Frank John Sadocha was weeks away from his dream of opening his own restaurant on Long Island. He was training people to take over for him as manager of the food services division of Cantor Fitzgerald when the World Trade Center was attacked.
"All he tried to do was to get us ahead," said his wife, Nancy. Mr. Sadocha, who lived in Huntington with his wife and two daughters, did the catering for a local temple on weekends and sometimes weeknights, in addition to his job in the city.
"He was very much in charge, and he knew catering so well," his wife said. But as hard as he worked, Mr. Sadocha, 41, always had time for his daughters, Ashley, 5, and Kristy, 4.
A few weeks ago, after they had enrolled the girls on soccer teams, Ashley said she didn't want to play, that she wasn't any good at soccer. Her father took her outside and worked with her.
"He boosted her confidence," Mrs. Sadocha said. "By the end of the weekend she said she couldn't wait to play, and she told me, `Daddy said I was good.' "
[quote]Do you honestly believe that there is any way we can modify our foreign policy in any acceptable way will stop these people? Their policy for Israel is ?death to Israel?. Should we support that?<hr></blockquote>
While Israel is the subject matter, let us not forget what happened at Sabra, Shatila and elsewhere in S. Lebanon in 1982. At least 1800-3000 Palestinian refugees (men, women and children, all civilians) were slaughtered by "Christian Phalange" militiamen, aided and abetted by the Israeli army. Ariel Sharon was Defense Minister at the time, and even an Israeli appointed Commission of Inquiry found that he was at least partially responsible for the planning and ordering of the massacres.
International Red Cross estimates that upwards of 15,000 people were murdered.A later accounting reported by the independent Lebanese daily An-nahar gave a figure of 17,825 known to have been killed and over 30,000 wounded, including 5500 killed in Beirut and over 1200 civilians killed in the Sidon area. By late December, the Lebanese police estimated the numbers killed through August at 19,085 with 6775 killed in Beirut.
This event has been exhaustively documented; there was also a sickening but excellent documentary aired on the reserved and conservative BBC show Panorama re. this massacre. Ariel Sharon and the Israeli army were shown to be clearly responsible for one of the worst incidents of mass terrorism of the 20th century.
Ariel Sharon is now Israel's Prime Minister. The United States gives the Israeli Government $3.5 billion per annum on a standing order basis, much of which goes into purchasing weapons, often used against Palestinians who are currently having their homes bulldozed and farmland destroyed.
Imagine how New Yorkers feel, having lost 5000 innocent people in the September 11 attack. Imagine the feelings towards Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda by those bereaved ones, whose loved ones just went to work, and were subsequently murdered by terrorists. In parallel, imagine how those tens of thousands of bereaved Palestian families feel about a country (USA) which sends $billions to support a country which is led by a man who fits any definition of "terrorist". New Yorkers, and Americans in general, myself included, are quite rightly angry, shocked and sad, and want retribution. Many Palestinians are in the same boat.
It is situations like this which hinder the cause of the USA, and put Americans in danger, when foreign policy decisions which at best are shortsighted and duplicitous, and at worst, downright destructive, are forced into effect. In response to the 9-11 attacks President Bush has launched a world-wide campaign against terror. For America's sake, I hope that we abandon some of the blatant double standards that infest so much of our foreign policy and only serves to create so much hatred and instability. With the help of the international coalition, we must go after ALL terrorists, no matter where they reside, no matter how wealthy and well-connected they are. That includes terrorists who hide behind suits and ties as well as those in turbans and fatigues.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
When I was little, I lived in the UK for a number of years. A good friend of my parents who was working in a pub in the the center of Birmingham England was killed by a bomb which exploded there, killing several others and injuring dozens.
I agree with you that many Irish people have a huge and wholly justified grievance against the British, when you remember the potato famine and seige that killed hundreds of thousands of the Irish population several generations back. But to arbitrarily target innocent UK civilians with bombs and bullets, who are blameless regarding any atrocities against the Irish, is not freedom fighting. In my book, the IRA are terrorists as much as Al Qaeda, Timothy McVeigh or ETA.
Incidentally, the IRA/INLA terrorist cells receive their primary funding from the the U.S. based Noraid group , which ironically (from the last I heard) operates out of New York City and Boston. Will President Bush will bring these guys to order? After all, he did say that all terrorists should be brought to justice did he not?[/QB]<hr></blockquote>
So would you consider the English government to be terrorists then? You concede that they too have killed thousands of innocent Irish civilians so if the IRA are terrorists for doing so, which I can agree with, so are the English government?
I think we both know that the killing didn't stop after the potato famine. There is the Croke Park massacre in 1920 for example.
What I would also like to point out about this bombing is that six men were arrested and convicted for it based on fabricated evidence. They were later aquitted and became known as The Birmingham Six. That's hardly justice is it?
Is it justice that The Guildford Four, also convicted for a pub bombing, were convicted on forced confessions, fabricated evidence and the neglecting and witholding of information from the defence? Is it justice that after these people were aquitted none of the policemen involved, guilty of commiting these crimes, were ever punished for them?
No that's not justice. They took 15 years from these people and they knew they were innocent from day one. 15 years and they got away with it. When these things happen people can be expected to then seek their own kind of justice.
The IRA, does other things as well. They also attacked MI6, a military target if ever there was one. Are they freedom fighters when they do that but terrorists when they do another?
I'm not trying to defend bombing pubs, even if they are mainly soldiers pubs, or atrocities like Omagh. But I would like to know whether the English government are freedom fighters when they liberate Europe in WWII, when of course civilians were killed, and terrorists when they shot 12 people on Bloody Sunday? For which, again, never an English soldier was convicted of any wrongdoing.
Someone pointed out in another thread that war is bloody and dirty and innocent people get killed. For the Irish, this is our war and innocent people get killed.
President Bush said that civilian victims "happen" when you start throwing bombs around. Am I right to assume that when you know innocent people will be killed but you still continue to bomb you're willingly killing innocent people? Is president Bush a terrorist himself? A terrorist for the cause of getting revenge?
This is utterly ridiculous, as ludicrous as the plans Greece used to have to reconquer the Byzantine Empire as revenge for the Arab conquest in the seventh and eighth centuries. I think this finally faded away with NATO.
A. With regard to the Potato Famine, what exactly is it that you want Britain to do about it now? Pay damages to surviving sufferers?
B. The Irish are an independent republic, not militarily threatened or pressured by anyone. No other nation has oversight over their affairs, and their economy is booming. It is now several generations gone since there was any open warfare with Britain, and since independence. Indeed, the only problem that the Irish Republic seems to have is a boundary dispute in the north, where, on the vague principle, that whole islands make good countries a group of terrorists is trying to bully the locals into joining a different nation.
How exactly would Ireland be any better off if they succeeded in conquering the North? And what grievance is this exactly that Ireland has against Great Britain in 2001? It's tiresome to argue about which side inflicted what massacre on the other in 1883, 1722, 1605, or whenever - can somebody just explain to me why anyone still gives a rat's ass? Remember the past, fine, mourn persons who had been dead a hundred years when your grandfather was born, fine, but harbor a resentment against a vague group of people, some of whom are descended from the persons who inflicted this injury? Grow up.
Can we agree that you should not talk about things you obviously know nothing about.
The point of the potato famine is that it should never have happened in the first place. You expect us to just forget about it yet you find it justified that you bomb people because of the WTC? Is it because that happened shorter ago? So where exactly is the timeline? From how many years onwards do you want us to start forgetting?
Can we still be mad about Bloody Sunday? Can we still be mad about the Maze hunger strikers? Or is that too long ago too?
Our "boundary dispute" is based on whole islands make better countries is it? So it has nothing to do with the fact that it was a whole country first and only part of it gained it's freedom? Damn and here I thought I knew what I was talking about, you know, with being born here and actually being educated in this field and all.
You're right man. We should just "get over it". What were we thinking. You know, why would we still be angry just because our demands for freedom were never fully met? The grievance may be that ermm...the six counties are still part of Great Britain, therefore it's occupation has not ended?
Now I could go on to tear your ill informed argument to shreds some more but I doubt that you are willing to listen.
The point of the potato famine is that it should never have happened in the first place. You expect us to just forget about it yet you find it justified that you bomb people because of the WTC? Is it because that happened shorter ago? So where exactly is the timeline? From how many years onwards do you want us to start forgetting?
Can we still be mad about Bloody Sunday? Can we still be mad about the Maze hunger strikers? Or is that too long ago too?<hr></blockquote>
Pretty touchy when someone suggests a way out of the cycle of violence in your country. Aren't you the one who wrote this as a way to respond to the WTC attack?
"...(the U.S) could meet with the heads of state and just listen. Ask them why is this happening. What can we do to change it."
As for how long you should be holding grudges I guess that depends on how long you want to wait for peace. France "got over" Germany and they had as big of a bitch against them as you do against Britain. That seems to be working out okay. Ditto for Denmark, Holland, Belgium, etc.
[quote]Our "boundary dispute" is based on whole islands make better countries is it? So it has nothing to do with the fact that it was a whole country first and only part of it gained it's freedom? Damn and here I thought I knew what I was talking about, you know, with being born here and actually being educated in this field and all.<hr></blockquote>
What about those in the north who don't want to become a part of the Irish Republic?
What about those in the north who don't want to become a part of the Irish Republic?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes that is what I wrote and I stick by it. I also wrote, I believe in the same thread, that I am PRO IRA decommisioning, back when we were allowed to state our political convictions without the likes of you telling us we're wrong for not having the same ones as you.
I not saying he is wrong for suggesting there is a way to get our country back without violence. I am saying he is wrong for suggesting that we "get over it" That has nothing to do with anything. We want our country back. What ever else is negociable but not that.
Those in the north that do not want to be part of the Irish republic do not matter and for the following reasons:
1. They are descendants of the so called Ulster Plantation. It's Ireland's version of "If we can't get them out, we'll breed them out". If you have not seen Braveheart what happened was that English landowners were given lands in Ireland, impregnated women (not by mutual consent) to raise them by their believes. These people had no business to be there in the first place so neither do their descendants.
2. The fact that they form the majority will not last much longer. It is predicted that by 2016 the Republican population will outnumber the Unionist population. Are you saying that then Britain should have a referendum and give it up? Do you believe that would actually happen? Do you think the U.S should then go on to bomb England because the majority of the population in the north wants to rejoin Ireland and they won't give it?
FYI the IRA has upheld the last cease fire it's signed. Even when Unionists went around pipe bombing Republican neighbourhoods. 51 and counting, this year alone.
The latest Republican attacks, the Omagh attack amongst them, were carried out by the Real IRA. A group which the IRA and Sinn Feinn have nothing to do with.
Another interesting fact that you may want to know is that 75% of the political attacks in the north in 2001 were carried out by Unionists.
<strong>Zo has reached a new level of stupidity.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Always great to be dissed on for no explanation. I said contoversial things and you don't agree to them, so you assault me.
See, this is an example of someone trying to impose his views while dissing everyone because he doesn't agree. So, instead of trying to explain why Im a friggin idiot, he just set off a 'bomb' without attempting to 'negotiate' at it.
When you are saying that France, Holland and Belgium got over Germany fairly quickly do you even realise that France, Holland and Belgium were also liberated and Northern Ireland is still occupied?
You are comparing two entirely different things and on top of that you're comparing 5 years of occupation to 800 years and counting.
France and Germany mainly fought over the Elsas throughout history. The Elsas is also now a part of France. Your point is moot.
... I also wrote, I believe in the same thread, that I am PRO IRA decommisioning, back when we were allowed to state our political convictions without the likes of you telling us we're wrong for not having the same ones as you.<hr></blockquote>
And then there's the likes of you telling us we're wrong for responding to the WTC attack militarily.
<strong>Scott, maybe you could stick to the point?
I said that I respect these people's willingness to die for what they believe is right. Not that I respect them for killing innocent people.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh I'm sorry. You're right. I didn't understand. Moving on.
I respect the terrorist for having the balls to kill this woman. Other people would have chickened out but not the terrorist. They had the courage to kill this grandmother. Oh BTW after a nights sleep I'm still a ****ing idiot just like macoracle.
To her delight, Mrs. McGovern, who was in the shower, ran to meet them at the door, half dressed and dripping water, and began yelling for her husband: "Larry, Larry, look who is here! Liam is here! Liam is here!"
And that's how Ms. McGovern says she will remember her mother: exuberant, happy, full of life. Mrs. McGovern, who lived in East Meadow on Long Island, was a claims analyst for the Aon Corporation and worked on the 93rd floor of 2 World Trade Center, the first tower to collapse. A native of the Bronx, Mrs. McGovern drove a black sports car and was an avid golfer who had recently made a hole in one.
I think the word you're looking for in regards to Scott H.'s play at emotions is "sanctimony".
Anyway, the semantic jousting with the word "terrorist" is off-topic as well.
Cowardice is not to be respected. Dying for what you believe is idiocy when what you believe is bullshit and your death will bring nothing but pain to the people you're trying to help.
Scott... you are a terrorist. Shame on you.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Common...that is just weak. I don't pretend to know Scott personally, but it seems he has been truly scarred by this event, and so his posts are a little emotional. I can understand that. That doesn't mean there's no merit to what he's saying. I didn't catch the post where he dissed you Zo, but calling him a terrorist doesn't boost your credibility a whole lot (even if you said it in jest).
Anyway, to Mr. Beer I have to confess I am not an expert on US Foreign Policy. I don't have access to the "original documents", I don't listen in on the conference calls and I don't know all the players, moles and motives. But I don't have to, despite your suggestion to the contrary.
And before you quote any collegiate-level texts or other books, unless the author of the book was an inside player (someone like James Baker for example), I doubt they know either. And even if they were inside playes, their books are bound to read like justifications for whatever unpopular actions they took at the time. Even retired politicians have a hard time with non-partisan explanations....
Even so, it doesn't take much to understand that over the last three decades or so, our government has taken a somewhat un-even approach to our relations with Israel. By uneven, I mean specifically how we respond to things they do, things we would not condone if done by other nations...I mean how they are the largest recipient of US foreign aid, even though from an economic an, their citizens don't need it...and of course I mean how the media (which one can argue is pushed to some extent by the government) portrays the Arab-Israeli conflicts that have taken place. That is, who is always portrayed as the victim (Israel) and who is portrayed as the aggressor (Arabs)....
Over time, constantly ignoring all the little things that go on there on the Israeli side -- and ignoring the grievances of Arab citizens --- that can have a serious effect on how we are perceived in that region. It is very easy to see how so many of them can be turned against us.
You may argue that perception is something beyond our control and so we should just keep on doing what we're doing, but I would argue perception is everything over there. Many of these people don't have the level of education or political sophistication we have in this country...they tend to see things in black and white, not shades of grey (which is where the truth lies in this case). Thus it is important that we give visible signals (through our media, through the words of our politicians and through our actions at all of the summit meetings and such) that we *are* aware of Arab grievances, we *do* acknowledge [some] of them are legimate, and that we *will* hold Israel to the same standards of conduct that we expect from Arab nations.
That may sound a little egotistical -- that countries have to live up to certain political and military standards we set forth -- but my point is not to say "we're in charge" but rather "we're going to look upon this conflict with a renewed sense of objectivity." That can help sway perceptions in our favor over there, and thus help to abate some of the anti-American sentiment, [which you can view as either a symptom or root cause of the behavior we saw on 9-11].
No, changing our policies towards [and how we interact with] Israel and other nations won't eliminate all terrorism, but it will help, and that's the point....isn't it?
<strong>I wonder what you're doing on a discussion board if you're not capable to have a discussion?
I'll take that as a no then. You're not able to stick to the point.
Now if you don't mind the grownups will continue this thread so be quiet and play with your toys. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Just trying to put a human face on the people killed by the terrorist that you respect. Your words. Not mine. You respect them. I guess I do to but only as an deadly enemy that needs to be wiped out.
For those who say we should get over it and look for a diplomatic solution rather than trying to rid the world of these terrorist networks you have at least one ally in your thinking. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2246-2001Nov22.html"; target="_blank">The Taliban</a>.
May I assume that seeing as you did not reply to the rest of my post that you agree with me or at least concede that I may be right on that subject?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No I was busy. I don't have time for more right now.
<strong>For those who say we should get over it and look for a diplomatic solution rather than trying to rid the world of these terrorist networks you have at least one ally in your thinking. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2246-2001Nov22.html"; target="_blank">The Taliban</a>. </strong><hr></blockquote>
You tool. They can't be both. They're either bloodthirsty murderers that don't want peace or they think a diplomatic solution should be found. Make up your mind.
Comments
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/met_MISSING_1031_sadocha.html"; target="_blank">Frank John Sadocha</a>
Nearing a Longtime Dream
Â*
Frank John Sadocha was weeks away from his dream of opening his own restaurant on Long Island. He was training people to take over for him as manager of the food services division of Cantor Fitzgerald when the World Trade Center was attacked.
"All he tried to do was to get us ahead," said his wife, Nancy. Mr. Sadocha, who lived in Huntington with his wife and two daughters, did the catering for a local temple on weekends and sometimes weeknights, in addition to his job in the city.
"He was very much in charge, and he knew catering so well," his wife said. But as hard as he worked, Mr. Sadocha, 41, always had time for his daughters, Ashley, 5, and Kristy, 4.
A few weeks ago, after they had enrolled the girls on soccer teams, Ashley said she didn't want to play, that she wasn't any good at soccer. Her father took her outside and worked with her.
"He boosted her confidence," Mrs. Sadocha said. "By the end of the weekend she said she couldn't wait to play, and she told me, `Daddy said I was good.' "
[quote]Do you honestly believe that there is any way we can modify our foreign policy in any acceptable way will stop these people? Their policy for Israel is ?death to Israel?. Should we support that?<hr></blockquote>
While Israel is the subject matter, let us not forget what happened at Sabra, Shatila and elsewhere in S. Lebanon in 1982. At least 1800-3000 Palestinian refugees (men, women and children, all civilians) were slaughtered by "Christian Phalange" militiamen, aided and abetted by the Israeli army. Ariel Sharon was Defense Minister at the time, and even an Israeli appointed Commission of Inquiry found that he was at least partially responsible for the planning and ordering of the massacres.
International Red Cross estimates that upwards of 15,000 people were murdered.A later accounting reported by the independent Lebanese daily An-nahar gave a figure of 17,825 known to have been killed and over 30,000 wounded, including 5500 killed in Beirut and over 1200 civilians killed in the Sidon area. By late December, the Lebanese police estimated the numbers killed through August at 19,085 with 6775 killed in Beirut.
This event has been exhaustively documented; there was also a sickening but excellent documentary aired on the reserved and conservative BBC show Panorama re. this massacre. Ariel Sharon and the Israeli army were shown to be clearly responsible for one of the worst incidents of mass terrorism of the 20th century.
Ariel Sharon is now Israel's Prime Minister. The United States gives the Israeli Government $3.5 billion per annum on a standing order basis, much of which goes into purchasing weapons, often used against Palestinians who are currently having their homes bulldozed and farmland destroyed.
Imagine how New Yorkers feel, having lost 5000 innocent people in the September 11 attack. Imagine the feelings towards Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda by those bereaved ones, whose loved ones just went to work, and were subsequently murdered by terrorists. In parallel, imagine how those tens of thousands of bereaved Palestian families feel about a country (USA) which sends $billions to support a country which is led by a man who fits any definition of "terrorist". New Yorkers, and Americans in general, myself included, are quite rightly angry, shocked and sad, and want retribution. Many Palestinians are in the same boat.
It is situations like this which hinder the cause of the USA, and put Americans in danger, when foreign policy decisions which at best are shortsighted and duplicitous, and at worst, downright destructive, are forced into effect. In response to the 9-11 attacks President Bush has launched a world-wide campaign against terror. For America's sake, I hope that we abandon some of the blatant double standards that infest so much of our foreign policy and only serves to create so much hatred and instability. With the help of the international coalition, we must go after ALL terrorists, no matter where they reside, no matter how wealthy and well-connected they are. That includes terrorists who hide behind suits and ties as well as those in turbans and fatigues.
[ 11-22-2001: Message edited by: Samantha Joanne Ollendale ]</p>
When I was little, I lived in the UK for a number of years. A good friend of my parents who was working in a pub in the the center of Birmingham England was killed by a bomb which exploded there, killing several others and injuring dozens.
I agree with you that many Irish people have a huge and wholly justified grievance against the British, when you remember the potato famine and seige that killed hundreds of thousands of the Irish population several generations back. But to arbitrarily target innocent UK civilians with bombs and bullets, who are blameless regarding any atrocities against the Irish, is not freedom fighting. In my book, the IRA are terrorists as much as Al Qaeda, Timothy McVeigh or ETA.
Incidentally, the IRA/INLA terrorist cells receive their primary funding from the the U.S. based Noraid group , which ironically (from the last I heard) operates out of New York City and Boston. Will President Bush will bring these guys to order? After all, he did say that all terrorists should be brought to justice did he not?[/QB]<hr></blockquote>
So would you consider the English government to be terrorists then? You concede that they too have killed thousands of innocent Irish civilians so if the IRA are terrorists for doing so, which I can agree with, so are the English government?
I think we both know that the killing didn't stop after the potato famine. There is the Croke Park massacre in 1920 for example.
What I would also like to point out about this bombing is that six men were arrested and convicted for it based on fabricated evidence. They were later aquitted and became known as The Birmingham Six. That's hardly justice is it?
Is it justice that The Guildford Four, also convicted for a pub bombing, were convicted on forced confessions, fabricated evidence and the neglecting and witholding of information from the defence? Is it justice that after these people were aquitted none of the policemen involved, guilty of commiting these crimes, were ever punished for them?
No that's not justice. They took 15 years from these people and they knew they were innocent from day one. 15 years and they got away with it. When these things happen people can be expected to then seek their own kind of justice.
The IRA, does other things as well. They also attacked MI6, a military target if ever there was one. Are they freedom fighters when they do that but terrorists when they do another?
I'm not trying to defend bombing pubs, even if they are mainly soldiers pubs, or atrocities like Omagh. But I would like to know whether the English government are freedom fighters when they liberate Europe in WWII, when of course civilians were killed, and terrorists when they shot 12 people on Bloody Sunday? For which, again, never an English soldier was convicted of any wrongdoing.
Someone pointed out in another thread that war is bloody and dirty and innocent people get killed. For the Irish, this is our war and innocent people get killed.
President Bush said that civilian victims "happen" when you start throwing bombs around. Am I right to assume that when you know innocent people will be killed but you still continue to bomb you're willingly killing innocent people? Is president Bush a terrorist himself? A terrorist for the cause of getting revenge?
<strong>
This is utterly ridiculous, as ludicrous as the plans Greece used to have to reconquer the Byzantine Empire as revenge for the Arab conquest in the seventh and eighth centuries. I think this finally faded away with NATO.
A. With regard to the Potato Famine, what exactly is it that you want Britain to do about it now? Pay damages to surviving sufferers?
B. The Irish are an independent republic, not militarily threatened or pressured by anyone. No other nation has oversight over their affairs, and their economy is booming. It is now several generations gone since there was any open warfare with Britain, and since independence. Indeed, the only problem that the Irish Republic seems to have is a boundary dispute in the north, where, on the vague principle, that whole islands make good countries a group of terrorists is trying to bully the locals into joining a different nation.
How exactly would Ireland be any better off if they succeeded in conquering the North? And what grievance is this exactly that Ireland has against Great Britain in 2001? It's tiresome to argue about which side inflicted what massacre on the other in 1883, 1722, 1605, or whenever - can somebody just explain to me why anyone still gives a rat's ass? Remember the past, fine, mourn persons who had been dead a hundred years when your grandfather was born, fine, but harbor a resentment against a vague group of people, some of whom are descended from the persons who inflicted this injury? Grow up.
[ 11-22-2001: Message edited by: ColorClassicG4 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Can we agree that you should not talk about things you obviously know nothing about.
The point of the potato famine is that it should never have happened in the first place. You expect us to just forget about it yet you find it justified that you bomb people because of the WTC? Is it because that happened shorter ago? So where exactly is the timeline? From how many years onwards do you want us to start forgetting?
Can we still be mad about Bloody Sunday? Can we still be mad about the Maze hunger strikers? Or is that too long ago too?
Our "boundary dispute" is based on whole islands make better countries is it? So it has nothing to do with the fact that it was a whole country first and only part of it gained it's freedom? Damn and here I thought I knew what I was talking about, you know, with being born here and actually being educated in this field and all.
You're right man. We should just "get over it". What were we thinking. You know, why would we still be angry just because our demands for freedom were never fully met? The grievance may be that ermm...the six counties are still part of Great Britain, therefore it's occupation has not ended?
Now I could go on to tear your ill informed argument to shreds some more but I doubt that you are willing to listen.
I said that I respect these people's willingness to die for what they believe is right. Not that I respect them for killing innocent people.
Maybe your self righteous self could also have the decency to put up some pictures of innocent victims that have died in your "war on terror"?
The point of the potato famine is that it should never have happened in the first place. You expect us to just forget about it yet you find it justified that you bomb people because of the WTC? Is it because that happened shorter ago? So where exactly is the timeline? From how many years onwards do you want us to start forgetting?
Can we still be mad about Bloody Sunday? Can we still be mad about the Maze hunger strikers? Or is that too long ago too?<hr></blockquote>
Pretty touchy when someone suggests a way out of the cycle of violence in your country. Aren't you the one who wrote this as a way to respond to the WTC attack?
"...(the U.S) could meet with the heads of state and just listen. Ask them why is this happening. What can we do to change it."
As for how long you should be holding grudges I guess that depends on how long you want to wait for peace. France "got over" Germany and they had as big of a bitch against them as you do against Britain. That seems to be working out okay. Ditto for Denmark, Holland, Belgium, etc.
[quote]Our "boundary dispute" is based on whole islands make better countries is it? So it has nothing to do with the fact that it was a whole country first and only part of it gained it's freedom? Damn and here I thought I knew what I was talking about, you know, with being born here and actually being educated in this field and all.<hr></blockquote>
What about those in the north who don't want to become a part of the Irish Republic?
<strong>
What about those in the north who don't want to become a part of the Irish Republic?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes that is what I wrote and I stick by it. I also wrote, I believe in the same thread, that I am PRO IRA decommisioning, back when we were allowed to state our political convictions without the likes of you telling us we're wrong for not having the same ones as you.
I not saying he is wrong for suggesting there is a way to get our country back without violence. I am saying he is wrong for suggesting that we "get over it" That has nothing to do with anything. We want our country back. What ever else is negociable but not that.
Those in the north that do not want to be part of the Irish republic do not matter and for the following reasons:
1. They are descendants of the so called Ulster Plantation. It's Ireland's version of "If we can't get them out, we'll breed them out". If you have not seen Braveheart what happened was that English landowners were given lands in Ireland, impregnated women (not by mutual consent) to raise them by their believes. These people had no business to be there in the first place so neither do their descendants.
2. The fact that they form the majority will not last much longer. It is predicted that by 2016 the Republican population will outnumber the Unionist population. Are you saying that then Britain should have a referendum and give it up? Do you believe that would actually happen? Do you think the U.S should then go on to bomb England because the majority of the population in the north wants to rejoin Ireland and they won't give it?
FYI the IRA has upheld the last cease fire it's signed. Even when Unionists went around pipe bombing Republican neighbourhoods. 51 and counting, this year alone.
The latest Republican attacks, the Omagh attack amongst them, were carried out by the Real IRA. A group which the IRA and Sinn Feinn have nothing to do with.
Another interesting fact that you may want to know is that 75% of the political attacks in the north in 2001 were carried out by Unionists.
<strong>Zo has reached a new level of stupidity.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Always great to be dissed on for no explanation. I said contoversial things and you don't agree to them, so you assault me.
See, this is an example of someone trying to impose his views while dissing everyone because he doesn't agree. So, instead of trying to explain why Im a friggin idiot, he just set off a 'bomb' without attempting to 'negotiate' at it.
Scott... you are a terrorist. Shame on you.
You are comparing two entirely different things and on top of that you're comparing 5 years of occupation to 800 years and counting.
France and Germany mainly fought over the Elsas throughout history. The Elsas is also now a part of France. Your point is moot.
... I also wrote, I believe in the same thread, that I am PRO IRA decommisioning, back when we were allowed to state our political convictions without the likes of you telling us we're wrong for not having the same ones as you.<hr></blockquote>
And then there's the likes of you telling us we're wrong for responding to the WTC attack militarily.
[ 11-22-2001: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>
You are getting a degree? You may want to learn half a #### about unfallacious arguement.
You are not needed or wanted if you are simply going to belittle those in the forums.
I've argued with you before and you're an arrogant sophist with the moral character of any beauracrat.
You may think that you "know" a lot but you only have decent english skills with which to diss people with your rampant opinion.
Take a hike pal.
<strong>
And then there's the likes of you telling us we're wrong for responding to the WTC attack militarily.
[ 11-22-2001: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I believe in a previous post in this thread I said that I understand your reaction to the WTC attack. I described it as only human.
I actually know that for a fact because that is my opinion.
May I assume that seeing as you did not reply to the rest of my post that you agree with me or at least concede that I may be right on that subject?
<strong>Scott, maybe you could stick to the point?
I said that I respect these people's willingness to die for what they believe is right. Not that I respect them for killing innocent people.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh I'm sorry. You're right. I didn't understand. Moving on.
I respect the terrorist for having the balls to kill this woman. Other people would have chickened out but not the terrorist. They had the courage to kill this grandmother. Oh BTW after a nights sleep I'm still a ****ing idiot just like macoracle.
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/met_MISSING_0925_mcgovern.html"; target="_blank">Ann McGovern</a>
The Light of Her Life
Â*
On a return trip from Long Island to her apartment in Manhattan two weeks ago, Terry McGovern had the sudden idea to surprise her mother, Ann McGovern, with a visit. In her arms, she carried her newborn, Liam Andrés.
To her delight, Mrs. McGovern, who was in the shower, ran to meet them at the door, half dressed and dripping water, and began yelling for her husband: "Larry, Larry, look who is here! Liam is here! Liam is here!"
And that's how Ms. McGovern says she will remember her mother: exuberant, happy, full of life. Mrs. McGovern, who lived in East Meadow on Long Island, was a claims analyst for the Aon Corporation and worked on the 93rd floor of 2 World Trade Center, the first tower to collapse. A native of the Bronx, Mrs. McGovern drove a black sports car and was an avid golfer who had recently made a hole in one.
But her biggest thrill, Ms. McGovern said, was her youngest grandson, Liam Andrés, born two months ago. Several times a week, she would leave her job and sneak in a visit with her daughter and the baby in the Upper West Side. "She'd drive me crazy," Ms. McGovern said. "She would show up at all hours, saying she just had to see him. She called him the light of her life."
[ 11-22-2001: Message edited by: Scott H. ]</p>
I'll take that as a no then. You're not able to stick to the point.
Now if you don't mind the grownups will continue this thread so be quiet and play with your toys.
Anyway, the semantic jousting with the word "terrorist" is off-topic as well.
Cowardice is not to be respected. Dying for what you believe is idiocy when what you believe is bullshit and your death will bring nothing but pain to the people you're trying to help.
So no, no love for these particular terrorists.
<strong>
Scott... you are a terrorist. Shame on you.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Common...that is just weak. I don't pretend to know Scott personally, but it seems he has been truly scarred by this event, and so his posts are a little emotional. I can understand that. That doesn't mean there's no merit to what he's saying. I didn't catch the post where he dissed you Zo, but calling him a terrorist doesn't boost your credibility a whole lot (even if you said it in jest).
Anyway, to Mr. Beer I have to confess I am not an expert on US Foreign Policy. I don't have access to the "original documents", I don't listen in on the conference calls and I don't know all the players, moles and motives. But I don't have to, despite your suggestion to the contrary.
And before you quote any collegiate-level texts or other books, unless the author of the book was an inside player (someone like James Baker for example), I doubt they know either. And even if they were inside playes, their books are bound to read like justifications for whatever unpopular actions they took at the time. Even retired politicians have a hard time with non-partisan explanations....
Even so, it doesn't take much to understand that over the last three decades or so, our government has taken a somewhat un-even approach to our relations with Israel. By uneven, I mean specifically how we respond to things they do, things we would not condone if done by other nations...I mean how they are the largest recipient of US foreign aid, even though from an economic an, their citizens don't need it...and of course I mean how the media (which one can argue is pushed to some extent by the government) portrays the Arab-Israeli conflicts that have taken place. That is, who is always portrayed as the victim (Israel) and who is portrayed as the aggressor (Arabs)....
Over time, constantly ignoring all the little things that go on there on the Israeli side -- and ignoring the grievances of Arab citizens --- that can have a serious effect on how we are perceived in that region. It is very easy to see how so many of them can be turned against us.
You may argue that perception is something beyond our control and so we should just keep on doing what we're doing, but I would argue perception is everything over there. Many of these people don't have the level of education or political sophistication we have in this country...they tend to see things in black and white, not shades of grey (which is where the truth lies in this case). Thus it is important that we give visible signals (through our media, through the words of our politicians and through our actions at all of the summit meetings and such) that we *are* aware of Arab grievances, we *do* acknowledge [some] of them are legimate, and that we *will* hold Israel to the same standards of conduct that we expect from Arab nations.
That may sound a little egotistical -- that countries have to live up to certain political and military standards we set forth -- but my point is not to say "we're in charge" but rather "we're going to look upon this conflict with a renewed sense of objectivity." That can help sway perceptions in our favor over there, and thus help to abate some of the anti-American sentiment, [which you can view as either a symptom or root cause of the behavior we saw on 9-11].
No, changing our policies towards [and how we interact with] Israel and other nations won't eliminate all terrorism, but it will help, and that's the point....isn't it?
[ 11-22-2001: Message edited by: Moogs ? ]</p>
<strong>I wonder what you're doing on a discussion board if you're not capable to have a discussion?
I'll take that as a no then. You're not able to stick to the point.
Now if you don't mind the grownups will continue this thread so be quiet and play with your toys.
Just trying to put a human face on the people killed by the terrorist that you respect. Your words. Not mine. You respect them. I guess I do to but only as an deadly enemy that needs to be wiped out.
<strong>
May I assume that seeing as you did not reply to the rest of my post that you agree with me or at least concede that I may be right on that subject?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No I was busy. I don't have time for more right now.
<strong>For those who say we should get over it and look for a diplomatic solution rather than trying to rid the world of these terrorist networks you have at least one ally in your thinking. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2246-2001Nov22.html"; target="_blank">The Taliban</a>.
You tool. They can't be both. They're either bloodthirsty murderers that don't want peace or they think a diplomatic solution should be found. Make up your mind.