I'm looking at the net. There is a gaping hole in one of the buildings. Two planes within 18 minutes of each other have slammed into each of the towers. This looks like terrorism.
*moment of silence*
Looks like the whole world has come undone.
Today, I was on my way to work, one of those normal days in which I have to worry about my everyday worries.
I have to worry about whether or not I will be still working the next day (due to problems with my boss).
I have to worry about whether or not I will get a job I recently applied for.
I have to worry about whether or not I have enough money to pay for my drivers exam and lessons.
I have to worry about a project that I have to do for my college due in two months.
And so on.
This is extreme Tragedy. It has been confirmed that Terrorists are claiming responsibility. Now there is the threat of war. If these guys can pilot planes right into populated cities, then I would not be surprised if the next thing they use is a nuclear bomb.
Now I have to worry about whether or not I'll be able to live a normal life. I have to worry about whether or not my girlfriend and I will finally settle down and have a family. I have to worry about whether or not she is ok.
I have to worry about life now.
One of the tower just collapse.
May god have mercy on those souls!
I think we're looking at the prelude of WWIII
Worst, maybe, for that latter category.
Watching part of the World Trade Center collapse is one of the more disturbing images I've seen in a long time.
And make that watching both parts of the trade center collapse. My stomach hurts.
that's like 10000 people just vanished from thin air.
Damn......this totally sucks!
[ September 11, 2001: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Plus an attack on the Pentagon.
Plus a car bomb at the State Department.
Plus, a 747 was apparently crashed in the mountains right out this way.
Plus who knows what else?
Terrosrist groups have claimed responsibility? GOOD.
Find them. Find them and KILL them, their friends, their families, and everybody who has contact with them. To hell with international law, and 'civilization,' it's time to treat these monsters the way THEY act.
I've never considered genocide an acceptible act... but I'm beginning to waver.
[ September 11, 2001: Message edited by: G.K Nimrod ]
Let's just hope the CIA has a better track record of finding out who is responsible then they have during the previous admin.
[ September 11, 2001: Message edited by: Tahna Los ]
Somehow, I'm still full of rage.
(This isn't be being heartless or anything, BTW)
As I said in the other thread Omega, if terroism was that simple to stop, don't you think we'd have done it by now? Or should England have dropped bombs all over Ireland after the BT Tower attack (or any other IRA attack)?
Terroism is the most evil way possible to make a point. It's also one of the most effective, and hardest to stop.
I've spent the past two hours tracking down and finding friends in New York City. Almost all of them live or work in the Lower Manhattan district. I've found all but two so far. This is simply horrible, and I wish I could communicate that more clearly.
I'm not a religious person, nor have I ever really been, but, if there is a supreme being out there, a mighty god or goddess watching over us, may He/She/It have mercy on the innocent souls in these attacks, and may those innocent souls find their peace in the great beyond.
Hey, the original Israelites knew it. Check the OT. You go in, waste EVERYBODY, level the city to the sand, and declare peace.
The Romans knew it, as one historian was quoted: "The Romans make a desert, and call it peace."
So we should have bombed Ireland into oblvivion then? Or was that stupid and childish comment intended as a joke?
im more afraid of our country slaughtering women and children in retaliation.. think about that if youve suggested dusting off the bomb today
quote:
Originally posted by Tahna Los:
Initial reports indicate that the US Air Force intercepted a passenger jet that was heading on a kamikaze run to Washington. In order to prevent any other possible casualties (the Pentagon is not the only target), the pilot/hijacker/kamikaze shot down the jet after the pilot refused commands to cease and desist.
What is your source on this? I have not seen anything about this online or on the news...
They celebrated in the middle-east when it was learned that the attacks were a success... THAT IS A GOOD PLACE TO DROP THE FIRST BOMB!
I damn well hope that Bush doesn't sit on his duff with this .. cuz they fuckin' deserve the retaliation!
Now.. back to your regular scheduled program: Mr. Rogers Neighbourhood Bombing!
quote:
So we should have bombed Ireland into oblvivion then?
Course not. Your people (the loyalists)were mixed in with the Irish who caused the problem, weren't they? Bombing your own people is unacceptable.
The thing about terrorist camps is that they tend to be located in isolated areas (in fact, I heard some of the IRA trained in the desert, too. Libya, I think). Reducing them to slag is far less hazardous to noncoms.
Of course, the welfare of a country which harbors such groups and gives them safe haven is not something at the top of the priority list.
Oh, come on. Now you're just being stupid. Bad enough the logic behind "kill anyone who denys it", but you're actually saying that the US should demolish a target that has nothing to with the military? Like what? A school? A residential area? You want them to start killing innocent civilians?
Do you not see what's wrong with this?
Now, if they were McVeigh-type domestic terrorists, this could be said to be consistent - reverence for American symbols, targetting their hate instead on centres of World Finance and Federal Military power. . .
Or, consider the Taliban: they don't care much for symbols (cf. those Buddhist statues), whereas going for central governmental institutions makes sense given the history of Afghanistan since 1979.
They've struck the business center and military command of the United States. Tens of thousands are probably dead -- (thankfully, the Pentagon attack hit the wing under construction).
They've decided to abandon attacks on "symbolic" structures and go after where it'll hurt people the most.
"Your people (the loyalists)were mixed in with the Irish who caused the problem, weren't they? Bombing your own people is unacceptable."
So "the loyalists" aren't Irish? You want to tell them that.
Lee and Jeff bring up interesting points. Destroying the Statue of Liberty would have been a hugely symbolic gesture, but would it have had as big of an effect? The world at large is probably more familiar with it.
Basically, symbolic target, against huge casulties.
"The Irish who caused the problem" = the terrorists.
Plus, the magnitude of the undertaking and the coordination is beyond these domestic groups, which are, primarily, composed of idiots.
Some firemen are standing around, there's the roar of a jet, the camera (probably a camcorder)pans upward, the plane hits the building, and someone yells "holy shit!"
I remember the footage of the second strike, shot from -- I'm assuming -- an apartment, where one woman yells "Holy Jesus Fucking Christ!"
I'm shocked.
I'm numb.
And while I'm not going to push the point, I still want to make it.
Today has presented the U.S. with clear reasons why the missile shield is a waste of money.
The clear reasons lay in smoking rubble in Washington D.C. and N.Y. City. They represent what a determined foe can deliver without mnissles.
Dropping SDI would also give us the money to put armed Marshals on each flight.
[ September 11, 2001: Message edited by: MeGotBeer ]
Course, maybe we could do that with Star Wars tech, too.
Command Center:
"Sattelite's picked up a People's Front of Judea camp outside of Zoopoopie in Dorkinistan."
"Push the button."
Tiny motors spring to life, propelling a laser-guided, Winnebago-sized chunk of captured asteroidial rock (or launched stony-metal payload) through the atmosphere. It impacts within 1 meter of the target area. Everything within a quarter-mile is obliterated.
"Yup, it's gone now."
"The premier of Dorkinistan just called, he's protesting our action."
"Push the button."
[ September 11, 2001: Message edited by: First of Two ]
quote:
Bet you're glad that wedding was last week -- flying from D.C. to L.A. would put you in the likelyhood of being on a to-be-hijacked plane.
Jeff, you have no idea how much that thought has brought this tragedy into even starker focus for me.
(Sorry if this offends anyone - just thinking like a terrorist for no apparent reason.)
Why not the Statue of Liberty? Harder to hit for one thing. Similarly the Empire State - too obscured by the other high buildings around it.
The Pentagon hit strikes me as being slightly off-target. Should have been able to get the whole thing, not just one wing.
I hope Bush keeps cool and doesn't go for a knee-jerk reaction. Don't get mad, get even. And beware the fury of a patient man...
ALL Husnock, everywhere.
I even heard that Iraq gave us their support, but, er, I'm taking that one with a really big grain of salt.
[ September 12, 2001: Message edited by: MeGotBeer ]
And I thought I heard CNN say that Iraq was the only country that had actively congratulated the bombers rather than condemned it.
Libya's condemnation doesn't actually strike me as all that out of place, though. Gaddafi's been trying for a while to be seen as more of a nice guy, though history says otherwise.
[ September 12, 2001: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
THEY attacked non-military targets, USING non-military airplanes and vehicles!!!!!! CIVILIANS were killed... NON-military buildings were destroyed in the attack...
Fight fire with fire. Attacking a military installation is the BONAFIDE US retaliatory strike.
My uncle was in the Army's Antiterrorism branch just a little before the time of the bombing of the Marine Barracks in Lebanon.
The only way to stop terrorism is to hit them back, ten times as hard as they hit you, with as much disregard to their lives as they've shown yours, so that the next batch knows not to make the effort.
This is why hijackings were so rare in the old USSR... because the USSR would send in Spetznaz (their elite special forces) at the very LEAST, and everybody connected with the operation would die.
Once the connection to a group or individual is established, an ultimatum should be delivered to the nation harboring them: You have 24 hours to deliver them up to us, or we vaporize one of your cities every hour after that until you do.
Once the individual/group in question is in custody... strip him/them naked and drop him/them off in lower Manhattan. The residents should be able to take it from there.
Does the UN have a branch called "United Nations Anti-Terrorist Coalition" (UNATCO)? You know, like in Deus Ex. If not - why not? and if so, why they hell do they deal with the terrorists once and for all!?
"I'm saying that ... THEY, whoever 'THEY' may be, attacked a civilian target ... I think they should get a taste of that too !"
"Once the connection to a group or individual is established, an ultimatum should be delivered to the nation harboring them: You have 24 hours to deliver them up to us, or we vaporize one of your cities every hour after that until you do."
I don't know how you people can look at yourselves in the mirror. You're exactly the same as the people you claim are so horrible. How can you condemn their killing of civilians, while praising the same actions if they were taken by us? You're disgusting.
[ September 12, 2001: Message edited by: TSN ]
Well, for one thing, it's not like your average terrorist runs around with a big sign on his back that say: "Terrorist: Please Shoot Me"
What I think is that 1. We should rebuild the Twin Towers and with a third one slightly taller than the two making it look like NYC is giving the world the finger. 2. We send an entire shipment of Windex to every country with a note saying "You will need this after we bomb your desert into glass." 3. Cut off all Oil saying "We will call you to resume transportation of Oil to this country, however only if you bring us all 25,000 terrorists, all of them."
This will give the Middle East something to think about. Rebuilding the Twin Towers will say "whatever you do you will not break this nation". Sending Windex is a threat meant to demoralize the 25,000 terrorists to the point that a good portion could leave. Cutting off oil will make the countries living off the money from us buying oil will make them desperate to go get those terrorists and give them to us.
This is how I feel.
quote:
We send an entire shipment of Windex to every country with a note saying "You will need this after we bomb your desert into glass."
WTF?!
Are you stupid enough to think that bombing the entire Middle East is the answer? Yeah, don't answer that, you .sig speaks volumes for your intelligence level.
The acceptable military response (IMHO), assuming a country is found to have harbored the terrorist groups:
-Bomb all military targets (training facilities, storage depots, barracks, bases, air strips)
-Bomb government sites when the occupance will be low to limit casualties.
-Surgical strikes against residences of key government leaders and terrorist cell leaders. Either use missiles, or special forces.
[ September 12, 2001: Message edited by: MeGotBeer ]
quote:
25,000 terrorists
And where'd you get that number? Jesus, you're as bad as a Darkstar.
First of all, responding to something I read in the Officer's Lounge thread, religious fanaticism and killing people because of it is not unheard of in the US, and specifically in Christianity.
2. Why does terrorism happen? Because some people hate us. Why do they hate us? Bombings, commercial exploitation, and probably some stuff I haven't heard of or don't remember.
3. What does a bombing produce? Are they gonna say, "oops, sorry, we won't hate you anymore"? Of course not, just the opposite. When did revenge stop anything? It'll only come back to us sooner or later.
4. It's the leaders of Afghanistan who's harboring this Ben-whatever guy. From what I've heard, these leaders do not have popular support, so the general public probably wants him OUT of their country. Now are we going to bomb civilians who are against our possible enemy?
5. What if there's no country behind this operation? Who are we bombing then?
6. Right now, lots of countries are on our side, countries that fight against terrorism themselves. We can either take this unity and work to minimize reasons for terrorism, or we can start bombing people and lose respect and support from other countries. Give the people who want retribution a figurehead, maybe this Ben-whatever guy, then throw him in a silly trial and do whatever follows.
7. Don't give me the if-we-don't-kill-em-all-every-other-group-is-gonna-give-their-shot argument. It's been used since WWII, and it got us the Cold War, Korean War, and Vietnam War. After all, we couldn't let them commies get away with it.
8. For all you people who claim to possess logic, USE IT.
Thank you and good night.
As for 25,000, that number I came out of my ass. I made that number up to exagerate how deseperate those iddle East countries will have to get to get their oil back. Agian calm down people.
Last but not least, I am not as bad as DarkStar nor will I ever be. Ok IGotBeer, he made up numbers and stuck by them. I don't.
Prove me wrong that there more or less than 25,000 terrorists. Ok? Now calm down.
quote:
I never said about sending in bombs with Windex. All I said was that after WE BOMB them they will need Windex to clean their new glass desert. Jesus Christ, you all should calm down it was stupid joke!
It was a very stupid joke. Attitude like yours will ... well, it's not very comfortable to imagine.
The comments about oil strike me as odd for three reasons:
1)As anyone with the IQ of a Dr. Scholl's insole could tell you, the Middle East has the oil and we need it. Therefore, in matters of oil, it is the Middle East that holds the cards. Or are you suggesting we stop importing Middle East oil to make some sort of statement? Now there's a brilliant idea.
2)OPEC has already taken the step of promising to not price-gouge. Why are we suddenly pointing at the oil issue as a potential battlefield, when the mainly Arab states in OPEC have already taken a commendable step?
3)In case anyone hasn't noticed, this incident has had the positive effect of once again bringing together much of the moderate Arab world into partnership with the West in condemnation of a common enemy. Let's build on this.
I think nukes are unlikely to be used. Yes, they are nicely destructive, but fallout is a bitch. I'm not sure what the wind is like in Afghanistan, but you can bet it would carry fallout to somewhere you didn't want it.
The Russians, of course, have already demonstrated the "clean nuke." It's called the thermobaric (lit. heat-pressure) bomb, also known as the fuel-air explosive. When it goes off, the surrounding air is sucked in with such force that it rips eyes out of sockets. The following blast wave and fireball rival a tactical (slight oxymoron if you ask me) nuclear yield.
On preventing future attacks:
Well, means, motive and opportunity.
I think we can agree that means and opportunity are so easy to come by in a free, industrial nation that nothing can be done.
Motive is a different matter entirely.
Presumably, the US govt. would hope that any counterstrike would serve to deter future attacks by its sheer power. Well, maybe. Personally, I think there's a huge risk of martyring those killed in the revenge strike.
There's also the matter of jealousy of America's status. That won't change.
Although it would be simplistic to say that this attack is entirely due to Arab-Israeli tensions, there's a lot to that angle. See the Palestinians dancing in the streets? Not surprising considering that the Palestinians have been consistently fucked over by five decades of US policy in the Middle East. Americans of all people should understand that one can oppress a people so far, but they will eventually snap.
I'm not saying that the Palestinians are behind this, just that Arab anti-American sentiment is, to a great degree, justified.
Also we have been spoiled in getting what we want casually. We as Americans scream about gas going up 10 cents from 1.30 to a 1.40 while other countries pay 5.00 sometimes 7.00 for gas. Their solution? Don't drive as much. drive only when you need to.
About the Windex joke, no I don't think in any ugly way. The only person I can think of that is thinking of anything stupid would be the person who thought I was thinking stupid. My stupid joke was a joke thats all. It was meant to lighten up the mood.
I am for one not ashamed that I feel almost nothing right now about the attack. For one I got used to the idea that the US is vulnerable, and the lives that were lost will be paid for in time. Bush is the one person you don't want to give a reason to bomb a country. Also being edgy and angry is exactly what the terrorists want, what they don't want is a country full of people dead set in getting every single terrorist in the world. A cold, icy, non-emotional country.
Thats my opinion anyway. Again calm down people! 3 days already and everyone is at everyone's throuts.
quote:
A cold, icy, non-emotional country.
Considering the number of people on this board talking about fragging innocent civilians (and then sending them lots of windex afterwards), I think its pretty fair to say we're not at that point.
I get so pissed off every time i see someone from the rich east side of my city get into an SUV to go to CVS to buy themselves a pack of smokes and some foot cream. 90% percent of te world doesnt have this option and i think more people would realize this.
And as a population was are easy to sway, so we should be careful about following our gut when our media is controlled the way it is.
Example: last year, the price of gas here (In R.I.) was $1.00 to $1.10.. then it went up to $1.70-$1.80.. we were outraged, but continued to waste it. Then the price came down to $1.40-$1.50 after we made a point of getting all our politicians on the isssue. We are all enthused gas is so cheap.
But wait.. they just raised the price $0.40 and they just made us feel happy about it? Makes me feel stupid...
If prices were $1, then raised to $1.80, then dropped to $1.40, everyone with half a brain can see that the prices dropped by forty-cents, not increased by forty-cents. If it had increased an additional forty-cents, it would be $2.20.
Matrix, you know, I thought for half a second you'd removed your "this makes no sense whatsoever" .sig. You didn't. Please reconsider.
Scenario one:
$1.10 to $1.80 to $1.50
Two years later, we are paying $0.40 more, are happy (some even thrilled) with our government's handling, and wary of overseas oil interests.
But who in the government is really interested in selling american oil? Hmm.. who's from texas? Who would even be involved with big business that controls such things?
theoretical scenario two:
$1.10 to $1.30 to $1.50
Two years later, we are paying $0.40 more, and dont care for our government's handling of the continued inflation.