12 Sep 08
Jeez...this brings back memories...
I was in my Life Sciences class in the sixth grade, and they ran it over the intercom. They gave us the announcement about... 9 or 10: something in the morning. We had 5 minutes of silence for the victims. We finished our day normally, then my mother picked me up from school and took me home and we basically watched the news all day on what had happened.
Anyways...Yeah, that's how I remember it...
12 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Red NightNot a single Mexican?
I don't think that one can argue that the subsequent events legitimize the attacks of 9/11 anymore than one can argue that the 9/11 attacks legitimized the subsequent events.
The people who died on 9/11 came from many countries:
United States 2106
United Kingdom 53
India 34
Dominican Republic 25
Jamaica 21
Japan 20
China 18
Colombia 18 quent events; YOU CANNOT use that hatred to justify what was a heinous crime against humanity.
12 Sep 08
Originally posted by PalynkaWow, that's interesting. The plot thickens - to a gooey, black consistency!
Thread 15965
Global economics is not something I really understand. Can you point me to more reading about this?
12 Sep 08
Originally posted by SeitseHe's probably talking about Theodore Kaczynski, also known as the "Unabomber": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unabomber
Unibomber?
Is it some kind of student group leader name at U.S. universities?
Like "the unibomber of Alfa Gama Lambda has bombed a lot during the week, duuuuuude" and "hell yeah, dude, the unibomber parties kick ass!"
😕
12 Sep 08
Originally posted by Red NightNo, that doesn't follow from what wormwood wrote.
So your argument is that the US got what it deserved?.
Actions have consequences; the death of some 3000 people was the consequence of many things, among them, perhaps, things related to what wormwood mentioned; however, cause and effect doesn't entail any concept of 'deserving'. Does water flow downhill because it deserves to reach the sea?
Wouldn't it be disgusting if politicians used the event to generate propaganda for their own ends -- perhaps leading to further deaths? What a horrifying thought.
12 Sep 08
Originally posted by Red Nightyes, having elementary knowledge of recent history of middle-east is exactly like sending bombs in the mail to random recipients.
So your argument is that the US got what it deserved?
That 2700 innocent people from all over the world deserved to die in a fiery tumult?
This insane rant of yours reminds me of the uni-bomber.
I feel sorry for you.
Originally posted by wormwoodActually in your disjointed manifesto you mentioned opium but failed to mention either the USA's support for the state of Israel or the first Gulf War.
yes, having elementary knowledge of recent history of middle-east is exactly like sending bombs in the mail to random recipients.
Re-read your rambling rant and ask yourself honestly, does this make any sense to me let alone anyone else?
I think your rabid and irrational hatred of the US got the best of you in this case. When one argues a case logically they often earn the respect of those with opposing viewpoints. When one rants absurdly in a style reminsicent of Ted Kaczynski and Charles Manson they usually cement the opinions of the other side.
A proper argument would go something like this:
"You're absolutely right RN. It was absurd and gratuitous of me to even insinuate that the diverse population of the World Trade Center deserved to die hideous and untimely deaths because of the perceived past indiscretions of the USA. What I meant to do was to point out some of the issues that drove the terrorists to launch such a cowardly and heinous attack."
You would then start your argument with a discussion of the USA's support for the State of Israel. [To ignore this fundamental factor diminshes the rest of your argument to nothing more than the meandering manifesto of a madman.]