|
|
Currently no members online:)
You are an anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here |
We have 28 guests online !
|
|
|
|
|
Shmeng of the Week: Noah and 9/11 |
Posted by
angelofdarkness on Thursday, September 19, 2002 - 10:51 PM PST
I recently read the following article in The New York Times:
Over the past year several friends have remarked to me how much they still feel a pit in their stomachs from 9/11. One even said she felt as if this was the beginning of the end of the world.
And no wonder. Those suicide hijackings were such an evil act that they shattered your faith in human beings and in the wall of civilization that was supposed to constrain the worst in human behavior. There is now a big jagged hole in that wall.
What to do? For guidance, I turned to one of my mentors, Rabbi Tzvi Marx, who teaches in the Netherlands. He offered me a biblical analogy. "To some extent," said Tzvi, "we feel after 9/11 like we have experienced the flood of Noah — as if a flood has inundated our civilization and we are the survivors. What do we do the morning after?"
The story of Noah has a lot to offer. "What was the first thing Noah did when the flood waters receded and he got off the ark?" asked Tzvi. "He planted a vine, made wine and got drunk." Noah's first response to the flood's devastation of humanity, and the challenge he now faced, was to numb himself to the world.
"But what was God's reaction to the flood?" asked Tzvi. "Just the opposite. God's reaction was to offer Noah a more detailed set of rules for mankind to live by — rules which we now call the Noahite laws. His first rule was that life is precious, so man should not murder man." (These Noahite laws were later expanded to include prohibitions against idolatry, adultery, blasphemy and theft.)
It's interesting — you would have thought that after wiping out humanity with a devastating flood, God's first post-flood act wouldn't have been to teach that all life is precious. But it was. Said Tzvi: "It is as though God said, `Now I understand what I'm up against with these humans. I need to set for them some very clear boundaries of behavior, with some very clear values and norms, that they can internalize.' "
And that is where the analogy with today begins. After the deluge of 9/11 we have two choices: We can numb ourselves to the world, and plug our ears, or we can try to repair that jagged hole in the wall of civilization by insisting, more firmly and loudly than ever, on rules and norms — both for ourselves and for others.
"God, after the flood, refused to let Noah and his offspring indulge themselves in escapism," said Tzvi, "but he also refused to give them license to live without moral boundaries, just because humankind up to that point had failed."
The same applies to us. Yes, we must kill the murderers of 9/11, but without becoming murderers and without simply indulging ourselves. We must defend ourselves — without throwing out civil liberties at home, without barring every Muslim student from this country, without forgetting what a huge shadow a powerful America casts over the world and how it can leave people feeling powerless, and without telling the world we're going to do whatever we want because there has been a flood and now all bets are off.
Because imposing norms and rules on ourselves gives us the credibility to demand them from others. It gives us the credibility to demand the rule of law, religious tolerance, consensual government, self-criticism, pluralism, women's rights and respect for the notion that my grievance, however deep, does not entitle me to do anything to anyone anywhere.
It gives us the credibility to say to the Muslim world: Where have you been since 9/11? Where are your voices of reason? You humbly open all your prayers in the name of a God of mercy and compassion. But when members of your faith, acting in the name of Islam, murdered Americans or committed suicide against "infidels," your press extolled them as martyrs and your spiritual leaders were largely silent. Other than a few ritual condemnations, they offered no outcry in their mosques; they drew no new moral red lines in their schools. That's a problem, because if there isn't a struggle within Islam — over norms and values — there is going to be a struggle between Islam and us.
In short, numbing ourselves to the post-9/11 realities will not work. Military operations, while necessary, are not sufficient. Building higher walls may feel comforting, but in today's interconnected world, they're an illusion. Our only hope is that people will be restrained by internal walls — norms and values. Visibly imposing them on ourselves, and loudly demanding them from others, is the only viable survival strategy for our shrinking planet.
Otherwise, start building an ark.
Have we done enough Muslim bashing to satisfy the masses yet? I guess not...
As it is, they have to face the ignorance of the masses on a daily basis, people of almost every religious background looking down on them and their beliefs because of a few very imbalanced people that were incapable of understanding the religion. Muslim leaders may not have said much against this, but the Taliban still has some amount of control in the middle east, and religious leaders don’t necessarily represent the people that follow the religion. I sent the writer this response:
Your article, “Noah and 9/11” really bothered me. I have not met a single Muslim that was happy when those planes hit the world trade center.
I am aware of the fact that there are some Muslim extremists that think that the religion supports violence and attacking people because they have different beliefs, but they do not in any way represent the religion or the people who follow it.
Since 9/11, there is a lot of hate directed at the Muslim community, and many of these people endure ostracism, discrimination, and sometimes vigilante assaults as a result. Some of my best friends were afraid to go out in public because of the horrible things that were being done to anyone that followed their faith.
Maybe you should ask them if they see the hijackers as martyrs. Maybe you should ask them if they enjoy the way people treat them now. Haven’t they been through enough already?
I am interested in everyone’s reactions to “Noah and 9/11” and I would also like to see more people responding to the article.
Here is the url for the response page.
http://www.thomaslfriedman.com/contact.htm
If I find any better ways to contact him, I'll let everyone know.
|
Note: It's always nice to see someone fight back when they see madness running wild in our little world. |
| |
|
|
Average Rating : 1.0
Total ratings : 1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Noah and 9/11 | Login/Create an account | 27 Comments |
| Comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
Re: Noah and 9/11
by AloneSoul (AloneSoul@hurting.com)
on Sep 19, 2002 - 11:18 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://
|
What I am about to say may be alittle off topic from the point of the article, I don't know, it's 2:14 as I type.
To keep this short, blood for blood. Wipe out the terrorist.
I hold no grudge against Muslims or anyone for that matter who holds a different choice in religion. They have been wrongly persecuted by the public because of the actions of a few. I do (carry hatred for those brainwashed terrorists idiots which greatly wronged islam) hold a grudge toward those idiots who cheered and clapped in my home town while listening to the radio during 9/11, while on the job, pumping gas and ringing up items at their mart. They were beaten by a small group of people. I hold no sympathy for them. People like that should be booted out of the country.
For now I choose to cover my ears. I’m saturated with 9/11 and only want to see justice served rather than put deep thought into the article.
|
Re: Noah and 9/11 by callei (plyn@plynlymon.com) on Sep 19, 2002 - 11:26 PM (User info | Send a Message) http://www.plynlymon.com | the people that did the killing died on the same planes as their victems, didnt they?
some other moneyed powerful bastards that put them up to it are still alive, but that is true of our military too. Our "top brass" are still alive too.
And for the record, not everyone that cheered was muslim, tans well, or wears a beard. Dont forget that nice American Christian boy that blew up some other important building (killing lots of people) who is still alive....
I bet he cheered too. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Noah and 9/11 by AloneSoul (AloneSoul@hurting.com) on Sep 20, 2002 - 12:06 AM (User info | Send a Message) http:// | Yeah, the American Taliban, Osoma sympathisers, the sick bastards who found the 9/11 footage sexually gratifying, *shakes his head*...that slipped my mind, forgive me. This late at night I am forgetful.
It angered me greatly to see those people smiling that day...that's jaded my patience some. I just want to see justice done more than anything. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Illusion of Justice by Monolycus on Sep 20, 2002 - 01:28 AM (User info | Send a Message) | Alone, I am only going to respond to this topic this one time in an attempt to derail a discussion that I can see no good coming from. I do have something that I would like to put forward, however. What you do with my thoughts is entirely up to you.
How could "justice" for the events we are discussing possibly be done? Would killing people make the pain of that event go away and bring the victims back to their families? Would passing draconian laws restricting our liberties and making suspicious people disappear forever make everything as it was before this event happened? What response could possibly correct this "injustice" and not simply cause more suffering...?
You say the thought of people smiling and dancing over this event makes you angry. Has it occured to you that these people have also felt angry, silenced, marginalised, voiceless, helpless and exploited by this country? Their expression, the one that makes you so angry, is equal to and opposite your own... Shall they be made to suffer so that you will no longer be angry?
Finally, and most importantly, is it wrong to kill people? There are no qualifiers here, whether you like them or not, a human being is still a human being. It is either wrong to kill other human beings or it is not... do not fall into the trap of rationalising things into the way you want them to be. It is either wrong or it is not. If it is wrong to kill people, then our raining death upon the citizens of Afghanistan has made us equally culpable in the game of terrorism. If it is not wrong to kill people, then the terrorists did nothing wrong on September 11, and there is nothing for us to take action against.
I have said this before and I will continue to say this. Violence begets only violence. Revenge resolves nothing... retaliation goes on and on while more and more victims and families of victims suffer, and more and more people have something to retaliate against. Stop this self-righteousness... we live in a world where people resort to atrocities because they feel they can not be heard otherwise. Raining bombs down in retaliation sends the message to the world that violence is acceptable if you have powerful enough weapons to get away it. IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. PERIOD. Ad baculum arguments are ALWAYS wrong.
If you are genuine about wanting to see "justice" done, work on making the world a place where events like September 11 never happen... and that can never be done while the United States bullies the rest of the world. They will make themselves heard... give them recourse to do so peacefully instead of adding to their grievances. we need to stop marginalising groups of human beings until they are desperate enough to engage in those tactics.
Calm down. Think. There are no good guys or bad guys. We are all of us just human beings. Hatred, revenge, anger and insensitivity were what brought us to this problem in the first place. I am
profoundly sad.
~Monolycus. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Illusion of Justice by Ironboots on Sep 20, 2002 - 08:24 AM (User info | Send a Message) http://ranger.vr9.com/Flash.html | Exactly, Monolycus. If they are trying to get our attention, perhaps we should listen. For I haven't heard any reasoning behind their actions besides 'They hate us'.
-Why- do they hate us? Sure, Israel is a thorn in the side of everybody, but I'm not sure that is -all- that is going on in their heads. And if they just plain don't like us, then perhaps we should communicate to correct that.
But I don't think that they would have an international organization to hurt Americans if they didn't have a good motive for it. And we should find that out.
Dropping bombs isn't going to make them love us.
|
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Illusion of Justice by Anonymous-Coward on Sep 20, 2002 - 02:42 PM | Ok, I normally stay out of conversations like these, simply because they normally end in fights, but I think I can but in just this once.
Personally, I don't give a damn if they are trying to get our attention or not. They hijacked 4 planes, and flew them and their civilian occupants into buildings. Two of which, housed several thousand civilians. Civilians, not soldiers who said that they were willing to fight and die for their country, but normal poeple who woke up in the morning, went to work, and died before they could finish their morning coffee.
Now you can say that we do the same thing when we bomb a village. But here is the difference, we bomb a strategic military target in a time of war. That means that we bomb factories making weapons, training facilities, and places that make NBC weapons. There are rather few casualties compared to the attacks made apon us.
They later sent anthrax to people across the nation. Mind you, this was all done after they bombed embasies in africa, and plenty other crimes. Is this a cry for attention? Should we buy them some candy to see if that makes them happy? Maybe we just need to take our little child over to toys 'r' us and buy them the new power rangers action figure.
After all, this is all just a temper tantrum. They just want attention. We just need to sit down with these people and have a heart to heart talk with them. After all, they are perfectly sane people that won't come to whatever meeting we try to hold with the latest nerve toxin tucked into their sleeves. I'm sure that they just want to talk, and there's probably not a nukelear bomb in the van in the parking lot.
I mean, it's not like we are dealing with insane radicals here right, these are surely rational logickly thinking human beings. We can all sit down and have a nice little talk. Talking can solve anything...
|
[ No anonymous comments ]
[ No anonymous comments ]
[ No anonymous comments ]
I agree and disagree, by AloneSoul (AloneSoul@hurting.com) on Sep 20, 2002 - 11:59 AM (User info | Send a Message) http:// | You’ve gotta know that days like 9/11 bring out the good and bad in us. Our love and hate. Our companions and anger. Our sympathy and vengeance. We are only human and cannot push those feelings out of our heads.
Those people came to this country, worked with their blood and sweat to get what they got.
When America was attacked, they were happy. They live in this country, worked in this country, began to raise a family in this country but when a tragedy like 9/11 came they were ecstatic
It's hard to grasp the concept why if someone hates this country, they would come here and try to live a "normal" life.
They could have expressed their thoughts in another manner, there are many ways for people to do that while being protected by local/national government agencies. If they were afraid of the reaction from the public then I don’t understand how they could be smiling (with the radio on) that day with people looking right at them.
I agree, there is NO justice. It is a illusion. Money buys it and it is controlled by corrupt men.
I still agree with military action. Justice for the Taliban, (and all those terrorist organizations) in my eyes, is destroying those which threaten all people who have no reason to be attacked. It is for the safety of people. If we didn’t take action against them then who knows what would have happened in the future? How many more people would have died?
Bloodshed will never end as long as humans fail to express ourselves without weapons and try understanding. That will never happen. Even then, we always must carry arms for defense, not only for our nation but our planet.
Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity, most of the time. Violence begets violence, yes, but sometimes violence is the answer when our lives are threatened by other men. Wars do solve some things and many times, they don’t. They bring more war, sometimes they stop that particular conflict with that country, forever it seems.
You’ve got to remember that it is in our nature to destroy ourselves.
Please know... If there is a draft and I am called to fight I, will drop my lifestyle and ship off. We cannot spit on the soldiers who lay down their lives in defense of ours.
I know politicians see this as a reason to take away our rights and invade the middle east for oil. They could have prevented 9/11 but didn't and I hope they too receive some kind of justice. I doubt it. This is why we, the public, need to take a stand and let the corrupt know that life is more than a number.
America is a imperialistic nation in ways but at the same time, our crusades for peace are sincere, we really do want to stop genocides in other countries, feed the hungry, spread a democracy in monarchism, but our thoughts and efforts go out in vain or give us the image of begin a imperialist nation...our corrupt politicians don’t help our appearance either, they gave us a terrible image. Our media gives off the impression that we are weakminded and gullible.
I am not a bigot, I do not wish any harm upon any people of a different faith, if we began that sort of national persecution with deportation, jailing and executing the innocent, we would be no better than the Nazis. Those terrorist idiots greatly wronged Muslims, Islam and the religion of peace and love. They see it as justification to kill.
Considering how we handled ourselves over the past year (for the most part), I say that we’ve done quite well. Yes, the incident in Florida does contradict my statement but those people were looking for trouble when saying (joking) they were going to take down or level Miami. This isn’t a time for jests on those scales. Also, those incidents aren’t a daily routine...I hope.
I am torn with you about good guys and bad guys. Unlike other animals, we can handle a greater level of complex thought. Our desires, our money, our corruption, our lust for p
Read the rest of this comment... |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Illusion of Justice by Domkitten on Sep 23, 2002 - 08:45 AM (User info | Send a Message) | Inside the foaming-at-the-mouth maddness that was a response to 9/11 it is nice to see a well reasoned and insightful opinion on the subject that is not inherently self contridictory.
If killing is wrong than all forms are wrong. There is not such a thing as a right and just slaughter. I think the mentality of many Americans and even our clever leader in cheif is "oh my god, behind that door is a big wide world full of people that are mean, destroy it!" That sort of uncontrolled xenophobia has us buring our own heads in the sand saying "they killed us first" when in reality America has never stopped hurting them without retaliation. Killing them is wrong, killing us is wrong. And eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
Good Show M~
Yours,
Domkitten |
[ No anonymous comments ]
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Illusion of Justice by Domkitten on Sep 26, 2002 - 09:10 AM (User info | Send a Message) | How can you be sure that this one wrong doesn't lead to even more violence thand we have now. Of course, we may stop something for awhile, but the retaliation we can expect can only be worse.
We created the violence that we are now appalled by. We have to take responsibility for that and answer responsibily.
A responsible answer does not include committing a non-provoked act of aggresion against countries that will never be our equal.
Really. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Noah and 9/11
by bettie_x (strangersangel@hotmail.com)
on Sep 23, 2002 - 01:33 AM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://bettie_x.tripod.com/strangeasangels/
|
xaos and morte, I find myself a bit more on your sides than not.
I deeply sympathise with the islamic community...I feel horridly for them, for what those people did that put them in the worst light imaginable. Those men that committed the attacks are not only murderers but a SHAME to everything islamic.
I dont' know the answers. If I did, I'd be running the country and deftly getting us out of this mess.
But for everything else:
For all the bad we do, we've done just as much good.
For as much as they (enter any country with a problem with the U.S.)want to be left alone, we're the FIRST people they come running to when disaster strikes.
Some countries hate us cause we meddle, some countries hate us because we fucked up. If they wanted to let us know that they wanted to be left alone, flying fucking jet liners into civilian buildings was a pretty thick headed way to get people to look the other direction.
The thing that bothers me the most was the INTENSITY and the planning involved in this. Bothers me almost as bad as how intently it was focused on "demoralisation" and kill factor. How many CIVILIANS can we take out all at once?
Three planes, over 5K people. Fuck me, I'll NEVER get over that.
I dont' like war, I don't like the idea of it, I dont' like what it implies about humans as a species, and I don't like where it has lead with this new business with Iraq....reeks of being the springboard to WWIII, but anyway...
All I can think of is that if we dont' do SOMETHING (and I'm always open to something other than bullets) it'll continue to happen. It's no coincidence that it happened in the first year of a new president that the nation had no faith in and that "won" the presidency by being elected not by the people but by a fucking JUDGE.
It was a calculated kick in the balls.
I wanna see it over, but I see no end in sight.
I've said what I have to say over and over already and I don't have the guts to do it again.
All I see is an uncertain future, a lot of angry people, and a big fat boiling pot with "end of the world" writting on it sitting smack dab in a desolate desert full of unhappy people.
It's sounds simple, I could be wrong, and I am STILL drunk so most of this won't make sense, but that's okay, because the rest of the world doesn't either.
|
Iraq by Xaoswolf (Xaoswolf at hotmail dot com) on Sep 23, 2002 - 10:35 AM (User info | Send a Message) http://Xaoswolf.tripod.com | Should we invade Iraq, give Saddam a little kick in the pants. I say yes.
We send in the investigators that he agreed to allow into the country to look for the chemical weapons he is developing illegally, and he throws them out. It should be noted now, that these investagators are a formality. They would never find anything while in Iraq, they are just there for show and a reminder that he got his ass handed to him. Now we want him to sign another paper to let these people in again, probably for another month, following which, he'll throw them right out again.
This is a country run by a mad man, who hates us. Anybody remember when he called for a Jyhad against America? Anybody remember the horrible weapons he used on american troops, and his own people? Well, now he is devoloping again. He is making nukes. And while he might not be crazy enough to use them against us directly, he will use them to attain power throughout the middle east, and sell them to the terrorist groups that he openly supports, and they will use them.
|
[ No anonymous comments ]
Two legs bad, Four legs good! by Monolycus on Sep 24, 2002 - 02:29 AM (User info | Send a Message) | I know that I said that I was going to chip in my two cents and leave, but fret not, there is still no doubt that you will get in the last word. Just skip ahead to picking out one or two words that I have written and post your disagreement if it will save time.
Xaos, you have very efficiently parroted back the party rhetoric regarding the new foreign policy, but let's look a little beyond that. What the pre-emptive policy we have just adopted says is this: "Even if another country has made no overt aggressive acts towards the United States or its neighbours, we are obliged to step in with our military if we think that they might, at some point in the future, pose a threat." The reductio ad absurdum of this policy is this: "Every sovereign nation on this globe is hereby held hostage by the United States because we only need to say that we suspect that you will, in future, do something wrong before we invade you and hand over your country to a regime that will do what WE tell them to". Not one month ago, we were telling Pakistan not to make a first strike against India... and we could not understand why we had no moral credibility in the eyes of the rest of the world. We like to think of ourselves as the "leader of the free world". We just refuse to lead by example.
Since this administration feels that it cramps their style too badly to account for their actions, the people of the US and the world are only given whatever "facts" the administration wishes to share to justify the degree of "threat" that is present. Not big fans of democracy up there on Capitol Hill these days... but if anyone recalls the 2000 presidential election, that is already a given.
In the particular case of Iraq, I recall that they used weapons on their own people (when did they use them on US troops? The Iraqis fell over themselves surrendering at us during Desert Storm... the only casualties we had were from friendly fire. Maybe if we ever picked on a country that stood a chance of defending itself, we would know what it meant to have casualties. Of course, that is why we never went to war with the Soviet Union. They might have smacked us back) and I also remember that the weapons that were used were US weaponry that was given to them to use against the Iranians by members of the Reagan administration in the 80's. Now they are using soviet-era weapons supplied by their allies. Iraq has never, in any documented case, used weapons of their own manufacture. There is as much proof that Saddam Hussein is making nuclear weapons as there was that the poor soul our government recently disappeared was going to, at some point in the future, make a "dirty nuclear bomb". These nuclear weapons exist nowhere except in the imaginations of the people who invoke them to panic the public into supporting their indefensible actions. There is a name for groups who try to get their way by terrorising people... It might come to me later.
As for the "war on terrorism" (biggest misnomer since the "war on drugs"), who, precisely, is responsible for that...? the second tower was still teetering on September 11th when the press starting using bin Laden's name. Nobody has claimed credit for it, but I see a small group of people with sagging approval ratings and a hostile congress who have seen a whole lot of benefit from it (it would be the most hypocritical thing in the world for Bush <the Elder or Junior>, Cheney, Rumsfeld, or even squeaky little Ashecroft to bemoan the loss of life on 11th September... it was the best thing that ever happened to them and their agenda!)
No, what I see is a group of murderous swine who have no regard for human life and no priorities beyond their own personal gain manipulating a fear-ridden public to achieve their ends. And the terrorists aren't nice guys, either.
~Monolycus.
|
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Iraq by bettie_x (strangersangel@hotmail.com) on Sep 28, 2002 - 09:26 AM (User info | Send a Message) http://bettie_x.tripod.com/strangeasangels/ | Should we invade Iraq? Absolutely NOT.
Saddam is more determined than ever to make sure that this is full on war. He outright stated the he will never again do desert combat. Any action over there will be urban combat, which means zillions of troops and lots of blood. Lots of deaths. Lots of sons and daughters that won't come home. His troops specialise in urban warfare...and they're pissed. He may be a dictator, and an asshole, but he's not an idiot. And if we attempt to invade Iraq WE'LL be the dipshits...and we'll pay with the lives of our enlisted.
Iraq recently did a major trade with russia. Oil for RUSSIAN TANKS. Russian tanks are frighteningly efficient, brutal, and effective. They're some of the best tanks on the market, really. When the soviet union fell, russia began a sort of technological revolution and one of their best assets are tanks. Now Iraq has them. Not fun.
This is over oil and power, nothing more. This is George's way of redeeming himself for fucking up the terrorist situation. He can't find the enemy easily so he's focusing on an age old favorite that everyone knows the location of. I'm not fighting a rich man's war. I'm not sending my husband off to a rich man's war. If they really wanted saddam dead years ago, we'd have done it one way or another. We missed our chance and are paying for it now.
No that I don't think he and the taliban don't deserve a kick in the balls....we're just not going about it the right way.
|
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Noah and 9/11
by ThatOneWastedChick on Sep 25, 2002 - 01:56 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://
|
I could not have said it better myself. ::claps::
|
[ No anonymous comments ]
Pearl Harbor
by Comedian (eccentrically_long@yahoo.com)
on Sep 26, 2002 - 09:45 AM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://http://
|
What shocked me was the striking similarity of these attacks to Pearl Harbor. Not in any kind of "Americans suffered a pinprick attack" sense. But because of the fucking politics.
I'm angry. I'm angry every day. I fucking hate the world. I hate oil. I hate politics. I hate family issues. I hate all the things that made this event happen. And I'm going to tell you why.
Bush Senior lost desert storm. Honestly people. Saddam is still in power. He's still a dictator. He still likes to rape young men. A successful incursion campaigns dethrones the person in power. So we failed. The turth of the matter is that Saddam was on the U.S. paybill for quite a while keeping oil prices high and beating the crap out of all his neighbours and generally being an asshole so we didn't have to. Joy for him. So, now, in a new Century, we find ourselves fighting the war of the last because of Bush Senior pushing his son into a conflict with a man who did not only outlive Bush, but the entire Clinton(pfaw!) administration and will no doubt at the end of this war Bush Junior. And probably Bush 2, if there ever is one.
The important part is the Dutch have turned their eyes to Uzbekistan(spelling? Gah) and that's where the eyes of the world's market geniuses and billionaires have turned, as well. And we all should know by this point in history that the Dutch are anything but stupid.
On the day itself, I was getting ready to go to English class. I heard in a simulated terrorist fighter game that there was a war going down. I turned on the TV and watched the towers collapse. I heard first hand the officials saying that there had been a BOMBING on the Pentagon. I watched the towers collapsed and listened to a reporter ask about the fireproofing safety measures that the contruction workers had taken when building the place and him speculating that if they were in place that the building probably would not collapse. The clarity of thought then was shocking.
The shots shown of the Pentagon during the crash and during what supposedly happened show no boeing 747 sticking out of the side of the building; the crash landing of the plane was estimated to have bounced along the ground at one point before colliding with the building. While a 747 penetrating a single wing of the pentagon would have been a massive crash site and there would have been survivors. It was a bombing. In a wing that had been emptied earlier that month for renovation. Ho ho. The black box would have been recovered. There was no plane that crashed into the pentagon. Ask for passenger manifestos, flight numbers and to see the wreckage. Because there would have been a lot.
The true people to blame for the incidents at the twin towers would have to been the architects. Most people forget the incident in the late 1920's where a bomber collided with the empire state building. How could you, in decent reason, build a deliberately tall building without making adequate fireproofing, structural supports and proper weight distribution to survivor an airplane collision when you had just seen a plane collide with another? Easily, if you were skimming the production costs. Because of the embezzelment inherent to that project, we now have a billion dollar incident and these men are being paid again to rebuild more shoddy buildings.
Possibly the most amusing part is the defensive stance of the government over the issue. THey have admitted they knew of the attacks before they came. So well, in fact, that on a Weekday during work hours there were no VIPS in the building at the time. The death list is mostly service workers, menial employees and a few lawyers. If I remember correctly the CIA offices within the building had been closed at those hours. All federal employees had been removed. They knew it was coming. Just as they knew Pearl harbor was coming and had evacuated the aircraft carriers to more convienient locations just the day before.
<
Read the rest of this comment...
|
Remember the (fill in whatever is expedient) by Monolycus on Sep 26, 2002 - 01:18 PM (User info | Send a Message) | One of the primary techniques employed by a regime that wants to control the public is to instill a sense of marginalisation in the minds of dissenters (which is why that "United We Stand" virus was started... nursery school level psy-ops, but I'll be damned if it doesn't work for the lion's share of the herd). Thank you very much for speaking out, Comedian. Being outraged is the teensiest bit easier for me to swallow when I know I am not entirely alone. I am
soon to be disappeared, I'm sure.
~Monolycus |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Remember the (fill in whatever is expedient) by bettie_x (strangersangel@hotmail.com) on Sep 28, 2002 - 10:05 AM (User info | Send a Message) http://bettie_x.tripod.com/strangeasangels/ | You aren't alone, and there are a lot of outraged people out there, myself included. Some of them are misinformed or blind. That's where the trouble starts.
We could point fingers until the sun snuffs out and we'll never have the out and out "why" pinned down nice and neat. Everyone up high is pointing fingers, which is what got us into this mess to begin with...now nobody knows which way to look. Nobody has a direction to channel their anger because we're ALL uninformed to some point. So they channel their anger at a government they hate, an ethnicity, a religion, a person, or a country that has no more to do with the terrorists than ours did with timmothy mcveigh.
Something has to be done, and it won't be pretty, and it may just be the end of us all...THE finger on THE big red button...but as I've said a zillion times over, if I knew what to do I wouldn't be an internet political jockey throwing ideas to the wind sounding like I know what I"m talking about. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
The Right Track by Monolycus on Sep 29, 2002 - 05:24 PM (User info | Send a Message) | You were correct about a few things, Comedian. A few quick facts...
Four Boeing 767-300's were hijacked the morning of 11 September 2001 (American flight 11 from Boston, United Airlines flight 93 from Newark, and United flight 175 and American flight 77 from Dulles International). You can find the flight manifests and passenger lists if you look for them. These four planes were definitely taken and the passengers and flight crews are all missing, presumed dead.
Two of these airplanes flew into the World Trade Center. Documented. One of these airplanes nose-dived into Pennsylvania. Documented. There were no survivors and no flight data recovered.
The fourth aircraft was alleged to have hit a disused wing of the Pentagon. There were no notable casualties reported from the Pentagon staff, mostly some odd cleaning crew members were killed. However...
The hole in the side of the Pentagon was not as large as a Boeing 767, nor was there aircraft wreckage found in or around the building. It was obviously not only a bombing, but one carried out with the knowledge and complicity of the people who work there. But this leaves us with a big question:
In such a high profile act as this, why not simply allow the aircraft to strike the building (even if you pack it with C-4 to help things along)? Why go to all the trouble to hijack the airplane in the first place if it is never going to hit the target that it is claimed to have hit... and further, because the bomb was placed there, those responsible knew perfectly well that the plane would never hit that target from the start. Where is airplane number 4 and those aboard it now... and why were these aircraft hijacked in the first place?
Put it together. It's not that difficult.
~Monolycus. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: The Right Track by Comedian (eccentrically_long@yahoo.com) on Sep 29, 2002 - 06:56 PM (User info | Send a Message) http://http:// | Also, it was reported that the plane had bounced on the ground before it hit the Pentagon. There, however, were no sights where a plane without a landing gear hit the ground at a nice enough angle to avoid sucking up cars, grass, landscaping, or any other signs of the plane actually hitting ground before it hit the pentagon.
I have seen a plane crash, and hit the ground in the same fashion. A Cesna that hit the ground tore up a patch of grass roughly three times the size of the plane. if it had skid into the building, there would have been even more damage to the landscape which was never seen-- the only real damage I saw to the outside of the building was burnt areas probably from the bomb exploding. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: The Right Track by Monolycus on Sep 30, 2002 - 05:39 AM (User info | Send a Message) | I am in complete agreement with you; no airplane struck that building (plenty of people have spotted this. It is apparent to an educated layman... a Boeing 767-300 has a span of 157.1 feet, it can not strike a building and leave an impact scar any smaller than that. It is also 181.2 feet long, which is 21 feet longer than the basic model 767. It should have no difficulty penetrating through one side of the Pentagon and through the other if it were piloted at an angle nearly perpendicular to the building). That is only the first step. Now put it together.
There were four Boeing 767's hijacked. Three are accounted for. It is claimed that one of them hit the Pentagon when it obviously did not. If the objective were genuinely a matter of destroying (a part of) the Pentagon, the hijacked plane would have simply been allowed to hit it (this would be true regardless of who carried it out). It wasn't. What can we deduce?
~Monolycus.
|
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: The Right Track by Comedian (eccentrically_long@yahoo.com) on Sep 30, 2002 - 08:31 AM (User info | Send a Message) http://http:// | Who was on the plane, where did it take off from,and were any members of the flight member list members of the International Courier Guild? Where was the plane bound to land? The information the airport could give would be invaluable, but is classified of course, such as fuel lists, foods stocked on the plane, who the pilots where and what languages they could speak.
Layers and layers and layers of maybe's. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: The Right Track by Monolycus on Oct 01, 2002 - 04:13 AM (User info | Send a Message) | The airplane in question was American Airlines Flight 77 from Dulles International Airport. There were 64 people aboard the flight (out of a maximum capacity of 218 passengers). The names of the passengers and crew are not classified and can be obtained almost anywhere (try CNN.com). More information can be found at: http://www.freepint.com/gary/91101.html
http://www.purepolitics.com/september11th.htm
http://www.unansweredquestions.net/timeline/update3.html
All of these data are extraneous to the questions at hand. You seem to have a good handle on human nature and are not hampered by the a priori belief that we are the good guys... now just use the information that you do have and put it together. The rule of parsimony (viz. the simplest explanation is likely to be the correct one) could be used to good effect here.
*One final hint: It is a good thing that you are a comedian and not a stage magician because your attention so far has gone precisely to where it has been misdirected. Four planes; four crashes; five crash sites (Somerset, PA and outside of Camp David, MD are easily and often overlooked)... you made it that far. It would be far easier to crash a plane than to fake crashing a plane, but that was what was done. You made it that far. Now, why were these planes hijacked?
~M.
|
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Noah and 9/11
by bettie_x (strangersangel@hotmail.com)
on Sep 28, 2002 - 10:13 AM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://bettie_x.tripod.com/strangeasangels/
|
Here's what I'd do if I was elected by default into a presidential position.
I"d have a biiiig party. Our worst enemies, our best "friends" and everyone would get a paper and a pencil. There would be margaritas and shirley temples and juice. There would be food that met every ethnic, social, and religious standards. Comfortable chairs. They would eat and drink and then take their pencils and papers and write a 500 word essay (not that long...they'd have to narrow it down big time) on WHY they're pissed/angry/upset/feel mistreated at who/what/why/where.
They'd have to take turns reading them at the podium like they're in school Everyone would have to keep their mouths shut and applaud at the end of every essay.
There'd be more food and drinkables and I'd tell everyone to tear up their papers.
Then with a second piece of paper they'd wright down their likes and dislikes that concern THEM...not their likes and dislikes of other people/countries. Then read them. I'm sure they'd be suprised to show how much others share same interests. Then they'd turn to the person on the right and left and HUUUUUGGGGG no matter how much they hated it.
I'd tell them that I would like for everyone to go home, put away their boomsticks and just get along. No interferrance from anyone. No more bickering.
Then we'd dance to bad 80's synthpop and german electronic and russian rock and middleastern crooning and african tribal and south american jive, get to know each other.
I'd give them all my cell phone number so we can "kick it".
We'd do it every year.
I know this won't work, but it's a better shot than anything i"ve seen anyone else try. I
|
|
|