Holy ****! 2 planes just kamikazed the World Trade Center!

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Sep 11 2001, 7:06 am
In response to Xzar
You need a target before you can strike, Xzar.

If you are hit in the back of the head with a spit ball and you turn around to see 20 people in your class laughing at you, do you attack them all for something one of them did?
Sep 11 2001, 7:07 am
In response to Xzar

I fully agree with you. Im not saying bomb em im saying war! ground troops is the only way. we need to take 1 of there stroungets contires. as a show of power and thats that!

Yeah, thats the way, declare war on an Arabic nation under the justification that you think Arabs launched terrorist attacks on America, thus bringing condemnation against America, mass casulties amongst otherwise innocent citizens, and futher hatred toward America (lets admit in, you Yanks arnt the most popular people).
Sep 11 2001, 7:09 am
In response to Shadowdarke
Shadowdarke wrote:
You need a target before you can strike, Xzar.

If you are hit in the back of the head with a spit ball and you turn around to see 20 people in your class laughing at you, do you attack them all for something one of them did?

and the targret is known they clamed labaity all ready. (most likely it not them but ban delem) but they are acoted with him.
Sep 11 2001, 7:12 am
In response to Xzar
Xzar wrote:
Shadowdarke wrote:
You need a target before you can strike, Xzar.

If you are hit in the back of the head with a spit ball and you turn around to see 20 people in your class laughing at you, do you attack them all for something one of them did?

and the targret is known they clamed labaity all ready. (most likely it not them but ban delem) but they are acoted with him.

Actually, the DPLO who first claimed responsibility, withdrew the claim and renounced any involvment well beofre the 'second wave' of attacks took place.

Lets face in, the Palistinians have more than enough reasons to be pissed at America (I'm not sure just how much most of you know about the history of the Middle East, but if you dont know alot, just understand that the UN took away Palestines country and gave it to teh Jews without the Palistinans getting a say, this is why they are so miffed, and you must admit, its understandable). But they have nothing to gain from such an attack. Its fat old Bien Laden who simply wants to kill as many Americans as possible.
Sep 11 2001, 7:18 am
In response to Botman
yes i know that...but be awhere we did not bomb them to take the land.It was promed to the jews by the british before WWII started. it was also the jews land before the porsities if i remeber right.
Sep 11 2001, 7:21 am
In response to Xzar
Lexy my famamy was on the front lines! of WWII my uncile was part of the 101 airbone divisions. my grandfarter was in D-Day as ground troop. other famly members where officers incharge. History is my life I love the topic. and from history the only thing that ever worked was a show of power.

Bullshit. Bull f'n shit. I hate to have to resort to this much profanity, but I have a very, very great deal of respect for history, and I don't know what kind of twisted freakish history book you're reading from. A large portion of the wars throughout history not only FAILED MISERABLY, many weren't even necessary in the first place!*

*I define "necessary" as "vital to the continued existence of a nation-state" in this case.
Sep 11 2001, 7:21 am
In response to Xzar
Xzar wrote:
yes i know that...but be awhere we did not bomb them to take the land.It was promed to the jews by the british before WWII started. it was also the jews land before the porsities if i remeber right.

porsities? Erm, if you mean the Jews had the land first, well yes, thats true, but that was many centuries ago.

I think the land was actually promised during the war in return for the Jews fighting on the side of the Allies.. .oh wait, no I'm wrong, I'm thinking of Lawrence of Arabia. Hmm.

Like I (and others) said before though, while many Palestinans might support the attacks, its incredibly doubtful that they are the ones who carried it out.
Sep 11 2001, 7:24 am
In response to Leftley
Lexy my famamy was on the front lines! of WWII my uncile was part of the 101 airbone divisions. my grandfarter was in D-Day as ground troop. other famly members where officers incharge. History is my life I love the topic. and from history the only thing that ever worked was a show of power.

You mean like that great show of power in Vietnam?

Off topic, but did your uncle take part in Operation Market Garden when the 101 were dropped in Holland?

Sep 11 2001, 7:25 am
In response to LexyBitch
LexyBitch wrote:
I am not advocating paralysis... I am simply not advocating a large-scale, knee-jerk, heavily armed response. These acts were carried out by a handful of individuals armed with small arms and bombs, if that. Those individuals are now dead. How do you send an army after that?

It takes about 60 people to organize a suicide bombing. It would have taken hundreds to organize this, and they had to get funding and support from somewhere. Furthermore, it takes people to recruit suicide bombers, and they're just as responsible.
Oh, we have plenty of targets. Plenty.

Lummox JR
Sep 11 2001, 7:26 am
In response to Lummox JR
Lummox JR wrote:
LexyBitch wrote:
I am not advocating paralysis... I am simply not advocating a large-scale, knee-jerk, heavily armed response. These acts were carried out by a handful of individuals armed with small arms and bombs, if that. Those individuals are now dead. How do you send an army after that?

It takes about 60 people to organize a suicide bombing. It would have taken hundreds to organize this, and they had to get funding and support from somewhere. Furthermore, it takes people to recruit suicide bombers, and they're just as responsible.
Oh, we have plenty of targets. Plenty.

Lummox JR

Actually, I believe it takes 2.

The bomber and someone to organise, film and boast about it.
Sep 11 2001, 7:28 am
In response to Leftley
Leftley wrote:
Lexy my famamy was on the front lines! of WWII my uncile was part of the 101 airbone divisions. my grandfarter was in D-Day as ground troop. other famly members where officers incharge. History is my life I love the topic. and from history the only thing that ever worked was a show of power.

Bullshit. Bull f'n shit. I hate to have to resort to this much profanity, but I have a very, very great deal of respect for history, and I don't know what kind of twisted freakish history book you're reading from. A large portion of the wars throughout history not only FAILED MISERABLY, many weren't even necessary in the first place!*

*I define "necessary" as "vital to the continued existence of a nation-state" in this case.

I never said anyting about the "unnecessary" war's im talkin about the "necessary" wars. WII for example.
and war's never fail it depends which side your on.
Sep 11 2001, 7:28 am
In response to Botman
Botman wrote:
Either way, its impossible to declare war on an indiviual person and/or group and, sadly, there is little America can realistically do but take it.

It's plenty possible to declare war on a group. It's also possible to hold individuals responsible, and to hold countries responsible who harbor them.

If in fact there was nothing to do about terrorism but to take it, then that would mean the terrorists are right and they can do whatever they want with impunity. But in fact history teaches the opposite lesson: Terrorists can be put down, effectively, and dealing with them harshly drastically reduces their activities. If America wants to ensure this never happens again, we have no other choice but to attack those responsible.

Lummox JR
Sep 11 2001, 7:30 am
In response to Lummox JR
Lummox JR wrote:
Botman wrote:
Either way, its impossible to declare war on an indiviual person and/or group and, sadly, there is little America can realistically do but take it.

It's plenty possible to declare war on a group. It's also possible to hold individuals responsible, and to hold countries responsible who harbor them.

If in fact there was nothing to do about terrorism but to take it, then that would mean the terrorists are right and they can do whatever they want with impunity. But in fact history teaches the opposite lesson: Terrorists can be put down, effectively, and dealing with them harshly drastically reduces their activities. If America wants to ensure this never happens again, we have no other choice but to attack those responsible.

Lummox JR

Are you aware Bien Laden has been fucking you yanks over for over 2 decades? Not all people are so easily traced.
Sep 11 2001, 7:33 am
In response to LexyBitch
knee-jerk

What does knee-jerk mean? We don't have that turm down here in NZ? I was reading an artical on another gamin site, and they used the same word/s.

I have no comments that I can make about these recent events that I feel are profound enough to mean anything or to do them justice. I have the knee jerk reactions, of course. "Pearl Harbor" and "Find them" and "BOMB THOSE FUCKS!" and "War" and "Terror" and "Responsibility". How does all of that coalesce into the right thing to do?


from http://www.lumthemad.net/
Sep 11 2001, 7:34 am
In response to Botman
Botman wrote:
knee-jerk

What does knee-jerk mean? We don't have that turm down here in NZ? I was reading an artical on another gamin site, and they used the same word/s.

I have no comments that I can make about these recent events that I feel are profound enough to mean anything or to do them justice. I have the knee jerk reactions, of course. "Pearl Harbor" and "Find them" and "BOMB THOSE FUCKS!" and "War" and "Terror" and "Responsibility". How does all of that coalesce into the right thing to do?


from http://www.lumthemad.net/

"Knee-jerk" reactions are uncontrollable, reflexive tendencies. The name comes from the well-known reflex test whereby a doctor taps a nerve in the knee with a pointyish rubber mallet, which will result in an small, involuntary "kick" reaction.
Sep 11 2001, 7:35 am
In response to Botman
Botman wrote:
Actually, I believe it takes 2.

The bomber and someone to organise, film and boast about it.

I was quoting the 60 figure from people who know a little about these things. It most decidedly takes more than 2 people for an average suicide bomb. Aside from the bomber and the publicists, you've got recruiters encouraging the foolish to take up this kamikaze strategy. You've got people supplying explosives, detonators, triggers, timers, maps of populated areas, ID to get through checkpoints, and so on and so forth. And to obtain enough explosives to do any real damage, it takes money; such things aren't available to the general public and they don't come cheap. Even improvised explosives would be expensive to assemble in any quantity.

Our history of combating terrorism has also shown that it is possible to strike severe blows to terrorist activities by disrupting those organizational activities and flows of capital. How is today any different?

Lummox JR
Sep 11 2001, 7:35 am
In response to Leftley
Leftley wrote:
Botman wrote:
knee-jerk

What does knee-jerk mean? We don't have that turm down here in NZ? I was reading an artical on another gamin site, and they used the same word/s.

I have no comments that I can make about these recent events that I feel are profound enough to mean anything or to do them justice. I have the knee jerk reactions, of course. "Pearl Harbor" and "Find them" and "BOMB THOSE FUCKS!" and "War" and "Terror" and "Responsibility". How does all of that coalesce into the right thing to do?


from http://www.lumthemad.net/

"Knee-jerk" reactions are uncontrollable, reflexive tendencies. The name comes from the well-known reflex test whereby a doctor taps a nerve in the knee with a pointyish rubber mallet, which will result in an small, involuntary "kick" reaction.

ah, thanks.
Sep 11 2001, 7:36 am
In response to Botman
Botman wrote:
Lummox JR wrote:
Botman wrote:
Either way, its impossible to declare war on an indiviual person and/or group and, sadly, there is little America can realistically do but take it.

It's plenty possible to declare war on a group. It's also possible to hold individuals responsible, and to hold countries responsible who harbor them.

If in fact there was nothing to do about terrorism but to take it, then that would mean the terrorists are right and they can do whatever they want with impunity. But in fact history teaches the opposite lesson: Terrorists can be put down, effectively, and dealing with them harshly drastically reduces their activities. If America wants to ensure this never happens again, we have no other choice but to attack those responsible.

Lummox JR

Are you aware Bien Laden has been fucking you yanks over for over 2 decades? Not all people are so easily traced.

Please...they know where he is come on I can see my self from a slatlate on my comp. now think what our govments can do (exleny Candia,England,and the US who have a jont spy network).
Sep 11 2001, 7:38 am
In response to Lummox JR
Lummox JR wrote:
Botman wrote:
Actually, I believe it takes 2.

The bomber and someone to organise, film and boast about it.

I was quoting the 60 figure from people who know a little about these things. It most decidedly takes more than 2 people for an average suicide bomb. Aside from the bomber and the publicists, you've got recruiters encouraging the foolish to take up this kamikaze strategy. You've got people supplying explosives, detonators, triggers, timers, maps of populated areas, ID to get through checkpoints, and so on and so forth. And to obtain enough explosives to do any real damage, it takes money; such things aren't available to the general public and they don't come cheap. Even improvised explosives would be expensive to assemble in any quantity.

Our history of combating terrorism has also shown that it is possible to strike severe blows to terrorist activities by disrupting those organizational activities and flows of capital. How is today any different?

Lummox JR

Well if your also going to include people who are soley needed for supplying the nessicary resources, you might as well include the workers who made the said resources etc.

I'll admit, most suicide bombers would never work in a grounp of 2, I was meerely pointing out that anyway can do it.

An attack of the magnitude today will no doubt have been planed for months and I'll agree involved hundreds of people, as "freedom fighters" aka terrorists, usually work in cells.
Sep 11 2001, 7:39 am
In response to Xzar
Xzar wrote:
Botman wrote:
Lummox JR wrote:
Botman wrote:
Either way, its impossible to declare war on an indiviual person and/or group and, sadly, there is little America can realistically do but take it.

It's plenty possible to declare war on a group. It's also possible to hold individuals responsible, and to hold countries responsible who harbor them.

If in fact there was nothing to do about terrorism but to take it, then that would mean the terrorists are right and they can do whatever they want with impunity. But in fact history teaches the opposite lesson: Terrorists can be put down, effectively, and dealing with them harshly drastically reduces their activities. If America wants to ensure this never happens again, we have no other choice but to attack those responsible.

Lummox JR

Are you aware Bien Laden has been fucking you yanks over for over 2 decades? Not all people are so easily traced.

Please...they know where he is come on I can see my self from a slatlate on my comp. now think what our govments can do (exleny Candia,England,and the US who have a jont spy network).

Sadly yourve been mislead. Considering the damage he has and will continue to do, I assure you, If the Americans knew where he was, they would have done something by now.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7