• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

hmm 9-11 terrorist bombing

A

Anonymous

Guest
coincidence????
terrorist bombings take place on 9-1-1 hmmm.
p.s. My country (america) will get the jerkidiots taht did this to us.
we will make them pay
 
Josh809 said:
coincidence????
terrorist bombings take place on 9-1-1 hmmm.
p.s. My country (america) will get the jerkidiots taht did this to us.
we will make them pay
Click to expand...

Aren't you being just a little optemistic?

Cujo
(don't get your hopes up, it will only hurt more in the end)
 
There were two significant (possibly) anniversaries yesterday - the declaration of the British mandate in Palestine (1922) and the US-backed overthrow of the Chilean government (1973). It was also the Ethiopean and Coptic New Years, but they probably weren't significant.
And please, everybody, remember Gandhi's words: "An eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind".
 
I read one account that suggested a possible significance was the trial of one of Bin Laden's friends in an NY court.

I did search online resources very comprehensively and found absolutely no indication that any so called psychic/clairvoyant or whatever had predicted anything unusual for this, probably the most significant event of the century so far.

I'm sure people will start to say "I predicted this would happen" any time now, but frankly without some very compelling evidence such claims are attention seeking nonsense. Once again the whole trade of predicting the future seems a little ridculous.
 
Appeasement has been tried many times in the past and it has never worked, these vile excuses for humans must be punished.
 
Well, of course people are already starting to show Nostradamus quotes about it. I saw one and it was certainly wrong. It mentioned "A great leader.", who is that supposed to be, Bush?
 
I think it might mean the leader of a great nation, and the rest of the quatrain if it comes true is frightening.
 
Fair enough and all the more reason to find out for certain
who is responsible.

It is a sobering thought that if all the Islamic extremists
in the world were gathered together, they would probably not
match the numbers killed in NY.

So the talk of responding with force against terrorists and those
who harbour them could spill over into meaning an attack
against more or less anyone.

Not a time for any sensible leader to be issuing the carte blanche
which appears to be Mr Blair's specialism.

On a more positive note, our friend and fellow contributor Scott,
(hmshutton) is safe and well in NY.
 
Is'nt it a fact that most of the worlds problems are caused by a handful of people, does that mean we should just ignore them and let them get on with their murderous work?
 
Could we re-establish the reign of humanity by tearing a
handful of terrorists apart in Times Square? Find them and
I'd look the other way, I promise.

Tales of billionaire terrorists tend to obscure the fact that
in the main they are nourished on bitterness. The justice
of their claims is decided on a realpolitik basis. But Begin was
a terrorist and so was Mandela, at least in Thatcher's book.

We have seen an escalation of scale but the horror of acts of
terrorism is an affront, whenever even one is killed. If we mean what
we say about civilization, we cannot afford to descend to the
rough justice that I fear will come of this unparalleled atrocity.
 
Annasdottir said:
There were two significant (possibly) anniversaries yesterday - the declaration of the British mandate in Palestine (1922) and the US-backed overthrow of the Chilean government (1973). It was also the Ethiopean and Coptic New Years, but they probably weren't significant.
And please, everybody, remember Gandhi's words: "An eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind".
Click to expand...

then let us all be blind.
 
James Whitehead said:
We have seen an escalation of scale but the horror of acts of
terrorism is an affront, whenever even one is killed. If we mean what
we say about civilization, we cannot afford to descend to the
rough justice that I fear will come of this unparalleled atrocity.
Click to expand...

I agree. But what precisely should be done, then? How do you reason with unreasonable men? If there is a clear, non-violent and permanent solution to all this I'm sure it would already have been taken, and the events of the 11th would not have happened, and the whole planet - and we - wouldn't be sitting around debating it.
 
As with the Death Penalty, the implication that opponents hate
crime less than proponents needs to be challenged. But I am afraid
that in the present mood, natural anger will be used for the settling
of old scores. Result, a new generation of recruits for the terrorists.

Terrorism cannot be defeated by any of the conventional means, but it
can be successfully contained.

When Americans get around to thinking about what they pay for
"security", they may resent their taxes even more than they do at
present. Waiting for a baggage check would cost a lot less in every
sense. Perhaps that would not measure up as a Do Something?

It will be done, now.

But it looks as if a large number of "terrorist-harbouring" people in the Middle
East will need to be sacrificed to the Gods of Do Something.

We may not hear of them but they in turn will have their avengers.
 
I do not like the way the wind is blowing. I have a feeling that if the US doesn't find the people who really did it then they'll find someone else to take it out on. I don't want to worry y'all but I get the feeling that Bush is the kind of president who has his finger on the Button.

Ho hum.

Az
 
Comment...

Many, many years ago, when I was young I asked a priest why Christianity was 'the way'. He said, that unlike other religions, he didn't specify which, although his meaning was clear, 'We don't have "Mullahs" and "Jihads"'. I paused to consider his remark then countered 'But we've had our Torquemadas and our Crusades. So what defines the difference?' He didn't reply and went elsewhere.

The problem is that scratch through the veneer of 15000 years of civilisation (give or take a bit based on POV), and we are ready to burn anyone and anything that stands against us.

Call it what you will, Jihad, Crusade, 'Justified Retaliation' whatever, Holy War is no way forward, but I fear we're heading that way. If it comes to that I can only quote Yasser Arafat; 'Holy War is foolish, since it comes down to fighting over who has the best imaginary friend'

8¬(
 
Just thought I'd join the discussion with one small question:

If they do find the person/people/fanatical miltary group behind the WTC attacks, how can they be punished?

These people are ready to die for what they believe, and do so on a regular basis, so condeming them to death seems the wrong thing to do. Their religious belief is that they are carrying out the work of whichever God they worship (excuse my ignorance), and by ending their own life they will reach enternal bliss. If they are executed then, although they haven't undertaken a suicidal role, they have still taken part in an unspeakable act of terrorism, and so will presumably go to the same place as their kamikaze brethren.

Imprisoning them for life, would be very dangerous as terrorist attacks, hijackings/bombings/hostage taking, are regularly carried out in an attempt to pressure foreign governments into releasing their brothers in arms. And if this sort of attack is carried out just to prove that it can, what will imprisoning their comrades bring about?

Don't get me wrong, I want those responsible punished using any means necessary, I just feel that a race that teaches their children the virtues of becoming suicide bombers, is one to be extremely wary of indeed.

This situation, I feel, will not have a happy ending no matter what is done.
 
Harlequin, your priest didn't mention Buddism did he? How many holy wars have they had?

I agree with The Beast. You can't kill them without making them into martyrs (sp?). Reprisals are just likely to turn more people to their cause.

Az
 
I think they have taken it too far, even many of those who would sympathise have been alienated by the extremity of the act. I would say that as long as America can absolutely and conclusively prove that they have the right person very few people will want to follow in their footsteps. Justice has to be seen to be unavoidable.
 
Aben Zin said:
Harlequin, your priest didn't mention Buddism did he? How many holy wars have they had?

I agree with The Beast. You can't kill them without making them into martyrs (sp?). Reprisals are just likely to turn more people to their cause.

Az
Click to expand...

Az,

Nope, he ducked out before I could mention them.

H
 
Annasdottir said:
There were two significant (possibly) anniversaries yesterday -
Click to expand...

Alas, September 11 is also UN International Day of Peace.
 
If I recall correctly, didn't the US of A give bin Laden weapons and training so that he could fight Russia, and give Saddam Hussein a similar helping hand to fight Iraq?

Whoops.

And if America are so keen to be the 'policeman' of the world, shouldn't they be prepared to take on the world's problems?

As an antichristian I was amazed to find myself reading the book of Revelations this time last week. It seems to say that the person who will destroy the world comes from 'the house of David' and his words are 'I will bring you the morning star' (ie: Lucifer).

Just thought I'd mention it.
 
The Beast said:
Don't get me wrong, I want those responsible punished using any means necessary
Click to expand...

Am I the only person who doesn't? I'm sick of revege attacks and bloodshed. The only way to end this violence is careful thinking about what drove people to it in the first place. America claims to be a Christian nation. They have yet to turn the other cheek. This is possibly the wisest saying in the bible... violence breeds violence, and the bravest act is that which ends the circle.
 
The bible also says 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth' etc. If you read the bible it quickly becomes clear that god is, and freely admits to being, 'a veangeful god' and 'a jealous god'.

If it wasn't for organised religion there'd be a lot less bloodshed and misery. The gun and the bible go hand in hand.
 
Donna Black said:
The bible also says 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth' etc. If you read the bible it quickly becomes clear that god is, and freely admits to being, 'a veangeful god' and 'a jealous god'.

If it wasn't for organised religion there'd be a lot less bloodshed and misery. The gun and the bible go hand in hand.
Click to expand...


The Old Testament says that, yes. The New Testament of Jesus Christ is one of a loving and caring God, where love - even unto enemies - is taught, and where the highest values of fellowship and forgiveness and tolerance are emphasised.
'Those that live by the sword shall die by the sword' is the fate of those of violence at the hand of others of violence. Any acts of oppression or violence carried out in the name of the Church or any other ideology is a perversion of the original teaching.
Instead of pointing out the shortcomings of religion, try envisaging what the world would be like without a religious/moral principle. And before you say it, we would not all be better off, trust me.
 
The real problem isn't the base religion, what ever it may be. Zealots of any sort, should be shunned as the mad dogs they are. Extremism of any form plays upon the darkest parts of our collective soul. I dont' want to see our species descend futher into that darkness.

The myth of a 'vengeful', 'jealous' God has served the Christian churches down the years as well as the myth of Christ has, to justify just about any monstrous act they care to commit. Look at the Puritans, or the Catholic Church, or the Church of England or... Do I really need to continue?

'Organised' religion really doesnt have a good track record.

The Society of Friends, The Salvation Army and the various flavours of Buddism are the only sects I can can think of who are strongly and blindly pacifist, with the kind of quiet bravery I wish more could show, yet know I would be too weak to have.
Yet, although these are people who band together, united in a common faith, only the Salvation Army can be counted as being truly organised, in the sense of 'organised religion'. There again, they are better organised in an organisational sense than many, having mobile canteens, at the WTC by 10:30ET, and have been operating around the clock since, in addition to those working along side the emergency services.


Just my view....
 
my original reply was eaten by my IE crashing but I'll briefly synopsise:

the worst-case-scenario ourcomes of these events are:
a) a new crusade against Islamic Countries
b) a crack down on personal freedoms in the west

After re-reading some of the conspiracy materials I've been colating recently, I was struck by the way that Bilderberg members have been involved in every ethnic/religious conflict in the last ten+ years. Henry Kissinger (somebody who believes totalitarian states are more 'stable' than democracies, and therefore better serve american vested interests abroad) has been linked to Milosovic as well as other neer do wells. The CIA and MI6 trained Bin Laden, and Saddam.

Strange that no-one (as far as has been reported) mentioned the hijackers ethnic origins in the 20+ cell-phone calls from the planes.

I too, along with other posters, agree that although Americans have the right to calal for revenge, there is little practical revenge they can take.

Who benefits from this most. This may seem sick, but in a way it is the West and the US in particular that does. It gives them the moral upper hand, and therefore the international remit, to strike first and ask questions later (see Clinton's attacks on Sudan and Afghanistan - inaccurate, expensive and pointless). It also helps to reinforce anti-Islamic propaganda (cf the pictures of Pakistani kids firing bullets in the air and cheering - which was stopped by Palestinian police). Nearly all Islamic countries in the middle east (bar Iraq) have condemned it, and are rightly worried that they may be targetted by the US in retalliations ('terrorists and those that harbour terrorists' could be any country from Morrocco to Pakistan).

more later...
 
REPLY TO HARLEQUIN:


I can't dispute you. I'm not even thinking of 'organised' as some hierarchical kind of body. If were are talking in those terms, I would mean a personal organisation of one's own spirit and actions towards rightfulness and decency - true character which interfaces with others innately as a natural and invisible bond, without boundaries or worldly trappings.
 
Just wanted to repond to hermes and harlequins posts...

'Organised religion doesn't have a good track record...'

I always have found references to 'organised religion' funny. Who ever heard of a 'disorganised religion'? All religions are in some sense a system of social control, even buddhism (for all it's many good qualities) - they attempt to define a moral and social code which (in most of the 'respectable' religions) is originally meant to be for the survival of people, culture and scoiety at large. However, over time the initial 'good' of religious social control is usurped by powerful families, secret cabals, and initiates, and turns into something between a old boys club and a tyranny. Name me one recognised religion which has a female head. There aren't any. This is a sad state of affairs, and particularly at the moment when the boorish, violence obsessed western male is at his most tub-thumping. If only we had some women out their who commanded religious respect. Maybe they'd see beyond the ends of their fists and tell people to consider the future, and the moral well-being of the world, before the men went off and blasted the nearest rock in impotent rage.
 
Well said, Dot23. To me, organised religion - as opposed to self-belief - may have begun as a well-meaning little cult but is easily corrupted by the few to control the faithful masses. You know how these small ideas catch on until all the sheep follow suit.

IMO it's not sick to think that the West will benefit from this. I know there's obviously a human 'angle' and that this is a human tragedy, but have you seen the way the media are really going to town on that 'human angle'? It's to soften us up when they blast Afghanistan to bits. And, of course, we'll never get to see the women and children there desperately trying to escape. No Afghani human angle for us!

Muslims in England are already starting to be attacked. The media is portaying them all as fanatics - of course they're not. It's just another case of the sheep being willingly herded and manipulated into thinking in a way conducive to religio-political machinations.

Religion is the ultimate evil done to Man. When people begin to have faith in themselves as human beings and are held responsible for their own actions (no more 'it's god's way' and no more 'the devil made me do it') will civilisation actually become civilised.

By the way Dot23 - that's the Smiths, isn't it?!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top