September 11, 2001 - 10 Years Later

[Muta]

Originally Posted by OilKiller

Intense to watch, I'll say. Imagine those poor people who were there. RIP.

Exactly. I'm just happy those loser hijackers didn't get what they wanted on that flight. They thought they were in control, but were put down by innocent civilians who didn't stand for what they were doing. In the end, they failed their mission, and it was the innocent people on that plane that decided their fate. Hope they remember that when they cross into the gates of hell.

Obviously I can't imagine what it would have been like that day one bit... but I probably would have gone bat **** crazy attempting to kill them once the revolt started.

One thing I've never understood about this type of jihadi behaviour is why they respond to their problems by killing more innocent people. If they were any type of real men - and I'm sure their God would concur - they would use their mouths, not their weapons, to promote change. Promote words of peace and compassion, not violence. And, if they were going to attack someone anyways, they should stand up and challenge their supposed oppressors to a face-to-face confrontation. I guess that would be too courageous for them.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Muta

Exactly. I'm just happy those loser hijackers didn't get what they wanted on that flight. They thought they were in control, but were put down by innocent civilians who didn't stand for what they were doing. In the end, they failed their mission, and it was the innocent people on that plane that decided their fate. Hope they remember that when they cross into the gates of hell.

Obviously I can't imagine what it would have been like that day one bit... but I probably would have gone bat **** crazy attempting to kill them once the revolt started.

One thing I've never understood about this type of jihadi behaviour is why they respond to their problems by killing more innocent people. If they were any type of real men - and I'm sure their God would concur - they would use their mouths, not their weapons, to promote change. Promote words of peace and compassion, not violence. And, if they were going to attack someone anyways, they should stand up and challenge their supposed oppressors to a face-to-face confrontation. I guess that would be too courageous for them.

Courageous in the same way cruise missiles are courageous? Who would they face...bust into the White House and square off with George Bush? I would argue - as have others - that it takes more courage to fly a plane kamikaze style into the side of the building than it does to fire a cruise missile or to drop bombs from a stealth bomber. These guys were definitely not lacking courage.

I get what you're saying, but it isn't practical and they didn't have the means to raise an army and invade the shores of the USA and occupy its cities. If they wanted to fight back against the USA, they found a very cheap and effective way to do it. I'm not defending them, just saying that there is method to their madness.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Courageous in the same way cruise missiles are courageous? Who would they face...bust into the White House and square off with George Bush? I would argue - as have others - that it takes more courage to fly a plane kamikaze style into the side of the building than it does to fire a cruise missile or to drop bombs from a stealth bomber. These guys were definitely not lacking courage.

I get what you're saying, but it isn't practical and they didn't have the means to raise an army and invade the shores of the USA and occupy its cities. If they wanted to fight back against the USA, they found a very cheap and effective way to do it. I'm not defending them, just saying that there is method to their madness.

I don't find anything they did courageous. It's cowardly, and absolutely nothing else. Courageous would have been for them to rise into a credible, political sphere of influence and change things through pens and paper - not weapons. Destroying innocent lives to futher your own agenda is ignorant and pathetic at best. And by the way, that does go for both sides.

And of course there's a method to their madness, absolutely. Doesn't make it right whatsoever. Just because someone does it first, doesn't mean it should be in retaliation. And striking the World Trade Centers isn't a strike against the govnerment and foreign policy they so detest; if so, they would have gone for only government targers. Hitting the WTC's is a symbolic strike against the citizens and the American way of life.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Muta

I don't find anything they did courageous. It's cowardly, and absolutely nothing else. Courageous would have been for them to rise into a credible, political sphere of influence and change things through pens and paper - not weapons. Destroying innocent lives to futher your own agenda is ignorant and pathetic at best.

And of course there's a method to their madness, absolutely. Doesn't make it right whatsoever.

I never said it made it right.

You're telling me it doesn't take courage to stand up with three of your buddies, take control of a plane with dozens of people on board, and fly it straight into the side of a skyskraper? It wasn't the right thing to do, but I don't think it was done by cowards.

If you think your proposal takes bravery, I don't think we have the same definition of bravery.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Courageous in the same way cruise missiles are courageous? Who would they face...bust into the White House and square off with George Bush? I would argue - as have others - that it takes more courage to fly a plane kamikaze style into the side of the building than it does to fire a cruise missile or to drop bombs from a stealth bomber. These guys were definitely not lacking courage.

I get what you're saying, but it isn't practical and they didn't have the means to raise an army and invade the shores of the USA and occupy its cities. If they wanted to fight back against the USA, they found a very cheap and effective way to do it. I'm not defending them, just saying that there is method to their madness.

You do know that if these terrorist groups didn't inflict civilian casualties, run around preaching methods of hate and genocide, hid among civilian population bases that there probably wouldn't be the cruise missiles and bombs right?

These terrorists are ignorant in multiple ways, and fail to realize that they have not only joined a death cult themselves, but doomed their own people to possible death as well.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Muta

Just because someone does it first, doesn't mean it should be in retaliation. And striking the World Trade Centers isn't a strike against the govnerment and foreign policy they so detest; if so, they would have gone for only government targers. Hitting the WTC's is a symbolic strike against the citizens and the American way of life.

Didn't see your edit in time to reply in my last post.

You say striking the WTC wasn't a strike against the government and its foreign policy, yet the response that has cost the Americans billions in wars and the rights Americans have given up with the Patriot Act have hurt the American way of life. I think they achieved their goals with this attack and it was an amazing ROI.

Also, they did go for government targets with the Pentagon strike and the Pennsylvania flight was assumed to be headed for the White House.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I never said it made it right.

You're telling me it doesn't take courage to stand up with three of your buddies, take control of a plane with dozens of people on board, and fly it straight into the side of a skyskraper? It wasn't the right thing to do, but I don't think it was done by cowards.

If you think your proposal takes bravery, I don't think we have the same definition of bravery.

Its not brave or showing courage in the least. hijacking a plane filled with unarmed passengers including woman and children doesn't take guts at all. They are showing the same level of bravery as the U.S. troops at My Lai.

And flying into a building dosen't take guts when your taking innocent people with you and condemming them to a bloody death.

I think the word your looking for is committed, and thats a whole different thing.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Its not brave or showing courage in the least. hijacking a plane filled with unarmed passengers including woman and children doesn't take guts at all. They are showing the same level of bravery as the U.S. troops at My Lai.

And flying into a building dosen't take guts when your taking innocent people with you and condemming them to a bloody death.

I think the word your looking for is committed, and thats a whole different thing.

Well there were men on those planes too CC. And there was risk (see the passenger reaction on the Pennsylvania flight as one possible risk they were facing, among others). There would be many fears associated with what they were doing (fear of dieing, fear of not completing the mission, fear of making a mistake, fear you were perhaps doing the wrong thing, etc.) and they faced down those fears and completed their horrible mission. Facing down your fears takes courage.

And flying into a building dosen't take guts when your taking innocent people with you and condemming them to a bloody death.

One has nothing to do with the other. Somebody could probably name the fallacy you've committed.

[CaptainCrunch]

The passengers didn't really attack until they learned what had happened to the WTC, then they realized that they had to stop the plane they were on. They stepped up and attacked armed terrorists, thats bravery.

The terrorists when they had the upper hand, a docile group of passengers showed bully bravery, which isn't courage, then they wilted in the face of un armed passengers.

If they were really brave they would have stolen empty planes, made a radio statement in the clear and then tried to hit the buildings.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The passengers didn't really attack until they learned what had happened to the WTC, then they realized that they had to stop the plane they were on. They stepped up and attacked armed terrorists, thats bravery.

The terrorists when they had the upper hand, a docile group of passengers showed bully bravery, which isn't courage, then they wilted in the face of un armed passengers.

If they were really brave they would have stolen empty planes, made a radio statement in the clear and then tried to hit the buildings.

Yeah, the passengers were brave. Nobody would deny that.

How do you know the terrorists "wilted" during the uprising?

Facing the passengers was just one of the things they would have had to fear and overcome. There were other fears, which is why I think it's not unfair to say they had courage to overcome a lot of fears and obstacles to accomplish their mission.

[CaptainCrunch]

I think we're confusing misguided and committed with bravery in terms of these scum.

They'd been indoctrinated to believe that they would be rewarded in paradise for what they did. If an Iman had told them outright that they were going to hell for eternal punishment for this action then maybe I could get on board with the whole bravery thing.

But the fact that they were willing to outright murder/butcher whatever thousands of people who were pretty much innocent isn't bravery, its the act of a psycho.

The passengers on the other hand were committed to saving lives throught heir own actions.

thats courage.

[CaptainCrunch]

And facing un armed passengers when your holding a weapon is not brave.

It would be like me beating up a 5 year old.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I think we're confusing misguided and committed with bravery in terms of these scum.

They'd been indoctrinated to believe that they would be rewarded in paradise for what they did. If an Iman had told them outright that they were going to hell for eternal punishment for this action then maybe I could get on board with the whole bravery thing.

But the fact that they were willing to outright murder/butcher whatever thousands of people who were pretty much innocent isn't bravery, its the act of a psycho.

The passengers on the other hand were committed to saving lives throught heir own actions.

thats courage.

Yes they were scum, but they showed courage IMO (and based on the definition of courage).

So the USA dropped nuclear bombs on Japan and killed thousands of innocent people - was that the act of phychos? Were the Americans scum to do that? Were they misguided?

What about allied bombings on Germany that killed civilians? Were we scum to do that? Were we misguided?

[Titan]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Courageous in the same way cruise missiles are courageous? Who would they face...bust into the White House and square off with George Bush? I would argue - as have others - that it takes more courage to fly a plane kamikaze style into the side of the building than it does to fire a cruise missile or to drop bombs from a stealth bomber. These guys were definitely not lacking courage.

I get what you're saying, but it isn't practical and they didn't have the means to raise an army and invade the shores of the USA and occupy its cities. If they wanted to fight back against the USA, they found a very cheap and effective way to do it. I'm not defending them, just saying that there is method to their madness.

Interestingly this is the exact sentiment expressed by Bill Maher on his show that got it cancelled. Perhaps another way to put it is that they were soldiers who were given their mission and they carried it out to near perfection despite incredible odds against success. As the story of the pilots in the unarmed f-16s shows, perspective is a powerful thing. They had orders to fly their planes into a fully loaded jet. Is that very different from what the terrorists did? No. The proof is in the perspective. The f-16 pilots were true heroes in my opinion. Willing to give up their life for the defence of their beliefs. Is that not the exact same thing the terrorists did?

I am not saying that the terrorists are heroes. I am saying they are probably considered heroes to the people on their "team". As much as I hate Kesler I can appreciate why Vancouver fans like him.

And before anyone jumps in and says we have a democracy blah, blah, blah, we went into Iraq with zero tangible provocation. Not a lot of discussion or democracy in those actions.

[Titan]

There is a very interesting discussion in here on the demonization of the enemy. I don't want to insult anyone or their beliefs so I won't go there due to the emotional nature of this debate.

No General in history has ever said that the other side is made up of men like you with wives and children, who are just trying to get out of this thing without dying, so go get em!

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Titan

Interestingly this is the exact sentiment expressed by Bill Maher on his show that got it cancelled. Perhaps another way to put it is that they were soldiers who were given their mission and they carried it out to near perfection despite incredible odds against success. As the story of the pilots in the unarmed f-16s shows, perspective is a powerful thing. They had orders to fly their planes into a fully loaded jet. Is that very different from what the terrorists did? No. The proof is in the perspective. The f-16 pilots were true heroes in my opinion. Willing to give up their life for the defence of their beliefs. Is that not the exact same thing the terrorists did?

I am not saying that the terrorists are heroes. I am saying they are probably considered heroes to the people on their "team". As much as I hate Kesler I can appreciate why Vancouver fans like him.

And before anyone jumps in and says we have a democracy blah, blah, blah, we went into Iraq with zero tangible provocation. Not a lot of discussion or democracy in those actions.

The Pilots of the unarmed F-16's had to make a incredibly difficult choice. They might have to ram those jets to bring them down which would sacrifice hundreds to save potentially thousands.

The pilots of those jet liners knew that their activities would not save one single life, but murder thousands or potentially a lot more if everything had gone perfectly.

I don't see how they're the same at all.

I stand by my comparison of the terrorist to the thugs at My Lai, they knew that they had the upper hand on their passengers because they were armed at the passengers weren't.

They weren't soldiers except in their own minds.

Like I said, I don't question their committments or their beliefs, but it doesn't take a brave man to take hostages and fly into a building killing people for no good reason.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Titan

There is a very interesting discussion in here on the demonization of the enemy. I don't want to insult anyone or their beliefs so I won't go there due to the emotional nature of this debate.

In this case the enemy deserves outright to be demonized, and scorned, they were the worst combination of the worst parts of humanity period.

They were nothing more then serial murderers with a psychotic brain washed personality.

[QUOTE=Titan;3277833No General in history has ever said that the other side is made up of men like you with wives and children, who are just trying to get out of this thing without dying, so go get em![/QUOTE]

Killing in a war is a bloody horrible thing, but believe me when I tell you that most soldiers that I've talked to from private level right up to one former Marine General that I ran into at the airport doesn't need to be told that these are men like you with wives and children. They know that already, and a lot of the people that I have talked to have nightmares about it for the rest of their lives.

Do you honestly belive that the mutts on 9/11, if they had survived would have had the same reaction, or would they have acted like a lot of the captured members of Al Queda who basically were proud of their butchers bill.

Demonize, we shouldn't need to work to hard to demonize them.

The only reason why I would feel sorry for them is because they were brain washed to a course of action in which there is no possibility of redemption.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The Pilots of the unarmed F-16's had to make a incredibly difficult choice. They might have to ram those jets to bring them down which would sacrifice hundreds to save potentially thousands.

The pilots of those jet liners knew that their activities would not save one single life, but murder thousands or potentially a lot more if everything had gone perfectly.

I don't see how they're the same at all.

I stand by my comparison of the terrorist to the thugs at My Lai, they knew that they had the upper hand on their passengers because they were armed at the passengers weren't.

They weren't soldiers except in their own minds.

Like I said, I don't question their committments or their beliefs, but it doesn't take a brave man to take hostages and fly into a building killing people for no good reason.

Killing the hostages wasn't the end game - they were collateral damage in the same way civilians that get killed in anything the west does are viewed as collateral damage.

In fact, even you seem reluctantly okay with collateral damage as long as it's your team doing the killing:

The American's went out of thier way in Iraq to reduce collateral damage to civilians. but in a war zone this does happen, mistakes and technological failures do happen. Sad but true.

I guess the term carries a bit more weight when North Americans become the collateral damage.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Killing the hostages wasn't the end game - they were collateral damage in the same way civilians that get killed in anything the west does are viewed as collateral damage.

In fact, even you seem reluctantly okay with collateral damage as long as it's your team doing the killing:



I guess the term carries a bit more weight when North Americans become the collateral damage.

How in the hell can you call it collateral damage. Please show me where the American's or the Western Troops were going out of their way to target civillians as a part of a policy of terror?

These mutts took hostages, and then intentionally flew jets full of hostages into buildings packed with civillians.

There were no members of the U.S. military hiding in the world trade center. You could argue that the Pentagon was a military target, thats fine, but that doesn't obsolve the evil of the murdering hostages.


And no, I am not ok with collateral damage, however I do realize that it does happen.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

How in the hell can you call it collateral damage. Please show me where the American's or the Western Troops were going out of their way to target civillians as a part of a policy of terror?

These mutts took hostages, and then intentionally flew jets full of hostages into buildings packed with civillians.

There were no members of the U.S. military hiding in the world trade center. You could argue that the Pentagon was a military target, thats fine, but that doesn't obsolve the evil of the murdering hostages.


And no, I am not ok with collateral damage, however I do realize that it does happen.

From their perspective it's collateral damage, yes.

And you know what, you're attitude is the kind of attitude that can carry a war on through generations. I think a better approach would be to look at what they are capable of doing to us, figure out why they wanted to do it (surely it relates to the west's policies in the middle east and military interventions all over the world), and discuss with them ways of solving these problems and finding peace. They want us out of their countries? Fine, that's totally fair. We're packing up tomorrow.

If everybody had your attitude, this will just become tit for tat forever.