Instead of flying planes into buildings why didnt they
 

just assassinate someone like Michael Jackson or Bush?

Certainly they have the willpower and resources to go through with it.

It would have been a lot cheaper if they had terrorist serial snipers that just started killing key people(Congressmen, Federal Judges, head of FBI, CIA, NSA, etc.)

I believe serial snipers would cause 10x more terror than WTC

why kill innocent people? kill the important ones

no one is truely innocent.

can't we all just get along, rofl.

Not even that.. Think about random suicide attacks (even small ones) in key destinations such as Vegas, Times Square.

(not giving anyone ideas, there have been plenty of movies raising these possibilities)

they dont believe that those people are innocent.

Democrats never understood that the terrorist want them dead also.

Hell, even ward churchill believes those people were guilty.

Because the sniper idea of hitting the government people is not that scary for the citizens. For the most part most people would just figure that people were fed up with that person and killed him. But to hit innocent peope at work, that is scary!

you guys are actually taking this sick fuck seriously? this dude is a joke.

this is very true. unless the public itself feel threatened, it will not accomplish it's task.


but look at how effective to DC area sniper was at whipping people into panic.

true. well they could just have 10 snipers through out a city and all day long they just kill random people.

I believe that people fear what they cannot see or dont know when its coming. like a plane flying into a building or a sniping.

sniping is such an easy thing to do from a distance. all you need is a high powered rifle and a good scope. makes it easy to vanish undetected from area right aftwards.

remember how much fear that sniper had everyone in washing d.c. ? he kept shooting people at gas stations from the back of his vehicle. people were freaking the fuck out , afraid to go outside out of fear of being killed.
http://www.spartechsoftware.com/dime...gtonSniper.htm

did you report me to the FBI like you said you were?

retard

its not even funny to joke around about what you did.

what did I do?

You Are All So Lucky
 

THEY DID NOT TARGET

The PHONE companys Central Office's

WTC towers are symbolic of american business. Pentagon is symbolic of american power. Guess why Islamic terrorists target discos?

i think its called Collateral Damage

Yeah I always thought that too. If each hijacker just did a suicide bombing in a different city, it would have been a lot worse.

Lets hope it never happens.

OR WHY NOT SIT DOWN AND DISCUSS LIKE CIVILIZED ADULTS RATHER THAN RAT BASTARD PSYCHOTIC POWER HUNGRY DELUSIONAL AROGANT MURDEROUS DEGENERATES?

Why go after NYC? Why not attack Vegas, the original Sin City?

NYC represent coporate america

yeah, i'll tell you what, go find Osama and explain that to him. I'm sure he will see the light.

You presume the World Trade Centre (Horrible event, RIP to the victims, we hope nothing like this will ever happen to anyone on the planet, condolences to the families and firends) attack was not a retaliation? Curious. Maybe you should do some research. Actions that fall under 'Foreign policy' were acts of war onto themselves.

BTW - I actually forget Osama is the prime target, wtf is the Bush Administration doing in Iraq?

hey look man, you're preaching to the choir. i don't feel we should be in iraq. and i am not saying the 9/11 attacks were unprovoked,

basically what we have here is two zealots.

bush and bin laden.

each pushing their bullshit hardline religious agenda on the world. really they're both about the same to me.

perhaps you should research al of my opinions. ;)

funny shit

oh yeah, terrorism and zealotry is always funny shit.

go postwhore somewhere else.

I am SO sick and tired of you fucking traitorous scum. I don't know what the FUCK you have 'researched', but if you feel those attacks were provoked, enticed, or justified in any way, you are a fucking illiterate moron. Go tell the families of the 3,000 plus dead at the World Trade Center that their loved ones 'had it coming', because we were provking them. Fucking hypocrte, you feign empathy...

Then turn around and immediately say it was a retaliation.

You're a piece of shit.

the funny shit is listening to world saving liberals debate.

Its like when they get the 4th grade history class to perform mock trials. Its actually cute.

haha nofx you got a fucked up mind lol

you sound like you have an opinion i would like to debase. please, post it.

Charming. I was being serious btw - it was absolutely horrible, and those kids who were killed in Russia when the Chechnyans blew up part of a school a few years ago, horrible - but to believe they were unprovoked attacks? Nobody had that coming and in no way in hell does anyone deserve it. grow up. People in Nicaragua had it coming? Chenchyans had it coming? Hiroshima had it coming?

but hey, you want to start calling me names - so be it. U must be intelligent.

I feign nothing and promote the pursuit of peace and hapiness.....to do otherwise is reprehensible. terrorist or patriot. and by the way, Thomas Jefferson would have had you lynched. read a book.

yet you dont post anything relevant in this thread about your own opinion...

Keep laughing... in his world the cops coming to save your ass get killed along the way... :flagface

Well, you guys often seem to forget that 9/11 was not the first attack on the U.S. It wasn't even the first attack on the world trade towers.

I think we noticed a pattern that culminated on 9/11 of progressively worse attacks. During the time of these progressively worsening attacks, the U.S. did not respond with any significant policy that should anger any other country.

Only since we have responded by beginning the process of changing the source of terrorism, did the world stage publically show anger at our policy. Certain world entities' motives have been exposed for their opposition to our new policy, but it hasn't stopped their information sources from the campaign necessary to win the hearts and minds of keyboard warriors thoughtout the world.

I think the anger was more at our punishing one source by attacking another:glugglug

..this wasn't on CNN...

http://www.rense.com/general14/noamchomsky.htm

whats wrong with you

I think You've heard and understand the logic.

you're right we are changing the source of terrorism. instead of being just a few countries it's spreading quickly.

our meddling has made us alot of enemies. since our botched attempt at democracy in iraq, we have sowed the seed of anger for thousands of other bin ladens world wide.

we need to tread lightly in fundamentalist strongholds. but instead our commander in chief cobbles together makeshift plans, and then executes them with reckless abandon.

additionally, i do not take my cues from any "world entity". i weigh the information objectively and decide for myself. it's a shame you are not capable of the same thing.

because what it comes down to, is that the end, does not justify the means.

The main target - the WTC - represented, in their mind, the concept of greed in America. The Pentagon and the White House were a direct attack on those they felt were responsible for crimes in the Middle East, supporting Israel, etc.

Assassinating a single person also does not have the same spectacle-like impact that the terrorists desire. Big explosions and the following heavy loss of life, tragically do.

noam chomsky is some good reading. :glugglug

I could not disagree with you more. what it comes down to in the end is everything.

There is no second place, there is no more time to pray and hope.

A few minutes after the wtc attacks, people were wonering what would happen if terrorists had weapons adeqate enough to create mass destruction in the United States. Democrats and Republicans agreed that "the end" could be a worse case scenerio.

They agreed that action should be taken against the threats of that worst case scenerio.

The only thing that changed was the fact that an election was about to happen. At that point, 47% of the country chose to ignore the possibliity of the 'worst case scenerio"

i believe its far from over

more innocent americans will die in the name of terrorism

we are just stirring the shit

action should be taken. but not in this manner.

now allow me to make a distinction here.


i support the actions in afghanistan. with the exception of the execution, in regards to how well our troops were prepared, and the numbers they were given.

i disagree with the iraq war. i think it has stretched us too thin, was not necissary, and is being conducted in an illogical fashion.


i also disagree with the naziesque "homeland security" policies this administration has come up. the rights of the american people are being sleighted.


now, as for the last election, 47% of the country did not ignore the possibility of the 'worst case scenario'. they chose a man who handle our freedoms and securities better than the bumblimg CIA Child.

i'm going to be off to dinner now, but i'm going to leave you with this qoute, in reference to my domestic policy beliefs.

no one is truely innocent.

not yet :thumbsup

You really want to discuss natural liberty and oppose the Iraq War?

Good read. Everyone should have that delivered to their mailbox.. I wonder what that'd cost.. The US government would probably stop it though.

Matt

yes, very true, but i'm saying dont kill a bunch of mr. nobodies.

sure, a plane(or something else) hit the pentagon and caused some damage(I dont remember how many people were killed but it wasnt many)

hit key people, the government will fear. Who would want to take a position doing something if the previous 3 people were assassinated ?

Gulf Stream Jet
N379P

Strauss Ideologies or Islamic Extreamist.
Explain the difference please.

:thumbsup :)