What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Plane Crashes Into World Trade Centre

Willow

Assistant Moderator
Messages
108,268
Thats it El.. Saddam is shy... I should have thought of that... a lot of people have phobias about public speaking. ;)
Wouldn't have anything to do with a one-sided western media simply feeding the masses the corporate line by any chance? nahhh, probably not.
emdgust.gif


There's propaganda and then there's proper ganders. I prefer the latter. C'mon Saddam, get on the soap box and tell us what you really think...
 
L

legend

Guest
Maybe they won't let Saddam set foot on US soil or maybe he doesnt want to. I honestly think the UN are a toothless tiger and have very little credibility and the powers that be outside the UN have a far better understanding of what they are up against than Kofi Annan. I also think Hussein is giving the UN the proverbial run around and they are too stupid to know what's going on.

The most surprising thing is Willow,you believe what Saddam Hussein told the UN to be truthful and the UN take Saddm Hussein, a mad dictator at his word.

This sounds all too familiar to me. We all knew Osama Bin Laden was a bad bugger but we didnt realise how bad until he made history. Hopefully we wont be saying the same thing about Saddam Hussein after he launches a couple of ICBM's.

Unfortunately, we can't afford to be retrospective with people like Hussein, we must act sooner rather than later or events like the WTC attack will be an all too frequent occurence.
 

Willow

Assistant Moderator
Messages
108,268
"The most surprising thing is Willow,you believe what Saddam Hussein told the UN to be truthful and the UN take Saddm Hussein, a mad dictator at his word."
Where in this forum have I ever said that Saddam Hussain is truthful??? Fair shake of the stick.

Do you think the UN have come to their conclusions by simply asking Saddam? Surely you're aware that these reports come from a number of sources.

As for Saddam not being able to set foot on US soil, this is a problem if the UN can only hold their meetings in the USA. And if thats the reason, then its wrong that the enemies of the USA are restricted from addressing the United Nations.

And another thing, I agree with you that the UN has indeed struggled for credibility. There are a number of reasons for this but an underlying factor is that the USA wields so much influence within the UN. Its also true that the USA refuses to pay its agreed contributions to the UN while at the same time trying to control it.
If the UN has become something of a spent force, then its because thats the way the USA wants it to be.

Besides, whats the alterantive to an United Nations? I think we alreadyknow the answer, a 'new world order' controlled by the one super power.
 

El Duque

Bench
Messages
3,845
"Besides, whats the alterantive to an United Nations? I think we alreadyknow the answer, a 'new world order' controlled by the one super power."

Dunno bout that after reading CNN.

<h1>Iraq resolution scaled back</h1> <h3>Daschle expects Senate floor debate next week</h3> language=JavaScript type=text/javascript>

&lt;/SCRIPT> <span>Thursday, September 26, 2002 Posted: 10:06 PM EDT (0206 GMT)
</span><span> WASHINGTON (CNN) -- White House and congressional staffers have scaled back a proposed resolution authorizing military action against Iraq, dropping language some members of Congress feared could give President Bush too much power. The new draft eliminates language from the original White House proposal that granted Bush the authority to "restore international peace and security in the region." Instead, the resolution now grants Bush the power to use U.S. military force to defend U.S. national security and to enforce U.N. Security Council resolutions. Before taking action, Bush would have to notify the Speaker of the House and the president pro tempore of the Senate that "reliance on further diplomatic means alone will not adequately protect the national security of the United States." In addition, he would have to report back to Congress on the crisis every 90 days. The document includes new clauses urging the United Nations to "decisively ensure" Iraqi compliance with Security Council resolutions requiring it to give up weapons of mass destruction and supporting Bush's efforts to work toward a consensus in the world body. Democrats and some Republicans had expressed concern that the White House's original resolution, which would have granted Bush the authority to act to secure peace and security in the Persian Gulf region, was too open-ended. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, emerging from a closed-door meeting of his caucus where they discussed the draft, said he still hoped to narrow language about how much power the president would have without U.N. cooperation. "I'm going to do as much as possible to draft a resolution that can be supported by the broadest coalition of senators. We have, in my view, come some distance. We've got a long way to go before that can be achieved," said Daschle. But Senate Republicans, who met simultaneously down the hallway in the Capitol, embraced the new language. "I think we have reached a point where there is good language, and we should go forward with it," Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott said. Senate Democrats described their meeting as "emotional," where"frustration" was expressed over feeling powerless that their concerns would not be addressed. Many Democrats believe Congress is moving too fast and the current resolution still gives Bush too much authority to use force without exhausting diplomatic efforts and international support. "This proposal is unacceptable. The administration has been talking about war in Iraq for quite some time now," said Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin. "Surely they had the time to draft a more careful, thoughtful proposal than the irresponsibly broad and sweeping language that they sent to Congress." But a number Democrats said they support the current draft and are hoping for swift action. "I think it's a strong resolution and deserves bipartisan support and I believe it may be changed more but I believe as presented now it would get broad bipartisan support," said Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Connecticut. Two Democratic senators told CNN that Daschle made it clear to his colleagues the current draft was about as far as the White House will go to change it. Administration officials and Senate Republicans too said they viewed the draft as "take it or leave it." Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, D-Michigan, and other Senate Democrats are planning to try to offer alternative resolutions on the Senate floor that would require U.N. action before Bush is allowed to use the U.S. military. Sounding a conciliatory note, Bush met with lawmakers from both parties Thursday morning, saying members are engaged in a "deliberate and civil and thorough discussion." Bush outlined again what he described as a threat from Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, citing the possibility that Iraq would give anthrax or nerve gas to a terrorist. "We refuse to live in this future of fear. Democrats and Republicans refuse to live in this future of fear," Bush said. Bush's reference to "Democrats and Republicans" appeared to be an olive branch to Democrats like Daschle, who Wednesday accused Bush of exploiting national security issues for political gain. (Full story) The White House said Daschle took Bush's comments out of context. Daschle told reporters he expected to begin Senate floor debate on the Iraq resolution next week. -- CNN Correspondents Jonathan Karl and Kate Snow and Producer Dana Bash contributed to this report</span>

 

Ryback

Juniors
Messages
44
I found this peice while surfing the information highway this morning. Interesting.
Is it true that the destruction of the World Trade Center changed the weather in NYC?
A year after 9/11, a common theme in almost everything written or said about that day is how much things have changed in America since then. Usually the change has to do with how we {Americans}act or think about things. But in New York City, the changes created new facts on the ground - and in the air, as well.
The Twin Towers were more than landmark office buildings and icons of capitalism. They also constituted one of the world’s biggest lightning rods. Each was topped by a copper grid attached to the building’s steel frameworks to harmlessly conduct lightning bolts to the ground. Scientists guess that about 35 serious strikes per year that might have hit elsewhere in lower Manhattan were instead absorbed by the Trade Center. In August, a man was killed by lightning on a rooftop in Greenwich Village.
Indirectly, he may have been another victim of 9/11.

 

st ted

Juniors
Messages
217
Apart from a brief smile and a thought of "that's clever", that to me is a tad scary cause I have never heard of "explainify".
Could someone please reassure me that it is a word and not just a concoction of letters by a lunatic.
 

Willow

Assistant Moderator
Messages
108,268
"Could someone please reassure me that it is a word and not just a concoction of letters by a lunatic."

Sorry mate... jokes aside, George W is a lunatic. Comforting thought eh?
 
C

CanadianSteve

Guest
The new diet thread prompted me to post this. I heard a radio ad today for a North American diet plan company called Jenny Craig. A female voice says she was an elementary school teacher "when our world changed." Meaning the WTC attacks. She goes on to say how badly she felt that because of her weight she felt unable to help her students, I think meaning if they had to evacuate she wouldn't be much good. So this inspired her to call Jenny Craig and do somethingabout losing weight.

I was supportive of the US and their reaction to the attacks, but now, a year later I had to laugh at this use of the event for commercial purposes.
 

Willow

Assistant Moderator
Messages
108,268
Legend:
Further to our posts (#842 &amp; 843), if the UN's opposition to attacking Iraq isnt enough, then how about this:

The CIA have released a report that says:
Iraq represents no threat to the USA and that they are unlikely to launch an attack.
Further more, the CIA believes that Iraq has no real connection with Al-Qaeda.

This kind of flies in the face of what George W Bush is saying.He isstill trying to convince everyonethat he he is fighting a war against terrorism and that Iraq are in some way attached to the long string of the terrorist network which includes Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda and that they are therefore connected to the attack on the WTC.

Its not just the UN who find this hard to swallow. Obviously George's own 'intelligence' organisations think so as well.
 

Willow

Assistant Moderator
Messages
108,268
Still on the subject of George W Bush...

Just this week,he stated that he was behind a preemptive strike against Iraq in order to protect the USA. He said in order to stop Iraq attacking America, it was best to make a defensive strike and hit first.

I don't know if you've noticed, but I think the bloke's a lunatic. If he gets away with attacking Iraq, then it proves a belief I've had for some time, that the USA is a most undemocratic country. The US Congress is supposed to keep madmen in check, if they fail to do so, then the whole system is worthless and the reality is that the USA Presidency isnt too far different from a Dictatorship.

George W Bush didnt receive the majority of the vote and yet, he was elected as President.
George W Bush calls himself 'a man of the people' and yet, he inherited wealth and position and has strong connections with big corporations and the highroller end of stockmarket.
George W Bush is the head of government but he has very little to do with domestic issues.

The bloke's a walking contradiction.

 
O

ozbash

Guest
A man identified as Saudi-born dissident Osama bin Laden warned US allies in an audio tape aired yesterday that they would be targets of new attacks if they continued to back the "White House gang of butchers".
In the tape broadcast by Arabic-language television station al-Jazeera, the speaker hailed anti-Western attacks in Bali, Kuwait, Yemen and Jordan and last month's hostage-taking in Moscow. If authenticated, the tape would be the clearest evidence yet that bin Laden survived the US-led military campaign in Afghanistan that toppled his Taliban hosts and sought to flush out al Qaeda, which Washington blames for last year's September 11 attacks. In Washington, US officials said the voice on the tape would be analysed to determine if it was indeed that of the al Qaeda leader. "We've seen these reports, and we will analyse the recording. We don't know if it's him or not," said Sean McCormack, spokesman for the White House National Security Council. Jazeera, which did not say how it obtained the tape, has often carried statements by bin Laden and his lieutenants. The most recent event mentioned in the tape took place on October 28. "Do your governments not know the White House gang are the biggest butchers of the era?... Why should your governments ally themselves with America," said the man, whose voice resembled that of bin Laden. He accused the United States and its allies of harming Muslims in the Palestinian territories and other areas and warned: "As you kill, you will be killed." The speaker said his message was particularly addressed to the people of Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Canada and Australia. "The road to safety for the West starts with stopping aggression," he said. "We had warned Australia about its participation in Afghanistan (war)... It ignored the warning until it woke up to the sound of explosions in Bali," he said. He stopped short of claiming responsibility for last month's attack on a nightclub on the Indonesian holiday island of Bali which killed more than 180 people, many of them Australians. Three New Zealanders were killed in the blast. He also referred to the murder of a senior administrator of the US Agency for International Development, who was gunned down in Jordan on October 28. A US marine was killed earlier in October in an attack on US forces conducting a military exercise in Kuwait, and on October 6 the French-flagged supertanker Limburg was attacked off Yemen. A blast blew a hole in its hull and the vessel was gutted by fire. The tape also referred to the taking of hundreds of hostages by Chechen guerrillas at a Moscow theatre last month, in which 128 hostages died when Russian forces stormed the theatre. Jazeera last month broadcast what it said was the voice of bin Laden threatening more attacks on the United States. But the tape did not refer to any particular events to help establish when it was made.
 

Willow

Assistant Moderator
Messages
108,268
"If authenticated, the tape would be the clearest evidence yet that bin Laden survived..."

Yeah well...yes.
I always thought that Bin Liner was alive. There;s simply too many countries that would take him in.
 

El Duque

Bench
Messages
3,845
When his down on his hands and knees banging his f**ked up head to Allah stick a shotgun up his arse and send him to his maker!

He's a f**kin gutless wonder!
 
O

ozbash

Guest
agree el dook
agree willow

of course, it could also be the CIA who made the tape..

georgie must be fair spewing now that saddam has agreed to the U.N resolution....
who will he fight now ?
 

Willow

Assistant Moderator
Messages
108,268
I don't think the George v Saddam saga is over by a long shot.
And regardless of the video's authenticity, Bin is alive and even if he isnt, there are others who are just like him.

So it seems that George now has a war on two fronts when he already had his hands full on the one front.

All this means is that we are going to have a long and costly series of fights which will blow up into open conflict from time to time through either miltary actions and/or terrorist actions.
 
S

SpaceMonkey

Guest
My boss had an interesting conversation with an American rep from one of our suppliers who was visiting us yesterday. The guy reckoned that it was not a matter of if but when the US invades Iraq. On tha count Bush will be pissed off that Saddam is cooperating with the UN as it will make it a little harder for him to push his agenda. Still I'm sure he'll find a way round it. While I have no love whatsoever for Saddam Hussein I find this quite disturbing. Personally I've always thought it was a shame thatHussein wasn't assasinated during the gulf war. While that would've contravened international law, it would certainly have been preferrable to a full scale invasion of Iraq.
 
H

Hass

Guest
Well it's now the 11th of September 2003.

In a little over 7 hours it will be 2 years to the second that Willow started this topic with the line "A plane has crashed into one of the towers of New York's World Trade Centre".

I know this forum has died somewhat since those days. However on this anniversary I thought it was only fitting we brought the thread back to the top.

Cheers.
 
Top