the president who payed them. it was politicians who wanted private gunmen to protect them. their money is their money. 'nuff said.

and yes, the middle eastern terrorists are using the Koran as an excuse for their crimes.
and last but not least: we can jabber back and forth about Iraq till we all have beards to our knees. so goodbye. I don't think I convinced anyone, but I wanted you all here to know that the truth isn't forgotten. or 'my point of view' of you want.

signing off for hopefully the last time,
Boldek

[Gambit]

before I sign off and leave this thread, I will answer a question or two I find very important: 'we' as the government didn't pay blackwater. politicians who wanted protection did. all mercenaries have bad reputations (look up hundred years war for starters) and yes, I agree that there was plenty of scandals including blackwater. but it wasn't the president who payed them. it was politicians who wanted private gunmen to protect them. their money is their money. 'nuff said.

No. Lies. Incorrect. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Flat out, a lie. On a fact! It's not an opinion. It's not a debate. It's not a discussion. It's not an argument. It's a fact. And I even linked to it this very fact directly.

Now I am truly angry. I sent you directly to the fact and it is cited. And even without that, this is a matter of public record if you want to request the official stuff. There is no disputing this. IT. IS. A. FACT.

Blackwater, and others, were hired the state department. They set aside $1 billion dollars to hire PMCs. Then they gave contracts to the first groups that applied. They didn't even take bids or anything. There was no competition so that we the tax payers got a better deal. The state department just up and gave these guys the contracts.

Blackwater applied, and - with no challenge or haggling - was immediately granted a $320 million, five year contract by the state department.

[Boldek]

sigh. looks like it's back to square one. let say something before I hope this thread returns to its original purpose. you sighted, *cough* cough*cough* Wikipedia. if you observe carefully, you will notice that anyone can edit that source and yes, they have. take A, several months ago, someone edited that Rachmaninoff had a spicy life filled with affairs.and that's not it, but as I said, I suspect doofus may want his thread back, what I would have said would just get under your skin alot, so I'll cut short.they said lots of those things. I could say that Julius Ceasar was a under cover Jew, and that's why Hitler started the holocaust, or the Poland started WWII by raiding German supply trains. all that is total nonsense, and I suggest a heavy blanket of criticism and skepticism when it comes to recent events especially concerning Wikipedia. generally my view is this when people say "facts! facts!see? the wiki says so!" : or this: for all you know I could have taking too many beers and written a page called "how to annoy Gambit". (don't worry, I am not that low) and to add some more, politicians are politicians. I trust you understand that.
and one more thing: you aren't sounding like a tolerant sound minded person who has got me under his thumb. you, well, seem to be, well, let's say that I am leaving. if I stay another minute, I will continue disproving or criticizing your stuff, and presenting my own till the end of time. let's put it this way: please calm down and remember this: http://forums.wesnoth.org/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24277
I have had enough. let doofus run his thread. I won't convince you and you wont convince me. if you want, you can start a thread where you and I can bash each other. but not here.

[Gambit]

let say something before I hope this thread returns to its original purpose. you sighted, *cough* cough*cough* Wikipedia. if you observe carefully, you will notice that anyone can edit that source and yes, they have.

You will note that wikipedia has a citation for that bit of information.

Which is something I already pointed out; anticipating your attacks on reality.

I sent you directly to the fact and it is cited. And even without that, this is a matter of public record if you want to request the official stuff. There is no disputing this. IT. IS. A. FACT.

It's really tempting to just request this information from the state department and scan it in. But then you'd just say I photoshopped it. So I'd have to request it be sent to you with an official seal. But then you'd say the state department is lying because I'm part of some conspiracy. Anything to refute reality.

Honestly. Look at what your last post said. You are refusing to believe a matter of public record and trying to blame me for not dropping it.
You're obstinately sticking to a lie, and I should give up and let your lie stand? That's just horse crap.

"I won't convince you and you won't convince me." would make sense if we were discussing a matter of opinion, like our favorite football team, or the viability of various presidential candidates. But you are flat out lying to everyone in this thread.

You've had enough because your credibility has been destroyed because you are grasping at every straw in sight to prove that the sky is red. And I note that you have, not once, provided any evidence for anything.

You asked me several posts ago to stay and defend my opinions, but now you are wasting my time. And wasting the time of everyone here. We cannot have any discussion when you live in and believe in an alternate reality. When you refuse to admit simple facts on which all discussions are based, it makes you a liar.

Your claims of intolerance are the most nonsensical point you've made yet. In other forums here you would not expect me to tolerate people saying that [message] gives a team gold, or that Heir to the Throne is multiplayer, or that 2+2=93.

Here you can actually read the actual order forms and terms of the contract: http://www.state.gov/m/a/ips/c35170.htm


If doofus wants the thread split, he can PM me. That's really none of your concern.

[Finrod]

Gambit, it is true like Boldek said that Anyone can change Wikipedia (which, btw IS. A FACT.), and especially over controversial stuff Wiki mostly can't be trusted. For non-controversial stuff, like the year Bach was born or something random Wiki is fine, but basing your arguments off Wiki isn't the wisest of choices. Could you please get a different article on your mercenary stuff to help convince me?

No. Lies. Incorrect. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Flat out, a lie. On a fact! It's not an opinion. It's not a debate. It's not a discussion. It's not an argument. It's a fact. And I even linked to it this very fact directly.

Now I am truly angry. I sent you directly to the fact and it is cited. And even without that, this is a matter of public record if you want to request the official stuff. There is no disputing this. IT. IS. A. FACT.

Calm down. Boldek was not meaning to lie, he was mistaken, not a liar. So please be more civil.

Finrod, that you don't know about the United State's dependency on PMCs nicely frames the futility of this thread. It's not even that we have a disagreement. It's just a disparity in the amount of knowledge.

I agree. A large disparity in the amount of knowledge. For one thing America is not dependent on mercenaries. America would still be here if all the mercenaries went to the Moon. And since I know how you don't like bad grammar or the wrong use of words, please use a different word than dependent. And Yes, I agree that your arguments are futile. But we do have a disagreement.

"Oh we've got a bad@#$ military. Surely we don't need mercenaries." [You got that right ] If you had just gone and searched for some facts - even with the intent to prove me wrong - instead of going on feelings, you'd have found this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xe_Service ... nvolvement

#1 I don't go to Wiki to do my searches on controversial issues. #2 I read your article, at least the beginning and the sections on Fallujah and Baghdad. In none of the examples were there more than 10 Blackwater guys. In fact most of the examples were like 4 men. The Marine Corps has/had several hundred thousand Marines in Iraq. Couple houndred/maybe couple thousand is not much compared to the Marines, much less the Army, Navy, and Air Force in Iraq. Please don't use the word 'dependent'. And if that Wiki article was your best proof, than your proof isn't that strong.

So your FACTS. and matter of public record were that there are a couple hundred/thousand mercenaries in Iraq? That's all? You shouldn't scream at Boldek for not knowing that. When people say, "There are 1.2 billion people in China" should we call them liars and say that they have ruined their credibility for not knowing that they are overlooking 34,782,078 people? (<--# was randomly made up of course) Long story short. A couple of hundred/thousand mercenaries did not win the War for us. Their contribution wasn't that much. So No, the US is not dependent on mercenaries.

And from what I read of your article Blackwater guys were mostly in fights when they were attacked. Not Blackwater attacking Terrorists.

Are you saying you aren't a proponent of Democracy? That those "FILTHY COMMY NAZI MAOIST JERKS!" should just be left alone to torture people as they like?

Yes. Clearly anyone who suggests that letting a problem be is better than making it worse must be against democracy. And anyone who argues against the dangers of hyperbolic simplification in our political atmosphere is too.

Letting problems be doesn't make them go away, this isn't ignoring your kid when he keeps asking for a cookie. And letting the problem be DOES NOT mean that the problem won't get bigger. What happened when Chamberlain and the French and everybody just let Hitler be? He invaded Czechoslovakia, and they didn't do anything. He invaded Denmark. It wasn't until Poland that they declared war on him...and by then it was too late.
Letting terrorists destroy the Twin Towers and not doing anything? Do you think that they would have been happy and gone home? What about when their nukes came out? Could we have/can we just left/leave them alone? Of course not. Because they wouldn't leave us alone. Do the words "Twin Towers" ring a bell?
Sitting on your hands and plugging your ears (presumably with earplugs) will not change what's happening in the real world. Those Terrorists and Dictators have their hearts set on destroying Democracy and Infidels. You can be sure there would have been War, even if we hadn't done anything in 2001.

If a person is not speaking from a point grounded in reality, there's no point in even trying to talk to them.

Meaning I am not grounded to you. If you don't think there's a point in talking any more, you can quit. But then, of course, it will look like we win.

Making them recognize basic human rights, and separating their religion from their government are far more important than giving them a democracy. Yes democracy is great, and it'd be great if they had it, but it's not what solves the problems you're pointing out.

That is a problem, it's like saying that if everyone was good Communism would work. Their Governments are VERY closely tied to their religion. Because the guys that get the power are the religious ones...or at least their followers are. And religious Muslims would lop your head off with a machete without blinking an eyelash. Because they have a religion of violence.

Did you just compare the governments of most middle eastern countries to terrorists?

Yes. They support the Terrorists. (which btw IS. A. FACT.)

zookeeper wrote:

Finrod wrote:Maybe it's not politically correct or popular to look at the actual facts, such as the Iraqi people welcomed the American's as liberators, or that the Iraqi people are MUCH better off then they were before, and if you actually ask a Iraqi person, 99 times out of 100 they will tell you they like the Americans. (the other 1% are terrorists or Americans in disguise ) America set up a democracy in Iraq. Maybe you don't know what a Democracy is, so long story short, it's better. Period. (Such as...Women can walk around in the street without gasoline being dumped on them and set on fire for not having a male relative accompany them, they can even vote, etc...)

So where are you getting these "actual facts" from?

Finrod wrote:From reliable sources, for instance; My aunt was a nurse in Afghanistan for 19 years. She was there when the Taliban took over. She has stories about dodging bullets to go across the street and help victims. She was evacuated by the US right before we went into Afghanistan, because the Taliban started killing Americans there because of the upcoming invasion. She went back there right after the invasion and only came back to the US this last year.
She knew the Afghan people a lot better than you or me. She actually is liberal (yes, some of my relatives are) and although she does sometimes say that the US is wrong, she did say that the Afghanis loved the Americans.

Mea culpa, yes Iraq and Afghanistan are two different countries. I was using my Aunt's stories as an example, and she wasn't in Iraq. But my information wasn't based entirely on my Aunt. I also read Mil Blogs once in a while and my Father reads all sorts of news a lot. He also keeps us informed about a lot. So yes, I do know that the Iraqi people like the Americans (And it only makes sense considering who their last ruler was). And actually the views toward the Americans of the people of Iraq and Afghanistan are quite similar.

You will note that wikipedia has a citation for that bit of information.

OK, so who put it on wikipedia in the first place? You will also note that wikipedia is not trusted even among liberals. Like English Profs... Or news people.

If doofus wants the thread split, he can PM me. That's really none of your concern.

So you would rather continue the argument?

p.s. Gambit, the abbreviation of a Communist is usually spelled Commie, not Commy.

p.p.s. Writing in huge bold letters is annoying. It's like you are trying to shout over other people. This isn't a crowded bus terminal, shouting won't help you. Being reasonable and calm is a much better way of convincing people."Normal" is a good size to write in.

p.p.p.s. And resorting to calling people liars is not nice, nor does it improve your argument. And neither does saying "horse crap". Just b/c you can't say really bad words doesn't mean you can say lesser lesser bad words.

p.p.p.p.s. And Boldek's credibility has not been destroyed. (which, actually, make you a liar for saying so)

p.p.p.p.p.s. whew! that was long.

[Great_Mage_Atari]

I think we all, moderators, los hombres importantes, and everyone else, should just calm down a bit and realize and reflect on why we are here posting in the first place. 9/11.

[Gambit]

And if that Wiki article was your best proof, than your proof isn't that strong.

The wiki article is based on a news article. That news article is based on official government documents that I subsequently provided. They are linked to in the very post to which you respond. Why are you ignoring them?

Wikipedia articles provide summaries. Individual facts can then be verified with in-text citations. It's a great system for disseminating information to lay people like us.

As for "even the liberal college professors" and "even the liberal biased news people" well that's just hilarious (note: I'm a conservative, just not a crazy far-far-right one) and it goes both ways. "Even Rush Limbaugh will tell you that we hired mercenaries for the Iraq war." Yet you denied it once, and Boldek denied it like three times. Even after presented with evidence.

Because they have a religion of violence.

We do not allow religious intolerance here.

Yes. They support the Terrorists. (which btw IS. A. FACT.)

No. Saddam Hussein was not related to 9/11. And various governments in your "they" get attacked by these organizations all the time.

That's all? You shouldn't scream at Boldek for not knowing that.

I did not scream at Boldek. Though I am angry that he has, on like three occasions now, denied something which can be looked up on official government websites.
And it's not not knowing. People don't know things all the time. I don't know things all the time. I understand. You have to dig to find this stuff, and we're busy people.

It's denying things once told them that gets under my skin. And continuing on with your misstatements without putting any work into investigating the contradictions is dangerous.
If he had come back with his own links, awesome. But he didn't. He just lied and said that the politicians paid Blackwater out of pocket.

So you would rather continue the argument?

On this particular note there should not have been an argument. Arguing whether the Iraq war was good or bad and whether it worked or not is one thing. Arguing whether or not 2+2=83 is stupid. If this is the way it will continue, then no, I guess I would rather not.


Originally it was asked who profited from the war. And (assuming you don't question the veracity of official documents from the US State Department themselves) now you know...

[Great_Mage_Atari]

On this particular note there should not be an argument. Arguing whether the Iraq war as good or bad and whether it worked or not is one thing. Arguing whether or not 2+2=83 is stupid. If this is the way it will continue, then no, I guess I would rather not.

But, the thing is, the whole last 3 pages have been made up of stupid/off-topic arguments... either that they are not on topic or that they are minutely ridiculous. I'm not gonna argue this point, or get into the fray, but I just wanted everyone to realize that the last 3 pages have been off-topic...

[Gambit]

Right, but here in the off topic forum, threads do this literally all the time. If you have more to say on the original topic, just jump in and say it. Maybe someone else will respond and we'll naturally get back on track.

[Great_Mage_Atari]

I would, but I don't feel like getting 9/11 butchered again...

[Deusite]

I haven't actually read the topic properly since I posted, but I saw 'Sharia Law', and probably should have said something before.

Calling it 'Sharia Law' is a big misnomer, it is called 'sharia', no capital letter, no 'law'. What we perceive as Sharia law is one interpretation of sharia, and a rather extreme one at that. A Muslim told me once that it is best to think about it as a path that one ought to follow so that one does not stray from their religious duties. I would compare it to the Ten Commandments, but something seems a bit off with that comparison.

While I'm at it, jihad is not holy war at all, except in extreme interpretations. It means a religious 'struggle', which is usually, but not always, in a context of defensive wars, not aggressive ones.

Meaning is always lost in translation...


And Boldek: I don't really think of WWII as a war of ideas, (by that I mean a war to see one idoelogy triumph over another) considering the UK went into it to defend Poland. Hitler was looking for territory, it can be easy to forget how much he gained, and the ideology had less to do with it than with something like the Cold War, which was waged by proxy.

[thespaceinvader]

I think we all, moderators, los hombres importantes, and everyone else, should just calm down a bit and realize and reflect on why we are here posting in the first place. 9/11.

Unusually (:P) I think you're quite correct.

Dudes. Chill. I will not hesitate to lock the thread if you do not.

[Finrod]

The wiki article is based on a news article. That news article is based on official government documents that I subsequently provided. They are linked to in the very post to which you respond. Why are you ignoring them?

#1 I don't go to Wiki to do my searches on controversial issues. #2 I read your article, at least the beginning and the sections on Fallujah and Baghdad.

Dude, I did read it.

As for "even the liberal college professors" and "even the liberal biased news people" well that's just hilarious (note: I'm a conservative, just not a crazy far-far-right one) and it goes both ways. "Even Rush Limbaugh will tell you that we hired mercenaries for the Iraq war." Yet you denied it once, and Boldek denied it like three times. Even after presented with evidence.

I didn't actually use liberal and biased when I said new people. But yes, they are. I agree with you there. I don't actually listen to Rush, I don't have that much time. I believe there is a misunderstanding here. At first when I said that America didn't hire mercenaries I didn't know that for a fact, I just didn't think we did. I did do some research, so mea culpa, I have now more knowledge stored in my head. But the last several times I talked about them I wasn't saying that we didn't hire them, but that they didn't do major fighting. We didn't pay them to fight our battles for us. You may have meant that, I just thought that you were implying that we use mercenaries like Libya or something. The government hired those guys basically to boost our troops, not to replace them. And from what I read (which, I admit, hasn't been too extensive) I got the impression that they were used mostly to free up more soldiers to fight. Meaning they were there, but weren't in a fighting front line kind of thing. They were like transporting stuff and all of that.
I'm not saying that they didn't fight. But from what I read they were the ones getting attacked, they were not particularly looking for trouble. I hope this cleared up any lack of communication or misunderstanding we might have had on this topic.

As for "even the liberal college professors" and "even the liberal biased news people" well that's just hilarious

I said that even Liberal Profs or News people don't use Wikipedia as a reliable source of information. Simply because anybody (including their students or someone trying to mess up news articles) could change it. It was not meant to be found funny.

We do not allow religious intolerance here.

I wasn't actually being religiously intolerant, I wasn't trying to slander people.

Spoiler:

I wasn't actually being religiously intolerant, I wasn't trying to slander people, I was just stating a fact (or opinion if you will). Historians will back me up. Islam went from 1 guy to conquering the world really fast, and as a friend once said, "It wasn't from handing out tracts and granola.". Here is some dates: 610 Mohammad starts his preaching; 632 He dies; 638 Muslims conquer Jerusalem; 695 Muslims conquer Carthage (Tunisia); 711 Muslims invade Spain; 732 Charles Martel defeats Muslims at the Battle of Tours (smack in middle of France); 971 Muslims defeat Byzantine Armies at Manzikert.
Seriously, I wasn't trying to slander Muslims. When I was at the Naval Academy summercamp one of my roommates was Muslim, and he was the nicest, encouraging-est, and best guy in the squad. It's not like I have an irrational hate for Muslims.

It means a religious 'struggle', which is usually, but not always, in a context of defensive wars, not aggressive ones.

100 years after Mohammad died the Muslims were invading France. I would not say that Jihad were usually defensive wars...at all.

No. Saddam Hussein was not related to 9/11. And various governments in your "they" get attacked by these organizations all the time.

He didn't organize it, but he did support it, and I think (not quite sure though) that he might have funded some of it. Yes those dudes do attack governments, and then they end up controlling them.

He just lied and said that the politicians paid Blackwater out of pocket.

...I assumed that Hilary paid out of her pocket...but then, she probably did get the government to pay for it.

I think we all, moderators, los hombres importantes, and everyone else, should just calm down a bit and realize and reflect on why we are here posting in the first place. 9/11.

I totally agree, and I'm mightily sorry if I inflamed the debate.

Right, but here in the off topic forum, threads do this literally all the time. If you have more to say on the original topic, just jump in and say it. Maybe someone else will respond and we'll naturally get back on track.

You can say that again.
(...That's why the forum is called Off Topic... )

Dudes. Chill. I will not hesitate to lock the thread if you do not.

You probably should, and force us to stop posting, cause otherwise I'm going to be posting on the thread for the rest of my life.

This has been going on for a while, and I do need to study. So to Gambit and everyone else: I'm sorry if I offended anyone and made people explode with rage, I was just putting my view on the thread and Gambit was just posting his, and I'm sorry if I turned people away from posting cause they don't like these kind of arguments.

So Farewell, I hopefully won't return to this thread, especially if Spaceinvader locks it (which will remove my temptation to post) I calmed down a lot over today (and also realized this is a waste of my time) So I'll try to graciously withdraw. So Farewell again, I hope I don't leave and hard feelings. Goodbye and I'll see you in 'Ruin a Wish'.
-Finrod out.

[Great_Mage_Atari]

Dudes. Chill. I will not hesitate to lock the thread if you do not.

You probably should, and force us to stop posting, cause otherwise I'm going to be posting on the thread for the rest of my life.

Or, better yet (if at all feasible) a moderator could just edit the last 3 pages out and put it in a thread named "This is the Collaborative Collection of Ranting About Somehow 9/11 Related Topics," to put it quite frankly. The best way to stop being off-topic? Start being on it. I understand that you guys want to show your political wisdom and fight about this, but I actually want to see a thread dedicated to what it's supposed to be about. I'm not picking sides nor making enemies, but it would be nice if we all showed a bit of respect. I mean, it was 9/11...

[Gambit]

Which post exactly do you believe the split should start at?