http://www.albasrah.net/images/facts/hate.htm

"A Simple Request - Put My Son's Name on a Bomb

04/30/03 A retired New York City Police Department Sergeant lost his son on 9/11 at the WTC. He contacted the Marines requesting his son's name (Jason Sekzer) be written on one of the bombs we drop on Baghdad. To his surprise, Will received the following e-mail and 3 photos from Major Joe Boehm stationed in Kuwait. Gotta love our troops....."

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

__________________
"Quincitilius Varus, give me back my legions!"
Emperor Augustus of Rome.

I wouldn't mind seeing a bomb that has like 100 name on it, thats pretty cool.

__________________
Internationally Known, Nationally Recognized and Locally Accepted.
All I Got In This World Is My Word And My Balls, And I Dont Break Em For No-Body

I'm not certified in everything, but I am certifiable
Current Occupation: Network Operations Center Engineer
Network+ | Security+ | MCP: Windows 2000 Pro | MCSA: Windows 2000

May be the guys who were on board of the planes that crashed into the WTC should have written their names on the plane first.
I'm sure this would have been really cool to watch too...

There are two points we can take out of this story.
First, the realization that many many americans have been dupped into believing Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, by the Bush propaganda;
And second, that many americans have a violent streek in them, and these are the ways in wich it reveils itself.
They have no regard whatsoever for any human life than their own.
And to see the military pactuating with this is even more significative.

__________________
"Quincitilius Varus, give me back my legions!"
Emperor Augustus of Rome.

And that surprises you?

__________________

I don't think most (or even many) Americans believe that Iraq had anything to do specifically with 9/11. Instead, most Americans believe that Iraq supported terrorist groups (not necessarily, but possibly including Al-Quaeda). The war in Iraq is more than just 9/11. It is war on a nation that supported terrorism. There has been some documentation of this (here are a few links).
http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins091903.asp
http://www.nationalreview.com/murdoc...0310210934.asp
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...3723-4738r.htm

Gee, "many" americans [sic] have a violent streek [sic] in them? How many? You've suggested that fewer than twenty Americans in time of war agree to write a message on a bomb and that leads you to conclude that many Americans have a violent streak. Perhaps, the motivation had less to do with a violent streak and more to do with a misguided attempt at retribution. The question to ask is: if the father hadn't lost his son and if he wasn't grieving, would he have requested the name on the bomb? A second question would be: How many others requested such a thing and how often was it granted? A truly violent streak would be indicated by someone who would have wanted his own name on the bomb after suffering no loss.
As for having no regard for life other than their own, this is an extreme exaggeration. Have you grieved like this man? Have you walked in his shoes? Do you miss your son, knowing that you will never see him again? Remember that regardless of the time that has passed, this man is suffering and sometimes in suffering, we make bad decisions. This doesn't justify his request, but it helps if you can look at him as a human, not just an American. Writing on weapons has been a human trait (not just American) for centuries. People named their weapons or engraved threats on them to scare their enemies or to make themselves feel better (the case in this situation). It doesn't reflect on the regard they have for other people's lives, but on the stresses of a drastic situation. The question to ask here is: Under non-wartime situations, without the loss of his son, would the father desire the destruction of any human life at all? This would indicate a disregard for human life.
Well, at least you didn't say "most Americans".

For the record, I believe it was wrong to place the name on the bomb. I believe that personalizing war in this fashion is inappropriate for the military. War is an unfortunate tool of international relations and statecraft, and it should definitely not be personal. Nonetheless, people are sent to fight wars, and people are sometimes fallable. There is a danger is such a situation, but also in exaggeration.

-- Jeff

Not acording to the polls. Polls made inside the US showed over 50% believed Saddam was directly involved, and the White House used and abused of that feeling. The only know link of Saddam with a "terrorist" group is with palestinian groups, and we can debate wether these are terrorists or freedom fighters, don´t we? The links to Al Qaeda are non existent, except in the minds of Bush apologists. As said in one of your own links, it says and i quote:

"The new intelligence reports are at odds with a June report by the United Nations' terrorism committee, which said it had found no links between Iraq and al Qaeda."

As for the other two links, from the same site, i don´t think it requires comment. Especcially after seeing the publicity that it sports.
And to top all that, we have the declarations of Richard Clarke, the foremost american expert in terrorism.Of course then you´ll say he is just another disgruntled ex-employee, along with all the others, so why waste my latin?
I would even concede that some Al Qaeda operatives may have been in Iraq, but that is hardly proof of any dealings between them. If you take that visit as proof, then maybe you should also view the US as being in bed with them aswell! After all, they lived in the US for years, right?

I suggested what?? Where?

Does his grief go away if he encourages killing other people´s sons and daughters and make their fathers grief aswell? Would the blood of others make him feel any better? If so, then he IS a violent man. One could understand this action, if it was taken within days of his son´s death, but this took place 2 years later! It was not about grief, it was about revenge!

How many people died in 9/11? About 3000, right? And how many supported the bombing of Iraq? Millions! Should we expect that every one of those had some relatives in the WTC? Having suffered and grieving a loss was not the main reason behind the invasion, revenge was. Misguided revenge for an act that they can´t punish the real guilty ones. Where is Osama? Why wasn´t he caught?
The violence streek i mention is not based on this case alone, it is based on all the bombings, the killings, the abuses and the beatings that take place at their hands. It is based on the american gun culture, the serial killers, the gangs, the homicides, the car chases, the drive by shootings, all the Washington Snipers, the Charles Mansons and the Ted Buntys of America. It´s the Cold Wars, the Vietnams, the Somalias, the Afghanistans and the Iraqs of the world. It´s a whole violent culture that seeps in to the farmost corners of american society, and presents itself in every possible form. It´s something that most americans never notice, so numb and acostumed they are to live like that. It takes an outsider to notice this, as americans have come to accept their condition, just as desert folk come to accept the heat of the sun.
Violence has become such a permanent part of life, that no one questions its existence anymore...

You can now accuse me of anti-americanism, if you want. I just tell it as i see it. You think that it´s just a coincidence that the US has fought more wars and battles in the XXth century than all european nations putted together?

__________________
"Quincitilius Varus, give me back my legions!"
Emperor Augustus of Rome.

Do you have the links for these polls? I know that there are many polling bodies in the US and only a very few are impartial. If the LA Times runs a poll, it generally comes out the way the LA Times wants it to come out. Gallup is one of the very few that does decent polls and the most recent one of theirs that I can find (Sept 2003) said that only 43% of US citizens believe Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. That said, I haven't seen a recent poll from a respected company like Gallup, but I would doubt that most US Citizens today think that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.

A person is a terrorist either because of their goals or because of their tactics. I can agree with you that some of the palestinian groups have non-terrorist goals (the creation of a Palestinian state), but they choose terrorist tactics and as such are terrorists. By calling them anything else, you condone (or at least dismiss) their tactics (you also fall close to saying the ends justify the means).

Just because new intelligence disputes a committee's finding doesn't automatically render the intelligence finding as invalid. Just because nothing could be proven in June doesn't mean that by December (the date on the article you quoted) new facts hadn't come to light.

No, the fact that they were in Iraq doesn't prove Hussein's support of them, but the washington times article that I referenced speaks of Iraqi officials travelling to the Sudan to train Al Quaeda.

Well, you opened this thread with the story of the bomb, then you stated on May 26th that one can conclude: So you therefore suggested that the story (which involves fewer than 20 people) leads to the conclusion that many Americans have a violent streak.

First, you're right, his grief won't go away. As I said in my post, it was wrong that this happened. We (neither you nor I) don't know this man personally and don't know his motivations. You suggest that 2 years means that grief has subsided and revenge is all that is left, but you don't know this person at all and make an assumption about him. I don't know him either, but I believe that it is possible grieve for a loss for more than 2 years. As I said before, this was a bad decision and his grief cannot justify his requests or actions in this matter. Nonetheless, it is still a human reaction and not all that surprising. Wanting revenge doesn't mean he is violent. Lashing out in pain and grief doesn't mean he's inheirently violent, but rather that the situation he was in made him make a violent decision. There is no justification for revenge, but human beings regardless of their country of origin pursue revenge all the time. This isn't about his being American, but rather about him being human.

Remember that the Iraq war wasn't because of 9/11. It was because of UN resolutions that were disregarded. It was because of Iraq's support of terrorism (not just Al Quaeda). And it was because of weapons that most of the world, including the UN, believed Saddam Hussein to have at the time the war started. If the UN didn't believe it, then were they just wasting their time trying to get inspectors back into the country? If they didn't believe, why the resolutions? In fact, at least one weapon has been found, the makings of others have been found and there is evidence that much was destroyed by Saddam Hussein's people or transported out of Iraq during the war. Millions of US Citizens supported the war in Iraq. Millions supported WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Korea, Desert Storm, etc. Others opposed these wars (all of them). Many other countries also supported all of these conflicts, does that make the citizens of all of these nations violent too? Supporting the war isn't about a violent streak, it is about supporting one's country and supporting the troops who are brothers, sisters, parents, friends, relatives, etc.

Every culture on this planet has violence, either in the present or the past. In fact, I'd be impressed if you could name 10 currently non-violent cultures (no crime, no violence of any sort). Most cities deal with murder, gangs, rapes, kidnapping, burglary, organized crimes, etc. Nonetheless, that wasn't your argument at first. Your argument was that from the article about the name on the bomb, you can draw the conclusion that many Americans have a violent streak. Your argument doesn't hold water without introducing additional evidence. So be it. All cultures has violence as part of its nature and I never stated that Americans didn't either, just that your argument doesn't stand on its own merit. A violent streak would suggest an excessive amount of violence and that I will disagree with. Certainly there are cases of excessive violence in our culture, just as there are in every culture. Those are the exceptions, not the rule. For every Charles Manson or Ted Bundy, there are thousands of US Citizens who will never commit a violent act.

A truly objective viewpoint would call it as they see it, both good and bad. Where's the good? Where's the realization that there is a broad spectrum in the United States (and the rest of the world), not just the side that you see reported in the media?

My problem with your post was that you took one article and drew a blanket conclusion. That suggests a predisposition towards a certain viewpoint. Perhaps that wasn't your intent. Perhaps all you read are news articles of the misdeeds of US Citizens. You didn't present your argument that way, however. So be it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you probably aren't exposed to the good stories of US Citizens, but they are out there and they are the true spirit of this nation.

-- Jeff

The article came out a few weeks ago, and it was discussed widely here. I can try to track it back for you.
Regarding the imparciality of the polling body, i can´t say if that´s true or not, nor to wich side it pended. I believe the results favour none of the political groups, so i wouldn´t expect any big partizanship.
A similar poll was conducted by a british body, and arrived to similar conclusions. If both came to the same conclusions, chances are they are correct, isn´t that right?


Well, that allways depends on the eye of the beholder, doesn´t it? One man´s terrorist is another man´s freedom fighter, as said countless times here. This issue was discussed ad nauseum here aswell. Feel free to check back past threads, it´s there. But as it is, that issue has no relevence here for this thread.


Also another issue discussed here to exaustion. Forgive me if i don´t get into that again, i´m a little weary of it.You can check back on that aswell.


Same thing. An official traveling to other countries is hardly proof that his "boss" put him up to it. Often people have diferent feelings than the ones they are supposed to uphold, by superior orders. People are free to choose sides.If some iraqi happens to sympathize with Al Qaeda and seeks to have meetings and help their cause, it hardly signifies his boss does it too. It simply comes down to circumstancial evidence, at most.


No, it doesn´t mean he is inherently violent, it only means that his actions are dictated by the influence of the society where he lives. The US is the highest militarized society on earth, and i think this is beyond dispute. The US society leans heavily on its military might, and as such it has a great influence on the daily life of an average american. Add to that the gun laws, and you get a lot of armed people with an attitude. It is not a coincidence that everywhere in the world people see the american society as beligerant.
It´s not just something you see in movies. Acording to the latest polls taken in Europe, the US is right behind Israel as the biggest threats to world peace, and that tells us a lot.



It wasn´t about 9/11?? Well, you could have fooled me!! Then why does Bush uses Saddam, Iraq, terrorism and 9/11 in the same sentences?
Why the hurry to invade Iraq? He had Afghanistan in pieces, Osama was still missing, the inspectors were inside Iraq trying to find any misdeeds and found none significant. Hans Blix was accused of being incompetent for not finding anything, yet the US has 135.000 men in Iraq trying to find them and came up empty handed aswell! And Blix didn´t have 1/10 of the resources the US has! The resolutions were there, but it turns out they were not violated after all, isn´t it? All those claims Powell made at the UN, were bogus! The 45 minute claim, bogus. The iraqi defectors, bogus. It was all bogus, so the resolutions weren´t violated as Bush said it was.
But again, this is all old news. We have gone this path before.

Artillery shells do not qualify as WMDs. They are of low destruction rate. The only thing that could prove as WMD woulde be to find the plant that made the chemicals still working. One shell is nothing. Iraq has hundreds of them awaiting destruction from even before the war. They are old, rusted, leaking, and the chemical inside is useless. The shelf life of these shells has been passed by a decade or more. For you to claim Saddam was in breech, you need to find proof that he continued to make these weapons after the last inspections, in 99 if i´m not mistaken. Finding stuff that preceds the inspections and the resolutions is virtually worthless as evidence.


Sorry, i don´t buy into that. If you only support your troops, why in hell would you send them to a war to die?? I don´t call that support. You don´t support your husband or son or boyfriend by sending him to die off in some desert. Yes, many millions supported the war. Many millions in the US alone, because everywhere else this war got zilch support. Only governments supported the war, but not that country´s population. The anti-war feeling rounded 90% in some countries. You will be hard pressed to find any support in Europe for this war. And even in America things are changing at a fast pace. This war was a fiasco from the get go. It was based in lies, deception and no real purpose. Only a handfull of men´s secret agendas. It was all for the oil. If they wanted to liberate a people that really needs to be liberated, they would have invaded N. Korea. There you wiçll find a dictator that makes Saddam look like Mother Theresa! So why didn´t they invade Korea? I´ll tell you why, no oil!



This is where you went totally wrong. I never meant to base my claim in only this article, and had you been around longer you would know that. This articcle was just another piece of the puzzle that has been made here over and over again. You just happened to stumble on it on your first visits.
For the record, this article isn´t even all that enlightning, as there are countless others with more impact.
Of course other nations have crime, robbery and murder, that was never the question. The issue here is that the US has so much more of it that its down right scary! You have Columbine, you have Texas University, you have West Hollywood and guys in freakin´body armour, you have the KKK marches in the streets, segregation and racism (not as strong as before, but still present), you have the Bloods, the 18th Street, you have your political assassinations, JFK, Martin Luther King, Bobby Kennedy, you have your AK-47s for sale at the corner gun shop, i mean the list is endless! And these things might occur ocasionally in some other countries, but not in the massive ammount the US does. And for the record, i think your gun laws are the main reason for it all.

Of course you have the good sides too, i wasn´t just talking about them in this thread. I´ve always said one of the greatest achievements of mankind is american made, the space race. I absolutely love what you are doing to make space travel a reality! You also have one of the most efficient R&D policies, your work in medicine is astounding! You make beautifull cars (alltough not as fuel efficient as ours), you have THE greatest motorcycle ever built, need i say the name? You make great movies, you make great computers, great software, anything Hi tech you make is fabulous!
But then i must say, your foreign policy stinks to high heaven! You have a man in the White House who got there by a court order, with less votes than the opponent. And you have this "mania" of strongarming every other country to get it your way, you meddle too much. Your CIA has brought more governments down than we can count. And you have this superior attitude, that makes you think "we are the best, and fuck the rest"...
This might be painfull to hear, but it´s the honest truth. Don´t think bad of me, i am just being honest and straightforward. I am not saying all this to glorify my own country, as i am my country´s biggest critic. I am just telling it as it is.
:rolleyes:

__________________
"Quincitilius Varus, give me back my legions!"
Emperor Augustus of Rome.

Swamp thing:
"And to see the military pactuating with this is even more significative."

What does that mean? What does pactuating mean?