The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
... but I don't mean it to be.
Can everyone stop bein so miserable.
Yes, something terrible has happened today.
Yes mourn, and be sad.
But DON'T be sad for the rest of your life. I think this event shows that life can be short, do you really want to spend your life being sad?
Life is a unique opportunity. You only get to live it once. Learn from this terrible event. Next time you get in an argument about something petty, ignore it. It doesn;t matter.
Life is to be enjoyed, so enjoy it.
I'm not sure if I've managed to say what I want to say, but I hope people on here understand what I mean....
Can everyone stop bein so miserable.
Yes, something terrible has happened today.
Yes mourn, and be sad.
But DON'T be sad for the rest of your life. I think this event shows that life can be short, do you really want to spend your life being sad?
Life is a unique opportunity. You only get to live it once. Learn from this terrible event. Next time you get in an argument about something petty, ignore it. It doesn;t matter.
Life is to be enjoyed, so enjoy it.
I'm not sure if I've managed to say what I want to say, but I hope people on here understand what I mean....
Page:
All I'm saying is, it wasn't made clear until afterwards that the WTC had no middle column, so it would collapse easier.
I'm only saying this as it might explain why no one has come forward to claim responsibility.
Normally groups like to claim right away, so everyone knows it was them.
I'm only saying this as it might explain why no one has come forward to claim responsibility.
Normally groups like to claim right away, so everyone knows it was them.
Your Honour wrote:
> They probably wanted a bit of damage to the WTC, and some disruption to stock markets etc, but didn't want to kill all those people.
Er, hang on a minute. For starters there were over 250 people on the four plans hijacked. Also, are you telling me that they did not realise that flying two plans into the WTC, another into the Pentagon and crashing a further in Pitsburg would not cause mass death ?. If they wanted to just damage the buildings with minimum deaths they would have a) hijacked lighter aircraft. b) hijacked fewer aircraft and c) carried out this attack during the night and not at a time when the people of New York were all arriving for work.
> They probably wanted a bit of damage to the WTC, and some disruption to stock markets etc, but didn't want to kill all those people.
Er, hang on a minute. For starters there were over 250 people on the four plans hijacked. Also, are you telling me that they did not realise that flying two plans into the WTC, another into the Pentagon and crashing a further in Pitsburg would not cause mass death ?. If they wanted to just damage the buildings with minimum deaths they would have a) hijacked lighter aircraft. b) hijacked fewer aircraft and c) carried out this attack during the night and not at a time when the people of New York were all arriving for work.
Your Honour wrote:
> I suspect that whoever did this didn't plan or want the towers to
> fall down.
Hence they are not claiming responsibility.
They
> probably wanted a bit of damage to the WTC, and some disruption to
> stock markets etc, but didn't want to kill all those people.
Now
> that all of those have died, they are scared that the US will kick
> seven bells of poo out of them.
Whoever did this wanted the buildings to collapse as it was almost impossible for them to remain upright after the planes had crashed into them.
The WTC centre buildings which where build several decades ago dont contain a middle column which would have supported the buildings for at least a bit longer yesterday. WHoever did this was definetely wanting the collapse.
> I suspect that whoever did this didn't plan or want the towers to
> fall down.
Hence they are not claiming responsibility.
They
> probably wanted a bit of damage to the WTC, and some disruption to
> stock markets etc, but didn't want to kill all those people.
Now
> that all of those have died, they are scared that the US will kick
> seven bells of poo out of them.
Whoever did this wanted the buildings to collapse as it was almost impossible for them to remain upright after the planes had crashed into them.
The WTC centre buildings which where build several decades ago dont contain a middle column which would have supported the buildings for at least a bit longer yesterday. WHoever did this was definetely wanting the collapse.
I suspect that whoever did this didn't plan or want the towers to fall down.
Hence they are not claiming responsibility.
They probably wanted a bit of damage to the WTC, and some disruption to stock markets etc, but didn't want to kill all those people.
Now that all of those have died, they are scared that the US will kick seven bells of poo out of them.
Hence they are not claiming responsibility.
They probably wanted a bit of damage to the WTC, and some disruption to stock markets etc, but didn't want to kill all those people.
Now that all of those have died, they are scared that the US will kick seven bells of poo out of them.
Meka_Dragon wrote:
> You mention Libya, but they have condemed the attack - as have Iran.
Even though neither country has good relations with the USA, they sees this as a truely disgusting act of terrorism.
This is something which really puzzles me. How can countries like Libya, Iraq and Iran condem the attacks when they have carried out numerous acts of terrorism which have also killed 1,000's of people ?. Just because their attacks have killed less people it does not make it anymore acceptable. Was it not Libians who were responsible for Lockerbie, which resulted in 100's of deaths ?. It is hypocritical for Lybia to condem the attacks. I think they are probably nervous of being caught up in the US retaliation and are moving quickly to distance themselves from the attack. There is no doubt that Gadaffi, Hussain, Bin Laden and the rest of the mob are all as guilty as each other. The problem we face is that once they are removed from power there is a strong liklihood that their successors will be just the same, if not worse.
> You mention Libya, but they have condemed the attack - as have Iran.
Even though neither country has good relations with the USA, they sees this as a truely disgusting act of terrorism.
This is something which really puzzles me. How can countries like Libya, Iraq and Iran condem the attacks when they have carried out numerous acts of terrorism which have also killed 1,000's of people ?. Just because their attacks have killed less people it does not make it anymore acceptable. Was it not Libians who were responsible for Lockerbie, which resulted in 100's of deaths ?. It is hypocritical for Lybia to condem the attacks. I think they are probably nervous of being caught up in the US retaliation and are moving quickly to distance themselves from the attack. There is no doubt that Gadaffi, Hussain, Bin Laden and the rest of the mob are all as guilty as each other. The problem we face is that once they are removed from power there is a strong liklihood that their successors will be just the same, if not worse.
It is quite possible that these groups, having seen the devastation, are now thinking twice about claiming responsibility for fear of the retaliation they will suffer.
It is also possible that it's a deliberate terror ploy by whoever did it. After all, is it not worse and more terrifying to have an unknown, faceless, nameless enemy, with the ability to plan and execute such an scheme?
You can't hit back if you don't know where or who to hit, and that makes it all the more frustrating.
It is also possible that it's a deliberate terror ploy by whoever did it. After all, is it not worse and more terrifying to have an unknown, faceless, nameless enemy, with the ability to plan and execute such an scheme?
You can't hit back if you don't know where or who to hit, and that makes it all the more frustrating.
You mention Libya, but they have condemed the attack - as have Iran.
Even though neither country has good relations with the USA, they sees this as a truely disgusting act of terrorism.
Even though neither country has good relations with the USA, they sees this as a truely disgusting act of terrorism.
Your Honour wrote:
The US themselves must share part of the - not blame exactly, but ....responsibility is perhaps a better word.
Yes, and not just for the poor security. Remember the US was condemed for it's cruise missile attack of Afghanistan about 3/4 years ago. The Afghans and Bin Laden's group in particular have been waiting for the opportunity to strike back.
We can not go on with these 't**-for-tat' strikes against one another. All that will be acheived is the deaths of 1,000's of people on both sides. It would seem totally unlikely that negotiations can be made with these people which really means that a decisive strike from the US is probably the only way to bring an end to this particular dispute. The trouble is that this is one of several disputes which the US and it's allies are involved in. It is Afghanistan today, but Irag tomorrow and then Libya etc etc.
The US themselves must share part of the - not blame exactly, but ....responsibility is perhaps a better word.
Yes, and not just for the poor security. Remember the US was condemed for it's cruise missile attack of Afghanistan about 3/4 years ago. The Afghans and Bin Laden's group in particular have been waiting for the opportunity to strike back.
We can not go on with these 't**-for-tat' strikes against one another. All that will be acheived is the deaths of 1,000's of people on both sides. It would seem totally unlikely that negotiations can be made with these people which really means that a decisive strike from the US is probably the only way to bring an end to this particular dispute. The trouble is that this is one of several disputes which the US and it's allies are involved in. It is Afghanistan today, but Irag tomorrow and then Libya etc etc.
no10 wrote:
Your right. However,
> the US government had a duty to do everything in it's power to
> reduce the possibility of such a terrorist attack. If security of
> so poor then they have questions to answer.
Agreed, 100%.
The US themselves must share part of the - not blame exactly, but ....responsibility is perhaps a better word.
Your right. However,
> the US government had a duty to do everything in it's power to
> reduce the possibility of such a terrorist attack. If security of
> so poor then they have questions to answer.
Agreed, 100%.
The US themselves must share part of the - not blame exactly, but ....responsibility is perhaps a better word.
Page: