On this day!

[HolyGrenadeFrenzy]

^^ There are some on the GTAF that were actually there.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Terrible. Thank god I was too small not to understand.

Anyone else see the irony in this?

 

 

It is very likely that he meant to say,” Thank God, I was too young to fully comprehend so I did not understand the situation enough to be traumatized by it."

 

The irony could only be his relation to the event of the time is still effecting him slightly and it is demonstrated in his use of language.

 

Possible, yet it could be as simple as a typing error.

 

Your world does seem smaller and larger at the same time as a young person and when you get older the opposite is true as well for it is both larger and smaller in the reverse standpoint of perspective.

 

Perhaps both are completely correct in an existential or transcendental manner.

I was actually referring to him thanking God that he was too small to comprehend what had happened while 3000 people were murdered and countless others had their lives shattered. But at least God was watching out for Skyline35's innocence.

Skipped over that approach for a reason with more than just sentiment and I am sure many ontological inquires where made that day.

[Effy in Chains]

I watched a rather sad documentary last night, quite depressing really. it was about "The Falling man", some guy was trying to find out who he was, one of the people falling from the building.

I saw that too, it really made me think about how desperate people trapped up there must have been and how i would probably have done the same.

[Mad Tony]

Well, it was either fall to their deaths or get burnt to death. Neither way is a really attractive option. They should've used the roofs to evacuate people via helicopter.

[MrGtaman]

 

So a building got demolished. Big deal.

you're ok in your mind?

USA lost 3,000 men in that day!

i remember it, i was 8 years old or 9

it was a big deal, how can you say about this "big deal." ?

Much more people died on single days also from man-made tragedies before and since, yet no-one remembers because they aren't American or from a First World/Western Country.

 

I remember it as a tragedy NOT solely because of the mere 3,000 who died on that day, but for the tens or even hundereds of thousands of innocents who died since as an excuse or as a result.

 

All human life is equal to me, beyond all notions of nationality.

RIP all innocent victims of war and politics.

I wonder how some people confuse casualties of terrorism with casualties of war. Some even mean to justify terrorists. That's totally wrong.

Terrorism is a tactic in asymmetric warfare - thus the US declared a war against terrorism as a retaliation of a previous act of war. Otherwise if 9/11 WASN'T an act of war - the War on Terror is groundless! That can't be now, can it?

 

Also I see no difference if it was either a civilian airliner demolitishing a building with people in it or an F16 many smaller buildings with a cummalitive total of more civilian people. At the end of the day, innocents civilians are being killed by people who they didn't do anything against.

 

And I really hope your not in anyway implying I personally would even consider justifying terrorists - especially since I've lost more than anyone in here has to terrorism, some very close family members and much more recently that 9/11. If so, I find it very offensive and vulgar, and I suggest you take it back if your not a complete degenerate hate-monger.

I actually meant all the anti-americanists who normally mix up terrorism with war in order to justify terrorists. I didn't think my words could offend you so unless you're one of them anti-americanists, I apologize. I'm sorry for your loss anyway.

 

The difference between a military operation and an act of terror is pretty simple -- soldiers don't have the intention of killing innocent civilians(otherwise it's a war crime and is treated respectively). Terrorists do, it is their primary goal -- kill as many civilians they can. During an actual war people are normally aware of what's about to happen so they can escape the conflict zone. You never know when and where an act of terror may occur though.

[blahblah1212]

So a building got demolished. Big deal.

It was not "a" building, it was 7 buildings, two of which were 110 stories tall and were in the middle of the busiest city in America. Get your facts straight .

[MrGtaman]

So a building got demolished. Big deal.

It was not "a" building, it was 7 buildings, two of which were 110 stories tall and were in the middle of the busiest city in America. Get your facts straight .

Dude, you might wanna check your sources.

[blahblah1212]

So a building got demolished. Big deal.

It was not "a" building, it was 7 buildings, two of which were 110 stories tall and were in the middle of the busiest city in America. Get your facts straight .

Dude, you might wanna check your sources.

I'm pretty sure I'm right. I'm sure, since anyone can edit it, misinformation on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center would stay for long

[MrGtaman]

So a building got demolished. Big deal.

It was not "a" building, it was 7 buildings, two of which were 110 stories tall and were in the middle of the busiest city in America. Get your facts straight .

Dude, you might wanna check your sources.

I'm pretty sure I'm right. I'm sure, since anyone can edit it, misinformation on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center would stay for long

It was about demolishing. Only 3 of 7 were actually demolished.

[Rebel]

Well, it was either fall to their deaths or get burnt to death. Neither way is a really attractive option. They should've used the roofs to evacuate people via helicopter.

From what I heard, people who went up to the roof to try and escape got to the door and it was locked. I'm pretty sure though that even if people did get onto the roof they probably wouldn't of been seen in time because of how much smoke there actually was.

[blahblah1212]

So a building got demolished. Big deal.

It was not "a" building, it was 7 buildings, two of which were 110 stories tall and were in the middle of the busiest city in America. Get your facts straight .

Dude, you might wanna check your sources.

I'm pretty sure I'm right. I'm sure, since anyone can edit it, misinformation on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center would stay for long

It was about demolishing. Only 3 of 7 were actually demolished.

Well, if it was wrong I apologize. But at least I TRIED to do research unlike the inconsiderate asshole known as Oxidizer.

[MrGtaman]

So a building got demolished. Big deal.

It was not "a" building, it was 7 buildings, two of which were 110 stories tall and were in the middle of the busiest city in America. Get your facts straight .

Dude, you might wanna check your sources.

I'm pretty sure I'm right. I'm sure, since anyone can edit it, misinformation on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center would stay for long

It was about demolishing. Only 3 of 7 were actually demolished.

Well, if it was wrong I apologize. But at least I TRIED to do research unlike the inconsiderate asshole known as Oxidizer.

Apparently his only research was watching zeitheist

[Mad Tony]

 

Well, it was either fall to their deaths or get burnt to death. Neither way is a really attractive option. They should've used the roofs to evacuate people via helicopter.

From what I heard, people who went up to the roof to try and escape got to the door and it was locked. I'm pretty sure though that even if people did get onto the roof they probably wouldn't of been seen in time because of how much smoke there actually was.

Probably. I also read the 9/11 Commission report* and it mentioned that there was no rooftop evacuation plan in place, and that a rooftop evacuation would've also been quite dangerous. I still think they should've tried though.

 

*Yeah, I'm one of the few people who's actually read the 9/11 commission report, go ahead and flame me. (not directed at you, Rebel )

Edited September 13, 2009 by Mad Tony

[Rebel]

Well, it was either fall to their deaths or get burnt to death. Neither way is a really attractive option. They should've used the roofs to evacuate people via helicopter.

From what I heard, people who went up to the roof to try and escape got to the door and it was locked. I'm pretty sure though that even if people did get onto the roof they probably wouldn't of been seen in time because of how much smoke there actually was.

Probably. I also read the 9/11 Commission report* and it mentioned that there was no rooftop evacuation plan in place, and that a rooftop evacuation would've also been quite dangerous. I still think they should've tried though.

 

*Yeah, I'm one of the few people who's actually read the 9/11 commission report, go ahead and flame me. (not directed at you, Rebel )

I don't think they would of actually evacuated people from on top of the building though, I mean I'm sure they would of if it had been something else like just a fire, but I'd think it would be quite unsafe to get some helicopters to land on the building considering it wasn't exactly the most stable thing after they both got hit.

[jimmy.]

The difference between a military operation and an act of terror is pretty simple -- soldiers don't have the intention of killing innocent civilians(otherwise it's a war crime and is treated respectively). Terrorists do, it is their primary goal -- kill as many civilians they can. During an actual war people are normally aware of what's about to happen so they can escape the conflict zone. You never know when and where an act of terror may occur though.

That's complete bullsh*t, by the way, all of it, but specifically what I bolded. It's often impossible for people to flee war-torn regions. No one was let out of the Gaza Strip, for example, during Israel's assault on Gaza earlier this year, despite it being one of the most densely populated areas of the world. A majority of civilians died during the seige of Gaza, but I doubt you'd call the Israeli soldiers "terrorists", if I can just guess.

 

"Terrorism" (which by your definition most likely means war crimes of non-US allies) by groups such as Al-Qaeda doesn't solely target civilians either, but it also targets military targets as well. Would you not call the attack on the USS Cole "terrorism"?

 

I have no ideas of the real intentions of whoever is planning the Iraq War, but the invasion of Iraq has killed directly or indirectly, a majority of civilians by nearly all estimates. Once you get to sheer hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths, intentions really don't matter much anymore. Gross negligence towards the civilian death toll is pretty the same as it being intentional.

[GrandMaster Smith]

yeah its sad we lost 3,000 innocent lives at 9-11 but really for what? to get america up and against 'terrorists' so we can invade iraq.. but has anyone actually thought of how many people we've killed over there? like even if it were a real terrorist attack, we go over there and just completely f*ck stuff up. america sucks

[Tobias Fünke]

Why do people keep saying that Iraq had something to do with 9/11? Are they f*cking stupid?

[SanAndreasManiac]

9/11 attacks killed 3,000 civillians, hurted the richest country in the world, gave an alibi to a war against Iraq, and deleted fun parts from GTA3 Beta!

SCREW YOU, TERRORISTS!!

[Max]

The difference between a military operation and an act of terror is pretty simple -- soldiers don't have the intention of killing innocent civilians(otherwise it's a war crime and is treated respectively). Terrorists do, it is their primary goal -- kill as many civilians they can. During an actual war people are normally aware of what's about to happen so they can escape the conflict zone. You never know when and where an act of terror may occur though.

That's complete bullsh*t, by the way, all of it, but specifically what I bolded. It's often impossible for people to flee war-torn regions. No one was let out of the Gaza Strip, for example, during Israel's assault on Gaza earlier this year, despite it being one of the most densely populated areas of the world. A majority of civilians died during the seige of Gaza, but I doubt you'd call the Israeli soldiers "terrorists", if I can just guess.

 

"Terrorism" (which by your definition most likely means war crimes of non-US allies) by groups such as Al-Qaeda doesn't solely target civilians either, but it also targets military targets as well. Would you not call the attack on the USS Cole "terrorism"?

 

I have no ideas of the real intentions of whoever is planning the Iraq War, but the invasion of Iraq has killed directly or indirectly, a majority of civilians by nearly all estimates. Once you get to sheer hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths, intentions really don't matter much anymore. Gross negligence towards the civilian death toll is pretty the same as it being intentional.

The problem is that Terroists aren't going out to kill Civilians, they're going out to make thier point, their target might be anything from a military installation to a civilian train, but to their eyes all casualties sustained by the other side are Collateral damage, a necessary consequence of completing their mission sccessfully and violently pressing their case.

 

In a similar fashion Civilian casualties, collateral damge, is factored into all Western Military operations. It's expected; and although percieved as tragic by most modern Armies they're still waging war in the knowledge that civilians will die. It's a difference which arises from the fact that 'war' means different things to each side in this conflict. Although we see the deliberate bombing of civilians as cowardly terror, the enemy sees it as either collateral or success.

 

jimmy is right, terrorism is a label attatched to military operations the West views as alien. To the perpetrators it's War, plain and simple.

[D- Ice]

 

So a building got demolished. Big deal.

you're ok in your mind?

USA lost 3,000 men in that day!

i remember it, i was 8 years old or 9

it was a big deal, how can you say about this "big deal." ?

Much more people died on single days also from man-made tragedies before and since, yet no-one remembers because they aren't American or from a First World/Western Country.

 

I remember it as a tragedy NOT solely because of the mere 3,000 who died on that day, but for the tens or even hundereds of thousands of innocents who died since as an excuse or as a result.

 

All human life is equal to me, beyond all notions of nationality.

RIP all innocent victims of war and politics.

I wonder how some people confuse casualties of terrorism with casualties of war. Some even mean to justify terrorists. That's totally wrong.

Terrorism is a tactic in asymmetric warfare - thus the US declared a war against terrorism as a retaliation of a previous act of war. Otherwise if 9/11 WASN'T an act of war - the War on Terror is groundless! That can't be now, can it?

 

Also I see no difference if it was either a civilian airliner demolitishing a building with people in it or an F16 many smaller buildings with a cummalitive total of more civilian people. At the end of the day, innocents civilians are being killed by people who they didn't do anything against.

 

And I really hope your not in anyway implying I personally would even consider justifying terrorists - especially since I've lost more than anyone in here has to terrorism, some very close family members and much more recently that 9/11. If so, I find it very offensive and vulgar, and I suggest you take it back if your not a complete degenerate hate-monger.

I actually meant all the anti-americanists who normally mix up terrorism with war in order to justify terrorists. I didn't think my words could offend you so unless you're one of them anti-americanists, I apologize. I'm sorry for your loss anyway.

 

The difference between a military operation and an act of terror is pretty simple -- soldiers don't have the intention of killing innocent civilians(otherwise it's a war crime and is treated respectively). Terrorists do, it is their primary goal -- kill as many civilians they can. During an actual war people are normally aware of what's about to happen so they can escape the conflict zone. You never know when and where an act of terror may occur though.

Don't worry man, if I took everything offensive to heart, I would have long lost myself and my mentality.

 

Well anyway, I was actually there in Iraq during the 2003 invasion, and I assure you NO-ONE knew when a military attack was gonna happen - most were secret, with international media coverage largely scrambled or unavailable due to the distruction of most broadcast stations and scramblers used. The prupose was to not let the opposing forces know, so they wont prepare a defense.

 

And your comment about intention of killing civilians is very thought-provoking. not sure if we should continue the debate here or take it to PM or something. Anyway, at the end of the day, yes, terrorist do kill more civilians than any regular army. However, there are many psychopaths in the US army who kill and abuse civilians, some vets even admitt some of the orders where given to them from superiors in the highest ranks. Even if said soldiers are caught, there punishment is usually disgusting - a slap on the hand or outright aquital. Yet you kill one US citizen under the same circumstances, and it's the gas-chamber. That is perhaps what gotten most Iraqis to dispise the US forces and now failing the "hearts-and-minds" goal and driving the country right into Iran's influence.

 

The US military has the official PR representation expertise, which irregular forces and terrorists lack, to deny those wrong-doing were their official intentions on-record - though off-record, it is sadly often a different story.

 

Another thing is all the homes with innocent families bombed "as a mistake" or because they were percieved as a threat. Al Qaeda claims that the people in the WTC were a threat for causing the economic and consiquent social and infastructure downfall of their country - despite in actual fact the people there were innocents working in the private sector with NOTHING to do with US government economic promises they say they were made. This brings the whole concept of when a civilian not a civilian, and when are they a threat who can be justifiably killed. Also, where can the line be drawn of what is a mistake or accident, and what is sheer disregard for civilian life?

 

As for the Iraqi people (myself included), I definately know who is kinder and respects our lives more - though nothing is perfect. We must choose the lesser of two evils - until we can at least get somesort of society at least in order to start heading our own way. That unfortunately many do not understand, instead opting for the path were we choose the third party both current powers will probably do their best to prevent from existing.

 

Anyway, appologies everyone else for the completely offtopic rant (again), from now I'll take it all elsewhere.

 

@ Man jumping out of the window: Actually, it wasn't just one man, but many people were jumping out of windows, as well as falling after unsuccessfully trying to use the ledge to walk across to other parts of that floor in order not to burn to death. Others just jumped into the fire out of a desperate last-ditch attempt to go through it and escape. I must say, that's the most saddening and depressing thing that got to me of the whole event.

Edited September 14, 2009 by D- Ice

[Chewie]

I think this topic should be locked because 9/11 is over.

[blowdro420]

9/11 attacks killed 3,000 civillians, hurted the richest country in the world, gave an alibi to a war against Iraq, and deleted fun parts from GTA3 Beta!

SCREW YOU, TERRORISTS!!

iraq had no involvement, that's the problem with 90% of americans, they don't know the difference.

[Titanfan]

Its f*cked up. I don't even see how we've made any progress.

We really haven't done anything about it.

[blowdro420]

it is f*cked up. first osama did it. but wait, he was on dialysis in 98'. how could he live through 2001, much less 2009. now all of a sudden khalid sheikh mohammed is responsible? our government needs someone to blame to take away the blame about themselves. nothing will ever be done. mark my words.

[Typhus]

What I remember most about 9/11 is two things really.

 

1. People throwing themselves off the towers, the image of that was truly surreal, and I can't imagine the fear of those who were forced into such an act.

2. Reports that people in Palestine were dancing in the streets when they heard the news.

 

The two things that really stick in my mind.

[SanAndreasManiac]

9/11 attacks killed 3,000 civillians, hurted the richest country in the world, gave an alibi to a war against Iraq, and deleted fun parts from GTA3 Beta!

SCREW YOU, TERRORISTS!!

iraq had no involvement, that's the problem with 90% of americans, they don't know the difference.

and britishes too, at the time of the subway bombings, London cops killed a brazilian only bcoz he barely resembled a muslim (doesn't matter how much) and was running from then (actually, he was running for the train, like anyone in a hurry)

[D- Ice]

 

What I remember most about 9/11 is two things really.

 

1. People throwing themselves off the towers, the image of that was truly surreal, and I can't imagine the fear of those who were forced into such an act.

2. Reports that people in Palestine were dancing in the streets when they heard the news.

 

The two things that really stick in my mind.

 

What I remember most also is all the Siekhs being attacked in the US because of their turbans, before they managed to identify whose a Muslim better and attack them instead. Shows how closed minded, agreesive and evil people can be - or rather how much f*cktarded (yeah I like making new words up) said aggressive and violent individuals are.

 

@ SanAndreasManiac: I think the police mistaken him for an Pakistani/South Asia, who make up the majority of Muslims in the UK. I agree it was completely unjustified, but I think now this has left a bitter taste in the police's mouth so now they hopefully wont be so gun-happy.

And normal people here in the UK (well my city at least) are generally a lot more resistant to stereotypes which are somewhat more of a stigma here, compared to the US.

 

@ blowdro420: Haha so true, they always need some "Hollywood Big-Boss Final Baddie" to blame. Though now The War On Terror is no longer about defeating the people responsible directly (if it was a single person who all the blame can be placed upon, which I highly doubt). It is more about defeating the anti-West political organisations who are rallying support and trying to win influence via the guises of Islam (Al Qaeda in Pakistan, Ayatollahs in Iran) or Socialism (Hugo Chavez's government in Venezuala, FARC-EP in Colombia). The warzones are resource rich or geographically strategic areas, with the enemy using unconventional warfare and terrorism against the much stronger Coalition/Western conventional forces.

 

So it is just another war, and hopefully like every other war, it will end sooner or later. But unfortunately for places like Iraq, time is neither on the civilian's nor the Coalition forces' side.

[MrGtaman]

 

So a building got demolished. Big deal.

you're ok in your mind?

USA lost 3,000 men in that day!

i remember it, i was 8 years old or 9

it was a big deal, how can you say about this "big deal." ?

Much more people died on single days also from man-made tragedies before and since, yet no-one remembers because they aren't American or from a First World/Western Country.

 

I remember it as a tragedy NOT solely because of the mere 3,000 who died on that day, but for the tens or even hundereds of thousands of innocents who died since as an excuse or as a result.

 

All human life is equal to me, beyond all notions of nationality.

RIP all innocent victims of war and politics.

I wonder how some people confuse casualties of terrorism with casualties of war. Some even mean to justify terrorists. That's totally wrong.

Terrorism is a tactic in asymmetric warfare - thus the US declared a war against terrorism as a retaliation of a previous act of war. Otherwise if 9/11 WASN'T an act of war - the War on Terror is groundless! That can't be now, can it?

 

Also I see no difference if it was either a civilian airliner demolitishing a building with people in it or an F16 many smaller buildings with a cummalitive total of more civilian people. At the end of the day, innocents civilians are being killed by people who they didn't do anything against.

 

And I really hope your not in anyway implying I personally would even consider justifying terrorists - especially since I've lost more than anyone in here has to terrorism, some very close family members and much more recently that 9/11. If so, I find it very offensive and vulgar, and I suggest you take it back if your not a complete degenerate hate-monger.

I actually meant all the anti-americanists who normally mix up terrorism with war in order to justify terrorists. I didn't think my words could offend you so unless you're one of them anti-americanists, I apologize. I'm sorry for your loss anyway.

 

The difference between a military operation and an act of terror is pretty simple -- soldiers don't have the intention of killing innocent civilians(otherwise it's a war crime and is treated respectively). Terrorists do, it is their primary goal -- kill as many civilians they can. During an actual war people are normally aware of what's about to happen so they can escape the conflict zone. You never know when and where an act of terror may occur though.

Don't worry man, if I took everything offensive to heart, I would have long lost myself and my mentality.

 

Well anyway, I was actually there in Iraq during the 2003 invasion, and I assure you NO-ONE knew when a military attack was gonna happen - most were secret, with international media coverage largely scrambled or unavailable due to the distruction of most broadcast stations and scramblers used. The prupose was to not let the opposing forces know, so they wont prepare a defense.

 

And your comment about intention of killing civilians is very thought-provoking. not sure if we should continue the debate here or take it to PM or something. Anyway, at the end of the day, yes, terrorist do kill more civilians than any regular army. However, there are many psychopaths in the US army who kill and abuse civilians, some vets even admitt some of the orders where given to them from superiors in the highest ranks. Even if said soldiers are caught, there punishment is usually disgusting - a slap on the hand or outright aquital. Yet you kill one US citizen under the same circumstances, and it's the gas-chamber. That is perhaps what gotten most Iraqis to dispise the US forces and now failing the "hearts-and-minds" goal and driving the country right into Iran's influence.

 

The US military has the official PR representation expertise, which irregular forces and terrorists lack, to deny those wrong-doing were their official intentions on-record - though off-record, it is sadly often a different story.

 

Another thing is all the homes with innocent families bombed "as a mistake" or because they were percieved as a threat. Al Qaeda claims that the people in the WTC were a threat for causing the economic and consiquent social and infastructure downfall of their country - despite in actual fact the people there were innocents working in the private sector with NOTHING to do with US government economic promises they say they were made. This brings the whole concept of when a civilian not a civilian, and when are they a threat who can be justifiably killed. Also, where can the line be drawn of what is a mistake or accident, and what is sheer disregard for civilian life?

 

As for the Iraqi people (myself included), I definately know who is kinder and respects our lives more - though nothing is perfect. We must choose the lesser of two evils - until we can at least get somesort of society at least in order to start heading our own way. That unfortunately many do not understand, instead opting for the path were we choose the third party both current powers will probably do their best to prevent from existing.

 

Anyway, appologies everyone else for the completely offtopic rant (again), from now I'll take it all elsewhere.

 

@ Man jumping out of the window: Actually, it wasn't just one man, but many people were jumping out of windows, as well as falling after unsuccessfully trying to use the ledge to walk across to other parts of that floor in order not to burn to death. Others just jumped into the fire out of a desperate last-ditch attempt to go through it and escape. I must say, that's the most saddening and depressing thing that got to me of the whole event.

So if I understood you correctly, Saddam Hussein & co. prevented people from getting information related to the coming war? Well it's not U.S fault then, blame that tough guy that was in charge. The whole world knew Bush was going to invade Iraq, he'd even tried to solve it diplomatically by offering Hussein to resign. Plus you know INC and Kurdish forces were among the allies.

 

Yes, unfortunately there are some mentally unstable people in the army(not only the U.S army faces this issue, war is a terrible thing, you know), however, they don't end up well.

 

You know, Hitler had seen Jews as a treat, he used to claim that they were the cause of all the wars that had ever happened, but does that justify him and his actions against them? And what do you consider "their" country? I never heard Al Qaeda associated itself with any particular country. Yet they associate themselves with Islam which you know is totally wrong especially if you're a muslim(are you?). But what do they achieve anyway? Nothing useful I guess. They just kill innocent people for absolutely no purpose. That's very sad.

 

 

"Terrorism" (which by your definition most likely means war crimes of non-US allies) by groups such as Al-Qaeda doesn't solely target civilians either, but it also targets military targets as well. Would you not call the attack on the USS Cole "terrorism"?

 

Wrong. War crimes are war crimes and have nothing to do with terrorism. The attack on the USS Cole was an attack against the U.S military just like Pearl Harbor. Only Japan was an actual enemy.

 

Intentions mean a lot in determining the nature of the particular event. You don't call a serial killer who killed over 9000 people a terrorist, do you? You don't call a crazy kid who brings a gun to school and shoots his classmates a terrorist, do you? Come on, people, fact is that people die everyday due to various reasons and we can't just blame everyone who seems to be responsible. You blame America because an american bomb unintentionally hit a civilian in Iraq, but you don't blame all the muslims because a bunch of fanatics kill people, covering behind the name of Allah.

Edited September 14, 2009 by MrGtaman

[Mad Tony]

What I remember most about 9/11 is two things really.

 

1. People throwing themselves off the towers, the image of that was truly surreal, and I can't imagine the fear of those who were forced into such an act.

2. Reports that people in Palestine were dancing in the streets when they heard the news.

 

The two things that really stick in my mind.

Finally, a post that's actually on-topic and not just bitching about the Iraq war or how 9/11 was "an inside job".

 

I don't know if it's just me here but I didn't find people falling from the towers as shocking in comparison to the towers actually collapsing. Although you don't see it, hundreds of people died instantly when the South Tower fell. Very horrific when you think about it.

[D- Ice]

 

Snippty schnip.

 

No, while the Ba'athist were giving out false propoganda (guy shooting down Apache with M1 Garand anyone?), everyone pretty much knew they were full of sh*t. That was just in the first couple days when the Coalition was near Basra - without having even reached Najaf yet. Then the US jammers started kicking in, stopping ALL broadcasts. We knew the war was underway, but knew nothing about the purpose or progress, and when they are gonna reach us/which areas are gonna be safe. Foriegn broadcasts and sattalites weren't allowed, so all we knew was Ba'athist propoganda before that was stopped. There was mass hysteria, and despite being scared myself, I can never forget the fear in my parents as all we knew were foriegn forces (not even American) were invading. Thats it - you can imagine how you would feel if the same happened in your country.

 

And the Kurds? You mean those Socialist Racist Terrorists the PKK/Peshmarga? Those guys wanted to kick Arabs out virtually all of Iraq and set up a Socialist Kurdish state. I lived in Diyala (quite close to their territories) and once shortly after the '91 war, they descended into town with their machine-gun mounted pick-ups and took over the police station - killing everyone except two hostages. Only because the country was under a dictator, it doesn't at all justify killing of cops who have nothing to do with politics - nor the poor farmers we hear being abducted, killed or forcibly removed every year. Ofcourse Saddam's propoganda makes it all sound dandy and they virtually don't exist, but living in Diyala with relatives in Zohra is a different story.

 

Now finally the US started to recognise those scumbags as terrorists. Everyone knew that before that - just like with Maliki's Dawa Jihad Party - they're terrorist scum, but the US supported them as 'Tokken Iraqis' fighting a much bigger evil at the time. Now Iraq's central government is an Iranian Ayatollah puppet - throwing a tantrum everytime the US arrests some well-known Iranian intelligent agents with proof of helping smuggle terrorist fighters and weapons into Iraq, as well as training and brainwashing terrorists - yet when thousands are murdered by carbombs and militia-controlled police/army death squads, he just repeats the phrase "Security Crackdown."

 

I completely agree with what you said about Hitler and the Jews, but whats the point your trying to make? Yes it does show that attacking the WTC thinking the innocents there are the reason behind Aghanistan's economic problems and poverty is wrong, and so is bombing civilian homes and killing innocents there thinking they are resonsible for terrorist attacks is also wrong. Killing of all civilians by anyone is wrong IMO.

 

And about Al Qaeda, while they claim their motive is Islam in order to get mass-appeal, most of the organisation is based and run from Pakistan. Many of the coalition forces there say most of the weapons and fighters are coming in from across the border - though Afghani poppy field are a vital source of funding for them. Most of the Heroin is ironically sold of to the West via Iranian, Turkish and Russian gangs.

 

And ofcourse I of all people should know what the terrorists are doing is completely wrong, having lost many family members to both Militias and Al Qaeda. Though no, I'm not a Muslim.

 

Lol I think we're beginning to piss some people off, you wanna settle this outside like gentlemen (PM's)?

 

@ Mad Tony: Not really, the disturbing thing about the people jumping out of the window is the unimaginable hopelessness and fear they must have experienced before death - that is in having to choose in which horrible way to die. Slowly burn to death or (as is most likely the case) cardiac arrest and a lot of fear falling onto the concrete.

 

I would much rather be someone in the south tower to be instantly crushed to death, than having to endure such agony before I die.

 

Also the roof idea isn't viable. Not only does it present the danger of suffocating, and the fact helicopters can't have at all seen the people or where to land through the thick smoke, the people would have been burnt alive but with the scale of the fires, the smoke would have easily been hot enough to burn the people alive. Also, the staircases served as furnace chimney - the only people who could have used them were thouse below the fires.

Edited September 14, 2009 by D- Ice

[_Rob_]

Well, it was either fall to their deaths or get burnt to death. Neither way is a really attractive option. They should've used the roofs to evacuate people via helicopter.

they couldn't people esaped to the roofs but the smoke was too thick for heli's to get there so people either jumped or were still there when they collapsed