I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

REB · 2004-08-13 06:36:16

Last night my son was going through the video cabinet and he came across the Disney movie Oliver. We hadn’t watched that in about 3 or so years so I popped in in the old VHS player.

The opening scene of this animated movie is a shot of New York City looking right at the World Trade center. And while this is going on, Huey Lewis is playing “Once upon a time in New York City.”

It emotions hit me hard, like someone throwing cold water on me. When I last saw that movie in the pre 9/1q1 days, I never even noticed the WTC, or thought much about New York City. How the world has changed. The movie is set in NYC in 1980’s. How innocent we seemed at that time.

Then I looked over at my son, who was not experiencing the emotions as I was. To him, it was just a movie. He still has his innocence, and I hope he can keep it a while longer. And I hope he can grow up in a terror free world. As for me, I lost my innocence on 9/11.

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-13 07:08:30

I am of the opinion that the "innocence" we've lost was an illusion. We had become locked into two bogus ideas, that the oceans on our borders protect us, and that horrible atrocities and cataclysmic wars are things of the past.

We have been reminded that we are not a world unto ourselves and that history keeps happening. We all want a world where the next generation doesn't have to endure the hardships or fight the wars of the preceding one. I too would hope that the children of today can hold their innocence without the horrors of war intruding. But I fear that such hopes are unrealistic. The best we can strive for is to not lose our desire to preserve that innocence. As did our forefathers, we all have our battles to fight.

9/10 was a simpler time, but it was time where we were enshrouded in a false sense of security. We now see the face of the enemy bent on destroying us, we recognize it rather than pretending it doesn't exist or can't hurt us. It's a shitty situation all around.

Palomar · 2004-08-13 07:36:59

*9/10/01 was a "simpler time"?

Have we forgotten the U.S.S. Cole?

The bombing of the U.S. embassy in Africa (forgot which nation precisely) in the late 1990s?

The bombing of the WTC in 1993?

The violent and rapid spike of punks in schools slaughtering their schoolmates with assault rifles beginning around 1996? Same for all the lunatic gruntled ex-employees at workplaces?

Sorry, Robert. I understand where you're coming from but the 1990s were -- overall -- not all that great either.

America hasn't been innocent for a damned long time.

I agree with Cobra mostly.

I miss 9/10/1977. You know, when you'd never heard of bin Laden...when people still generally smiled (in real life, in ads/commericals; on the fronts of record albums)...when sexuality was fun and love was a virtue compared to today's SM/BD-loving world where pain and power are the extolled as the ultimate in sexual expression (consenting adults can do as they like, but I prefer the former -- thanks).

We're in it for the long haul. I do hope, of course, that terrorism can be eliminated, overcome...that your son and other peoples' children DON'T have to grow up in the shadow of it. But I (sorry to say) doubt that'll be the case.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-13 07:54:41

*9/10/01 was a "simpler time"?
Have we forgotten the U.S.S. Cole?
The bombing of the U.S. embassy in Africa (forgot which nation precisely) in the late 1990s?
The bombing of the WTC in 1993?

That's in essence what I was getting at. Terrorist still wanted to kill us, but it was jsut so damn easy for the average American to dismiss it as something that happens in other places, and in the case of WTC'93 it was treated as a law enforcement issue. "We caught the guy behind it, he's going to prison. Case closed, we're cool now." Way too many people bought in to that. Pretending they can't hurt us, even though intellectually we knew otherwise.

At any rate, it's going to get worse before it gets better. Many more illusions are going to be stripped away, I fear. But when it's over, hopefully we will be better for it, though it will take time to tell.

REB · 2004-08-13 09:28:42

Our pre-9/11 innocence was an illusion (no argument there). Life was good for most Americans in the 1990’s so we stuck our heads in the sand on a lot of things. For me, I was just out of College when 1991 started. I got married shortly there after and started teaching. I spent most of the 90’s trying to get my own life in order, and I didn’t pay much attention to the outside world.

The best hope, IMO, for a terrorist free future is to get the Middle East to join the Free World. This is why Iraq and Afghanistan are so critical. If they can be made successful free democracies, others will follow. Saudi Arabia is practically a free country, as is Kuwait. In Iran, the younger generation wants to be free and is just waiting to rise up. Pakistan is cooperating with America (a little arm twisting involved.) Libya is cooperating and becoming peaceful.

Eventually the Middle East will join the free world. The seeds of freedom have been planted. Many have tasted the sweetness of freedom. I don’t think there is any going back. But the question is, how long will it take and how much will be sacrificed? Can we weather it? I hope so, because our future is at stake.

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-13 09:52:34

Our pre-9/11 innocence was an illusion (no argument there). Life was good for most Americans in the 1990’s so we stuck our heads in the sand on a lot of things. For me, I was just out of College when 1991 started. I got married shortly there after and started teaching. I spent most of the 90’s trying to get my own life in order, and I didn’t pay much attention to the outside world.

I was that paranoid guy ranting about unseen enemies.

Saudi Arabia is practically a free country,

???
Well, compared to Iraq under Saddam or Afghanistan under the Taliban, I suppose...

Eventually the Middle East will join the free world. The seeds of freedom have been planted. Many have tasted the sweetness of freedom. I don’t think there is any going back. But the question is, how long will it take and how much will be sacrificed? Can we weather it? I hope so, because our future is at stake.

We must weather it, and the storm has only begun.

RobertDyck · 2004-08-13 12:26:42

I am concerned the problems that caused 9/11 haven't even been addressed so terrorism will continue. I may be Canadian, and proud of my country, but I have lived in the US. I currently work for a company that makes autopilots for minature UAVs, but it's a contract position and once the equipment I'm building is finished so is my job. I have a dream of being a space entrepreneur but the Canadian Space Agnecy has little money and no equivalent to SBIR. This summer has been particularly cold and weather this week feels like October. It's mid August and Wednesday the temperature driving to or from work was +13°C. After spending a whole winter in Miami that's hard to take. I would like to move to the US and start a business there, but I feel it isn't safe. It hasn't been safe since 9/11 and I don't see conditions improving. I saw a political rally on TV where Kerry spoke; he sounded like more of a war-monger than Bush. Will the American people ever convince their government to stop declaring war on the entire world? Will you ever get the military to arrest, not bomb, Al Queada members and bring them to trial? Will you ever bring Osama bin Laden to justice?

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-13 12:39:36

Will you ever get the military to arrest, not bomb, Al Queada members and bring them to trial? Will you ever bring Osama bin Laden to justice?

Here's the thing. If we treat this as a law enforcement issue we have to sit around, wait for something to happen, then go out and amass a case that will get a conviction, if we can apprehend the "suspects" through legal means. What we are trying to do now is prevent further attacks from happening by going after the source.
To treat terrorism primarily as a criminal issue is to put our people at greater risk.

Palomar · 2004-08-13 12:46:15

I am concerned the problems that caused 9/11 haven't even been addressed so terrorism will continue. I may be Canadian, and proud of my country, but I have lived in the US. I currently work for a company that makes autopilots for minature UAVs, but it's a contract position and once the equipment I'm building is finished so is my job. I have a dream of being a space entrepreneur but the Canadian Space Agnecy has little money and no equivalent to SBIR. This summer has been particularly cold and weather this week feels like October. It's mid August and Wednesday the temperature driving to or from work was +13°C. After spending a whole winter in Miami that's hard to take. I would like to move to the US and start a business there, but I feel it isn't safe. It hasn't been safe since 9/11 and I don't see conditions improving. I saw a political rally on TV where Kerry spoke; he sounded like more of a war-monger than Bush. Will the American people ever convince their government to stop declaring war on the entire world? Will you ever get the military to arrest, not bomb, Al Queada members and bring them to trial? Will you ever bring Osama bin Laden to justice?

*Hi Robert:

Not being glib. If I were you, I'd stay in Canada.

I am still grappling living in a situation where now I'd be afraid to fly home to the Midwest for a visit; I'd have to go through the Dallas-Ft. Worth airport. Went through it in 2000...and grumbled about having to hoof it FAST all the way around the concourse in less than 40 minutes. Good workout, though. :laugh: Now I'd be worried about a whole lot more than the perspiration patches under my arms. :-\

And though you're hundreds of miles further north than where I was born and raised, I do know cold crappy weather -- and "summers" that feel like autumn.

Anyway, about arresting al-Qaeda members and taking them to trial: There's been a lot of nay-saying to that idea, I guess mostly because it's a military matter (?) or quasi-military and doesn't belong in civil courts. I hope I've got that right (based on what I've heard). I suppose Cobra could check me on that, if he cares to.

Bin Laden? I'm hoping more than you that we catch him.

As for other issues...well, it is getting more and more difficult to recall "the good old days." It seems I've lived in two different nations. Strange situation.

--Cindy

P.S.: Just a few weeks ago the State wherein I reside (New Mexico) came under a terrorist threat, along with California. We have Los Alamos (far away from my city) and White Sands (aprox. 50 miles NE from my home...not far!). And military bases. :-\ I fully expect to see dirty bombs detonated in this nation within 2 years.

RobertDyck · 2004-08-13 12:59:43

Will you ever get the military to arrest, not bomb, Al Queada members and bring them to trial? Will you ever bring Osama bin Laden to justice?
Here's the thing. If we treat this as a law enforcement issue we have to sit around, wait for something to happen, then go out and amass a case that will get a conviction, if we can apprehend the "suspects" through legal means. What we are trying to do now is prevent further attacks from happening by going after the source.
To treat terrorism primarily as a criminal issue is to put our people at greater risk.

Oh, we've had similar discussions. I'm amazed that there are a lot of American's who don't understand. A lot do, but many don't. Everyone in the world supported military action against Al Quaeda, and if the Afganistan government refused to hand them over then you were justified to send in ground troups to go get Al Quaeda. However, not Iraq; they weren't involved. Swift, firm, decisive action was required against Al Quaeda. But overthrowing the government of Iraq and installing a government style that YOU approve of, with hand-picked Iraqi members to head that government, means you are taking control of internal Iraqi affairs away from Iraqi people. No one will shed a tear that Saddam is gone, but that was an Iraqi problem. That treatens the freedom of the Arab world and such a threat will only create more recruits to terrorist organizations. As long as you try to impose military might, terrorism will only get worse. This is the cycle of violence that was millenia old in the middle east when Jesus was borne, you're allowing yourselves to be sucked into it. The only way to stop it is to treat it as law enforcement, as criminal justice not revenge. Hell, the whole of NATO offered to go after Al Quaeda but George W. Bush refused the offer. As long as Washington attempts to act like an empire throwing around its military might, it will increase the risk to the American people. Since Canada is such a close ally with the US, I'm afraid we'll get dragged in. Staying in Canada may be more safe, but not completely so.

Dook · 2004-08-13 13:40:33

Will you ever get the military to arrest, not bomb, Al Queada members and bring them to trial?

Just a small disagreement.

We are at war. Just as American soldiers did not and could not arrest enemy soldiers firing at them in wars past we do not do that still. How could we arrest, try, and convict someone who simply has an AK-47 and hates Americans? We can't prove they are members of Al-Qaeda as they probably don't carry a membership card on them. Also in war you use your advantage to the fullest. If we were to attempt to capture enemy soldiers with ground troops we would definately lose more of our guys, then we would have to imprison, feed, and guard the enemy until who knows when. They made their choice to fight. Let the bombs fall on them.

BWhite · 2004-08-13 13:53:22

To treat terrorism primarily as a criminal issue is to put our people at greater risk.

The Taliban, (who everyone agrees was a state sponsor of al Qaeda and global terrorism) has been eliminated with support from most every nation on Earth. Even France. :;):

Iraq (maybe and maybe not a sponsor of al Qaeda and global terrorism - lets not argue that here) has been regime changed.

What other governments need to be changed before the war on al Qaeda become essentially law enforcement or a criminal matter?

Isn't heroin smuggling now one of al Qaeda's biggest money makers? Sounds like crime to me.

BWhite · 2004-08-13 13:56:57

Will you ever get the military to arrest, not bomb, Al Queada members and bring them to trial? Will you ever bring Osama bin Laden to justice?
Here's the thing. If we treat this as a law enforcement issue we have to sit around, wait for something to happen, then go out and amass a case that will get a conviction, if we can apprehend the "suspects" through legal means. What we are trying to do now is prevent further attacks from happening by going after the source.
To treat terrorism primarily as a criminal issue is to put our people at greater risk.
Oh, we've had similar discussions. I'm amazed that there are a lot of American's who don't understand. A lot do, but many don't. Everyone in the world supported military action against Al Quaeda, and if the Afganistan government refused to hand them over then you were justified to send in ground troups to go get Al Quaeda. However, not Iraq; they weren't involved. Swift, firm, decisive action was required against Al Quaeda. But overthrowing the government of Iraq and installing a government style that YOU approve of, with hand-picked Iraqi members to head that government, means you are taking control of internal Iraqi affairs away from Iraqi people.

Robert, Iraq is water over the dam. Not MY choice for US policy but its history now so we need to deal with it as a fait accompli.

Iraq has been occupied. We either give the Iraqis a stable country or terrorism grows worse.

But my question for the neo-cons is - - who do we regime change next, or is it finally a law enforcement matter?

Dook · 2004-08-13 14:00:51

The Iraqi's never had any control over their affairs with Saddam. Saddam was not just as Iraqi problem, he was a problem for Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Israel, Turkey, the Kurds. Now that threat is gone and the Iraqi's will at least have a voice and a vote.

You choose to side with Saddam after what he did to millions? I will never understand that. And it was your problem all along but you chose to ignore it just as a man beats a child in the house nextdoor. You close your windows tight so you don't have to hear the screams but you are responsible because you did nothing, you ignored it, and all the while you had the power to stop it.

What is it really that bothers you about the war in Iraq? I can see that France and Germany are jealous of the USA using it's super power status to change the world but what is it that a Canadian would be jealous of? Is it just that you feel so strongly against war no matter what the threat is? If it is, then I can certainly understand and respect your opinion even though I disagree with you.

Sometimes the biggest kid at your school, the one who fights a lot, doesn't really want to fight at all. He just constantly gets people who want to challenge him. He could back down but he is not sure what would happen if he did. Wouldn't he just be taken advantage of again? He never really wants to fight but when one comes along he doesn't back down because that is what he learned a long time ago and that is what he knows best.

clark · 2004-08-13 14:08:14

Don't know where to post this, so let me say something on topic before I diverge: It's all in your head.

These people were busy being employed by either side of the Cold War in third world nations. Unemployment is a bitch.

Now, in a post Cold War era, now that it is acceptable for the hyper power to act outside of it's immediate sphere of influence, we are off fighting in distant lands. No more Grenada for us. That upsets a lot of people for a lot of different reasons.

But thinking of the possibilities, it does look like we have truly lost in Iraq. Sure, we will kill the rag tag remananets that are fighting with their last despearte breath- but come the day when we draw down, declare success, we will see.

Shiite's own Iraq. We fear their uprising. Sistani is what keeps a majority in check. He is a patient man- at least he seems so.

Patient for America to rebuild a shattered Iraq. Patient for America to aquiece to Shiite demands for greater politcal control. Patient for the forced integration of the military, which by virtue, means that a majority of the military will be Shiite.

When we declare victory, they will declare civil war. We will be ham strung to do anything about it- merely make peace with the faction that will win. We will sell the Kurds down the river, because their independance means Turkey get's pissed. We've done it before, and we will do it again.

With that, you have a "democratic" theocracy, that hates Isreal, and controls one of the largest oil reserves in the world.

Seems to me the caliph is a lot closer to reality than it once was.

BWhite · 2004-08-13 14:16:24

The liberation of Iraq is a worthy and noble goal. The US rushed into Iraq with an inadequate understanding of how to win the peace. Good goal, foolish execution.

Had we given Sistani a leading role last summer (2003) his people would be fighting Sadr now, not our people.

Like Bill Maher said, many Islamic males would prefer Saddam to letting their women walk around in mini-skirts and unless the average Iraqi believes their leaders are not puppets of the US, IMHO those leaders will not be accepted.

Long story short, we foolishly reached many bridges too far and we have budgeted far too little US tax money to conclude a successful reconstruction. But we broke Iraq and now we US-ians have to stay the course.

BWhite · 2004-08-13 14:19:00

But thinking of the possibilities, it does look like we have truly lost in Iraq. Sure, we will kill the rag tag remananets that are fighting with their last despearte breath- but come the day when we draw down, declare success, we will see.
Shiite's own Iraq. We fear their uprising. Sistani is what keeps a majority in check. He is a patient man- at least he seems so.

Sistani survived Saddam, right?

He is patient, and shrewd. After all US Marines are fighting the biggest threat to his leadership, a fellow named Sadr.

Edit: Sadr's blood will be on our hands and Sistani is relieved of a major rival. Its win-win for him.

clark · 2004-08-13 14:23:10

Which is why Sistani isn't out condemning Sadr... he is leaving his options open for the future.

BWhite · 2004-08-13 14:26:41

Which is why Sistani isn't out condemning Sadr... he is leaving his options open for the future.

Sure.

Tell the Americans (in English) "Go ahead, whack Sadr" and then wrap himself in Sadr's bloody clothes and preach (in Arabic? or what?) about the evil Americans.

Like I said. Shrewd.

Bush vs Putin in poker? Dude, Putin was once KGB! Bush traded away Sammy Sosa!

= = =

Add: Sadr ain't no dummy either. Sadr the merciful?

Gunmen also kidnapped a British journalist in the southern city of Basra, threatening to execute him within 24 hours if U.S. forces did not pull out of Najaf, but Sunday Telegraph reporter James Brandon was later released after Sadr intervened.

and,

Brandon was handed over within hours to Sadr's Basra office.
"I'm grateful to the Mehdi Army and I'm in good health now," Brandon, who had a black eye, told reporters shortly after his release. He said he was treated roughly at first.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtm … ber=0]Link - We blinked in Fallajuh and now it looks like we will blink in Najaf. A few days ago it was "No negotiations with Sadr" and guess what? They are negotiating.

If you won't follow thorugh, don't make the threat.

clark · 2004-08-13 14:38:57

So what's going to happen if things go south in Afghanistan and the population supports a return of the Taliban (where is Omar BTW?) because the local warlords are nothing but thugs (the reason the population supported the Taliban last time). And, if things go south in Pakistan and Mussraff goes a bridge too far to appease US interests and the radical islamists overthrow him? And, if Iran's government is able to maintain control over the population... look at a map, an entire region is turned against us, one with nuclear weapons, one close to producing them, and who knows what will happen with Saudia Arabia... so that means a good portion of the world oil reserves are controlled over there...

Yeah, we're going to look back and hope for days prior to 9/11... If things keep going the way they are, I don't see us avoiding this.

BWhite · 2004-08-13 14:56:44

So what's going to happen if things go south in Afghanistan and the population supports a return of the Taliban (where is Omar BTW?) because the local warlords are nothing but thugs (the reason the population supported the Taliban last time). And, if things go south in Pakistan and Mussraff goes a bridge too far to appease US interests and the radical islamists overthrow him? And, if Iran's government is able to maintain control over the population... look at a map, an entire region is turned against us, one with nuclear weapons, one close to producing them, and who knows what will happen with Saudia Arabia... so that means a good portion of the world oil reserves are controlled over there...
Yeah, we're going to look back and hope for days prior to 9/11... If things keep going the way they are, I don't see us avoiding this.

Yup. http://slate.msn.com/id/2105127]Not so cheerful reading from Slate.

General Shineski was spot on. 300,000 troops are needed to stabilize Iraq.

Will Rummy and Bush apologize?

clark · 2004-08-13 15:01:14

You don't apologize unless you made a mistake.

Gennaro · 2004-08-13 15:02:41

Oh, we've had similar discussions. I'm amazed that there are a lot of American's who don't understand. A lot do, but many don't. Everyone in the world supported military action against Al Quaeda, and if the Afganistan government refused to hand them over then you were justified to send in ground troups to go get Al Quaeda. However, not Iraq; they weren't involved. Swift, firm, decisive action was required against Al Quaeda. But overthrowing the government of Iraq and installing a government style that YOU approve of, with hand-picked Iraqi members to head that government, means you are taking control of internal Iraqi affairs away from Iraqi people.

Exactly.

No one will shed a tear that Saddam is gone, but that was an Iraqi problem. That treatens the freedom of the Arab world and such a threat will only create more recruits to terrorist organizations. As long as you try to impose military might, terrorism will only get worse. This is the cycle of violence that was millenia old in the middle east when Jesus was borne, you're allowing yourselves to be sucked into it.

In one word: quagmire.

If you don't start treating 9/11 as a juris prudens matter instead of a military one, you'll never know the truth.

I think clark is very clear sighted about all this.

(Personal confession: On the one hand I feel I must be honest; on the other I don't want to look like a negative jerk. If America lost heart and the belief in itself, it would be a terrible price to pay.)

clark · 2004-08-13 15:08:48

I think clark is very clear sighted about all this.

I'm having one of my good days, which means I can see through one eye... or the medication has kicked in.

Isn't this what Bin laden wanted? Just something to mull over. I don't know. [sigh]

see you all later.

RobertDyck · 2004-08-13 15:28:00

Freedom means the ability to choose what you want, even if someone else disagrees. That means the people of Iraq have to choose their own government, or they aren't free. No outside force can do it for them, no matter how well intentioned. They may choose a republican democracy, they may choose a parliamentary democracy, they may choose a constitutional monarchy, or a dictatorship, or communism; the point is it has to be their choice or it isn't freedom at all.

As for any analogy to wife beating, laws cannot be drafted by one individual in the community, they must be drafted by the community as a whole. That means if you use a household as the analogy for a country, the town represents the entire world. The whole world can create laws that restrict what government can do to their own people, but the government of a single nation cannot. So any defence of the Iraqi people from Saddam must be decided by the UN, not the US. The UN did make a decision about Iraq, and the decision was "no". Getting back to the town analogy, if someone is accused of wife beating and the police investigate and find there isn't sufficient grounds for arrest, can a single individual with a lot of guns tell-off the police and invade the accused man's house? That would just lead to the community telling the police to arrest the invader, and if he didn't you could expect a posse to attack the guy with the guns. The police are then put in a bad situation: their authority is challenged and a vigilante is attacking his neighbours with guns, but the guy attacked is probably guilty of beating his wife. Now the wife-beater’s friends are going to attack the vigilante, and the vigilante’s friends will counter-attack them, who will get more friends to counter-attack the vigilante, etc. That is what the US did with Iraq; the US and “the coalition of the willing” are the vigilantes and the UN Security Council is the police. The US is now just one side of a gang war and the “terrorists” are the other side. This has put the UN Security Council and its members in a hell of a mess. France and other members of the Security Council have decided the best punishment for the US is to leave the US to clean-up the mess in Iraq on its own.

As for school bullies, let me tell you of my experiences. When I was in elementary school there were several bullies. I was always the second tallest boy in class so bullies liked to pick on me. I tired to get along, but bullies are bullies. I tried to ignore their attempts to threaten. When one mouthed off I would either ignore him or tell him off. If one threatened to beat me up I would just talk away. If one chased me I would run away. But if one caught me, that was different. One bully who kept after me all year managed to punch me hard while I was walking home after school. Fights in elementary school usually resulted in wrestling with punching mixed in. When we were on the ground I stuck my ankle behind his knee and squeezed his foot to his thigh, popping his knee out. We were too young to pop a knee, but he screamed like hell. I wouldn’t stop pushing until he said “Uncle”, and promised to never attack me again. He wouldn’t at first so I kept pushing. When I let him up he cried briefly then swung at me as if to attack me again. I just stood my ground and waited to see if he would actually hit me; if so I would have taken him down again. He didn’t hit me and walked away while I watched. There were a couple dozen school kids surrounding us during the fight, most of which the bully had attacked, and none interfered. After that fight the bully never attacked me again, but it didn’t stop him from being mouthy or other bullies from attacking. In grade 7 a couple of kids decided to bug me while I was walking home. They threatened to beat me up so I just ran away. They ran after me and were slowly gaining, so I stopped, braced one leg while sticking the other straight back in a kick position aimed at one of the kid’s stomach. He hit my foot at full run and folded in half, feet came up and head went down. He went down whimpering and didn’t get up. The other kid yelled at me and demanded I apologize. I just snorted, waited a second to ensure neither kid attacked me, then turned around and slowly walked away. They never attacked me again. There were always bullies threatening to attack, but no one ever accused me of being a bully. When I was pre-school age there were bullies who accused me of being a bully simply because I stood up for myself, they attacked me and if I defended myself they would complain to their parents who would talk to my parents and I would get a spanking. The parents couldn’t believe that a kid half my size would pick a fight with me. That never happened in elementary school or later. One little punk tried to complain to the principle in grade 7. I told the principle that he tried to attack me and I just held him away with one hand on his forehead while he swung his short little arms at empty air, but he was able to push me backward with his forehead until I was backed into a window. The principle said “He (holding hand low) picked on you (holding hand high).” I said “yes”, and the punk didn't deny it. I was let go, the little bully stayed for punishment.

The moral is “Walk softly and carry a big stick.” If you have to drop bombs, that's a sign of weakness. Rudeness is a strong sign of weakness. Showing weakness to a little bully will only make the bully attack you more.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-08-13 06:36:16

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#2 2004-08-13 07:08:30

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#3 2004-08-13 07:36:59

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#4 2004-08-13 07:54:41

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#5 2004-08-13 09:28:42

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#6 2004-08-13 09:52:34

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#7 2004-08-13 12:26:42

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#8 2004-08-13 12:39:36

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#9 2004-08-13 12:46:15

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#10 2004-08-13 12:59:43

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#11 2004-08-13 13:40:33

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#12 2004-08-13 13:53:22

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#13 2004-08-13 13:56:57

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#14 2004-08-13 14:00:51

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#15 2004-08-13 14:08:14

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#16 2004-08-13 14:16:24

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#17 2004-08-13 14:19:00

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#18 2004-08-13 14:23:10

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#19 2004-08-13 14:26:41

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#20 2004-08-13 14:38:57

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#21 2004-08-13 14:56:44

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#22 2004-08-13 15:01:14

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#23 2004-08-13 15:02:41

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#24 2004-08-13 15:08:48

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

#25 2004-08-13 15:28:00

Re: I miss 9/10 - A post 9/11 world

Board footer