Three years have passed since the horrific, devastating, earth
shaking, world changing catastrophic events of 9/11. The day all my
belief in the goodness of mankind in general was destroyed. I saw
pure evil for the very first time. My sense of security and safety
that I always felt comfortable having was no longer an emotion I
possessed. Only utter vulnerabilty.
The fright I experianced was nothing I've ever felt (ie when is the
next one coming) and nothing that I can adequately put into words.
And being that I was 21 years old when 9/11 happened - I also had the
disadvantage of never witnessing terrorist attacks; wars - suicide
bombers, Jihad - the fact that we (America) are considered "infidels"
and the like. This was all brand new to me.
And to have it on American soil; in New York.. and to have the planes
that were hijacked taked from Logon in Boston, the planes I've used
all my life - that was another oh-so-close-to home absolute mind
blower for me.
What happened on 9/11 was humanity at it's worst. To think of the
people jumping to their deaths from the Towers--My God :( ..can you
even imagine what was running through their minds: "either I stay in
this burning building hoping to somehow be saved - or I jump as a
flight or fight instinct. Imagine what it took for them to jump.
The desperation.
And the fearless fire fighters who were running *into* the buildings
while everyone else was running out. Yes, they are fire-fighters;
that is their profession.. but they are still *human* beings
underneath that uniform. Human beings just like us. Human beings
with a family at home that depend on them. And they still put all the
inherant fears and rationale we as humans possess as a whole aside and
with amazing COURAGE did what they were meant to do. True heroes.
And speaking of heroes - the men who took down the hijacked plane in
Pennsylvania saving God knows how many more lives were incredible and
amazing. Shining examples of the human spirit; and shining examples
of not knowing exactly how much we are capable of doing when we are
faced with overwhelming obstacles. Heroes.
If any of you want to add a few of your thoughts about 9/11 it would
be nice to dedicate this thread to it. Please: no political
riff-raff; no "sides" - no debate. Let's focus on the destruction; an
most of all.. the victims and their families.
Dani
.
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: You want BLUNT? Re: Let us never forget.. |
17 Sep 2004 09:21:27 AM |
|
|
Cuan a écrit:
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:27:25 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Cuan a écrit:
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 15:49:00 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Cuan a écrit:
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 03:59:23 +0200, "Barbarossa" <fa073505@skynet.be>
wrote:
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:zJM1d.5018$lb5.595491@news20.bellglobal.com...
"AK" <someoneNasty@hotmails.com> wrote in message
news:ol3fk0lp3h4utfku1l0kke6837uieh36u2@4ax.com...
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 18:39:09 -0400, "Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com>
wrote:
*sigh* And how many MORE 9/11s would have happened if the US didn't
use
the
A-bomb? I believe many more lives were saved, especially Japanese
lives.
There is no reason to believe this *****. Many credible sources
acknowledge
that Japan was about to surrender anyway.
Other, equally credible sources say otherwise.
Following your logic, would it be justified to detonate a nuclear bomb
in
Washington DC to save thousands of innocent Iraqi lives lost due to
illegal
invasion based on a lie (WMD) to control oil (oil-theft war)? If not,
why
not?
You would probably think it was justified, but it would certainly not stop
the war. In fact, the retaliation would be (justifiably) beyond belief!
It
would lead to more lives lost, not fewer, unlike the case in 1945.
The discussion was that JG thinks it's terrorism to kill innocent unarmed
people. Why did the USA drop two bombs on cities where hardly any
militairy industry was present and therefore most who were killed were
those innocent unarmed civillians.
Why not a bomb on Tokyo where the leaders of Japan were and where
most of its militairy force was?
You know what? Because the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were
huge terrorist attacks on innocent civillians. It was inexcusable genocide.
Good thing they got dropped the fuckers just before the Geneva
Convention. Clever lads.
Yep. Good timing. :-)
Terrorists were invented later. Tell this ignoramus cuan, for once that
you are on to something.
I've always been onto something. The US is led by genocidal maniacs
who the world would be better off without. They're no better than
Saddam Hussein, or Osama bin Laden. Just because they vapourised 200k
civillian Japanese just prior to the Geneva Convention doesn't clean
the blood off their hands.
Bah, they merely were doing what Japan and Germany was doing.
Thank you very much.
Except it
stopped the war then. Funny that you don't mention them, or that it
stopped a much larger killing.
The final solution?
The Atomic solution! It put the final solution to rest.
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cuan" |
|
| Title: Re: You want BLUNT? Re: Let us never forget.. |
19 Sep 2004 02:47:13 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 14:21:27 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Cuan a écrit:
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:27:25 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Cuan a écrit:
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 15:49:00 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Cuan a écrit:
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 03:59:23 +0200, "Barbarossa" <fa073505@skynet.be>
wrote:
"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:zJM1d.5018$lb5.595491@news20.bellglobal.com...
"AK" <someoneNasty@hotmails.com> wrote in message
news:ol3fk0lp3h4utfku1l0kke6837uieh36u2@4ax.com...
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 18:39:09 -0400, "Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com>
wrote:
*sigh* And how many MORE 9/11s would have happened if the US didn't
use
the
A-bomb? I believe many more lives were saved, especially Japanese
lives.
There is no reason to believe this *****. Many credible sources
acknowledge
that Japan was about to surrender anyway.
Other, equally credible sources say otherwise.
Following your logic, would it be justified to detonate a nuclear bomb
in
Washington DC to save thousands of innocent Iraqi lives lost due to
illegal
invasion based on a lie (WMD) to control oil (oil-theft war)? If not,
why
not?
You would probably think it was justified, but it would certainly not stop
the war. In fact, the retaliation would be (justifiably) beyond belief!
It
would lead to more lives lost, not fewer, unlike the case in 1945.
The discussion was that JG thinks it's terrorism to kill innocent unarmed
people. Why did the USA drop two bombs on cities where hardly any
militairy industry was present and therefore most who were killed were
those innocent unarmed civillians.
Why not a bomb on Tokyo where the leaders of Japan were and where
most of its militairy force was?
You know what? Because the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were
huge terrorist attacks on innocent civillians. It was inexcusable genocide.
Good thing they got dropped the fuckers just before the Geneva
Convention. Clever lads.
Yep. Good timing. :-)
Terrorists were invented later. Tell this ignoramus cuan, for once that
you are on to something.
I've always been onto something. The US is led by genocidal maniacs
who the world would be better off without. They're no better than
Saddam Hussein, or Osama bin Laden. Just because they vapourised 200k
civillian Japanese just prior to the Geneva Convention doesn't clean
the blood off their hands.
Bah, they merely were doing what Japan and Germany was doing.
Thank you very much.
Except it
stopped the war then. Funny that you don't mention them, or that it
stopped a much larger killing.
The final solution?
The Atomic solution! It put the final solution to rest.
Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
Same smell, different name.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AK" |
|
| Title: Re: You want BLUNT? Re: Let us never forget.. |
15 Sep 2004 01:23:32 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 21:16:21 -0400, "Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote:
You would probably think it was justified, but it would certainly not stop
the war. In fact, the retaliation would be (justifiably) beyond belief! It
would lead to more lives lost, not fewer, unlike the case in 1945.
Here is your logic then: since the US has nuclear bombs to retaliate back that
will kill more people, it would not be justified to detonate nuclear bombs in US
cities for illegal invasion of Iraq. However, since Japan did not have nuclear
bombs to retaliate against the US in 1945 that would kill more people, it was
justified to drop nuclear bombs on Japanese cities. Wonderful. In that case,
shouldn't every country develop nuclear bombs that can reach American cities to
stop American aggression? If not, why not?
Also, we know that Iraq didn't have WMD, so the US invaded Iraq. North Korea
does have WMD, so the US didn't invade North Korea. Give this fact, why
shouldn't every country develop nuclear bombs and point them towards the US, to
protect themselves from US aggression and oil-theft? Explain.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: You want BLUNT? Re: Let us never forget.. |
15 Sep 2004 09:42:35 AM |
|
|
AK a écrit:
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 21:16:21 -0400, "Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote:
You would probably think it was justified, but it would certainly not stop
the war. In fact, the retaliation would be (justifiably) beyond belief! It
would lead to more lives lost, not fewer, unlike the case in 1945.
Here is your logic then: since the US has nuclear bombs to retaliate back that
will kill more people, it would not be justified to detonate nuclear bombs in US
cities for illegal invasion of Iraq. However, since Japan did not have nuclear
bombs to retaliate against the US in 1945 that would kill more people, it was
justified to drop nuclear bombs on Japanese cities. Wonderful. In that case,
shouldn't every country develop nuclear bombs that can reach American cities to
stop American aggression? If not, why not?
Because the US is never the aggressor. Always the Muslims killers, since
the aggression of Saddam against Kuwait, and Binny and those who abided
them... so far.
And so aggressors pay, as Allah doesn't like aggressors, and has made
the US the arm to punish them.
If they stop killing innocent maybe Allah will stop punishing them.
But no, more aggressivity is not the answer, and Allah will make sure
other state sponsored or not Muslim terrorists do not get the mean to
make more victim, God willing. Don't worry, Muslims assholes who like
you approve of, and rejoice in, the murder of innocents children, will
get their ***** kicked. Guaranteed.
J.
[snip further lies that are irrelevant since the reason was the breach
of the last chance resolution]
.
|
|
|
| User: "AK" |
|
| Title: Re: You want BLUNT? Re: Let us never forget.. |
15 Sep 2004 05:29:25 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 14:42:35 GMT, Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net>
wrote:
Because the US is never the aggressor.
That's an opinion refuted by fact. Doesn't answer the argument I posted.
Always the Muslims killers, since
the aggression of Saddam against Kuwait, and Binny and those who abided
them... so far.
The US has killed far more people in aggressive wars since the WWII. Here is a
sample:
China (1945-46, 1950-53), Korea (1950-53), Guatemala (1954, 1967-69), Indonesia
(1958), Cuba (1959-60), the Belgian Congo (1964), Peru (1965), Laos (1964-73),
Vietnam (1961-73), Cambodia (1969-70), Grenada (1983), Libya (1986), El Salvador
(1980s), Nicaragua (1980s), Panama (1989), Iraq (1991-??), Bosnia (1995), Sudan
(1998), Yugoslavia (1999). Afghanistan, Iraq
They can kiss my *****.
If a country like the US has a right to posses nuclear weapons (the only country
to have used nukes on civilians), then why shouldn't every country develop
nuclear weapons so that they can protect themselves from American aggression,
like North Korea, Pakistan. The US won't invade these countries because they do
(unlike Iraq) have WMD. Given this fact, why shouldn't every country develop
nuclear bombs (for self defense)?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: You want BLUNT? Re: Let us never forget.. |
15 Sep 2004 09:40:54 PM |
|
|
AK a écrit:
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 14:42:35 GMT, Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net>
wrote:
Because the US is never the aggressor.
That's an opinion refuted by fact. Doesn't answer the argument I posted.
Always the Muslims killers, since
the aggression of Saddam against Kuwait, and Binny and those who abided
them... so far.
The US has killed far more people in aggressive wars since the WWII. Here is a
sample:
China (1945-46, 1950-53), Korea (1950-53), Guatemala (1954, 1967-69), Indonesia
(1958), Cuba (1959-60), the Belgian Congo (1964)
I was in ex-Belgian Congo in 1962-63, there was NO US troops. None. Many
other nationality under the blue helmets (ONUC). No Us troops. Maybe you
should revise your propaganda links.
Ha yes, after the un left, there was a conjoint Belgian-US hostage
rescue operation. Yes, that is typical of what you call aggressive wars. LOL
You are an idiot, as usual.
And no, no piece of ***** rogue country has any right to get Nukes.
They can kiss my *****.
(I borrowed your quote lol)
J.
[snip other lies]
.
|
|
|
| User: "AK" |
|
| Title: Re: You want BLUNT? Re: Let us never forget.. |
16 Sep 2004 12:56:33 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 02:40:54 GMT, Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net>
wrote:
And no, no piece of ***** rogue country has any right to get Nukes.
If a rogue state like the US can have nukes, the rest of them can have them too.
China, North Korea and Pakistan already have them. Rest of them should buy from
North Korea. (oil for nukes).
They can kiss my *****.
And you can kiss mine.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: You want BLUNT? Re: Let us never forget.. |
16 Sep 2004 11:30:09 AM |
|
|
AK a écrit:
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 02:40:54 GMT, Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net>
wrote:
And no, no piece of ***** rogue country has any right to get Nukes.
If a rogue state like the US
Bzzt wrong.
The US is not a rogue state.
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AK" |
|
| Title: Re: You want BLUNT? Re: Let us never forget.. |
17 Sep 2004 12:35:09 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:30:09 GMT, Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net>
wrote:
The US is not a rogue state.
Prove it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: You want BLUNT? Re: Let us never forget.. |
17 Sep 2004 07:56:42 AM |
|
|
AK a écrit:
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:30:09 GMT, Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net>
wrote:
The US is not a rogue state.
Prove it.
It doesn't aggress anyone. It goes after the aggressors.
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AK" |
|
| Title: Re: You want BLUNT? Re: Let us never forget.. |
17 Sep 2004 10:40:53 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 12:56:42 GMT, Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net>
wrote:
It doesn't aggress anyone. It goes after the aggressors.
It sure does. Vietnam was one of the many examples.
Iran is far less aggressive than the US. It never went to war (except against
Iraq and in that case Iraq attacked Iran). If that is your logic for "rogue"
state, then surely Iran has far more right to nukes than the US. If not, prove
it why not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: You want BLUNT? Re: Let us never forget.. |
17 Sep 2004 11:47:36 AM |
|
|
Dream on loser. Iran provide means to Hizbollah killers, Palestinian
killers, and was one who didn't stamp passports of the hijackers.
It is a rogue nation by all standards. Allah doesn't like aggressors.
Furthermore, Iran doesn't need any uranium enrichment, if it goes ahead
it can only be for weapon purposes, it is an aggression to the world, by
breaching the standards of nuclear non-proliferation.
J.
AK a écrit:
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 12:56:42 GMT, Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net>
wrote:
It doesn't aggress anyone. It goes after the aggressors.
It sure does. Vietnam was one of the many examples.
Iran is far less aggressive than the US. It never went to war (except against
Iraq and in that case Iraq attacked Iran). If that is your logic for "rogue"
state, then surely Iran has far more right to nukes than the US. If not, prove
it why not.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: You want BLUNT? Re: Let us never forget.. |
15 Sep 2004 08:51:33 AM |
|
|
AK a écrit:
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 18:39:09 -0400, "Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote:
*sigh* And how many MORE 9/11s would have happened if the US didn't use the
A-bomb? I believe many more lives were saved, especially Japanese lives.
There is no reason to believe this *****. Many credible sources acknowledge
that Japan was about to surrender anyway.
Following your logic, would it be justified to detonate a nuclear bomb in
Washington DC to save thousands of innocent Iraqi lives lost due to illegal
invasion based on a lie (WMD) to control oil (oil-theft war)? If not, why not?
You don't save thousands of innocent lives if more die than are saved,
brain diseased idiot.
J.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Johnathan McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: You want BLUNT? Re: Let us never forget.. |
14 Sep 2004 03:31:52 PM |
|
|
"Barbarossa" <fa073505@skynet.be> wrote in message news:<41469cd1$0$4141$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be>...
Coming from a man who recently said that when you deliberately kill
unarmed civillians you are a terrorist
Did John Kerry say that? Wow! If he did he is admitting he is indeed a
terrorist. WHY? Because he admitted publicly to shooting an unarmed
boy in the back wearing a tunic in Vietnam as the boy was running
away.
Boy how some things come together then make all the sense in the
world! ;)
Thankx for the info. I will make sure I do not vote for Kerry then. ;)
Kind Regards,
Barbarossa
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: You want BLUNT? Re: Let us never forget.. |
14 Sep 2004 07:29:30 AM |
|
|
Barbarossa a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> schreef in bericht
news:our1d.5045$KU5.1233@edtnps89...
Su Zanadu a écrit:
Dani wrote:
You seem to be confusing the intention
of my post (which was about the day of
9/11 and 9/11 alone) I figured since it
was the anniversary of 9/11, I would
write a little something about it.
I apologize. Don't take it personal. I understood your intentions and
that is why I had two parts to my post, first for the families of the
victims and the second part how 9/11 has had an effect on the world (not
just the US), three years later.
We can't forget about our allies who are targets and being attacked
because they support us and I can't let go how the way our government
has handled this.
Yeah, our allies are being attacked by Kerry. LOL
Sorry for not sticking to the victims and the murderers of 911 myself
Dani, but again she speaks of Iraq, and try to demean the commander in
chief, blaming the problems the troops of the coalition have on the prez
instead of blaming it on the betrayals of those who weaseled out and
justified the terrorists in the Arabs media and the terrorists
themselves there. FACTS CONTRADICTS ALL THIS. And ONLY Kerry called the
TRUE allies of the US sold out puppets or something like that.
Anyway, if I was to ignore the insidious lies they insert in their reply
and instead respond to your very impersonal post instead, then I would
say that indeed 9-11 is still as vivid as the first day, when we all
talked about it and all came together behind the leadership to avenge
the victims. (Before unstained lies tainted the judgments of the likes
of Oh! Suzanna!, that is!) A long time ago it seems.
But yes, it is still vivid how we felt the sadness in the horror, and
the solidarity in the outrage.
No offense meant, really.
Except towards your commander in chief, hey, [Bad Invective Totally
Censured Hereto (*****)]: "Gee no offense, I merely repeat the
outrageous anti-American lies and blame the president instead of the
terrorists supporters for everything!". Well, if you don't address the
problem, again, I hope you are not surprised that your further lies are.
Coming from a man who recently said that when you deliberately kill
unarmed civillians you are a terrorist seems to forget that the USA has
just done so in Japan with 200,000 people dead within three days and
many more afterwards. If you think 3000 is bad, consider 200,000!
In 1945 more than 60 9/11s happened to the Japanese. America must
not whine. He who lives by the sword.....
Kind Regards,
Barbarossa
Stop making up stuff. During the 2nd world war, Hitler stared that by
bombing London and every cities he bombed indiscriminately. This was the
M.O. then. The Geneva convention put a stop to all that after WW II.
So we are talking about the laws of war as they were enacted.
Stop making up *****. Those who deliberately kill unarmed civilians are
terrorists in the 21st Century. Period.
J.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
