I'm just gonna reply at the top because it's too hard to find a particular message to reply to...

For what it matters, I have feelings that cross the spectrum of what people have expressed.

But I think there are a couple of additional angles here:

First, this cannot be thought of as simply a terrorist strike. A terrorist strike is taking out a bus of 30 women and children. This has probably killed on the order of 20,000 people -- in other words, we have just suffered half as many casualties as we did in all of Korea, and a third the casualties we suffered in Vietnam, in the space of one hour.

This is one of the deadliest single acts of war ever waged.

It is absolutely not something we can ignore.

Then comes the tough part...as Lexy has said, there are huge risks here. We could end up in a big fight with lots of terrorists acts being brought against us, including biological weapons. If these people got their hands on the Smallpox sample that Russia has, that could be devastating on a world-wide scale.

But the other angle is this: The Taliban, unless they immediately hand over Bin Laden upon being provided proof of his guilt (I'll assume for the sake of argument that he's guilty...there's much circumstantial evidence, and few people who would want to and could pull this off, with a history of escalating violence against the US in recent years added into the mix), has effectively declared war on the US.

Of course they won't formally declare war. But they have housed, fed, and financed the person who probably did this, over our severe objections. They knew his business, they supported his business, and directly or indirectly, they allowed this to happen. In effect, this is their war on us.

With casualties likely in the 10s of thousands, we cannot take such a declaration lightly. We cannot ignore it.

But how we proceed without ending up in a much bigger fight, I don't know. I do know, as a long-term dyed in the wool liberal, that I'd be happy to classify the Taliban as an evil agency and bomb the hell out of their entire government structure. The Taliban is not the people of Afghanistan, to be sure. They took over by force, and are subjugating the populace (especially the women) to immense oppression.

The depressing part to me is even if we do manage surgical strikes where we take out exactly the people responsible and no one else, and we don't inflame a larger war with the Middle East....these people have already won.

20,000 people dead. An entire war in a day.
In response to Air _King
Air _King wrote:
Geo wrote:
oh I gotta mention 1 more tihng, it was pretty awsome seeing it actually fall (the world trade center). Destruction is cruel yet at the same time art. who ever planned it is a genius, sheer genius! The person hit the exact buildings to make people afraid, the pentagon and world trade center, The world trade center was where people would meet from around the world and where allot of money was and the pentagon was the main defense/offense building! Brilliant. boy I hope school also stops and shuts down!


UHH NOT EVEN ART, TO BE SAYING THIS IS AMAZING AND AWSOME, IS JUST AS BAD AS TE PEOPLE WHO DID IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!P EOPLE DIED, HOW WOULD YOU LIKE IT IF PEOPLE THOUGHT THAT IT WAS AWSOME, BUT YOU WERE IN THE TOWER FALLING???????????????

There's a difference between being morbid and being homicidal. While Geo's post does certainly have a rather juvenile note in it, fascination with death and destruction is nothing new and has formed a massive influence on Western thought. The destruction of the World Trade centers is every bit as profound a gesture as the construction of the same; it was, in the truest sense of the word, awesome. Modern usage has demoted the word to a mere superlative for "good", but in the original usage, it actually meant just what it sounds like it would mean--something that produced awe. Anyone who could watch the monumental collapse of the towers, so terrifying yet so engrossing, and not feel awed is a person dead to the world around them.
In response to Deadron
Deadron wrote:
20,000 people dead. An entire war in a day.

That about sums it up. This is the most horrifying thing I've ever seen. I've been following the news coverage all day and even there it all seems so surreal. NYC is such a cosmopolitan center that it's almost certain that we all must know of some people in that area, which makes it hit even closer to home.

Earlier in the day I perused a few message boards to try to get some more insight into the events and I must say that some of the reactionary talk I read about really bothered me. Suddendly supposedly stable people with whom I had shared discussions in the past were calling for the head of everyone who wore a turban and making other dangerous generalizations. It is very easy to see how the mob mentality gets going, and that is almost scarier than any act of war in itself.
I would gladly like to delegate my first reply on this tragedy to be something that detracts the people who believe that this is problem that can be solved by war.


I study geography, and my teacher is a major fan of politics.

What does war lead to? New business: weapons manufacturers, munitions plants, oil companies... . If you want to start a war, it's not the common man that benefits. War is a mutual drain on both sides of a conflict, and war never solves anything -- it merely slays thousands of innocents and guilty parties until a side is fed up with the senseless bloodshed and gives in. The only people who are happy with war are the people who make war supplies. And any other time of the year, the people who make war supplies are considered worse than the sludge you find in your drains.


No, this is not an act of war. It is an act of terrorism. It is, pardon my cynicism, one of the many reasons that religion has no place in my life, aside from phrases such as "Oh, my God" and "Damn it".

Allow me to explain something: if someone steals your car, do you steal it back? No, you apply to the proper authorities.

Thus, if someone kills innocent civilians, do you go kill theirs? No, you use the most powerful authority available to you: diplomacy.


America is fully justified in using an armed response against the terrorist groups, but using bombs and the like against Islamic countries and areas between the two seas of the East is like trying to kill a mosquito with a grenade.


Before any of you bloodthirsty, war-eager people start jumping on my throat, remember a crucial thing. As a Canadian citizen, I will suffer from this too. Hell, the New York Stock Exchange just got iced. What do you think that does to America's #1 trade partner? Have you ever thought of anyone but yourselves?

(I am not referring to the American people as a whole, I am referring to those people who do not pay attention to their own foolishness.)


There were undoubtedly Canadian citizens in the Twin Towers at the time. I mourn for them. I also mourn for our American allies. But what I do not tolerate is using massive acts of senseless violence against people who use the same.

I'll refer to a very proper quote: Two wrongs do not make a right. America lost several tens of thousands of lives. That is no excuse to murder thousands more in some blatant excuse to find vengeance and satisfaction from the loss.


Secondly, to go to war you need a target. Please point it out to me, and I will gladly step down and allow you to do whatever you please. Can't point it out? I thought not.

I'd like to point out that Osama bin Laden (that's his name, folks) is merely a suspect, and always has been a U.N. fugitive. He's just a convenient person to place the blame upon.


It could have been Iraqis, you know. It could have been Serbs. Hell, why don't we just blow up that entire half of the world? Everything except North America? That'd solve a lot of problems! My point is that you just don't have enough information to name names. And until you do, anything that you try will cause serious repercussions throughout the entire planet.


Lemme put it this way. War takes a lot of lives. Lots of other things take lives too. So if you people declare war on those who committed what you consider to be an act of war by the loss of life, does that not mean that you should also declare war on the tobacco industry? I mean, they kill millions of people and get away with it (mainly because the companies like padding the budget of Congress). They commit many more murders per year than these folks did in the span of thirty-five minutes.

So don't point out targets that you can't get a fix on. That's like trying to bullseye a target that teleports itself to random locations. The only way you can take out that sucker is with explosives, and that is the most wasteful weapon available.


I've made military science one of my hobbies, so please point out any supposed flaws in my reasoning and I shall happily debate it.


Oh, and Leftley seems to be the only person here who understands the truth about war.

Look at Canada and America. When Canada was part of Britain, America fought a nice little war with us over what was then York (and now is Toronto). America claims that, given the circumstances with miniscule forces, it was an astounding success and they only had to return home to rotate their crops -- not to retreat. Canada, on the other hand, considers it an amazing victory for our side -- few troops were deployed, and America won but 3 of the 18 some-odd battles. And now, America and Canada are the best friends, not subjugated by one or the other. America is our protectorate, granted, but we don't answer to the 'States. What did that war accomplish? Absolutely nothing.


Hopefully that addressed most of the stuff in this thread.
In response to WildBlood
WildBlood wrote:
In the City of God there will be a great thunder, Two brothers torn apart by Chaos, while the fortress endures, the great leader will succumb" , "The third big war will begin when the big city is burning" - Nostradamus 1654

I found the quote interesting, so I decided to do a little research. After finally finding a site dedicated to Nostradamus that is still updated and has a search engine of all his quatrains, I found that the quatrain said by WildBlood, according to the site, does not exist.

The site seemed very reliable, so I guess that simply means that Nostradamus did not make that quatrain. Where did you get it from? I searched the site as best I could but I came up with nothing similar to that quatrain. Do you know what century the qutrain comes from? Did you get it from a credible source?

-Dexter
In response to Dexter
Sounds suspiciously like that "great idiot will come to power", or whatever it was, fake prediction that was circulating around after election time.

-AbyssDragon
In response to Spuzzum
Spuzzum wrote:
I would gladly like to delegate my first reply on this tragedy to be something that detracts the people who believe that this is problem that can be solved by war.


I study geography, and my teacher is a major fan of politics.

What does war lead to? New business: weapons manufacturers, munitions plants, oil companies... . If you want to start a war, it's not the common man that benefits. War is a mutual drain on both sides of a conflict, and war never solves anything -- it merely slays thousands of innocents and guilty parties until a side is fed up with the senseless bloodshed and gives in. The only people who are happy with war are the people who make war supplies. And any other time of the year, the people who make war supplies are considered worse than the sludge you find in your drains.


No, this is not an act of war. It is an act of terrorism. It is, pardon my cynicism, one of the many reasons that religion has no place in my life, aside from phrases such as "Oh, my God" and "Damn it".

Allow me to explain something: if someone steals your car, do you steal it back? No, you apply to the proper authorities.

Thus, if someone kills innocent civilians, do you go kill theirs? No, you use the most powerful authority available to you: diplomacy.


America is fully justified in using an armed response against the terrorist groups, but using bombs and the like against Islamic countries and areas between the two seas of the East is like trying to kill a mosquito with a grenade.


Before any of you bloodthirsty, war-eager people start jumping on my throat, remember a crucial thing. As a Canadian citizen, I will suffer from this too. Hell, the New York Stock Exchange just got iced. What do you think that does to America's #1 trade partner? Have you ever thought of anyone but yourselves?

(I am not referring to the American people as a whole, I am referring to those people who do not pay attention to their own foolishness.)


There were undoubtedly Canadian citizens in the Twin Towers at the time. I mourn for them. I also mourn for our American allies. But what I do not tolerate is using massive acts of senseless violence against people who use the same.

I'll refer to a very proper quote: Two wrongs do not make a right. America lost several tens of thousands of lives. That is no excuse to murder thousands more in some blatant excuse to find vengeance and satisfaction from the loss.


Secondly, to go to war you need a target. Please point it out to me, and I will gladly step down and allow you to do whatever you please. Can't point it out? I thought not.

I'd like to point out that Osama bin Laden (that's his name, folks) is merely a suspect, and always has been a U.N. fugitive. He's just a convenient person to place the blame upon.


It could have been Iraqis, you know. It could have been Serbs. Hell, why don't we just blow up that entire half of the world? Everything except North America? That'd solve a lot of problems! My point is that you just don't have enough information to name names. And until you do, anything that you try will cause serious repercussions throughout the entire planet.


Lemme put it this way. War takes a lot of lives. Lots of other things take lives too. So if you people declare war on those who committed what you consider to be an act of war by the loss of life, does that not mean that you should also declare war on the tobacco industry? I mean, they kill millions of people and get away with it (mainly because the companies like padding the budget of Congress). They commit many more murders per year than these folks did in the span of thirty-five minutes.

So don't point out targets that you can't get a fix on. That's like trying to bullseye a target that teleports itself to random locations. The only way you can take out that sucker is with explosives, and that is the most wasteful weapon available.


I've made military science one of my hobbies, so please point out any supposed flaws in my reasoning and I shall happily debate it.


Oh, and Leftley seems to be the only person here who understands the truth about war.

Look at Canada and America. When Canada was part of Britain, America fought a nice little war with us over what was then York (and now is Toronto). America claims that, given the circumstances with miniscule forces, it was an astounding success and they only had to return home to rotate their crops -- not to retreat. Canada, on the other hand, considers it an amazing victory for our side -- few troops were deployed, and America won but 3 of the 18 some-odd battles. And now, America and Canada are the best friends, not subjugated by one or the other. America is our protectorate, granted, but we don't answer to the 'States. What did that war accomplish? Absolutely nothing.


Hopefully that addressed most of the stuff in this thread.

A very nice post, and while I agree, if you take the time to read the entire thread, you'll find almost everything you have said has been likewise been stated already.
In response to AbyssDragon
AbyssDragon wrote:
Sounds suspiciously like that "great idiot will come to power", or whatever it was, fake prediction that was circulating around after election time.

-AbyssDragon

Yes, that is the site that I got the information from. When I say that, I mean it is the site that analyzes the quatrain in depth and proves that the "idiot" quatrain is indeed fake. The site is called Morgana's Observatory. Since my search engine is lame, I can't get an exact website, but a search of that or nostradamus should work for anyone who is interested.

-Dexter
In response to AbyssDragon
AbyssDragon wrote:
Sounds suspiciously like that "great idiot will come to power", or whatever it was, fake prediction that was circulating around after election time.

-AbyssDragon

I'll turn to my favourite fortune teller quote. "You will meet a loved one soon."

Nostradamus' predictions are so general, it is impossible for them not to occur. Some are more accurate, but that is sheer luck.

The world didn't end in the second millenium. When is the second millenium? Is now the second millenium?

Hoaxes are just as common, and often more available, than truths. And even truths can merely be things that are likely to happen some time -- nothing in specific.
I found this on the internet awhile ago and decied to post it for you all...it's not much but it's the least we can do.

http://www.petitiononline.com/m0b3/petition.html
In response to Spuzzum
What I was pointing out is that the "idiot" prediction was never made by Nostradamus, and its likely this one wasn't either.

Anyhoo, a couple months ago in the Skeptical Inquirer (NOT the National Inquirer!), there was a study where they took a bunch of computer generated nonsense poems, called them the predictions of Antinöus, sent them out to a bunch of Nostradamus experts and such, and had them analyzed. Every one of them could be connected to an event in history by the "experts" who took it all very seriously.

-AbyssDragon
In response to Botman
A very nice post, and while I agree, if you take the time to read the entire thread, you'll find almost everything you have said has been likewise been stated already.

I did, but I cast my own views of the same topics.

I agreed most with Leftley, who understands war, and Lexy, who understands the impossibility of tracking them.

The news up here just reported that Afghanistan has denied any involvement. They also consider it deplorable to murder so many people callously.
In response to Darkness
Not that such a petition would do anything... but I'd probably sign it, too, if it weren't for this line:

".... want those responsible put to justice, and made to suffer for what they have done ...." [emphasis mine]

I wish such reactionaries would grow up and stop trying to make everything worse than it already is. Hasn't there been enough suffering?

-AbyssDragon
In response to Leftley
Leftley wrote:
Air _King wrote:
Geo wrote:
oh I gotta mention 1 more tihng, it was pretty awsome seeing it actually fall (the world trade center). Destruction is cruel yet at the same time art. who ever planned it is a genius, sheer genius! The person hit the exact buildings to make people afraid, the pentagon and world trade center, The world trade center was where people would meet from around the world and where allot of money was and the pentagon was the main defense/offense building! Brilliant. boy I hope school also stops and shuts down!


UHH NOT EVEN ART, TO BE SAYING THIS IS AMAZING AND AWSOME, IS JUST AS BAD AS TE PEOPLE WHO DID IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!P EOPLE DIED, HOW WOULD YOU LIKE IT IF PEOPLE THOUGHT THAT IT WAS AWSOME, BUT YOU WERE IN THE TOWER FALLING???????????????

There's a difference between being morbid and being homicidal. While Geo's post does certainly have a rather juvenile note in it, fascination with death and destruction is nothing new and has formed a massive influence on Western thought. The destruction of the World Trade centers is every bit as profound a gesture as the construction of the same; it was, in the truest sense of the word, awesome. Modern usage has demoted the word to a mere superlative for "good", but in the original usage, it actually meant just what it sounds like it would mean--something that produced awe. Anyone who could watch the monumental
collapse of the towers, so terrifying yet so engrossing, and not feel awed is a person dead to the world around them.

That's what Im talking about, the awe of the building litterally crushing itself instead of tipping over. Of course I care about the people and wish it hadn't happened but Im talking about the building. If I was near it and did die, I'd probably die happy to see it happen right infront of me.
In response to Lummox JR
Lummox JR wrote:
LexyBitch wrote:

WWI was not won. It was interrupted and later resumed.

Um... how so?

Well, since you asked:

It's a commonly used saying that "WW 2 started because WW1 never ended".

The reason is as follows:

When Germany surrended at teh end of World War 1, what most people don't realise is that the font line still hadn't reached Germany. The entire war was fought in surreounding countries, notably Belgium and France. Therefore, many Germans were horrified on learning they had surrendered, as in all honesty, Germany could have carried the war for a considerable amount of time to follow.

Under the terms of the surrender, Germany was utterly destroyed and humiliated, the terms forced (and I do mean forced) upon them where designed to cripple Germany to the point they could never fight again. This came in the form of the Treat of Versailles (pronoucned ver-sai).

This created tremendous public hatred toward, most notably, the French, who has pushed for the terms to be so strict (The USA Presidant had wanted to help Germany to rebuild, to prevent Communist expansion, and Brition wasn't too worried either way).

One of these unhappy Germans (actually Austrian), was Adolf Hitler. His major card to gain support wasn't the pursecution of the Jews, but rather, his ability to unite the country against the French.

Also, it should be know, Hitler did fight during WW1, no doubt increasing his hatred. He was awarded several medals and was also wounded twice, first he was shot while running a message, then he was caught in a gas attack while in a field hospital.

Just a little history lesson for ya.
In response to Botman
This created tremendous public hatred toward, most notably, the French, who has pushed for the terms to be so strict (The USA Presidant had wanted to help Germany to rebuild, to prevent Communist expansion, and Brition wasn't too worried either way).

Actually, Britain did readily dump its war debts onto Germany with the other allies, and although it didn't accomplish much at the treaty conference, Italy had been wanting to expand its territory too (and was pretty soured to the rest of the Allies when it didn't get all the territory it had wanted).

One of these unhappy Germans (actually Austrian), was Adolf Hitler. His major card to gain support wasn't the pursecution of the Jews, but rather, his ability to unite the country against the French.

Hah! Uniting Germany against the French was an accomplishment? The Germans and the French had been fighting back and forth for centuries before WWI broke out.
In response to Leftley
Hah! Uniting Germany against the French was an accomplishment? The Germans and the French had been fighting back and forth for centuries before WWI broke out.

Almost as much as the French and English were.
I cannot claim to understand the US horror and grieve over this... I was as shocked as I could be...
This event was predicted by many sources, just that the dates are all wrong...
I extent my condolenses to all who have lost someone over this event.
I have not read all the postes, but a threat of war is crazy. That is what the terrorist wanted. For US to go crazy over this.
The best thing to do now is to find out who did this and to prevent it from happening again.
As to the terrorists, just get to them and not the rest of the world. I'm not from US but I do not support any terrorist activities. Nor do I support any attempt to kill childrens and unarmed people for what a small group of people do.
In response to Spuzzum
Spuzzum wrote:
I would gladly like to delegate my first reply on this tragedy to be something that detracts the people who believe that this is problem that can be solved by war.

I appreciate the sentiment, but your post is no more historically accurate than those of war mongers.

War has in fact solved things at times, and it's equally valid to read history as showing that a lack of war -- prolonged attempts at diplomacy -- has ended up killing more people than the reverse.

Statements like "War has never solved anything" are too general too refute in any meaningful way, and mean no more than "War solves everything".

If the suspected situation is true, then to say that a state has not entered into a war with us when they laid all the groundwork for it, funded the planning of it, and made it possible for the main person responsible to do it...well I don't know what you'd call it then.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7