Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 78
  1. #41  
    Originally posted by dampeoples
    Calling me out was not, in my opinion a diplomatic way to approach this.

    Originally posted by Newboy
    I should have been more diplomatic. Sorry.

    Thanks guys. For the record I could have been nicer about it too. I just didn't want to see more saber rattling and the mods haven't been making their presences known of late.

    On topic, a number of experts have chimed in on CNN that they feel Osama bin Laden is the most likely originator, though bin Laden's camp has announced "We had nothing to do with it." However bin laden isn't known for honesty.

    I frankly don't know what to think or believe. These events were all I could think of all thru my shift last night, especially since I couldn't find out what Bush said in his 9pm statement.

    I'm a pacifist and believe war is not an appropriate solution to anything. However it looks inevitable right now.
    The light at the end of your tunnel has been disconnected due to non-payment. Please remit funds immediately for restoration of hope.
  2. #42  
    Originally posted by shockwave869
    Do we know that???
    True, not as of yet, but it seems unlikely that a nation would have done it without a declaration of war.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  3. #43  
    Originally posted by j762538
    I think no one, even the terrorist, envisioned a total loss of both buildings.
    My personal belief is that they did envision a total loss of both buildings and knew that another bomb in the parking garage wasn't the way to do it.

    Apparently, there was an interception of a radio transmission "from a group associated with Bin Laden" that indicated they "got two targets." This is according to CNN last night.
  4. #44  
    And also, the Empire State Building once withstood a B-57 crashing into it.
    Right. but the Empire State Building is built much differently. Apparently, according to the BBC, the WTC was actually prone to this type of attack do to the way it was constructed.
    Well, it was actually a B-25 Mitchell that hit the Empire State Building. A B-25 bomber has a maximum gross weight of about 35,000 and a max cruise of about 275 MPH. A 767 on the other hand has a max gross weight of slightly over 300,000 and a max cruise of just under 600 MPH. Now, given that they were at sea-level and didn't seem to be going quite flat-out, we'll say they hit the WTC tower at 500 MPH. A quick kinetic energy calculation shows that the WTC towers were hit with a force 28 times greater than the Empire State Building (198 trillion foot/pounds, if you must know). You have to realize, though, that the building withstood the impact, and stood for more than an hour before collapsing. The designers, in fact, did their job. A good hurricane would exert far more force on the buildings than that momentary impact. The sad thing is, these planes had practically a full load of fuel. A B-25 only carries 974 gallons on a good day, whereas a 767 has close to 24,000 gallons. The ensuing fire from the jet fuel is what really did the damage to the buildings, by burning the interior of the building and weakening the structure. The weight of the building itself above the crash site did the rest.

    The thing that I haven't really heard the news talk about, and the thing that I am most grateful for is: it could have been much worse. The first plane hit around 90 floors up (I believe) and the second hit around the 60th floor. In the hour before the collapse, a lot of people were able to get out that might not have been able to if the planes hit, say, the 20th floor. Also, 757 and 767 can carry between 200-300 passengers, plus crew. I think the most that was on any one planes was 90, and one had as few as 50. 266 people were on those planes, and that is horrible. One person is too many. However, at a different day of the week, on fully loaded flights, it could have been well over 1,000 people instead.

    My heart goes out to those who lost loved ones yesterday. I, thankfully, don't know anyone in New York or D.C. and the only impact on my daily life were the stupid price gouging gas stations (which seem to be back to normal today). We can now only help where we can. A group from church got together yesterday to donate blood, and my company is matching employee donations to the Red Cross. Please do what you can to help. Thanks.
    Soul Raven - "Små hjerne, stor glæde"
    Wherever you go, there you are.
  5. #45  
    I say this after a lot of deliberation and after consideration of the consequences: Assuming bin Laden's group was behind this, I think we ought to use tactical nuclear weapons on all terrorist bases used by bin Laden. Avoid population centers and civilian targets, but wipe out the bases completely.

    These guys used the most devestating weapons they could get their hands on. We should too.
  6. #46  
    I doubt use of tactical nukes would be prudent, nor really very effective. It's sort of like using a a ton of explosives to kill a rabbit. Right now, we have a lot of real support in the capitols of the west, and even rhetorical support elsewhere. Use of nukes would cause some or all of that support to evaporate.

    I'm not saying we should necessarilly calibrate our response to what will please world opinion, but there's no point in aggravating everyone else if something less controversial that would be equally effective.

    It would be equally effective (or ineffective), but less controversial, to simply send a bunch of B-52s over and carpet bomb the sites with conventional explosives and/or use fuel-air bomb airbursts.

    Better yet - if it turns out to be Bin Laden and co., make it clear to the Taliban leadership that their lives are personally forfeit and that massive, sustained (conventional) airstrikes will be unleased on Afghanistan until they turn over Bin Laden and his top lieutenants and operatives.
  7. #47  
    Assuming bin Laden's group was behind this, I think we ought to use tactical nuclear weapons on all terrorist bases used by bin Laden.
    I would have to respectfully disagree. I think as a country, we're all jumping the gun a bit. Did anyone here Orin Hatch's comments yesterday? The guy was ready to get a shotgun posse together and go kick some arab ***.

    It's making us look like a bunch of steroid-taking, fraternity jocks.

    Retaliation is most likely inevitable, and I could be convinced that it is the right thing to do. However, the WRONG thing to do is to act without a complete understanding of what happened and who's actually behind this and we need to be absolutely sure that we do not put foreign civilians at risk...or else we're not better than the people that attacked us.

    I've been hearing reports of islamic and arabic centers across the country being shut down due to threatening phone calls and emails. I find this to be as sad as the actual attack on the WTC. We're now attacking each other. C'mon America...let's get our act together and stand up against this attack in a mature, reasoned way.
    We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
    -David Byrne
  8. #48  
    Right now the wtwo most important things to be done are
    [list=1][*]Rescue any survivors.[*]Identify who is responsible.[/list=1]
    Once we know with certainty who is responsible, they need to be destroyed. The big issue here is that the US needs to declare war on the government that is harboring them. This government also needs to be destroyed.

    An international terrorist organization that can pull off something like yesterdays attacks doesn't just rent a house somewhere and use it as a headquarters. The infrastructure requires the tacit support of the government of the state that they are using.

    The only possible way to discourage terrorism at this level is to make the cost too high to the landlords.

    If it turns out that the attack was actually run by a foriegn government, the same rules apply.
  9. #49  
    And also, the Empire State Building once withstood a B-57 crashing into it.
    Well, it was actually a B-25 Mitchell that hit the Empire State Building.
    And don't forget that big ape that climbed it back in 1933.

    My wife's best friend lives on the North end of Manhattan and we were able to communicate with her by email and get in touch with her family to let them know she was okay. I heard on the radio this morning that there were people calling on cell phones within the rubble to let people know they were still in there. Let's pray that the rescuers can reach them in time. My sister-in laws husband is a volunteer firefighter in Michigan and they are being mobilized to go help in New York.

    Last night thinking about the bombings, seeing the people in Palestine rejoicing and remembering the basketball game where certain individuals refused to stand for the national anthem to show their distaste for the American "system" and how "their" people had been mistreated; I was in total agreement with haberman. The thought of turning all that sand into glass gave temporary relief to my rage and sense of helplessness. However, today I think that would be too easy. It also doesn't really show your capability. It is not that difficult to deploy a nuclear bomb. If I have my facts correct; when the American embassy was taken over, the Russian was also taken over. We tried to negotiate, the Russians said "Release our embassy or we will totally destroy you." Their embassy was immediately released. We were not so fortunate. You history majors, please correct me if I'm wrong.

    It is difficult to gather the information, analyze it and strategically seek out and eliminate everyone involved as well as those that aided them. I hope we have the ability to do that. But what I really hope is that we use this opportunity to reprioritize what is important to us as a nation. Unlike Yorick, I am not a pacifist. I'm somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun. However, we need to be smart about what we do. Now I find out if I voted for the right person.
    "If you would not be forgotten, as soon as you are dead and rotten, either write things worth reading, or do things worth the writing." Benjamin Franklin
  10. #50  
    Originally posted by homer
    Did anyone here Orin Hatch's comments yesterday? The guy was ready to get a shotgun posse together and go kick some arab ***.
    Bush, however, seems to be approaching this in the correct, calm, methodical way. Clearly, we don't need to go off half-cocked.

    It's making us look like a bunch of steroid-taking, fraternity jocks.....I've been hearing reports of islamic and arabic centers across the country being shut down due to threatening phone calls and emails.
    You are condemning stereotypes while perpetrating one.

    I find this to be as sad as the actual attack on the WTC.
    It may be sad, but it's not really comparable.
  11. #51  
    You are condemning stereotypes while perpetrating one.
    Ouch. You're right. My apologies.

    It may be sad, but it's not really comparable.
    Yea...I wouldn't call them comparable, either...just really sad.
    We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
    -David Byrne
  12. #52  
    Originally posted by homer
    ...just really sad.
    I totally agree.
  13. #53  
    Whodoneit? Howdoneit?

    What about the Whydoneit? and I don't mean immediate motives. The immediate motives are inexcuseable.

    The prior causes, however, were at least partially in our power to change. The lines drawn up after WW1 and WW2, the unmitigated support of Israel, the attitude of imperialism and even colonialism, the support of Afghani rebels against the USSR (including bin Laden). All these things were within our power to alter, and we did not.

    Does it excuse it, of course not. But it begins to explain it.

    Simply increasing the amount of force we have behind these policies won't fix the problem, no amount of force will deter killers, and in this day and age, a relative few can kill many with only training and knives (knives!). After we justifiably bomb the living hell out of who's responsible, it may be time to rethink our foreign policy. Not as giving in to terrorism, but as a way to be as human in our own policies as we demand other countries to be in theirs.

    ...and if it's religion that caused it, well... maybe I'll post something over in the Inane Ramblings thread.
  14. #54  
    To lay blame in any way, shape, or form on our country's policies is sickening. American foreign policy is guilty of nothing more then looking out for America. There will always be groups filled with rage and jealousy for all that we have and they do not. We should not cater to their ignorance or empty rage by changing our policies to appease them. Appeasement never works.
  15. #55  
    Said By Soul Raven:
    My heart goes out to those who lost loved ones yesterday. I, thankfully, don't know anyone in New York or D.C. and the only impact on my daily life were the stupid price gouging gas stations (which seem to be back to normal today). We can now only help where we can. A group from church got together yesterday to donate blood, and my company is matching employee donations to the Red Cross. Please do what you can to help. Thanks.
    I did lose a good friend. A worker at AON Insurance who worked on the 100th floor of the South Tower. That tower was the second one hit but the first to collapse.

    Amy was 42 and married. They did not have any children (they couldn't) and she and Dave had just signed the adoption papers last week and were to pick up their new child this coming weekend. After the plane crashed into the building they were trapped because the fires had closed off all of the escape routes from their office. After a while she was able to reach her husband at his office from her cell phone. While they were talking Dave heard a loud rumbling and then Amy screamed and the phone went dead.

    Please say a prayer for my friend and all of the other thousands of casualties and their families and friends. GIVE BLOOD!
    Jonathan
  16. #56  
    Originally posted by visoronfire
    To lay blame in any way, shape, or form on our country's policies is sickening. American foreign policy is guilty of nothing more then looking out for America.
    "Laying blame" isn't exactly what I meant to do, and neither did I mean to say that it is somehow the direct fault of our foreign policy. Obviously, acts of this nature are beyond the pale in many ways. But there are ways of thinking about our foreign policy that we have specifically avoided, that should not have been ignored.

    There will always be groups filled with rage and jealousy for all that we have and they do not. We should not cater to their ignorance or empty rage by changing our policies to appease them. Appeasement never works.
    Agreed.

    It would be a difficult issue even if there weren't unbelievable and staggering losses.

    ...perhaps an analogy: Bad parenting often leads to psychotic adults that murder. Is the murder right? No, of course not, and the murderer must be held accountable. Is the only solution to the murder to bring him to justice? No, we must also strive to change the behaviors that lead to the acts in the first place.

    Of course, I'm not talking about so direct a link, but rather the historical reality that America helped to create the conditions in which the Middle East now finds itself. Don't get me wrong, these attacks are clearly the result of unhinged, evil minds, and need to be treated accordingly.

    Finally, I'm talking about a discussion that we ought to have WAY down the line, because I am sure that it will be forgotten. In the meantime, I of course stand with the rest of the free world in support of the state of America and the actions she will take in response to what was done to us.
  17. #57  
    What about the Whydoneit? and I don't mean immediate motives. The immediate motives are inexcuseable.


    The prior causes, however, were at least partially in our power to change. The lines drawn up after WW1 and WW2, the unmitigated support of Israel, the attitude of imperialism and even colonialism, the support of Afghani rebels against the USSR (including bin Laden). All these things were within our power to alter, and we did not.
    I strongly disagree with your analysis. How do the lines drawn after WW1 or WW2 explain the killing of thousands of innocent Americans? What should we do about Israel - abandon them to the same group of fanatics who would be happy to bring about a second Holocaust? I really don't see how supporting Afghani relatives against the USSR "explains" yesterday, other than the fact that some of these ungrateful bastards learned a thing or two about weapons that they now plan to turn against us.

    What happened yesterday is wholly without explanation, justification, or excuse. You can't really explain evil.

    We face an enemy motivated by implacable hatred of Western culture and civilization. Changing our policies in any substantive manner in response to this incident, or to head off another one, is nothing else but appeasement. I'd suggest you ask the jews of Poland, Czechoslovakia, and other countries occupied by the Nazi's during WWII whether appeasement buys you peace, except most of them died during the war.
  18. #58  
    [quote]Whydoneit?[quote]

    Yes! This is a VERY important bit of information that is missing from nearly all of the media coverage. I bet a minority of Americans actually fully understand the motives behind the Afghan's and Palestinians attitude towards us. I sure don't.

    To lay blame in any way, shape, or form on our country's policies is sickening.
    dietrichbohn wasn't BLAMING our policies, merely pointing out the fact that it is important to understand WHY this happened, and it very well could have roots in our foreign policies.

    To say that America is innocent of bad foreign policy is to ignore the realities of our government. Our government does have a lot of bad policies that hurt a lot of innocent people on this planet. By no means are the bad policies a majority of our policies, but they are there. And maybe, by looking at some of these policies, we can reduce the chances of this happening again, no matter how slightly.

    What happened yesterday is wholly without explanation, justification, or excuse. You can't really explain evil.
    True. But sometimes you can explain the motives behind evil...or, at the very least, try to begin and understand them.
    We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
    -David Byrne
  19. #59  
    Last edited by Fat_Man; 09/12/2001 at 11:27 PM.
    Fat's
  20. #60  
    Originally posted by VTL
    How do the lines drawn after WW1 or WW2 explain the killing of thousands of innocent Americans?
    They do not explain it, as I have labored to say at least twice now (read the whole post), but they are a "prior cause."
    What should we do about Israel - abandon them to the same group of fanatics who would be happy to bring about a second Holocaust?
    What do we do about Palestine? Apparently, uproot them and leave them to be disenfranchised, hunted, assisinated, oppressed, and now, demonized. Damned if you do, Damned if you don't. It's one big, nasty, ugly, terrible mess.
    I really don't see how supporting Afghani relatives against the USSR "explains" yesterday, other than the fact that some of these ungrateful bastards learned a thing or two about weapons that they now plan to turn against us.
    Right. The point was just that we trained people we knew to be extremists with apparent thought as to the long term ramifications.
    What happened yesterday is wholly without explanation, justification, or excuse. You can't really explain evil.
    Well said, in the face of pure evil there can be only silence.
    We face an enemy motivated by implacable hatred of Western culture and civilization.
    Not so. The "implacable" nature of their hatred is a mix of religious fundamentalism on their part and economic and culture imperialism on our part. Filling ourselves with an implacable hatred for them is no answer.
    Changing our policies in any substantive manner in response to this incident, or to head off another one, is nothing else but appeasement.
    Agreed. Now that we have reached this point, changing policy is a win for the terrorists. Which is why I said it was something to do down the line. Like it or not, this new kind of battle is as much a mind game as it is war, and I think that we have to act in an extreme manner. The difficulty is gauging worldwide reaction... just who will we be up against when this is all said and done?
    ...I'm glad I'm not dubya right now.
    I'd suggest you ask the jews of Poland, Czechoslovakia, and other countries occupied by the Nazi's during WWII whether appeasement buys you peace, except most of them died during the war.
    I have said here and elsewhere that appeasement is a bad idea. (Funny, though, we have been happy enough to practice appeasement with Israel and their creation of "green space," their policy of assisinating Palestinian leaders, and the literal Ghettoizing of Palestinian cities.)
    ..All I'm saying is that we have a moral justification and a moral imperative now that this has happened, but we certainly didn't before and won't have it forever. Just because what they have done is evil and wrong does not mean that everything we have done or will do is good and right.
    ...Finally, has anyone noticed that China hasn't said word one since this happened?
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions