The Twin Towers

Turnip

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
No matter what way you look at it, it was. Al-Quaeda didn't care about the people; AQ cared about the potent symbol that the building represented.

Yeah? They timed the attacks to kill as many people as possible. Go figure.

Two people out of the fifteen thousand employees who did any sort of good

And apart from the heroic bin charges campaign, what practical "good" have you ever done? Apart from spewing communist jargon and gloating over the deaths of people because you don't like their government. Justifiably, Bush gets criticised for his black and white, good v evil view of the world but in all honesty, your anti-american fundamentalism is hardly much more sophisticated. You're so left, you're far right.

To be honest I am finding aspects of this discussion distastefull.

The downing of the twin towers was wrong as was the resulting loss of life.


Éomer if you want to praise, the people that were resposible for it, remember that , such praise dillutes any respect , I might have for your arguments on other subjects discussed around her. I reckon, I'm in a lot of company in that view.

Also keep in mind that I have not seen any poster here , wishing that Joe Higgins or members of the socialist party should be mowed down because said poster disagrees with their views or outlook on life. I'd reckon such a poster would get short shrift from the mods/administrators here.

mm

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Turnip
Yeah? They timed the attacks to kill as many people as possible. Go figure.

Did they?

Quoted from Turnip
And apart from the heroic bin charges campaign, what practical "good" have you ever done?

Sorry, what relevence has this? And as for what good I have done, the definition of good is biased as to one's political beliefs so I don't intend to answer that question.

Quoted from Turnip
Apart from spewing communist jargon and gloating over the deaths of people because you don't like their government......, your anti-american fundamentalism is hardly much more sophisticated

This discussion has been gone through again as well. As a socialist, I hold to the view of Eugene Debs (an American) that the average American does not have any control over their government and the 'parties' which they vote for are increasingly 'grey' and indistinguishable. However, as a student of Ancient History, I also hold to the Periclean view that it is unforgivable in a democracy not to take an active interest in politics and that means foreign affairs too - and the people of the USA don't in my opinion, but if they do then they are every bit as guilty as the US government for the executed policies.

I am not Anti-American, I am anti-Imperialist and by sheer coincidence, America is the foremost Imperial nation of the world and one from which unprecedented levels of self-congratulation and false rhetoric on peace and democracy flow. I attack their policies, I attack the belief that they have a democratic society, I attack their unbridled bullying and exploitation of weaker powers - the reason being that I want the average American worker to control his government - which he doesn't and to a greater and greater degree, if we look at the recent voter figures, he doesn't care about due to the onset of alienation and apathy.

Is that all you have to say?

Quoted from Man
Éomer if you want to praise, the people that were resposible for it

I'm not, I'm saying they had a very valid point and they attacked valid targets. I do not believe they were heroes or martyrs or whatever their own kind call them.

Quoted from Man
such praise dillutes any respect , I might have for your arguments on other subjects discussed around her. I reckon, I'm in a lot of company in that view

Maybe so and I regret if I lose the respect of people by my words but I would forfeit self respect, much more important, if I did not say what I believe to be the truth.

Quoted from Man
Also keep in mind that I have not seen any poster here , wishing that Joe Higgins or members of the socialist party should be mowed down because said poster disagrees with their views or outlook on life. I'd reckon such a poster would get short shrift from the mods/administrators here

LOL - forgive my mirth but I would like to bring you up to Belfast and put you on one of the stalls we run in the center for you to see the attitude of some people to socialists - if it hasn't quite reached boards.ie yet, some degree of sheer venom exists at ground level, especially among well dressed people who mutter things like 'get a job' or 'where were you people when the IRA was raining bombs on us?' and other such reactionary tripe.

dsheehan

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan

Sorry, what relevence has this? And as for what good I have done, the definition of good is biased as to one's political beliefs so I don't intend to answer that question.


For most people, the definition of good is based on their moral beliefs. I know good, honourable, people, who I happen to disagree with on political issues

This discussion has been gone through again as well. As a socialist, I hold to the view of Eugene Debs (an American) that the average American does not have any control over their government and the 'parties' which they vote for are increasingly 'grey' and indistinguishable. However, as a student of Ancient History, I also hold to the Periclean view that it is unforgivable in a democracy not to take an active interest in politics and that means foreign affairs too - and the people of the USA don't in my opinion, but if they do then they are every bit as guilty as the US government for the executed policies.

Have you ever been to America? Or are you simply prejudicial? No government on earth is a true democracy but rather a representative government. A true democracy would lead to injustice with mob rule, fickle public opinion and no leadership.

Instead with have leaders, who are accountable to the public and chosen by the public. Even still they are limited in the power they exercise, with separation of powers, with the power to judge and arbritrate left to the unelected branch of government.
[/QUOTE]

I am not Anti-American, I am anti-Imperialist and by sheer coincidence, America is the foremost Imperial nation of the world and one from which unprecedented levels of self-congratulation and false rhetoric on peace and democracy flow. I attack their policies, I attack the belief that they have a democratic society, I attack their unbridled bullying and exploitation of weaker powers - the reason being that I want the average American worker to control his government - which he doesn't and to a greater and greater degree, if we look at the recent voter figures, he doesn't care about due to the onset of alienation and apathy.

Were you such an anti-imperialist when the soviets crushed the hungarian revolt? When they rolled in to czechoslovakia or when the North Koreans headed south. When the chinses conqured Tibet. If America is such an imperial power, where are it's colonies? For it to be an imperial power, it must have an empire!!!!

I'm not, I'm saying they had a very valid point and they attacked valid targets. I do not believe they were heroes or martyrs or whatever their own kind call them.

If Al'Queda dropped a dirty bomb on belfast, would you think it is a valid target. When you die of radiation poisioning, you can thank yourself that they attacked a valid target. Belfast is more of a target then the twin towers, it after all has various military facilities (a ship yard), and leadership targets (stormount). You being a British subject makes you guilty for all the misdeeds of your government.

LOL - forgive my mirth but I would like to bring you up to Belfast and put you on one of the stalls we run in the center for you to see the attitude of some people to socialists - if it hasn't quite reached boards.ie yet, some degree of sheer venom exists at ground level, especially among well dressed people who mutter things like 'get a job' or 'where were you people when the IRA was raining bombs on us?' and other such reactionary tripe. [/B]

Just out of interest, do you have a job?

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from dsheehan
For most people, the definition of good is based on their moral beliefs. I know good, honourable, people, who I happen to disagree with on political issues

Sorry, you misunderstand the context; he was asking what good things have I, as a socialist, done which are comparable to the politically (or rather economically, in sight of the fact that these are part-stories which could have been adapted to suit the purpose of the author of the previous article?) related deeds of the two men Turnip's article quotes.

Quoted from dsheehan
Were you such an anti-imperialist when the soviets crushed the hungarian revolt? When they rolled in to czechoslovakia or when the North Koreans headed south. When the chinses conqured Tibet. If America is such an imperial power, where are it's colonies? For it to be an imperial power, it must have an empire!!!!

Yes I was, and what is more, I absolutely supported most of those who marched on Tianenmen Square in defiance of the dictatorship of China and in support of democracy in 1990. I say most because some were capitalist sympathisers and while I regret they may have been crushed, I did not support their aim.

As for the question 'where is America's Empire" go and find a political dictionary or any political commentators related articles and you can substitute 'Neo-Imperialism' for Imperialism in my post - and from my point of view, one is simply evolution from the other and deserves to be defined in the same terms. America's empire is the world and all those nations who are bullied, bought and cajolled into being sheep to the American slaughter.

Quoted from dsheehan
Have you ever been to America? Or are you simply prejudicial? No government on earth is a true democracy but rather a representative government. A true democracy would lead to injustice with mob rule, fickle public opinion and no leadership.

I have never been to America BUT I do have many many American friends and contacts - and yes, I do get into flaming rows with plenty of them. How can you say I am prejudicial? I am fully aware that we have representative rather than direct democracy - but we do not have leaders who are accountable to the public; they do as they wish and it is only in exceptional circumstances that any of them lose their job before the next election - and in the case of America, did anyone elect Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld etc etc?

As for your comments on what a true democracy would lead to, have you considered the historical precedents and what they would translate to in a modern world?

Quoted from dsheehan
If Al'Queda dropped a dirty bomb on belfast, would you think it is a valid target. When you die of radiation poisioning, you can thank yourself that they attacked a valid target. Belfast is more of a target then the twin towers, it after all has various military facilities (a ship yard), and leadership targets (stormount)

You do yourself a disservice here. First of all, let's talk about keeping things in proportion; if the terrorists flew two boeings into the Belfast dockyard, then I'd say they had a semi-valid target (since the Belfast shipyards have ceased their real usefulness to the Brits long since and that the single government contract they recieved in the last 10 years at least, for Ro-Ro's, was to help keep them in jobs.

Second of all, the military base is in Holywood, not Belfast and thirdly, Stormont is not in Belfast, it sits on a hill a good few miles out of the town, nearer Dundonald than Belfast.

Quoted from dsheehan
You being a British subject makes you guilty for all the misdeeds of your government.

You'll find that Northern Ireland has it's own government and political problems and only half the politicians in NI even take their seats in Westminster, so I'm sorry but your comparison is wrong and moreover, I did not say that every American man woman and child should die, I said the working class should seize power for themselves.

Quoted from dsheehan
Just out of interest, do you have a job?

Why do you ask and kindly give a better answer than just out of interest? I work for 36.5 hours at a local Tesco's and this is to pay for my university fees and so on.

Victor

Quoted from Turnip
Yeah? They timed the attacks to kill as many people as possible. Go figure.

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Did they?

Probably. If they wanted to minimise civilian casualties and catch GWB in his bed they would have attackjed at between 2 and 4 am.

dsheehan

Yes I was, and what is more, I absolutely supported most of those who marched on Tianenmen Square in defiance of the dictatorship of China and in support of democracy in 1990. I say most because some were capitalist sympathisers and while I regret they may have been crushed, I did not support their aim.

As for the question 'where is America's Empire" go and find a political dictionary or any political commentators related articles and you can substitute 'Neo-Imperialism' for Imperialism in my post - and from my point of view, one is simply evolution from the other and deserves to be defined in the same terms. America's empire is the world and all those nations who are bullied, bought and cajolled into being sheep to the American slaughter.

You dislike America because they use their forgein policy to further their interests???? What country doesn't?? Because they're the biggest and most powerful, it means they have influence, but every country has influence due to it's forgein policy. Ireland happens to at the moment have quite a bit of influence for it's size in Uganda given the amount of the forgein aid budget that is spent their. Initially as a member of the EU, Ireland has influence that it does use at the WTO talks to better the farmers by keeping high subsidies. To decry america for using forgein policy to better their interests is hypocritical as every country does it (except maybe the vatican)
[/QUOTE]

I have never been to America BUT I do have many many American friends and contacts - and yes, I do get into flaming rows with plenty of them. How can you say I am prejudicial? I am fully aware that we have representative rather than direct democracy - but we do not have leaders who are accountable to the public; they do as they wish and it is only in exceptional circumstances that any of them lose their job before the next election - and in the case of America, did anyone elect Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld etc etc?

Prejudice means Pre-judging, judging without knowing the facts, pre-judging someone because they come from a certain area, have a certain skin colour.

I think you're prejudicial because you're judging america and americans, including american workers, without ever going there and meeting them, seeing what the place is like. It's like someone in Australia complaining about Ireland and Irish workers having never gone there, only having a few Irish friends.

Also, Re:Powel, Rumsfeld and all. They are appointed by the president (elected by the people through the electoral college), with the advice and consent of the senate (2 senators elected for each state). Without going to pendantics, America is a representitive democracy at a State level. At Federal Level, it's a federation. Like the EU. The idea is that states are represented too. That's why there's an electoral college, and the fact that each state get's two senators regardless of population. So it's true the U.S. isn't really a democracy, it's a federation of 50 democracies.
Rumsfield and all basically get their democratic legitamacy from the fact they're appointed by an elected leader, with the consent of an elected senate. And can be sacked by the president or impeached by congress. In addition cabinet secretaries exercise very little power, they mainly control administration and can advice the President on exercising his executive power.

As for your comments on what a true democracy would lead to, have you considered the historical precedents and what they would translate to in a modern world?

Yes, in Midevil times there was the mob, several decades ago in america there was a lynch mob
It's when the population takes government into it's own hands instead of electing leaders. There is no leadership, no direction, and no justice. Pure democracy isn't just.

You do yourself a disservice here. First of all, let's talk about keeping things in proportion; if the terrorists flew two boeings into the Belfast dockyard, then I'd say they had a semi-valid target (since the Belfast shipyards have ceased their real usefulness to the Brits long since and that the single government contract they recieved in the last 10 years at least, for Ro-Ro's, was to help keep them in jobs.

Second of all, the military base is in Holywood, not Belfast and thirdly, Stormont is not in Belfast, it sit's on a hill a good few miles out of the town, nearer Dundonald than Belfast.



You'll find that Northern Ireland has it's own government and political problems and only half the politicians in NI even take their seats in Westminster, so I'm sorry but your comparison is wrong and moreover, I did not say that every American man woman and child should die, I said the working class should seize power for themselves.

I was drawing attention to the fact you felt the workers in the world trade center were legitamite targets because they were americans working in an american economic target. I was drawing attention to the fact that you're living in a city full of political, economic and military targets of the british government and that if you happened to be killed in an attack on them, by your own logic, you'd be a legitamite target.

Why do you ask and kindly give a better answer than just out of interest? I work for 36.5 hours at a local Tesco's and this is to pay for my university fees and so on.

I was wondering about your earlier comment about people saying get a job. I was wondering, if like so many socialists I've met, you're basically a middle class bumb who doesn't have to work and is guilty at being rich.

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan

but I would forfeit self respect, much more important, if I did not say what I believe to be the truth.

Let me re-assure you Éomer that, you are not forfeiting any self respect if you apply the standard of respect for human life in your judgement of anyones activities.
That applies equally to , the likes of AlQ'ueda as it does to me, the Bush Regime or anyone.

LOL - forgive my mirth but I would like to bring you up to Belfast and put you on one of the stalls we run in the center for you to see the attitude of some people to socialists - if it hasn't quite reached boards.ie yet, some degree of sheer venom exists at ground level, especially among well dressed people who mutter things like 'get a job' or 'where were you people when the IRA was raining bombs on us?' and other such reactionary tripe.

Well, if any of them want you extinguished in the same way that you seem to condone some American civilians being extinguished, they are wrong in wanting that, as are you.
Belfast, ah yes, I've been there a lot, I've had some nice Latté's in the Appartment bar as I've looked across the road at the Union Jack fluttering in the wind atop City Hall.
Belfast people can be as caustic as they are humourous.

Where you live , of all places
Éomer should be teaching you the merits of promoting ballot box politics not gunbarrell politics
We know which one was practiced in New York on September 11th 2001.

mm

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from dsheehan
You dislike America because they use their forgein policy to further their interests???? What country doesn't?? ....To decry america for using forgein policy to better their interests is hypocritical as every country does it

FFS!!!!!!!!!
All countries use foreign policy to get what is best for themselves, driven by nationalism and so on. It is, quite simply, wrong and absolutely not hypocritical of me to say so since I do not agree with the exploitation of other less developed and less powerful nations. Of all the nations in the world, America does this the worst and therefore by sheer logic, can be condemned the worst.

Quoted from dsheehan
I think you're prejudicial because you're judging america and americans, including american workers, without ever going there and meeting them

Where am I pre-judging anyone? I take my information from as many sources, as wide and varied as possible (and the ones about voter apathy come from the US equivalent of the Office of Statistics). My opinions don't need to be based on the American worker, they are based on what I have seen of the results of American foreign policy.

Quoted from dsheehan
Also, Re:Powel, Rumsfeld and all. They are appointed by the president (elected by the people through the electoral college), with the advice and consent of the senate (2 senators elected for each state). Without going to pendantics, America is a representitive democracy at a State level. At Federal Level, it's a federation. Like the EU. The idea is that states are represented too. That's why there's an electoral college, and the fact that each state get's two senators regardless of population. So it's true the U.S. isn't really a democracy, it's a federation of 50 democracies.

So let's recap; the men with access to the most powerful man in the country, who have his ear and to whom he will listen in their area of 'expertise' (I give the word it's widest possible definition) aren't elected by anyone. They are accountable to a corrupt morass of politicians, many of whom are their partners in crime and most of whom are moderates and centrists without an ideological stand to take to hold them to their principles. And those men are the elected representatives of the people, people who have the wool pulled over their eyes by whomsoever can buy the flashiest media campaign and even then, in some cases, only just over half of the electorate bother to vote.

Quoted from dsheehan
Yes, in Midevil times there was the mob, several decades ago in america there was a lynch mob

Oh good grief. Yes very knowledgeable but I was referring to Athenian direct democracy and I'm actually sure that JC, if he is reading this, will be delighted to be given another chance to talk about swiss direct democracy

Quoted from dsheehan
I was drawing attention to the fact you felt the workers in the world trade center were legitamite targets because they were americans working in an american economic target. I was drawing attention to the fact that you're living in a city full of political, economic and military targets of the british government and that if you happened to be killed in an attack on them, by your own logic, you'd be a legitamite target

Well, yeah fair enough apart from one thing; I don't live in Belfast. I live a fair few miles outside it. And as for being a legitimate target, my definition of legitimate targets do not include people who are working to undermine their government in order to institute social and political change to halt the imperialistic sentiments that sweep the country every time some half-assed jingoist idiot opens his mouth.

Quoted from dsheehan
I was wondering about your earlier comment about people saying get a job. I was wondering, if like so many socialists I've met, you're basically a middle class bumb who doesn't have to work and is guilty at being rich

LOL. Ah a class predjudice? A middle class bum? No, I am workign class, like every socialists I have ever met and let me assure you that I know many many more than you. As for these middle class bums that are socialists whom you know, I would dispute either that they are middle class or that they are socialists but since it is unprovable there is little point.

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Man
if you apply the standard of respect for human life in your judgement of anyones activities

Like I said, I'm just saying they had a point, not saying they made themselves martyrs or what they did was good - but they had a point and the Americans deserve no sympathy since they themselves have perpetrated far greater horrors and if they did deserve sympathy, they have forfeited it by the actions that they have allowed their government to take in response to 11/09/01.

Quoted from Man
teaching you the merits of promoting ballot box politics not gunbarrell politics

No war but the class war ideally. Unfortunately, it doesn't work like that between two super-reactionary forces.

Spacedog

They should build a Mosc there to replace All the ones in Afganistan and Iraq they've blew up since!

Hobbes

The only issues I have is the number of unanswered questions and further killings and actions around the world being blamed to 9/11.

Some examples:
- World economy collapse.
- Attacking Iraq.

Also who tried to profit from the attack in the stock exchange? How much did the government actually know (from what I have seen, the US government knew an attack was coming but were probably expecting hijackings).

Then you have the huge human rights abuses being conducted by the US now on foriegners and its domestic people.

Not a good way to remember peoples memories of those that died.

Originally posted by Turnip

Yeah? They timed the attacks to kill as many people as possible. Go figure.
[/B]

Actually they didn't. Otherwise it would of been around 25,000 dead rather then around 3,000 and a body bag company wouldn't be sueing NYC for refusing to pay for all the bodybags ordered.

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Like I said, I'm just saying they had a point, not saying they made themselves martyrs or what they did was good - but they had a point and the Americans deserve no sympathy since they themselves have perpetrated far greater horrors and if they did deserve sympathy, they have forfeited it by the actions that they have allowed their government to take in response to 11/09/01.

Thats the same as saying, you don't care about U.S civilians.
How can you take a moral higher ground if you differentiate between individuals like that?
I mean I have a point, but I don't go out and shoot someone to make it.
Your angle on this seems very like that of Gerry Adams here, in that you float around acts of violence in your discussion but only selectively dive in to condemn them.
Do you apply any condemnation to the actions of Al Qu'eda at all??

Because to be honest, my own sense of moral outrage at that or similar acts would tend me towards having little regard for anyone apoligising for it.
Saying they had a point is exactly that, to my mind.

mm

Originally posted by Hobbes

Actually they didn't. Otherwise it would of been around 25,000 dead rather then around 3,000

No hobbes.
The fact that they didn't kill 25,000 was down to pure luck.
The fact remains that, as many as that could have been killed.
There was a lot of good fortune which saved thousands on that day.

Flying into the towers at four in the morning might have shown some regard for minimising the loss of life.
But then due to their chosen methods, there wouldn't have been very many planes to hi jack at that hour of the morning.

mm

Hobbes

I am not saying they regarded human life, I am saying it wasn't the highest motivation in thier statement they were trying to make.

Nothing to do with pure luck as well. If they wanted to kill more people they could of just flown a couple of hours later.

But the point was Turnip said "Yeah? They timed the attacks to kill as many people as possible. Go figure.", which is not true.

...

Another thing, it was a statement. If you take into account that the number of people killed by cigerettes each year the twin towers is nothing but a blip.

Or if you were to take the number of people who died in 2001 from terrorist attacks and have it happen every year, it would still a tiny amount compared to the numbers that have died around the world due to terrorism caused by actions of other countries.

That is not to belittle thier memory, but it is amazing how few people put the whole thing into perspective.

bonkey

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
I'm actually sure that JC, if he is reading this, will be delighted to be given another chance to talk about swiss direct democracy

He is, and he would be if he had time.

I would point out, though, that I find it entirely disconcerting that you are, on one hand, implying that direct democracy on one hand, while on the other saying that "the working class should seize power for themselves".

Doesn't sound very democratic to me.

jc

ReefBreak

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
No matter what they build, if it is a defiant statement, I swear I hope the terrorists knock it the hell down again. The Twin Trade Towers were an emblem of US triumphalism and I damn sure am going to blame the US for bringing the events of September 11th on themselves.

Not to put too fine a point on this comment and it's author: but, What. A. Dick. In other words you support the intentional murder of 3000 innocent civilians?

ReefBreak

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Was I happy with the bodycount? No. I do not like death, even of the guilty. Did I agree with the attack on the Pentagon? Absolutely. Did I agree with the attempted attack on the white house/capitol hill? Absolutely. Did I agree with the attack on the TTTs? Yes, though not for the same reasons as Bin Laden.

Oh Christ, he's getting worse. Please, I hope somebody puts some sense into this idiot later on in this thread.

As for the US being an imperialist power, this is typical left-wing claptrap. The US weren't attacked for imperialist reasons, it was for religious reasons (extremist Islam) - we know this to be true. But you're so blinded with Anti-American, anti-western, pro-communist hatred, you side with anyone that attacks the US. Similar to IRA Chief of Staff Sean Russell siding with the Nazis during WWII. Of course everything that Al Qaeda represents is anathema to the so-called Far-Left, but the Far-Left are willing to forget this in the haze of Anti-Capitalist hatred.

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from ReefBreak
As for the US being an imperialist power, this is typical left-wing claptrap. The US weren't attacked for imperialist reasons, it was for religious reasons (extremist Islam) - we know this to be true.

See that's funny because even Bin Laden himself said that the reason for the attacks was western / American interference in the countries which traditionally form the Islamic crescent. That interference would be imperialism - that their own anti-Imperialism stems from religious rather than political reasons is irrelevent, it is still anti-imperialism.

And who is the 'we' know this to be true? If you mean 'Americans' then they know what they are told, the same as the rest of us.

Quoted from ReefBreak
But you're so blinded with Anti-American, anti-western, pro-communist hatred, you side with anyone that attacks the US. Similar to IRA Chief of Staff Sean Russell siding with the Nazis during WWII

What a presumptious post. I would not side with Nazis over anyone. And as for taking sides in the first place, I'm not, I'm just re-iterating the point that the terrorists could be considered justified by striking at the United States through the logic used by most if not all imperial powers when it comes to their own foreign policy.

Quoted from ReefBreak
Of course everything that Al Qaeda represents is anathema to the so-called Far-Left

That's the first thing in your post that has made sense.

Quoted from ReefBreak
but the Far-Left are willing to forget this in the haze of Anti-Capitalist hatred

Two reactionary forces as I have stated - why should the far left care which triumphs? Either way, it won't be good for people across the world. I again point out that I am not taking sides but I am making clear that the so called terrorists have a point against America and the original point was that America, by building another defiant statement of capitalism or jingoist nationalism will simply have proven that she has not learned the lesson that she has no business interfering in the politics of the rest of the world - which is the underlying reason for the attack on the TTT on 11.09.01

Originally posted by Hobbes

Nothing to do with pure luck as well. If they wanted to kill more people they could of just flown a couple of hours later.

Come on hobbes, are you saying there wasn't a lot of luck involved in getting most of the people out of the fairly full twin towers before the whole thing collapsed around them.
They were civilians, as were those on the planes that were crashed into them.

Now I have been in New York several times and I can tell you it is VERY busy at ten to nine on a weekday morning.

mm

Hobbes

Originally posted by Man
Come on hobbes, are you saying there wasn't a lot of luck involved in getting most of the people out of the fairly full twin towers before the whole thing collapsed around them.

No not luck. Just usual escape route. No one above the fire got out that I know of.

Now I have been in New York several times and I can tell you it is VERY busy at ten to nine on a weekday morning.

mm

And if you check back through the news reports you would see there were very few people then normal Most people don't really start coming in until around 10am in the US (well I can at least vouch for Boston, not sure about NYC).

Again the point is if they wanted to achieve the maximum amount of damage possible they should of started an hour or so later.

bonkey

Originally posted by Man
Come on hobbes, are you saying there wasn't a lot of luck involved in getting most of the people out of the fairly full twin towers before the whole thing collapsed around them.

Fairly Full??? Are you joking me?

There is no way 30,000+ people were evacuated, but thats what "fairly full" would entail.

jc

ReefBreak

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
I again point out that I am not taking sides

Yes but...

No matter what they build, if it is a defiant statement, I swear I hope the terrorists knock it the hell down again. The Twin Trade Towers were an emblem of US triumphalism and I damn sure am going to blame the US for bringing the events of September 11th on themselves.
I celebrate the 11th of September as the day that crass US imperialism was revealed, in 1973.
...
Did I agree with the attack on the Pentagon? Absolutely. Did I agree with the attempted attack on the white house/capitol hill? Absolutely. Did I agree with the attack on the TTTs?

...so you are taking sides.

If I posted some despicable, extremist fascist/right-wing opinions on this board, which supported the murder of innocent civilians based on (say) race or nationality or political ideology, I'm sure I'd get banned pretty sharpish. Now, you also support the murder of innocent civilians - who are either American or have a neo-liberal/capitalist viewpoint - but you hide behind the veneer of so-called left-wing theology. Slightly more respectable, but in many ways just as despicable.

Oh, and I would consider myself a slightly right of centre (PD voter) pro-business, moderate capitalist. Do you want to kill me?

Originally posted by Hobbes


And if you check back through the news reports you would see there were very few people then normal Most people don't really start coming in until around 10am in the US (well I can at least vouch for Boston, not sure about NYC).

I wasn't referring soley to those in the buildings but those around it aswell.
Again New york is a very busy place at ten to nine in the morning.
To suggest that there were very few people around is ridiculous.

Originally posted by Bonkey:
Fairly Full??? Are you joking me?

Well ok half that number then It's still close to 14,000 people who had to get out before the building they wouldn't have expected to collapse did exactly that.
It's no small number.
The people in the vicinity of the towers at that time who survived were lucky.

bonkey

Originally posted by ReefBreak
If I posted some despicable, extremist fascist/right-wing opinions on this board, which supported the murder of innocent civilians based on (say) race or nationality or political ideology, I'm sure I'd get banned pretty sharpish.

I'm not so sure you would.

If I remember correctly, we have banned a total of one person for racism.

I don't think we've banned anyone for supporting Israel, Palestine, Republican terrorist organisations in the North, the current US actions, or anything other group who have been responsible for civilian death on a large scale or in a terrorist manner.

I'm not about to start now (but obviously am only one fo three mods).

I don't agree with Éomer's stance. I find it disconcerting, but I would say the same of any ideology which espouses an idea of any sort of "acceptable losses" - which includes (for me) the current US aggression.

Most socialist/communist afficienado's are always talking about some subset of the public "seizing power" (or whatever other euphemism for revolution you wish to use). Do we for one second believe that they are suggesting this revolution will be peaceful and have no casualties? That the establishment will simply step aside and say "oh, well, seeing as its popular we'll just giev up without a fight"? Not a chance.

Getting back somewhat on-topic, I would say that fundamentally I believe the US brought 9/11 upon themselves.

If it was about religion, then why not the Vatican?
If it was about "western freedoms" then why concentrate almost purely and solely on the US (beit on its home soil, or its foreign-placed resoures) as has been the case in any situation where it wasn't a "national" terrorist organisation striking against foreigners in general.

This does not mean in any way that I condone what was done. It was reprehensible in every way, but thats not the point.

Look at it this way....lets say you're back in school, and there's a bully in your class. You, benig brighter than the bully deliberately belittle him inside the classroom. As a result, the bully decides to beat the crap out of you.

Did you bring it on yourself? Yes.
Does that make the bully right? No.

jc

Originally posted by Man
It's no small number.

Agreed, but half is still a far cry from "fairly full".

Not only that, but the article you posted implied that the initial estimates were up to 50,000 people indicating that at 17,000 was more like 1/3 of the potential count.

Taking the "99% below the crash-line survived" quote as well, and assuming an even distribution of people, we can tehrefore conclude that had the planes arrived at a busier time the death toll would have been up to triple what it was - and thats without even considering the question as to whether or not the evacuation precedures could have coped with triple the volume, etc

Similarly, targetting the planes lower in the building, while increasing the chance of a fluffed job would have caused vastly higher death-tolls as well.

In short, while it was a tragedy, the argument that teh attack was not intended to carry out the maximum damage holds true.

Having said that, I don' think it would be fair to say that they were trying to minimise it either...I don't think the deaths were a significatn factor at all - it was the building which was the target.

This point of view would also be supported by the attack on the Pentagon managing to hit the one side which had its restrengthening work completed.

These guys weren't out to inflict the most human casualties - they couldn't have been unless you want to somehow imply they were massively inept. They were out to strike at symbolic targets - and (IMHO) the falling of the Towers was not even an expected result.

jc

SkepticOne

Originally posted by bonkey
Similarly, targetting the planes lower in the building, while increasing the chance of a fluffed job would have caused vastly higher death-tolls as well.

The second plane went into a steep dive prior to impact in order to hit lower down the building. The hijackers also took planes bound for the west coast in order to maximise fuel load.

Originally posted by bonkey

These guys weren't out to inflict the most human casualties - they couldn't have been unless you want to somehow imply they were massively inept. They were out to strike at symbolic targets - and (IMHO) the falling of the Towers was not even an expected result.

jc

Indeed but that could have been done by a few suicide bombers gaining entry to the building with the right equipment.
Considering the level of planning that must have went into this event, a similar level of planning could have located a couple of people with a bomb attached to their person, somewhere in either tower.
Security levels prior to 9-11 could have allowed that.
A simple telephone warning then could have allowed damage to the building yet saved many, many lives.

The statue of liberty would have been a safer ( yet equally high profile ) target from a minimisation of casulties point of view.

The perpetrators/planners of 9-11 must have considered the amount of lives they were putting at risk in such a central location-they weren't un inteligent obviously.
But then they didn't care.

If it was about religion, then why not the Vatican?

It's not about Religion on it's own, it's more to do with who is the biggest proliferator of the western lifestyle and that is the U.S.A
I don't have a problem with the proliferation of a western lifestyle.
It is afterall a matter of choice as I can become a hermit , while all around me are enjoying themselves if I want.
But I have that choice.
Women under the Taliban, the preferred model of Bin Laden did not.
Of course theres plenty of pot stirring going on by the west and the U.S/Israel in particular as a by product of the desire to maximise profits.
But in an ideal world there would be work arounds for that , not including war/terrorism or mahem.

mm

LegacyUser

These guys weren't out to inflict the most human casualties - they couldn't have been unless you want to somehow imply they were massively inept. They were out to strike at symbolic targets - and (IMHO) the falling of the Towers was not even an expected result.

I'd say they weren't out to inflict the most human casualties per se (crashing the planes into a full stadium would have killed way more), but once they chose those symbolic targets they would have tried to kill as many there as possible, the first plane hit very high up but it wasn't by design, just bad flying, and the early timing had probably more to do with the planning of the attack than how many people would be in their offices, I doubt there were many opportunities to hijack 4 airplanes at the same time, two of them in locations where a near simultaneus hit on the wtc could be mounted.

Victor

Originally posted by dsheehan
You dislike America because they use their forgein policy to further their interests???? What country doesn't?? Because they're the biggest and most powerful, it means they have influence, but every country has influence due to it's forgein policy. Ireland happens to at the moment have quite a bit of influence for it's size in Uganda given the amount of the forgein aid budget that is spent their. Initially as a member of the EU, Ireland has influence that it does use at the WTO talks to better the farmers by keeping high subsidies. To decry america for using forgein policy to better their interests is hypocritical as every country does it (except maybe the vatican)

The difference is Ireland uses it's aid to benefit the receipients like Lesotho, Mozambique, Tanzania, Ethiopia, Zambia and Uganda and East Timor, but get very little back out of it (other than goodwill and consequent safety for our our UN troops). And while the farmers do fight their corner at the WTO, it is gradually going agaisnt them. By comparison, the USA almost exclusively uses foreign policy for self interest

ReefBreak

Originally posted by Victor
The difference is Ireland uses it's aid to benefit the receipients like Lesotho, Mozambique, Tanzania, Ethiopia, Zambia and Uganda and East Timor, but get very little back out of it (other than goodwill and consequent safety for our our UN troops). And while the farmers do fight their corner at the WTO, it is gradually going agaisnt them. By comparison, the USA almost exclusively uses foreign policy for self interest

The US is by far he biggest contributor of foreign aid to Developing Countries in the world.