Flight 93 Movie

[KeroseneSnorter]

Living at home, they were civlians with children who had every right to life. We took that away from them.

We murdered them. Your defense again is spewing the numbers of our soliders that would have died had we not used the nukes.

So surely if you believe that, then you better agree with the terrorists if they blow up a nuke on our soil, claiming that a direct head on war with the US soldiers would have led to the slaughter and destruction of many terrorist soldiers' lives.

I bet if we were on the receiving side of those nukes, your views would have been quiet different. Read the paragraph above about a nuke strike by a terrorist. Is it justified? Well, according to your reasoning, it would be.

You have got to be kidding me!!!

O.K. I will quit using small numbers like the 105,000 killed in the nuke attacks.

Lets now keep score of Japans kill rate shall we?

1935 to 1945: Deaths directly caused by Japans military conquest of the period.

China: 10 Million.....yes 10 Million!!!
Indonesia: 4 Million
French Indo China: 1 Million
Korea: 60,000
Phillipenes: 147,000
Burma: 60,000
Singapore: 50,000

Total for those of you keeping score-----15,317,000 YES Fifteen MILLION threehundred seventeen thousand men women and children killed by the empire of Japan during the war years!!!

If the U.S. had killed that many in less than a decade then we would deserve to be wiped off the face of the planet!!!

15 + Million people is a far cry from several border fights and a pissed off Saudi boy because the US is influencing who runs his country!!

AGAIN!!! The Japanese got off EASY with only 105,000 killed to bring the end of the war! And only a total of 2.1 million citizens of Japan killed.

Oops EDIT: I missed some of Japans body count earlier...add 57,000 dead from what is listed as "Pacific Islands" Mostly small fishing villages from what I gather, and a bonus kill of 5000 from Thailand.......lessee....brings the kill to what 15,379,000. Yeah, I am all broken up about the US killing 105,000 to stop wholesale human slaughter.......the only ones in history that can top Japans kill rate is Germany, they managed to kill 23 million Russians before they were done.

 

[Thurman Merman]

The japanese were training there civilian population to fight to the last man, woman and child upon an allied invasion of the homeland. Just to recap an important part of my post, Fuschida a well respected pilot and leader of the attack on pearl harbor by The JAPANESE, said the dropping of the Atomic Bombs were justified. This is a man who had a first hand perspective on the finaticism of the then japenese cultural. The japenese did not surrender, they committed rituilistic suicide. Of all the fighting on Iwo Jima less than 200 prisoners were take and over 15,000 japanese killed, and it was not because we did not take prisoners

The proper way for Hari Kari, slice open the abdomen then slice the throat. If you felt you did your duty then you may commit this inside. But if you felt you failed the emperor then your blood was spilt on the naked earth. This really sounds like people who would sue for peace. They had to have a weapon so grotesque as to shock them into reality they there was no glimmer of hope of fighting. Yet some military commanders refuse to surrender.

This was not a I love you, you love me kind of culture.

 

[Flyer1015]

You have got to be kidding me!!!

O.K. I will quit using small numbers like the 105,000 killed in the nuke attacks.

Lets now keep score of Japans kill rate shall we?

1935 to 1945: Deaths directly caused by Japans military conquest of the period.

China: 10 Million.....yes 10 Million!!!
Indonesia: 4 Million
French Indo China: 1 Million
Korea: 60,000
Phillipenes: 147,000
Burma: 60,000
Singapore: 50,000

Total for those of you keeping score-----15,317,000 YES Fifteen MILLION threehundred seventeen thousand men women and children killed by the empire of Japan during the war years!!!

If the U.S. had killed that many in less than a decade then we would deserve to be wiped off the face of the planet!!!

15 + Million people is a far cry from several border fights and a pissed off Saudi boy because the US is influencing who runs his country!!

AGAIN!!! The Japanese got off EASY with only 105,000 killed to bring the end of the war! And only a total of 2.1 million citizens of Japan killed.

Oops EDIT: I missed some of Japans body count earlier...add 57,000 dead from what is listed as "Pacific Islands" Mostly small fishing villages from what I gather, and a bonus kill of 5000 from Thailand.......lessee....brings the kill to what 15,379,000. Yeah, I am all broken up about the US killing 105,000 to stop wholesale human slaughter.......the only ones in history that can top Japans kill rate is Germany, they managed to kill 23 million Russians before they were done.

Again, now you mention their kill rate as justification. Not good enough.

All those people dying is sad isn't it?

Look how bad it is in many parts of Africa, with systematic massive ethnic cleansing/genocide.

For the most part, we've turned a blind eye to them.

What about their kill rate? How many millions have died there? (Numbers including not only those killed in direct violence, but also indirectly as a result of the conflict... driven from their land, lack of food, etc.)



We've all got our own opinions.

There are some who believe that using the atomic bomb in Japan was right, there are those who believe it was wrong.


This thread has run it's course, I'm out! Peace.

 

[Tomct]

:angryfireFlyer...you are definately an EMBARASSMENT to ANY American Veteran. The way you look at WWII alone, is scary! You are fortunate enough to have the 20/20 hindsight. Maybe you NEED to crack some history books. I would suggest ( The Raping Of Nanking, Flyboys, Flag of our Fathers, The USS Indianapolis and the Ghost Soldiers) to name a few. The fact that you sit here and spew your "Lefto Wacko Crap" and you are free to do so BECAUSE of all those HEROES from WWII, you make me SICK!
You sir are a disrespectful person! Why don't you ask all of the people that have been saved from being tortured by Hussein if they are mad we are there in IRAQ. Why don't you stop one of the returning home soldiers and ASK them how things are REALLY going over there, Lord knows that the news agencies don't want you to know ANY of the GOOD things that are going on over there!
I know because I have a number of friends over there and all they can talk about is how dissappointed they are the REAL news is not getting to the American Public. You make me SICK!!uke:

 

[Flyer1015]

Flyer...you are definately an EMBARASSMENT to ANY American Veteran. The way you look at WWII alone, is scary! You are fortunate enough to have the 20/20 hindsight. Maybe you NEED to crack some history books. I would suggest ( The Raping Of Nanking, Flyboys, Flag of our Fathers, The USS Indianapolis and the Ghost Soldiers) to name a few. The fact that you sit here and spew your "Lefto Wacko Crap" and you are free to do so BECAUSE of all those HEROES from WWII, you make me SICK!

I respect our soldiers and WWII veterans. I've simply expressed my own opinion. I'm NOT the only one in America who thinks that we should not have used atomic bombs over two cities. You can call it "Lefto Wacko Crap" or whatever you like.

Why don't you ask all of the people that have been saved from being tortured by Hussein if they are mad we are there in IRAQ. Why don't you stop one of the returning home soldiers and ASK them how things are REALLY going over there, Lord knows that the news agencies don't want you to know ANY of the GOOD things that are going on over there!
I know because I have a number of friends over there and all they can talk about is how dissappointed they are the REAL news is not getting to the American Public. You make me SICK!!

We've saved them torture from Hussein, only to have a completely unstable country with continuous sectarian violence between Shiites and Sunnis.

Now, instead of Hussein acting as the executioner, militia like members of the Sunni and Shiite groups do the job instead.

Same people dying, just a different "upper management" if you will.

The entire country is in complete shambles, with no sign of becoming a stable democracy as George Bush hopes.

You have soldier friends who are pleased with the Iraq results? That's good.

I only know of one soldier in Iraq, and the poor guy just wants to come home and be with his wife and two kids.

Don't get me wrong. I support our soliders 100%. I wish each and every single one of them a safe mission, and pray they come home alive.

The news media here doesn't have to paint a bad picture, as you claim. The Iraqis do that job for us. The sectarian violence, mosque bombings, car bombings, massive graves of executed Sunnis or Shiites, etc etc.

You must be one of the 38% who approve of Bush ?

 

[Tomct]

Yes I am and PROUD OF IT!! It will be people like you that are backtracking and saying we should have stayed longer or done something more when" heaven forbid" something bad happens here again!!
It is not the Presidents fault! These things were in motion BEFORE he took office. Ask "slick Willie" why he did not take Bin Laden when they had him during his Presidency? Why, they could not get him to okay it because he was affraid of what everyone would think of him! He was to busy trying to make everyone like him instead of thinking ahead of " What Could Possibly Happen..."
Thank HIM for that!!

 

[Flyer1015]

Yes I am and PROUD OF IT!! It will be people like you that are backtracking and saying we should have stayed longer or done something more when" heaven forbid" something bad happens here again!!
It is not the Presidents fault! These things were in motion BEFORE he took office. Ask "slick Willie" why he did not take Bin Laden when they had him during his Presidency? Why, they could not get him to okay it because he was affraid of what everyone would think of him! He was to busy trying to make everyone like him instead of thinking ahead of " What Could Possibly Happen..."
Thank HIM for that!!

It is the President Bush (and his administration's) fault.

We were lied to when taken to war (weapons of mass destruction), when none for found, he changed the reasoning to "remove a terrible dictator and to spread democracy." He went in without an exit strategy. The administration even tried to LINK Iraq with 9/11, when there isn't a shread of evidence to support that notion.

Good for you if you're in the 38% (and falling) that approve of Bush.

 

[h25b]

It is the President Bush (and his administration's) fault.

We were lied to when taken to war (weapons of mass destruction), when none for found, he changed the reasoning to "remove a terrible dictator and to spread democracy." He went in without an exit strategy. The administration even tried to LINK Iraq with 9/11, when there isn't a shread of evidence to support that notion.

Good for you if you're in the 38% (and falling) that approve of Bush.

You're using a very commonly used liberal distortion that most of you, unfortunately, seem to get away with.

They never tried to connect Hussein with the specific act of 9/11. They did however connect him with the terrorist organization of Al-Qaeda. This was and still is true. Mr. Bush said from the beginning that you're either with us, or the terrorists and we would make no distinction between the terrorists or those that harbor them....

 

[blueridge71]

Bush never claimed that Saddam collaborated on 9-11.
http://www.factcheck.org/article203.html

But that is only part of why we are in Iraq.

We are in Iraq because he also had a WMD program. The big lie is that we did not find evidence of WMDs or Saddam's research program. The Iraq Survery Group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Survey_Group) reported that Iraq had numerous development programs for banned weapons and was maneuvering to end sanctions to restart those programs in earnest. They also had systems to procure items for weapons development that were banned under the sanctions.

The only thing that we didn't find was stockpiles of weapons, and that has been what the media and Democrat furor has been over. They would lead you to believe that we found nothing. They lie.

The big question is what happened to the stockpiles that we knew existed, but did not find. My belief is that they were moved somewhere friendly. (Syria, I'm looking in your direction.) After all, in the 12 year "rush to war," Saddam had ample time to hide and relocate his stockpiles.

The combination of WMDs and terror ties is dangerous. It is even more dangerous now with Iran, because President Mahmoud sees that the Democrats and liberal care more about regaining power than about truth, victory, and security. He is emboldened by that. A bold madman with a nuclear weapon is very dangerous indeed. Mark my words, he will not be deterred by negotiations.

 

[SkyW120]

And let it be a reminder as to why other heroes are making the ultimate sacriface in the sands of the middle east.

I'm confused, are you trying to draw a connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq? How many of the Hijackers were from Iraq? Zero.

 

[blueridge71]

The comparison between Japan and the Islamofascist Terrorists is interesting. Both groups were radical fanatics who would rather die a certain death than retreat in the face of overwhelming odds. Both groups had cultures that were highly militarized, highly propagandized, and that glorified death in battle.

One one hand, however, Japan had leaders like Admiral Yamamoto who cautioned that Japan would lose a long war due to superior US industrial capacity. The IFTs, on the other hand, are represented by President Mahmoud who believes that it is his duty to introduce more chaos into the world in order hasten the return of the Shiite version of the Messiah, the Twelfth Imam.

Japan and Germany had to be utterly destroyed to be defeated. If we had attempted to preserve their infrastructure, we could have faced them again in 20-30 years, just as the Allies allowed Germany to surrender in 1918, then had to face a rearmed and stronger Germany in 1939. Similarly, Saddam's regime was preserved in 1991 and he had the audacity to claim victory in the Persian Gulf War. He would have rearmed and been worse than ever if he had been allowed to bribe our European allies in lifting sanctions.

With respect to the term "Islamofascist," dictionary.com defines "fascism" as

1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

This describes the Islamic dictatorship much better than it does anything George Bush is associated with. OBL, Saddam, and President Mahmoud are the HITs (Hitlers-in-training), not George Bush. Furthermore, it is the HITs that are advocating the destruction of the Jews (sound familiar?) and waging war on innocent civilians. The US went out of its way to minimize civilian casualties to the extent that our restraint in the early days may be the cause of some of our problems now.

The big difference between Japan and the IFTs is that Japan was one nation. The IFTs are decentralized and, in many cases, hiding in countries that are ostensibly our allies. They are much harder to root out and destroy than, say, a couple of Japanese divisions on a small island.

This is especially true when you take the current political situation into account. The opposition party is more interested in politics as usual and regaining power than in victory and protecting the US. Their comments, trumpeted on the US newsmedia and the foreign press, give comfort and encouragement to the enemy. You may say that this is a bit harsh, but when is the last time that the Democrats offered anything constructive on the war? They have been much too busy comparing US troops to nazis and Saddam's thugs (always unfavorably).

And remember it was two Democrat administrations who are responsible for the majority of our problems today. Carter, who allowed the Ayatollah to come to power in Iran, and Clinton, who didn't take out OBL when he had the chance and who talked about regime change in Iraq, but never did anything about that either. Together the two of them gave us the North Korea nuclear program.

 

[h25b]

I'm confused, are you trying to draw a connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq? How many of the Hijackers were from Iraq? Zero.

No one is trying to draw that conclusion... That's the point. The left wing, stand for nothing, got no plan, liberals are trying to make the world believe that the Bush administration made that assertion when in fact they didn't. They simply stated that Iraq had terrorist connections, WHICH THEY DID !!! We are in a war on terror. If you want to participate in the activities of ANY terrorist organization then be prepared to face the consequences. That's the whole point.

 

[Flyer1015]

Mr. Bush said from the beginning that you're either with us, or the terrorists and we would make no distinction between the terrorists or those that harbor them....

Did you read my previous posts, specifically:

What scares me most about how our country reacted to 9/11 attacks is the complete and utter arrogance displayed.

Those terrorists flew airplanes into buildings... the most heinous of acts I can ever even think of.

But Bush said, "Either you're with us, or your're with the terrorists."

That's just like saying, " You're either with us, or you're no better (or just as worse) as the people who flew airplanes into buildings."

WTF??? How can we expect any major level of international support with such arrogance as that?!!?!

And look where we are now: handling the Iraq war and Afghanistan pretty much all with our troops (handful of British, Australians, some others), but the overwhelming majority, USA.

We have divided the world rather than unite it to fight terror. The Bush strategy is failing miserably.

***************************************************


Whatever.

I'm not going to argue with a bunch of staunch pro-Bush supporters. I've had it with the illegal wiretapping, library records and other info pulled via the Patriot Act, and illegal disclosure of confiential info (Valerie Plame identity) for his political gain. You know, honestly, I feel that the Bush administration has "taken away" more freedoms from us than the terrorists have. How many net terrorists has the illegal wiretapping and Patriot Act helped capture? OH wait, zero.

But again, whatever.

Bush's [Presidential] time is up in 2008, and then hopefully we won't get another C-average Republican President.

 

[goodto50meters]

When are they going to make a movie about the 100000 civilians killed by osama bush? I cant wait for that to come out,...wait...are they going to make a movie about the US abuse of war prisoners? What about a movie about Hiroshima, Nagasaki?

I for one dont care.

I could care less about 911 since it didnt affect me any nor did it provide for food for my family. Every 911, i got to a peace rally that talks about the killing of ALL victims of bad leadership and terrorists.

Dickless fuc&head,

I am willing to bet that if Adolph Hitler, Joe Stalin, Osama Bin Laden, and the others like them were comming after yours or your family's sorry ass you would be the first to say thanks to the US Military for trying to protect you.

Oh wait, my bad....you would spit in their face! Sorry.

Go away, I hear Cuba is nice. Tell Fidel to go fuc& himself when you get there.

 

[goodto50meters]

Of course we can always sit around with our thumb up our butt and do nothing and wait for some terrorist to detonate a nuke in New York.............would that appease the protesters I wonder?

Only if they were there when it went off!

 

[h25b]

Did you read my previous posts, specifically:

What scares me most about how our country reacted to 9/11 attacks is the complete and utter arrogance displayed.

Those terrorists flew airplanes into buildings... the most heinous of acts I can ever even think of.

But Bush said, "Either you're with us, or your're with the terrorists."

That's just like saying, " You're either with us, or you're no better (or just as worse) as the people who flew airplanes into buildings."

WTF??? How can we expect any major level of international support with such arrogance as that?!!?!

And look where we are now: handling the Iraq war and Afghanistan pretty much all with our troops (handful of British, Australians, some others), but the overwhelming majority, USA.

We have divided the world rather than unite it to fight terror. The Bush strategy is failing miserably.

Failing miserably ??? We haven't been attacked again on our soil have we ? That's the whole idea. I don't think we should've been too concerned about international support. What's so arrogant about saying if you're a terrorist or in any way affiliated with them we are going to hunt you down and kill/capture you. This isn't arrogance, it's just simply an acknowledgement that the previous policies obviously didn't work so it's time to try something else. I mean really, if you're not a state sponsor of terror what do you have to worry about ? Germany and France had big time fingers in the pot with Iraq and didn't want their interests exposed.

I really don't think you understand the historical significance of what 9/11 meant to this country in terms of national security. It's a whole new ballgame now and we need to all radically change our thinking.

 

[Flyer1015]

Failing miserably ??? We haven't been attacked again on our soil have we ? That's the whole idea. I don't think we should've been too concerned about international support. What's so arrogant about saying if you're a terrorist or in any way affiliated with them we are going to hunt you down and kill/capture you. This isn't arrogance, it's just simply an acknowledgement that the previous policies obviously didn't work so it's time to try something else. I mean really, if you're not a state sponsor of terror what do you have to worry about ? Germany and France had big time fingers in the pot with Iraq and didn't want their interests exposed.

I really don't think you understand the historical significance of what 9/11 meant to this country in terms of national security. It's a whole new ballgame now and we need to all radically change our thinking.

I DO understand the historical significance of 9/11 in terms of national security.

"We haven't been attacked" so the Bush administration's plan is working is your reasoning. That's laughable at best.

Look at that Bush quote again, " Either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists." Why can't a country be neither? Why can't a country NOT be with the terrorists, and NOT be with "us." It's arrogance, pure and simple. It's no surprise the USA has become the most arrogant in the world.


And yes, we NEED to care about international support. Look at Pakistan. Musharraf has done a decent job of rounding up terrorists to the best of his abilities. He has dedicated many troops to the western border with Afghanistan. Other US-friendly middle eastern countries (Jordan and UAE as examples) continue to hunt for terrorists as well. We NEED them to continue to do so.

What the hell makes you think that you can do all that yourself with no international support ? If you want to fight and beat terrorism, then we need all the international support we can get.

 

[Tomct]

They can't be neutral! They HAVE to make a decision....yes/no! Plain and simple. There is no middle groud for their positions. Those are the very countries that if invaded, who will they come to first......any guesses....OH YEAH, the BIG COP on the block! The only time most of these countries come to us is for money, help, protection or lets see.....MONEY!!

You are right...Pakistan and Afghanistan are doing good things...i.e. they are supporting us and have MADE that choice! Again, NO MIDDLE ROAD! Yes/No!

 

[Flyer1015]

They can't be neutral! They HAVE to make a decision....yes/no! Plain and simple. There is no middle groud for their positions. Those are the very countries that if invaded, who will they come to first......any guesses....OH YEAH, the BIG COP on the block! The only time most of these countries come to us is for money, help, protection or lets see.....MONEY!!

You are right...Pakistan and Afghanistan are doing good things...i.e. they are supporting us and have MADE that choice! Again, NO MIDDLE ROAD! Yes/No!

There should be middle ground. Why do they HAVE to make a decision? Look at China. They could give less a rats ass.

Consider country X. Country X has no history of terrorists operating within thier country. Country X does not harbor or support terrorists. Country X is your average developing nation, already facing problems of its own. Now, it has to join the USA to fight terrorism, even though it didn't ask for it? What the hell for? And who's gonna pay for all that? Why should country X be forced to join the USA or forced to join with terrorists.

That's too arrogant of the us.

And for the record, Pakistan could have said,
"No, we will not help you in the war on terror, so we are not with you."
"And no, we will not join or support the terrorist side."
"We are middle ground. We have enough problems with India and the Kashmir conflict."

See the point ?

 

[blueridge71]

I'm not going to argue with a bunch of staunch pro-Bush supporters. I've had it with the illegal wiretapping, library records and other info pulled via the Patriot Act, and illegal disclosure of confiential info (Valerie Plame identity) for his political gain. You know, honestly, I feel that the Bush administration has "taken away" more freedoms from us than the terrorists have. How many net terrorists has the illegal wiretapping and Patriot Act helped capture? OH wait, zero.

The only freedoms taken away are those of the terrorists. Do you even know what the PATRIOT Act does? It simply allows intelligence and law enforcement agencies to share information in terrorist cases the same way they do in criminal cases.

Do you honestly think that President Bush is going to tap your phone to see if you are talking to 900 sex numbers or to find out what you like on your pizza? The only phones that they tap are people who are talking to terrorists. Does that not make sense?

Although I agree that there should be limitations and oversight. A Hillary Clinton admininstration might not be so trustworthy. Remember when her husband had the FBI bring over the files on his enemies?

And frankly, you don't have any idea how many terrorists have been captured or plots disrupted. Do you think that they rush out and tell the press every time they make a breakthrough? I happen to know that much more goes on behind the scenes than you might think, although I'm not in a position to discuss specifics.