Anniversary Of 9/11

[Tornado]

Firstly, you're not allowed to dictate what other posters can or cannot post about, not to mention actually make demands regarding another posters immediate content.

No, I'm not allowed to dictate what you post. I am allowed to demand proof of you're claims, since this is the second time in this discussion where you've completely made up your entire argument and claimed that it proved your point. Similarly, you are perfectly allowed to ignore my demands since I am not a member of the moderation staff; but since you haven't done either of the things asked of you for any of your claims, and the AUP is very clear on intentional misrepresentation of facts, you've been reported.

Get over yourself. That's ridiculous behavior and I suspect you know it.

Ridiculous behavior is fabricating statements of fact ("Prior to 9/11, many hijackings occurred, including those involving American planes, airspace, take off locations and destinations, as well as American Passengers."), and then lying about your ability to back them up ("I can provide links for hijackings which occurred before current security measures were put in place. This includes American planes hijacked in the 70's 80's 90's and 2000's."), and then resorting to increasingly desperate and blatant attempts to change the subject when someone legitimately asks to see your information about them ("Your five reasons explaining why no commercial planes taking off from Americna soil have been hijacked in 11 years, in order of importance, are.... ") before ultimately dropping any pretense of continuing the discussion ("You said that new post 9/11 safety measures have made airline travel less safe and that more weapons than ever are now on planes."). And I know you know that.

I've already posted who you could talk to regarding how many potential attacks involving air travel may have been averted, abandoned, cancelled or simply not even planned due to how the world and America now handles air travel regulations and security at the airport, so there will be no more from me on the subject.

I'm not doing your legwork for you when you made the claim, and I'm sure as hell not going to call up the chief of security at Rochester International Airport and ask him (or, even more helpful, "ask some terrorists") about terrorist hijackings. It isn't my job to prove or disprove things you said. Especially not when you've said multiple times that you have proof of the matter that you can easily give.

Notice how I'm not demanding others answer previously raised questions or requests for opinions that are currently unanswered in what appears to me to be a childish, demanding method against the AUP?

Demanding that you show proof for your increasingly outlandish and fabricated looking claims is not against the AUP. Making those claims, claiming you can prove them and then refusing to do so when asked is.

*Irrelevant, equally absurd comparison to speed limits*

You apparently didn't see this the first time:

Explain where I said anything like any of that or retract the claim saying that I said anything like any of that.

While you're at it, provide the links for the claims of American hijackings that happened "many" times during the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s, or retract the claims of American hijackings happening "many" times during the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s.

And provide some sort of proof that the reason that there hasn't been terrorist hijackings since 9/11 in America is at least partially derived from changes changes in TSA procedures since 9/11 or retract the claim that the reason that there hasn't been terrorist hijackings since 9/11 in America is at least partially derived from changes in TSA procedures since 9/11.



Don't bother posting anything else until you do.

I don't care what ridiculous side comparisons you want to come up with to justify your viewpoint. I don't care how much you want to claim I'm taking your words out of context despite quoting them, asking for clarification on them and then responding directly to what you said you were really saying. I want you to prove all of the claims that you made in this thread since this discussion started that are outlined above. Provide the information that you so happily lorded over everyone with before it was questioned.

 

[BJBEOSmitty]

Wikipedia has a very basic hijacking list and lists nationalities. I wouldn't necessarily call it all encompassing, it is Wikipedia.

 

[Tornado]

Wikipedia has a very basic hijacking list and lists nationalities. I wouldn't necessarily call it all encompassing, it is Wikipedia.

You don't say? Well, perhaps someone who "can provide links for hijackings which occurred before current security measures were put in place" would be able to enlighten those who are unaware of them with specific examples.

 

[BJBEOSmitty]

You don't say? Well, perhaps someone who "can provide links for hijackings which occurred before current security measures were put in place" would be able to enlighten those who are unaware of them with specific examples.

The events of September 11, 2001 occurred before current safety measures were put in place. Do you want a link for the details of what took place?

Sorry. You can look it up yourself. I would have been happy to provide links pre-condescension. Demanding what my next content will be and nothing else as you did earlier... I'm now not interested in your requests for content going forward You're on your own regardless of my previous statement of providing links.

One of the first hijackings recognized was in the 30's. Wikipedia starts in 1948. TAA (not TWA) flight 408 is interesting. 1961, first in the USA, bu not the only American plane hijacked in the 60's. Pan Am later in the decade and a TWA Flight one year later. 70's, 80's 90's 00's etc.

 

[Tornado]

Sorry. You can look it up yourself. I would have been happy to provide links pre-condescension.

Except you didn't, so you are lying once again. I asked quite sincerely after apologizing to you for something that at this point I obviously need not have apologized for considering how you've conducted yourself since. You instead fabricated a statement and claimed I said it.

You're on your own regardless of my previous statement of providing links.

You mean at this point I'm at the exact same situation as I was when you first said all of this stuff and I asked you about it? Shocker.

90's 00's etc.

Nope.

 

[Touring Mars]

Can we stop this please...

BJBEOSmitty should have posted up some links, but it's really not that hard to look it up either.

At this point it just looks like you're arguing for the sake of it, and it's getting boring.

 

[Danoff]

The Manchester bombing got me thinking about 9/11 last night, how to tell my kids about it when they're old enough, how to convey the paradigm shift that happened in the US that day, and how people responded.

I came looking for a place to post those thoughts. Most of the other 9/11 threads are such a mess with conspiracy theories that I thought this seemed like the right place to put it.

It occurred to me that I have a hard time believing that blowing up a concert (like in Manchester) or running people down in a truck (Nice) is a religious war. It can't be. Likewise, flying passenger jets into the world trade center towers is not a religious war. It's indiscriminate killing. You might be able to get a general sense for the statistics of the people that you're murdering, but you can't possibly know that you're striking against a specific religion. Case in point, apparently 60 of the 9/11 victims were Muslim (I looked that up this morning because I got curious). So even if you're out to kill just anyone but Muslims, going into a crowded area and blowing people up is not going to accomplish that.

Really, you have to also be prepared to kill innocent Muslims. You have to tell yourself that either they'd want to be killed as collateral damage in these attacks, or, if not, they deserved to be killed in these attacks. So let's think about the targets of these attacks.

- Religious people who are not Muslim (Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.).
- Non-religious people (atheists, agnostics)
- Religious people who are Muslim and would be willing to die (fellow suicide bombers).
- Religious people who are Muslim and would not be willing to die (impure Muslims).

You have to be targeting literally every single person on the planet.

You could say, maybe they're targeting people living within government associated with a particular religion. But that's not the case because the UK, France, and the US (and many others) are not religious nations. You could say they're targeting nations that are not living under Islamic law, but they blow up rival mosques in Islamic nations.

There is no clear thought process in these attacks, because no one is organizing it. There is no clear directive, because the directive is left open to interpretation. Every single person on the planet is a potential target of Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorism. It's amazing to me that human beings are capable of existing in a state where they have justified the slaughter of anyone - no matter age, gender, religion, government allegiance, or even deeds.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

The Manchester bombing got me thinking about 9/11 last night, how to tell my kids about it when they're old enough, how to convey the paradigm shift that happened in the US that day, and how people responded.

I came looking for a place to post those thoughts. Most of the other 9/11 threads are such a mess with conspiracy theories that I thought this seemed like the right place to put it.

It occurred to me that I have a hard time believing that blowing up a concert (like in Manchester) or running people down in a truck (Nice) is a religious war. It can't be. Likewise, flying passenger jets into the world trade center towers is not a religious war. It's indiscriminate killing. You might be able to get a general sense for the statistics of the people that you're murdering, but you can't possibly know that you're striking against a specific religion. Case in point, apparently 60 of the 9/11 victims were Muslim (I looked that up this morning because I got curious). So even if you're out to kill just anyone but Muslims, going into a crowded area and blowing people up is not going to accomplish that.

Really, you have to also be prepared to kill innocent Muslims. You have to tell yourself that either they'd want to be killed as collateral damage in these attacks, or, if not, they deserved to be killed in these attacks. So let's think about the targets of these attacks.

- Religious people who are not Muslim (Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.).
- Non-religious people (atheists, agnostics)
- Religious people who are Muslim and would be willing to die (fellow suicide bombers).
- Religious people who are Muslim and would not be willing to die (impure Muslims).

You have to be targeting literally every single person on the planet.

You could say, maybe they're targeting people living within government associated with a particular religion. But that's not the case because the UK, France, and the US (and many others) are not religious nations. You could say they're targeting nations that are not living under Islamic law, but they blow up rival mosques in Islamic nations.

There is no clear thought process in these attacks, because no one is organizing it. There is no clear directive, because the directive is left open to interpretation. Every single person on the planet is a potential target of Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorism. It's amazing to me that human beings are capable of existing in a state where they have justified the slaughter of anyone - no matter age, gender, religion, government allegiance, or even deeds.

It's a religious war in that it's their brand of Islam vs others, which can include other Muslims.

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/12/...ar-with-me-but-im-in-a-religious-war-with-you

You may not be in a religious war with me, but I’m in a religious war with you,” recalled former CIA interrogator James Mitchell the views of al-Qaeda (AQ) mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad (KSM). Interviewed on December 6 at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) before an audience of about 70, Mitchell provided chilling, essential insight into the jihadist worldview currently threatening the globe.

 

[Danoff]

It's a religious war in that it's their brand of Islam vs others, which can include other Muslims.

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/12/...ar-with-me-but-im-in-a-religious-war-with-you

Not if people of your own religion are your targets. I understand that you can view it as collateral damage, but at a certain point a lack of respect for collateral damage just becomes indiscriminate killing. To the suicide bomber, whose life is not forfeit?

 

[ryzno]

It's a religious war in that it's their brand of Islam vs others, which can include other Muslims.

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/12/...ar-with-me-but-im-in-a-religious-war-with-you

That makes me wonder, hypothetically if al-Qaeda and the other groups get rid of everyone who disagrees as they want. What happens next?
I almost see it as a gang unraveling. The gang had a similar objective, over time their views changed and they start fighting each other.

 

[Danoff]

That makes me wonder, hypothetically if al-Qaeda and the other groups get rid of everyone who disagrees as they want. What happens next?
I almost see it as a gang unraveling. The gang had a similar objective, over time their views changed and they start fighting each other.

It makes me wonder, if they could flip a switch and wipe humanity off the face of the Earth in total, end the species, would they? How many of them would?

 

[Vegard]

It's not a religious war, it's a war.

 

[PeterJB]

It makes me wonder, if they could flip a switch and wipe humanity off the face of the Earth in total, end the species, would they? How many of them would?

Probably would since they're eagerly awaiting the apocalypse.

 

[Touring Mars]

I think what we are seeing in terms of modern terrorism is the result of a number of factors, some unique to our age and some not. Modern communication is a major factor, namely mobile phones and the internet - information, encrypted communications, social media and instant/constant news means that people nowadays have unbridled access to materials, knowledge and (most importantly) people across the globe. There is no doubt in my mind that the internet and mobile phone communication has made it far, far easier to arrange, plan and perpetrate serious acts of violence, and its impact can be advertised across the globe in an instant. Little wonder then why the NSA, GCHQ and every other intelligence agency the world over are scrambling to intercept whatever they can.

There's also asymmetry/inequality on almost every level imaginable that it causing grievance and conflict; overwhelming military power means that when aggrieved parties cannot take on a group (e.g. a nation or a group of nations) directly or militarily, they are increasingly resorting to attacking non-military targets in the hope of influencing how governments deploy their military power. Economic inequality and poverty are also massive drivers of radicalisation; it's a growing problem even in a supposedly 'rich' country like the UK - too many people left with no hope of improving their lives, and they are becoming easy prey for extremists who thrive on exploiting resentment, disaffection and desperation.

Another major factor is the burgeoning youth population - couple this with growing inequality, shocking levels of youth unemployment even in supposedly 'rich' or developed countries (like Spain, France and Italy), lack of access to education and the alarming ease of access to extremist material/propaganda online, and you have a major problem on your hands. Simply put, unless these vast numbers of disaffected people can be offered something better to look forward to with their lives, they will remain easy prey for extremists.

 

[Vegard]

Another major factor

...is western meddling and exploitation. That should be considered as a major factor.

 

[Danoff]

Another major factor is the burgeoning youth population - couple this with growing inequality, shocking levels of youth unemployment even in supposedly 'rich' or developed countries (like Spain, France and Italy), lack of access to education and the alarming ease of access to extremist material/propaganda online, and you have a major problem on your hands. Simply put, unless these vast numbers of disaffected people can be offered something better to look forward to with their lives, they will remain easy prey for extremists.

Ironic that you'd post that in the 9/11 thread where many of the hijackers had engineering degrees and were not exactly held down by economic "inequality". The word inequality is also not a good substitute for desperation. It's a better substitute for jealousy. If you're trying to convince someone to blow themselves up, jealousy that even though they're comfortable, others are more comfortable, is not going to cut it.

You need a much deeper belief in the virtues of ending your life and the lives of any others that happen to be near you - and that can only be supplied by scripture. In fact, I'd argue that it'd be very difficult to convert someone to that level of belief after a certain age. You really need to indoctrinate them from day 1. It's natural to look for rational answers for why the countries that are being attacked are to blame for those attacks, but honestly, there's not much parallel here. Rich, poor, non-religious, Islamic, it doesn't matter. And the people who are committing these crimes are from all walks of life as well, and while terrorism isn't specific to Islam, the current wave appears to be underpinned by the religion.

 

[Touring Mars]

Ironic that you'd post that in the 9/11 thread where many of the hijackers had engineering degrees and were not exactly held down by economic "inequality". The word inequality is also not a good substitute for desperation. It's a better substitute for jealousy. If you're trying to convince someone to blow themselves up, jealousy that even though they're comfortable, others are more comfortable, is not going to cut it.

You need a much deeper belief in the virtues of ending your life and the lives of any others that happen to be near you - and that can only be supplied by scripture. In fact, I'd argue that it'd be very difficult to convert someone to that level of belief after a certain age. You really need to indoctrinate them from day 1. It's natural to look for rational answers for why the countries that are being attacked are to blame for those attacks, but honestly, there's not much parallel here. Rich, poor, non-religious, Islamic, it doesn't matter. And the people who are committing these crimes are from all walks of life as well, and while terrorism isn't specific to Islam, the current wave appears to be underpinned by the religion.

To be a bit clearer, I didn't mention religion because I was almost taking it as read.

As for my comments regarding inequality, I wasn't just talking about those who become perpetrators of atrocities - but that inequality is perceived as an injustice that serves as a motivation for others who themselves may not be poor or disadvantaged in any way.

I don't believe that scripture alone is enough to motivate a highly educated person to turn from a productive/peaceful life into a suicide bomber - it is very likely the toxic combination of scripture and a perceived injustice that can do that. However, I think either one of these things is likely enough to motivate certain people, and that it is more likely to be young people with little job prospects, uneducated etc. that can be more easily influenced by others.

 

[Danoff]

I don't believe that scripture alone is enough to motivate a highly educated person to turn from a productive/peaceful life into a suicide bomber - it is very likely the toxic combination of scripture and a perceived injustice that can do that.

There was a video posted recently in one of these threads about how past sins are used as the motivation to do that. The Koran says that no one is guaranteed entry into heaven, especially those who have sinned, except for those who die fighting the infidels. Your own guilt for engaging within western culture is the catalyst for finding a way to absolve yourself of those sins. Your death is required, and the deaths of the very people who tempted you into sinning.

This is how you can convince people who have what would otherwise be a promising future in a wealthy nation to kill themselves and everyone else. Convince them from birth that Islam is truth and then let them falter in the face of temptation.

The only perceived injustice required is to not be a believer. And even then, if you are a believer, you're expected to be ready to die (ergo, if you're not, you're not a believer). Any other injustice required only complicates the message that everyone (including your countrymen) deserves to die.

I agree with you that education and wealth can probably play a factor, and lack of available mates caused by polygamy as well - but given that educated people with bright futures are still blowing themselves up in the name of Allah, I'm going to point toward insidious religious requirements as being the root of the evil.

 

[Dotini]

...is western meddling and exploitation. That should be considered as a major factor.

Exactly. They are over here because we are over there.

 

[Danoff]

Exactly. They are over here because we are over there.

...is western meddling and exploitation. That should be considered as a major factor.

She was askin' for it.

 

[Dotini]

She was askin' for it.

The Manchester victims are only "crusaders" in the eyes of the terrorists. Little girls, old men, doesn't matter. They weren't "asking" for anything. But their government - for generations now - has been seeking (at great cost in human suffering) spheres of influence and control in the Middle East. So in that sense, western governments are indeed "asking for it". Not that it's any big deal. The number of terror casualties on our aside is statistically trivial, as so many of our members are delighted to point out.

 

[Danoff]

The Manchester victims are only "crusaders" in the eyes of the terrorists. Little girls, old men, doesn't matter. They weren't "asking" for anything. But their government - for generations now - has been seeking (at great cost in human suffering) spheres of influence and control in the Middle East. So in that sense, western government are indeed "asking for it".

I think you might be the first member in the history of GTPlanet to come out and say that you agree with Islamic terrorism.

 

[Dotini]

I think you might be the first member in the history of GTPlanet to come out and say that you agree with Islamic terrorism.

That's ridiculous. To say that I understand the cause of it is not the same thing as saying I agree with it. I don't.

 

[Danoff]

That's ridiculous.

But their government - for generations now - has been seeking (at great cost in human suffering) spheres of influence and control in the Middle East. So in that sense, western governments are indeed "asking for it".

Terrorist actions justified by the actions of western governments right? How am I misunderstanding you? Those people may not have been asking for it, you say, but their governments were... how else am I supposed to take this?

To say that I understand the cause of it is not the same thing as saying I agree with it. I don't.

You didn't say you understand it, you said the actions of those governments was "asking for it", in other words, justified those actions. What else could you mean by that?

 

[Dotini]

Terrorist actions justified by the actions of western governments right? How am I misunderstanding you? Those people may not have been asking for it, you say, but their governments were... how else am I supposed to take this?

Don't be dense. The terrorists think their action are justified by the wreck the western countries have made of the Middle East for the past 100 years.

 

[Danoff]

Don't be dense. The terrorists think their action are justified by the wreck the western countries have made of the Middle East for the past 100 years.

...but you don't... even though you said this:

But their government - for generations now - has been seeking (at great cost in human suffering) spheres of influence and control in the Middle East. So in that sense, western governments are indeed "asking for it".

What you were saying actually was not that western governments were indeed asking for it, but rather, that other people incorrectly interpreted the actions of western governments as justifying terrorism?

I'm not trying to be dense here, it looks to me like you are faulting western governments for terrorism. I won't even tell you you're entirely wrong if that's what you're saying, I don't agree with the conclusion that we were asking for it, but I'm not going to say you're entirely off-base.

 

[Dotini]

...but you don't... even though you said this:



What you were saying actually was not that western governments were indeed asking for it, but rather, that other people incorrectly interpreted the actions of western governments as justifying terrorism?

I'm not trying to be dense here, it looks to me like you are faulting western governments for terrorism. I won't even tell you you're entirely wrong if that's what you're saying, I don't agree with the conclusion that we were asking for it, but I'm not going to say you're entirely off-base.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Western countries were wrong to meddle and interfere in Middle East, Latin America and elsewhere. We overthrew countries, assassinated leaders, meddled in elections, the whole nine yards. So now there is blowback. Revenge. Our children civilians are now get killed.

 

[Danoff]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Ok... so we weren't asking for it then?

 

[Dotini]

Ok... so we weren't asking for it then?

We we're doing things which eventually led to successful blowback, revenge, against our civilians. No one ever imagined it. So we were not knowingly "asking for it". But we were inchoately asking for it.

 

[Danoff]

We we're doing things which eventually led to successful blowback, revenge, against our civilians. No one ever imagined it. So we were not knowingly "asking for it". But we were inchoately asking for it.

...but the successful blowback/revenge was entirely deserved and caused by our actions?