911 is a car    11/9   is the date on sunday.   maybe we can spare a minute to reflect on all the hundreds of thousands of people that have died, or been maimed in Iraqistan as a result of the ridiculous and naive foreign policy of a once great nation.

  This might sound a bit harsh, especially as I remember on that day 10 years ago my collegue talking with his brother on the phone just before he died, but I think all those septics( americans ) out there need to get a bit of perspective.

All politics and your personal situation aside:

It was an attack on innocent people, which is a very sad thing and therefore I find your reply disrespectful. Ofcourse a lot of innocent people have been killed by american bombs and gunfire, but also not all people who died on 9/11 support the wars the american army fights. Maybe you need to get a bit of perspective as well.

Besides, The UK, your home country as per your profile, also was recently involved in a war fought for the wrong reason I recall. If something similar would happen in London, I believe most people would have the respect for you to celebrate you memorial day.

PS. Im not gonna get further involved in any political discussion, that wasnt the goal of the posters initial post.

Well said.

"Besides, The UK, your home country as per your profile, also was recently involved in a war fought for the wrong reason I recall. If something similar would happen in London, I believe most people would have the respect for you to celebrate you memorial day."

What has this got to do with anything I said?

I am no big fan of the foreign policy of the UK either

Interesting how one can separate himself from his own nation's foreing policy while at the same time stating that those viciously murdered should not be memoralized because of the foreign policies of their government, particularly when one considers that many were not citizens of the country in which they were murdered.  Analogous to saying that those who died in the 2007 London bombings or the 2003 Madrid bombings were were somehow responsible for their own deaths by virtue of their citizenship or location at the moment...interesting....and the type of statement that most often comes from the wealthy and well protected benefactors of the foreign policies they oppose but do not actively sacrifice to change...

Mate, I think you need some reading lessons. Where did I state that those who had died should not be memoralized( is that a proper word?) Where did i state that people who died were responsible for their own deaths? As for your conclusion..... well I can recommend a course in logic 1 that might help you  realise that you need to work on your thinking....

You are obviously American, and I can understand that you might feel some emotional thoughts because  of the location of 11/9, but  don't confuse your emotive response with the facts or the logic

  Have a happy Sunday :-)

Have fun changing the globally accepted term (9/11)...and thanks for attempting to correct whatever confusion I have and associated with emotion that I don't have.  Have an even happier Saturday...Mate.

where i come from and where i , and you. live , the 11th of september is 11/9. If Americans want to use their date convention, that's perfectly OK with me.

I don't want to get into an argument with you. I accept that innocent people lost their lives just from being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and I acknowledge the sacrifice that  those who tried to save the victims made.Any  loss of human life in these circumstances is a tragedy. All I was trying to portray, was that it seems to me that many Americans, including those who were, or are, in power seemed to have  or do have a somewhat insular viewpoint that the only victims of this  terrorist atrocity were those who died on that day in New York..

I will say a litte prayer on Sunday for my 3 friends who had the misfortune to be working at Cantors on that day in September

If you didn't want to argue, you wouldn't have replied the way you did to begin with or flippantly renamed a tragic event that you are but a distant witness to. You are in no more a position to rename 9/11 than than to rename the American revolution in which the British tyrants were defeated.  Names are what they are regardless to where on the globe one is located at the  moment.  Moreover, a survey of those from where you come and those where you live now would place you in a minority.  The name symbolizes the event as much as the date, regardless to date naming conventions of various countries, including those who do not use the Gregorian calendar.

It's too bad the poster didn't get a single response to her request - welcome to Geneva. The communication can be tricky here.

That said, I will be spending 9-11 with my family, just as I was anxious to do on that day 10 years ago, and it took all day to get home from Midtown back to Brooklyn to my babies. I've been reading some memories on FB - but it seems a private day more than a day to gather with people. I have a feeling i might be on skype as well, calling people - as we did back then - to let them know we're ok.

Thanks David.

Your links go to The Guardian - A UK BASED Newspaper, that refers to it as 9/11.

Also see this link. The page is full of 9/11 referencing: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/series/9-11-the-10th-anniversary.

Elizabeth– I sympathize with your post as I’m sure you didn’t want to “get political” – but by posting this you were ONLY ever going to get political. Welcome to glocals  - as “caromax” says.   Why, in Geneva, would there be any “East Coasters from the US getting together for a glass of wine or beer” – is this a celebration?  I don’t really think so…..

You say you’re new to Swiz – that could be why.

On another note…..

Brucelawson has a point – 911 IS a car – and a very nice one – and I’m sorry if this flippancy offends – but 9/11 is NOT the 11th of September it’s the 9th day of the eleventh month (November) – but the US is not on the 24 hour clock yet – so lets take one thing at a time, people.  Us Europeans have been around a lot longer (that’s why we’re so cranky), the US is just catching up – give them some slack and be nice and stop being so pedantic (that’s my job!).

The reason why the US reacted the way they did – is because (the Oklahoma bombings and Columbine aside) there is a tendency to believe that because you’re “American” you’re “infallible”. (This is not a criticism, but an observation of my many American friends and colleagues)

In the UK (and Europe obviously) we (and our parents/grandparents) have lived through  2 world wars, and in the UK, the Irish “situation” with regular bombings for YEARS courtesy of our Irish “cousins” and a continual threat from “beyond the Iron Curtain” ensured that we were always on our guard.

Europe and the UK, has continually suffered “terrorist attacks” for centuries, so we’re a little bit more blasé about it.

The 11th of September 2001 was a bit different because it was the first time in history (and a very short history at that – adding to the “infallible” feeling) that America was attacked on their “own soil”.

It was a HUGE shock to the American people and that’s why they feel so strongly about it – the rest of the world – well, we’re all a bit “weary” as we’ve been attacked, bombed, ethnically cleansed, hosed down and generally had a pretty hard time of it, since man began.

Welcome to the world,America– this is what it’s all about and its not going to get any easier…..

And apologies in advance, if my post offends anyone.  I was accused today of being a “hugaholic” – we probably need more “hugaholics” to keep this crazy world going round xox

 Sorry for pinching this link from above - but it really says it all.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/09/9-11-changed-world-forever

America under Bush was spoiling for a fight.

"It's worth examining the agenda with which Bush came to power and which he pursued in the first eight months," he says. "Anti-Russia, anti-China, anti-Iran, anti-North Korea … If a 'non-9/11' had made Iraq impossible, it's perfectly possible the US would have got into equally terrible trouble. Just in different places."

1.  Indeed, Caorline, you have been around longer.  Why are you not speaking German x 2?

2. The Irish "situation" was caused by what?  Interesting passive voice.

3.  The Chinese have been around longer still.  Should we classify dates by their calendar?  Perhaps the Persian calendar?  9/11 is a date marked by an event and an excepted term to mark that date. Should the Brits switch to the Euro and metric standard?  Or are you special?  You do not define dates for the world.  In fact, you didn't define what is now considered the international language, did you?  Or did you start the League of Nations which became the UN?  

4.  For what it's worth, the government uses the European version of dates, the military in particular.  The people coined the term "9/11" as the date that marks that tragic event on which plenty of apolitical people were killed.  911 is also the American emergency response system number--or were those who risked their lives responding to the tragedy aslo somehow culpable?

4.  Why the US reacted as it did?  Who had the latest riots and why?

5.  Anti-X, Y, Z...unsubstantiated.  It seems it is you who needs to study the first 8 months.  Moreover, President Bush had not been in office long enough to have precipitated the attacks.  How long did it take to plan and execute the 9/11 attacks?  Any idea?   Are you naive enough to think it would not have happened under any administration?  Are Brits not now net exporters of terrorism themselves?  You're doing quite well at assimilating your immigrants, aren't you?  As for blasé, is it possible to walk down the street in London and through away a bit of "rubish?"  Why do you not have trash cans in public?  Oh, because bombs may be placed there.  And how many cameras do you have in public?  Oh, too many to count.  And what types of restrictions to you have on law enforcement surveillance of citizens?  Oh, about as many as the Soviets had.  And you're blasé? Perhaps one who resides in Switzerland instead of the UK can afford to be.

6.  "We've been ethnically cleansed?"  By whom?  Yourselves!  Change that..."we have ethnically cleansed."  

It is easy for one to be detached when sitting in denial in one of the most expensive cities in the world enjoying goods prepared by child laborers and enjoying a lifestyle that the average person dare not dream of.  That's no excuse to sully those who were innocently murdered by re-invention of history.  The root cause of those acts has to do with extremist ideaology; actions perpretrated by those who exploit a legitimate religion to achieve power...or is Sharia Law ok in the UK?

I  can name anything how I like. Go ask someone from Iraq or Afghanistan or Pakistan what they call that day. I have so i know what the general answer is and it ain't named after the finest car Porsche ever made.

I know what they call it, because I've served in each place, and they call it 9/11. Moreover, they can't afford your car.  They're not nearly so pretentious.  Thanks.

Good job, Robert...minus the numbering system.

Robert, the bombings in Madrid were in 2004.

His numbering system is about as accurate as:

Getting my name wrong

Asking random, totally unrelated questions like "speaking German" huh?.

Making unsubstantiated assumptions about me, my background and my lifestyle (and not just me - every other poster he disagrees with - and not just in this particular thread)

And making unsubstantiated assumptions about Europeans (and the rest of the world) in general; remarks that would be insulting to anyone not directly related to his precious Uncle Sam.

I wouldn't call that a "Good job" at all.

IMHO, I would call it a totally, off the wall, ignorant rant, completely unrelated to either my post or the original post, and it doesn't do him, nor his fellow US citizens, (many of whom I count amongst my close friends) any favours.   

However, it is not entirely unexpected from someone who joins a social networking group but then has no friends, no photos, no activities and still looks like a chicken.

It's that "accuracy" again

1) Citizens from many nations lost their lives on 9/11.

"More than 90 countries lost citizens in the attacks on the World Trade Center.[5] Notably, The United Kingdom lost 67 (including the British overseas territory of Bermuda), the Dominican Republic lost 47 and India 41."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_September_11_attacks

2) Al-Quaeda attacked the WTC on February 26, 1993 and six deaths resulted.

This occurred under the Clinton Administration. The 9/11 attacks had less to do with Bush II Administration policies and more to do with the original Iraq war, Bin Laden's deep opposition to US troops on Saudi soil and Al-Qs rejection of the Balfour Declaration.

3) There have been and will continue to thousands of articles written about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Only pseudo-intellectuals and tabloid readers believe those wars are not covered extensively. 

P.S. "Memorialized" is indeed a word.

Amazing how someone who hails from an anglophone nation is apparently unfamiliar with this word.  Not surprising, however given this poster's previous unsubstantiated and openly racist arguments on blacks and crime in the UK.

P.P.S. As for the date issue, see the BBC.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/

a) As I have pointed out in my previous posting, 9/11 was not the first terrorist attack on US soil.

b) There are many reasons why the US responded in the manner that it did, not only because of the previous notion of "invulnerability" (as opposed to infallability -- a concept generally related specifically to the Pope in referring to spiritual matters.) 

In addition, many nations generally supported US policy in the aftermath of 9/11, particularly since the concept of the "war on terror" could easily be used by most nations for their own purposes.  

Ginally, yes, the attacks were a huge shock to many Americans, particularly to those not yet born or who were too young to experience the Vietnam, the Cuban Missile crisis or WWII.

I guess you had "a couple mugs of beer" before you posted your welcome to the continent diatribe.  Not philosophical, but bad poetry actually.  You have appointed yourself as ambassador to the continent "keen to forget who saved her time and time again".  Are you sure about that? There are millions in Europe who would tell you nobody has saved them from anything. 

But then, one of the dangers of being neutral is you might be tempted to look at the world as "black" or "white" .  

Sorry, I meant finally...in the ultimate paragraph..

I stand corrected: thank you. Indeed it seems memorialize is a proper word, even if it should never be used on purely aesthetic grounds.

As to  me being a racist, well it seems to Translator that pointing that out a disproportionate number of crimes are commited  in the UK by black people is somehow not a statement of fact, but a racist comment.

Something I find quite amusing.

If you don't know to what I am referring, you would be better off not commenting on that part of the post.  Unless of course you agree with him.

I never use that term lightly at all and I certainly know how you respond to being challenged with facts and logical argumentation. After all, you wrote in a previous thread that I "paint people black and call them black." You might want to see someone about your "black" issues.

I am certain you do find it quite amusing given your inability to provide any supporting documentation other than your supposed conversations with police.

Byron - On behalf of myself and my family,... both here and back in the USA - Thank you sincerely for your service.

KEN///

"Cressida Dick, the Metropolitan Police's Deputy Assistant Commissioner-told MPs last month that black gangs in London were copying Jamaican Yardie tactics.

She said that in London 85 per cent of gun murder suspects were black..."

I think I mentioned the figure of 90%, as I had been told this by a serving officer in the Met, who was quoting from the most up-to-date statistics he had, that had not yet been published, so I apologise that I cannot produce writen evidence for the extra 5%.

However, from what I remember of the topic, ( sorry but I do have better things to try and remember than what was written on here a month or so ago)

this was in the context of a thread about the riots in London, and I think I was moderately even handed about my thoughts on what had provoked them.

If people wish to take my remarks out of context, and then attempt to spin some other meaning on them, then that is totally their right to do so; but I think sometimes it seems these sorts of people have a fixed agenda, and a fixed solution, which they then go and look for a problem for that solution

I very seldom find occasion to correct you or disagree with anything you post, but I have to disagree with your "infallible" comment.  Cambridge Dictionary states: "never wrong, failing or making a mistake" - which is what I meant and is nothing to do with the Pope.....

but I will concede that invulnerability (same dictionary - "impossible to damage or hurt in any way") was probably a more apt word to use.

Jeez - a Yank teaching me English - whatever next!

You made a number of blanket statements completely unsupported by facts just as you did in this thread. At the time, you did not cite the above statement. And what you have quoted is not backed up by stats.  You also appear unaware of the fact that suspect does not equal conviction. 

As for "fixed agendas" it seems pretty clear that you rarely have any evidence to support your "arguments."  That is the problem. 

Yes, I'm glad we agree with the more apt term...

David & Carolyn, where were you during the Balkan war? I guess that it was a bit of a different place than that little island off Argentenia called the Falklens. It is easy to throw darts when you predominatly sit on the sidlines. That is all behind us, just don't come knocking the next time you need a hand, Libia for example.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmhaff/181/18105.htm

Parliamentary evidence outlining explanations and contradictions to Cressida Dick's statement.  

 In seeking to describe the nature and extent of young black people's overrepresentation, it is important to point out that the meaning of statistics which show disproportionate representation is highly contested. Overall, we can say with greater certainty that the patterns of offending vary between different ethnic groups than that the level of offending varies significantly. Many witnesses asserted that figures showing more young black people entering and remaining within the Criminal Justice System did not simply imply a higher quantity and level of offending:

"The fact that Black young people are overrepresented within the youth justice system does not simply indicate a higher level of offending in general. The relationship is complex including the potential areas of discrimination…"[24"]

And as for Cressida Dick's credibility, see this article:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/majornews/3151204/Jean-Charles-de-Menezes-Cressida-Dick-admits-an-innocent-man-could-be-killed-again.html

She was the officer in charge of the operation that led to the killing og an innocent Brazilian electrician who was gunned down by UK police. His family received a small sum in compensation.

No, we are not writing academic papers or arguing in a court of law. 

And it is ridiculous to argue over the fairly common use in the anglosphere of the anniversary of a date in history.  

As adults we are -- or should be -- responsible for what we post.  

On this 9/11, I appreciate freedom of speech in what I consider the best of the U.S. tradition.  Most US citizens I know do not believe we are either infallible or invulnerable.  We certainly do argue our points in a much more assertive and sometimes aggressive manner.  This sometimes upsets and unnerves Europeans, especially Swiss, in my experience.  But as Winston Churchill (son of a US mother) once famously said, "[i]t is better to jaw-jaw than to war-war."

a) I don't know why you're lumping me in with "David" (I'm Scottish, he has a Scottish surname, so  you think we're related, hhhmmmmm?) 

b) Assuming you're talking about the 3rd Balkan war - I'm not sure why you're asking me about what I was doing from 1991 to 2001? Having had no military training, being a pacifist, and too fond of my hairdryer, I don't think I'd have been much use going off to punch Mladic on the nose.

c) I'm also not sure why you're bringing up a mad war started by a mad woman (closely aligned and supported by the US Republican President at the time) in "the Falklens" (sic), into a thread about "9/11"

d) Please name the "darts" you accuse me of throwing and from which "sideline" (direct, in-context quotes only, please).

e) It appears that Libia (sic) with the help of some (primarily US-led) NATO forces, is perfectly capable of looking after itself.

Sorry - your point was???

Maybe you could make an effort next time you write a post.  The little island you mentioned is  called the Falklands (Malvinas in Spanish) and the country is Argentina.

Libya is not US led.  Check your information.  You are dead wrong.  Period.

Accepted version of the language that is...

Why, as one who is unable to vote in the US, would you be concerned with the party from which an American president comes?  The party of a British prime minister matters not outside of the UK and is the business only of UK citizens that choose her (Ms. Thatcher) or him.

This comment is unworthy of you. As much as I enjoy correcting spelling and grammar mistakes, it is more interesting to have the moderator of the political forum make more substantive comments.

Many people in many threads have requested a spell check function. 

Please do not lecture me. I do not particularly enjoy correcting spelling and grammar mistakes and my reply to  Michael H had nothing to do with spell-cheking functions.  A North-American spelling wrongly both the name of a country in Latin America and the island that went through war, denotes somehow a lack of respect or maybe just of interest (in my opinion).

BTW, there is nothing on my job description that obliges to make substantive comments.

You might be an agressive American but I am a hot blooded Spaniard.

Wow, Nefetiri (name of a beautiful Black woman).  Interesting point, but being North American doesn't oblige one to spell correctly.  Also worth noting that Spain is to Latin America as Britain is to North America, a colonizer and invader.  The Latin Americans do not have any particular affinity for Spain.  The island that went through war has no affiliation with Spain.  In fact, a brief review of the history would show that their divorce with Spain was not exactly amicable.  The argumentative among us really need neutral moderators, regardless to their national backgrounds :). 

oops...Nefertiri...bad spelling :)

You're right Robert, being North American doesn't oblige to spell correctly but an effort is always appreciated.

Divorce is never an amicable business; right again.

As for your last sentence I chose to be neutral :-) 

try again! third time lucky

No need.  You understood.  Thanks for being non-biased.

I  am not at all lecturing you. If, however, you do not believe that a moderator of a political forum should stick primarily to substantive comments, perhaps you should withdraw from this role. 

A moderator should be even-handed in her role and avoid making assumptions and judgements about intentions of posters based upon spelling errors. This is what is commonly known as an error of attribution.

I would not describe myself as an aggressive American.  Having by your own words described yourself as a "hot-blooded Spaniard," you may wish to retire from a role which requires a cooler temperament. 

I took the liberty of describing you as an aggressive American based on an earlier post of yours in which you mentioned that American tend to discuss in an aggressive manner.

Guilty of an error of attribution, yes; I am only human :-).

What puzzles me is your insistence in suggesting that I withdraw from the role of moderator; twice in one post.  I am almos tempted to take it personally but I am not going to.

have a good night 

I did qualify my suggestion -- not insistence -- by using the terms "perhaps" and "may."

I would suggest, respectfully, that you review the comments you posted in response to brian b, namely:

"I guess you had "a couple mugs of beer" before you posted your welcome to the continent diatribe.  Not philosophical, but bad poetry actually.  You have appointed yourself as ambassador to the continent "keen to forget who saved her time and time again".  Are you sure about that? There are millions in Europe who would tell you nobody has saved them from anything. 

But then, one of the dangers of being neutral is you might be tempted to look at the world as "black" or "white" .  "

In the above 2 paragraphs you manage to make several insults about both the poster and his nation. No substance.  Odd that.

I hope you don't take it personally. It is not meant as such.

Ok: I've checked my information and I don't actually think I'm "dead wrong" - period or otherwise.  Seems to me like you're picking an unecessary fight, my friend.....

http://battleland.blogs.time.com/2011/08/22/libya-falling-a-less-costly-american-led-way-of-waging-war/

You did qualify your suggestion and you were insistent.

And I would suggest, respectfully, that you review the second part of Brian B's post. He managed to insult a whole continent in four lines of what I consider bad poetry. That's the only insult I can see while reviewing my post.

I did not take your post personally; the temptation to do such thing is gone.

Ms. C,

Editorials (opinions of others) always provide a nice way to reinforce one's position; well done in that regard.  Now, if you review actual facts you'll find that from the beginning the US said it would only provide those capabilities that the other allies in NATO could not.  The President also stressed that he would not allow troops to go in on the ground, while the Brits, French and others expressly stated that they would place no such constraints on their forces and the French in particular pushed beyond the limits of UN resolution 173. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/libya/2011/libya-110909-voa04.htm 

So in a nutshell, the US, weary of carrying its European allies, used Libya as  an opportunity to assume LESS of a leadership role.  From a practical standpoint, right, wrong, or indifferent, the US cannot afford any more wars at the moment. Insulting?  No, fact.  Many Europeans are in Afghanistan, for example, but when you look at the share of the burden being born by each and tie it back to true potential within a nation's elements of power, the US is carrying a disprorotionate amount.  No nation can today, for a number of economic and social reasons, afford to undertake military options alone.  At the same time, whether a pacifist or not, nations still determine that it is in their best interest to apply their military element of national power to achieve their ends.

As for picking fights, read the first question that was asked and the responses regarding that somber day, to include yours, then determine who picked the fight.  Again, your facts are wrong...period.

Nefertiti, 

I read Brian's point as being insulting.  His point is that many forget who saved the continent of Europe from self-destruction a number of times in the past.  One could also point out that the US exists in large measure because of French intervention during the Revolutionary War and again during the War of 1812.  Foreign intervention was present once again during the American Civil War.  It was in British and French interest to do so because they were fighting each other, and because each had already developed strong economic ties to the new nation/former colony.

I'm not sure why facts insult.  They are facts.  Political correctness can be dangerous when taken to an extreme.

Sorry, did NOt read as insulting.

I told myself not to look at this thread, and of course I did.  Time to move on people.  Let's hope the next 10 years isn't defined by one moment.  And let's hope we don't need to build more memorials for dead people whether they're American, Iraqi, Afghan, or from Mars.

Darling Tom, Thank You. The voice of reason (and from a US citizen - with the exception of Translator - how refreshing!).

I'm glad you kept it short because there are a couple of "usual suspects" on here who would twist your words and accuse of saying all sort of things that you never said, meant or implied.

One particular rooster will probably pick up the fact that Martians were nowwhere near the WTC, on that day, so you have no idea what you're talking about - "FACT".

Good luck, my friend :-)

I agree completely with you and Carolyn, Tom, as I do with most UK citizens. Save with a few exceptions that seem to congregate in the same area, most are level headed and willing to stick to actual facts  Thanks for focusing us on the future.

Robert  C - at last, through Major Tom, and the voice of reason, we find a common ground.  You've made my day - "FACT" - thank you.