logo Sign In

Darth Chaltab

User Group
Members
Join date
21-Mar-2004
Last activity
6-Jan-2011
Posts
10,487

Post History

Post
#234110
Topic
9/11 - The Movie
Time
Actually, I agree that they are somewhat cheesy.

I have nothing but respect for the men and women who gave and risked their lives that day, but seriously, the taglines are a bit cheesy, especially the first one.. "Buildings will fall"? That almost trivilaizes it itself. The second one *IS* much better.

Post
#233964
Topic
9/11 - The Movie
Time
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
No, not all the terrorists who hijacked planes were from Afghanistan, but they were TRAINED in Afghanistan and the organization that planned the attacks was based there, and supported by the Afghani government at the time. (Remeber them guys, the Taliban?) A terrorist plot to smuggle explosives onto planes destined for the States was foiled today in England. Most of the would-be bombers were British-born, and there are undoubtedly training facilities and meeting places in the UK. Bin Laden went to University in England. Should America attack them too?

I was specifically talking about the 9-11 hijackers, not all terrorists.

It's also impossible. 'Al Queda', the name on everyone's lips, is not a nice organised gang hanging out at a HQ ready to be negotiated with or attacked or captured or stopped. They are a web of loosely or not-even connected cells ranging from highly organised terrorist groups to groups of 2 or 3 nutcases plotting in their mother's basement. I suppose in a way it's true to call Bin Laden their leader, but he is not a leader in a George Bush ay or even a Hitler way, he is more like a figurehead, an almost mythical scapegoat. Most of these terrorists blowing shit up have never met him, have never been to Afghanistan, have never been trained by anyone, they just took it upon themselves to do this shit. It's a cancer that is out of control. The idea of Al Queda as a tangible and defeatable enemy is an illusion. So they can't be negotiated with, and they can't be beaten either. I think the best offensive would be to tighten up home security, multiply intelligence effots, and basically just defend. You cannot wipe out terrorism.


I agree with you up to bold text. And I do agree that intelligence, homland security, and defense are all certainly paramount in this whole thing. But without active efforts to take the fight to them, we essentially just become sitting ducks, waiting for them to find holes in our security. Terrorism as an action of killing people in order to spread fear is not something you can wipe out, obviously. But the organizations and figureheads can be removed, and the governments that support them deposed. The idea isn't to destroy every last possibility of terrorism but to make sure that they don't have an organized network backing them--and espcially not a sovreign government doing so. If the only terrorists on the planet are ever, as you said, 2 or 3 nutcases sitting in their mother's basement, then we're better off than we are today in which they have organized camps and access to military-grade weaponry.

Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
They also hate us because of the fucked up things we have done to them over the years. Stop buying into the propaganda.


I'm not buying into propaganda, YIYF. They say as much themselves. They call us 'the Great Satan' for crying out loud. You say we've done some 'fucked up' things to them, but that logic doesn't hold up to history. France and England and Germany all did some pretty attrocious things to each other throughout their history, but they've learned to move on and join the modern world. That's the problem the terrorists have. They are bound to a past full of bloodshed and violence, and won't, or maybe can't let go of it. They'd rather kill us than let go of the past and move on. And they use a faith (or, as some would say, an interpretation thereof) as a justifcation for their unbridled hatred of us.

Post
#233916
Topic
9/11 - The Movie
Time
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
Who profited from it? What does it matter who profited from it? Should we punish anyone who got paid to rebuild the site? Should we arrest the security officials at airports who were hired do to the attacks?

Obviously, I'm being ridiculous, but just because someoen profits from a tragedy doesn't make them guilty of anything.

Who planned it? We've already established that it was Al Quaida. Bin Laden and Mohamed Atta. And obviously, everyone who carried it out went up in a fireball with the planes, so it's not like we can punish them.


I was obviously not talking about profits regarding reconstruction of the sites and such. Think about it, what has happened after the attacks. Regarding the way the world has changed, who has achieved the most with the world scenario, who has better profited form it? What country where the attackers - and no they were not from "Afganisthan". Why were those attacks planned, and try to think a little bit out of the "they hate freedom" box. Try to see what relation all these people have. Possibly, when you start to really think about it, you'll most probably discard this whole idea as nonsense, but as you do, please read my signature, below the pic.


What do nazi's have to do with terrorists? It's a whole different ball game than it was in that day, Rik. The Nazis ran a country, had an actual army, and had a clear leader for all of them. Terrorists don't.

No, not all the terrorists who hijacked planes were from Afghanistan, but they were TRAINED in Afghanistan and the organization that planned the attacks was based there, and supported by the Afghani government at the time. (Remeber them guys, the Taliban?)

Obviously 'they hate freedom' is a simplification, but it gets the point across. That hate us because we support Israel. They hate us because we are not Allah-worshiping mindless devotees to their religion, and because we have the freedom to choose who, where, when, and why we want to worship, or not to have any deity at all.

Which is why suggesting negotiations with them is so stupid. Negotiations implies giving them some of what they want, and what do the want but everyone else dead? I'm not going to give them that!

Post
#233809
Topic
9/11 - The Movie
Time
Who profited from it? What does it matter who profited from it? Should we punish anyone who got paid to rebuild the site? Should we arrest the security officials at airports who were hired do to the attacks?

Obviously, I'm being ridiculous, but just because someoen profits from a tragedy doesn't make them guilty of anything.

Who planned it? We've already established that it was Al Quaida. Bin Laden and Mohamed Atta. And obviously, everyone who carried it out went up in a fireball with the planes, so it's not like we can punish them.
Post
#233802
Topic
9/11 - The Movie
Time
Originally posted by: TR47
Too bad the film probably can't/won't show this as being the staged hoax that it really was.


Idiot. It won't show a staged hoax because THERE WAS NO STAGED HOAX. It's been proven time and time again that the Towers obeyed every law of physics throughout the collapse assuming that an airplaine nearly full of fuel slammed into them.

You don't have any true, concrete, facutal evidence to bakc up your claims; the ONLY thing that has kept this nonsense alive for so long is the unbridled hatred people have for Bush and his adminstration.

Wake up and face the facts people; even if you think Bush is the worst president we've ever had (and he's not, but let's not go into who is) an honest evaluation of the facts means you have to conclude that yes, planes really did hit the WTC and the Pentagon, and that yes, they really were flown by Muslim extremists from the middle east under the mentorship of Osama Bin Laden.

Even ADigitalMan, obviously an avowwed Bush-hater, can see that! Again, I say it: Idiot.

Sorry for the rant, but people like him get on my nerves. Not only do they try and advance their political agendas with this stupidity, but they defame other people by accusing them of doing the same and worse. (And not just the administration; do you realize how big, how many people woudl have to be involved for it to be a consipiracy? nobody could keep so many people so slilent for so long, not in the 21st century)...

Post
#233532
Topic
General Anime/Manga Thread
Time
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
It's simply because there's nothing improper about showing a child fully nude from the front. It's showing adults naked from the front that starts to become a problem on broadcast TV.

Case in point. When Goku was a child, he was shown completely nude all the time. When he was an adult, he was never shown nude again in the manga, and the only few nude shots of him in the anime were from the back.


The Japanese don't see it as sexual, right? A nude child to them is just 'cute' or funny. Despite their strange fetishes, Japanese culture as a whole is probably LESS sex-obsessed than America's.