<< FAKE BUT FLEW ~ MAIN ~ MISSILE STORY IV >>
LEAP TAKEN
The Sydney Morning Herald’s Greg Hassall previews last night’s Australian broadcast of 9/11: The Falling Man:
Has the passing of time softened the impact?
Possibly not, especially for the falling man himself. Hassall’s next line is also ill-considered:
Shall we now more easily be able to watch images of that terrible day in New York when nearly 2800 people lost their lives in an unprecedented attack by two aircraft ... ?
I’ll say it’s unprecedented; aircraft generally exhibit an inability to compose—let alone carry out—plans to destroy humankind. Also in the SMH, Paul Kalina reveals that the director of the documentary may have been the source for Graeme Blundell’s observation that World Trade Center jumpers were viewed as cowardly:
The American-born filmmaker Henry Singer remembers seeing them as he watched coverage of the attacks from an office in London ... many Americans, Singer feels, regard the jumpers as cowards.
Name one.
"People might see jumping as giving up, as opposed to, ‘Why not run through the flames, the smoke and try to make your way down?’ I may be wrong in how people see that, but I would absolutely disagree with that. I see that decision to jump as extraordinarily brave."
So why raise the unfounded cowardice slur? Then again, we are talking about someone whose sensitivity runs to this level:
“I thought this is going to be a very hard film but this is an unusual opportunity, so I decided to take the leap."
(Via Stephen M.)
What an asshole. In the most horrible circumstances imaginable, innocent people suddenly are forced to either leap to their deaths or burn to death. (I have an absolutely paralizing phobia about heights, and even I probably would have gone this route to avoid immolation.)
Nobody I’ve ever heard of--except apparently this guy--has even had it come to mind that choosing one horrifying death was somehow ‘brave’ or ‘cowardly.’ Seriously, and I don’t say this often, but I’d like to punch that guy in the face.
“I may be wrong in how people see that, but I would absolutely disagree with that.” In other words, he admits himself has no evidence that anyone ever thought this, but he’s still better than them. I can’t even imagine a mind that would even think of this situation in those terms. Again, what a complete and utter asshole.
You’re making this up. And when I say “this,” I mean “the country of Australia.”
Posted by Jim Treacher on 2006 08 31 at 01:20 PM • permalinkAt least this guy mentions airplanes. Most of the networks now show:
1. Buildings with smoke pouring out of them
2. People running down the street as the buildings collapsed.
3. A smoking hole in the ground.
Funny though, they never seem to show the seminal event of the day: Two planes purposefully flown into two skyscrapers by muslim fanatics. It’s like they don’t want to remind anyone about which religion’s adherents was responsible for this outrage. Hell, they don’t even use words like “murder”, “outrage”, “act of war” and such. It’s always “the tragedy of 9/11”. Kind of like it was act of nature or something that caused these buildings to catch on fire and collapse.
Posted by David Crawford on 2006 08 31 at 01:27 PM • permalinkAre these tasteless turns of phrase deliberate or their authors idiots?
So many rhetorical questions.
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2006 08 31 at 01:31 PM • permalinkFree Republic had a thread the other day on an upcoming (US) ABC 5-hour mini series about 9/11 that goes all the way back to the 1993 bombing, it will appear on the network on Sept. 10th and 11th. IIRC the thread was started with a review from Human Events or The American Thinker. In any event, there have been specials recently on CourtTV and the National Geographic Channel, which have both been pretty good.
How has United 93 been doing in Australia? I was a little disappointed that it didn’t do better here, but I think that many people rationalized themselves into not going by buying in to the “it’s too soon” mantra.
``Why not run through the flames, the smoke and try to make your way down?’ ‘’
Weren’t the jumpers mostly *above* the point of impact - in other words, there was no way down?
And even if they weren’t - this guy thinks they should have run through 80+ stories of smoke and flame? Does he engage his brain at all before putting his mouth in gear?As for ``United 93’’ - I didn’t go see it because I knew I would cry through the whole thing and, well, I didn’t want to. I have it reserved through Netflix, though. It’s supposed to be available in about a week.
Posted by Sonetka's Mom on 2006 08 31 at 01:54 PM • permalink#7 WC: those are not mutually exclusive
Posted by Not My Problem on 2006 08 31 at 02:02 PM • permalinkThey may be as selective as they want in what they say and what they show, but they will never wipe out the emotions I feel just seeing a picture of the WTC standing tall and proud against the blue sky, dominating the skyscrapers of Manhattan.
Too many people have piled on their opinions, trying to somehow wipe out what really happened. Yesterday, I heard one man call the outrage at the WTC, “the unpleasantness”. We were wrong to take an “unpleasantness” and turn it into a war, according to this sage. I felt the sudden urge to make his face “unpleasant”.
What the hell is wrong with people? There are times lately when I feel a terrible helplessness when confronted with such idiocy. I’m not usually at a loss for words, but I’m out of breath these days. One shouldn’t have to point out the obvious. It should be an insult to a person’s intelligence to do so. Then I read something like that “review”, and I realize that there has to be an intelligence there to insult.
Go back to work, Tim. We need all the sane reporters and commentators that we can find.
Whether or not Singer is a leftie is not material—he is an insensitive, arrogant asshole first, last, and always.
But I’d sure like to see Singer on top of a tall building engulfed in flames, with no hope of rescue, just to see what his choice would be.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 08 31 at 02:31 PM • permalinkI should have been more clear...it doesn’t really matter whether Singer is a lefty, but I bet he was echoing thoughts by the people he was surrounded by in London.
At first I was going to write “a bit of Euro-projection”, maybe I should have left it like that. At any rate, the “many Americans, Singer feels ...” part reminded me of the way Europeans (and some American leftists) like to pretend they understand the Middle American psyche because of its obvious simplisme. Singer may be American-born, but I think he’s sharing that mindset.
David Crawford
Posted by
Funny though, they never seem to show the seminal event of the day: Two planes purposefully flown into two skyscrapers by muslim fanatics. It’s like they don’t want to remind anyone about which religion’s adherents was responsible for this outrage. Hell, they don’t even use words like “murder”, “outrage”, “act of war” and such. It’s always “the tragedy of 9/11”. Kind of like it was act of nature or something that caused these buildings to catch on fire and collapse.
They take their cue from Michael Moore’s slick, terror-apologist agitprop Fahrenheit 911. The last thing they want is for people to be reminded that it was an act of war by a transnational religious extremist group. Oh no, it was a “tragedy” without any context.
Posted by Spiny Norman on 2006 08 31 at 04:30 PM • permalinkOh, I hate it when I click “submit” instead of “preview”...
Posted by Spiny Norman on 2006 08 31 at 04:31 PM • permalinkShall we now more easily be able to watch images of that terrible day in New York when nearly 2800 people lost their lives in an unprecedented attack by two aircraft ... ?
I’ll say it’s unprecedented; aircraft generally exhibit an inability to compose—let alone carry out—plans to destroy humankind.
Keep in mind this is coming from the SMH, who breathlessly republish every media release by the so-called “Coalition for Gun Control"* claiming that semi-automatic handguns need to be banned because they’re responsible for all manner of crime around Sydney.
Blaming inanimate objects whilst ignoring the humans controlling them is merely par for the course.
* I say ‘so-called’ because it’s actually a coalition of two people, one of which is a Sydney Uni staff hack in the Economics department and the other of which is an elderly ratbag activist down in Melbourne. They both claim to be a ‘co-chair’ of the ‘coalition’ & the media’s never bothered to investigate how many people they represent, perhaps because the releases generally support their view of things.
Posted by ausdiplomad on 2006 08 31 at 06:25 PM • permalinkThe decision to jump might be neither brave nor cowardly, but simply instinctive. With an onslaught of incredibly painful heat and throat-burning firey smoke, in the uncontrollable panic of the moment it might be impossible to avoid the temptation of hospitably cool fresh air, even if it intellectually means a plunge to your death.
Im not sure but I think the foxtell history channel is still showing “loose change2” on 9/11 as part of its commemoration. This is a hack conspiracy movieof the worst sort. Most of their line up is good but this one stinks. I did send an email to them about it, some weeks ago but recieved no reply.
If anyone could bomb them with a few more emails maybe they would change their minds. Its grossly offensive to show a bit of poorly researched anti-Bush/ anti-American propaganda on this day.
heres their email.
Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2006 08 31 at 06:43 PM • permalinkI should have been more clear...it doesn’t really matter whether Singer is a lefty, but I bet he was echoing thoughts by the people he was surrounded by in London.
True enough, PW. Thanks for the clarification, and I hope I didn’t come across as mad at you. Singer pissed me off, and my morning caffeine was still percolating into my bloodstream. :-)
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 08 31 at 07:19 PM • permalink#9, sonetka’s mom, I went to see United 93 when it came out. Halfway through, I started hearing quiet sniffles all around me, but I didn’t cry until the ending scene. By that time, there was no one in the audience who wasn’t.
I can’t watch 9/11 specials without getting teary-eyed, and angry.
People like Greg Hassall and Henry Singer inadvertently reveal themselves as being without empathy for other human beings, utterly incapable of any emotion but faux outrage on behalf of selected causes. It is a cold, ugly landscape they inhabit.
I missed the first bit of the show, and I agree with most of the posts that it was a powerful reminder of things that should never be forgotten. But did anyone else feel a bit cheated? All during the show I had this feeling that something was a bit strange. Then I realized that for over an hour there was no mention of the word terrorist. Only in a few background TV reports from the day. My wife reckons that this was a film with a different focus. Perhaps they covered this at the beginning. But the biggest problem for me was the focus on ‘jumpers’ and ‘falling’ and identities etc kept drawing me away from the things I wanted to think about most of all. Who were these people that did this? Who gave them the right to reach into peoples lives and devastate them? Who were the bastards that placed people in that situation? The whole movie drew me away from the emotion that I most wanted to feel….Anger. I still want to feel angry! I think a remembrance of 9/11 without anger is not an honest response. This show good and powerful as it was led me on a wild goose chase. It made me focus on the pimples on my face instead of the cancer in my heart. For that I found it unsatisfying.
Posted by mickdundee on 2006 08 31 at 08:31 PM • permalinkI couldn’t watch this doco. I started, but I cried so much I went back to work instead and just listened to it. Sometimes I turned back to the teev, but I couldn’t sit through the whole thing.
I don’t understand how anybody could remember this abomination, or watch the footage of people taking that leap and consider cowardice at all.
None of us here have ever been in this situation and God willing we never will.
I still think frollicking mole had it right:
I only hope they closed their eyes and thought back to when they were 5 and could fly....
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2006 08 31 at 08:34 PM • permalink#26 Mickdundee, I know where you are coming from, but I didn’t feel cheated. Since the focus of this program is the search to identify a)the Falling Man and b)how it ultimately impacts upon us (Americans and the rest of the West), I didn’t notice the missing terrorist connection.
Because it wasn’t about root causes, or Why Do They Hate Us? (tm) I think it would have been distracting if there was a discussion on terrorism of the islamic breed.
I looked on it more as a study in (western) human nature, and how we handle - or not - something of this magnitude.
The subject was the Falling Man, not how come the buildings were flown into and why haven’t we gone to town on the perpetrators yet?
That’s a whole nother rant from me, so I won’t start.
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2006 08 31 at 08:39 PM • permalinkJust thinking about those poor people driven to the choice of dying by fire or dying by jumping, and of the doomed passengers in the airliners, I become angry all over again. Muslims speak of their rage about something or other as an excuse for their nihilistic violence. Well my rage on September 11 was such that, if it had been me in command and not Bush, Kandahar, Tikrit, and Tripoli would have been piles of radioactive rubble by noon on Septenber 12. And those would have been just the warning shots, further terrorist attacks on Americans being met by further nukes. Bush has much more self control than I do. Muslims are lucky that he is President, for that and other reasons.
Posted by Michael Lonie on 2006 08 31 at 09:56 PM • permalinkName one.
Well, Tim, go to the Esquire article, pages 2 and 3:
It was the sight of the jumpers that prompted a woman to wail, “God! Save their souls! They’re jumping! Oh, please God! Save their souls!”...
So he went to the funeral. He brought his print of Drew’s photograph with him and showed it to Jacqueline Hernandez, the oldest of Norberto’s three daughters. She looked briefly at the picture, then at Cheney, and ordered him to leave.
What Cheney remembers her saying, in her anger, in her offended grief: “That piece of shit is not my father.”
I am the first to say that those who jumped didn’t want to die - they just wanted to make their last moments bearable.
But isn’t this very similar to the arguments for euthanasia? If you have a problem with euthanasia, you’ll have a problem with those who chose to jump, and will need to find some extenuation.
Much as I’d like to, this attitude is one thing I can’t blame on the anti-American left-liberal media.
Posted by David Morgan on 2006 08 31 at 10:23 PM • permalinkDavid Morgan, nothing you said makes any sense. I think the only one with the “argument against euthanasia” (WTF?) is you, and in any case, it’s not the subject of this post.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 08 31 at 10:34 PM • permalinkAlso, that woman was either half out of her mind with grief, or there were undercurrents that no one (the writer, Cheney) was aware of, or—possibly—the Esquire writer was full of shit. Then again, the woman could just have been a judgmental creep—you don’t become a saintly goodperson just because your parent dies.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 08 31 at 10:36 PM • permalinkSkeptic
I think the whole world is lucky you’re not the president.
Some had wished the same of Harry Truman, when faced with a vicious, ruthless fanatical enemy...but good old Harry dropped them anyway.
This is a different enemy, they hid behind children, women and the elderly, but they laugh, as it becomes a propaganda victory for the Islamist. Is that what makes blowing them to hell distasteful?
Because as you know, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, did contain, children, women and the elderly and they, weren’t hidden behind anyone. Were we correct or incorrect for doing so?
Whether we liked it or not, the Japanese were warriors of the first order, but we annihilated two cities.
The Brits and the Americans did the same to Dresden and Cologne. Were we correct or incorrect for doing so?
Tim asked for examples, Andrea. I gave them.
Posted by David Morgan on 2006 08 31 at 10:40 PM • permalinkSkeptic
Medina (considered 2nd hloiest city I think) would have been my first choice. And large full page ads in every ME newspaper stating Mecca was next if they didnt pull their heads in, hand over Osama, and just for good mesure allow freedom of worship.
Any Islamic group wanting to attack after that better be damn sure its worth it. Its sad to say but the religion needs attacking, not nebulous no-state players. The stated aims are religously driven, the people involved appear to be religous fanatics, and death in the cause appears to be religously desirable.
The religon inspiring, funding and in many cases endorsing these actions needs reminding that the secular world can strike back at their holiest symbols, not just “real word” stuff they seem to despise.If that seems a bit harsh, well stiff.
Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2006 08 31 at 10:58 PM • permalink#38 - RebeccaH, you’re facing an inevitable, horrible, painful death. You instead choose a death which is quicker and, you hope, less painful.
I thought the parallels were obvious.
Posted by David Morgan on 2006 08 31 at 11:04 PM • permalink#42 El Cid - I agree with you. I’m just describing a point of view some have, and exploring why.
Posted by David Morgan on 2006 08 31 at 11:15 PM • permalinkBTW here’s Tim’s problems with euthanasia and suicide in 2002.
Posted by David Morgan on 2006 08 31 at 11:20 PM • permalinkFrollicking Mole - what is the difference between what you advocate and what anyone blinded to an ideology of hate, fear and terror believes?
thefrollickingmole has not been “blinded” to an ideology of hate, fear and terror believes? from a book of thoughts of the 8th Century saying he MUST go forth with hate, fear and terror. That is the difference.
What part of that difference, can’t you grasp?
I thought it was an extremely interesting, thought provoking documentary. Especially the reaction of readers of The Morning Call who felt that the picture should never have been published. I also found it telling that the journalist, when trying to find out how many jumped that dreadful day, was told no one jumped. The photograph, which was what the documentary was ostensibly about, is an extremely powerful image. One that can rightly be put in the same bracket as Eddie Adams’ shooting of the VC prisoner, the Nick Ut photograph of a little girl running from a napalm attack and Robert Capa’s dying soldier from the spanish civil war.
And I think of that photograph in the way that was mentioned, as a tomb for the unknown soldier.
Posted by davethescot on 2006 08 31 at 11:57 PM • permalink#29 Micheal Lonie,
I’d vote for you. I have no qualms at all about deploying nukes.Posted by Daniel San on 2006 08 31 at 11:58 PM • permalinkStereotyping is leading to terror, says first Muslim Miss England
Daily Mail/UKShe said: “The attitude towards Muslims has got worse over the year. Also the Muslims’ attitude to British people has got worse.
“Even moderate Muslims are turning to terrorism to prove themselves. They think they might as well support it because they are stereotyped anyway. It will take a long time for communities to start mixing in more.
Rather stunning Cross (wicked British Humor) in her tiara. Lovely lady, filled with Islamist thinking of the death kind.
Somehow I featured an Islamic Miss England,
thusly.Skeptic
Short but lovely debate, unfortunately, I suffer from either a case of the flu, or mild food poisoning. That is why, I have a Doctor’s appointment, tomorrow.
Between answering and being in the lavatory, (yes, I know what you are thinking...I did wash my hands, several times) I may have been a bit edgy.
Catch me when I’m all better, maybe I’ll be sharper...:).
El Cid, hope you’re feeling better real soon.
I watched the program.
It’s tragic that the people who jumped were not counted - surely the breathing of fresh air rather than suffocating smoke and immolation was preferable.
And I am with frollickingmole, linked in #27 above by Nilk:
I only hope they closed their eyes and thought back to when they were 5 and could fly....
O/T Last night on ABC Bris 612 Steve Austen’s programme was a tribute to Tubular Bells, by Mike Oldfield, which was Virgin Records’ first release on 31 August 1972.
Amazing. I remember it so well, I was 13. I still have the
vynilvinylold-fashioned, black plastic record thingy. The following year it was used as the theme in the movie The Exorcist.#32 David Morgan, regarding the woman commenting on the man in the photo “that piece of shit is not my father,” I did not read that to be a denigration of him jumping.
Rather, I saw it as an expression of grief, of offense that someone would bring up such a subject at a funeral.
She would be striking out in pain, not caring what she actually said.
I’d be pretty much the same, as I know there is undying enmitybetween my sister’s mother-in-law and myself because I gave her the cut direct at my mum’s funeral years ago. I never liked the woman, and the last thing I wanted was to speak to her when I had to speak for Mum.
I imagine if I were at my dad’s funeral and someone came up with a photo and asked if it were him. I’d be mightily pissed off.
I also wouldn’t just be voting for Michael, I’d be helping him push the button.
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2006 09 01 at 01:46 AM • permalinkSkeptic.
Frollicking Mole - what is the difference between what you advocate and what anyone blinded to an ideology of hate, fear and terror believes?
Because it would give a mystical, spiritual, reason for those who are following a 1400 year old desert survival guide not to take action.
At the moment our responses to Islamic terror are rooted in the sane, rational world.
Thats not the world fanatics operate in.
Unless a negative action is followed by a negative response (in their terms) there is no down side to it for them.Feeding Islamic terrorists remains to pigs might work as well?
These are brutal options, but what else other than bringing a spiritual dimension to a religous fanatic might work?
I by no means think this would work “cleanly”. However what are the options?
BTW it could be a refreshing carpet bombing rather than a nuke if that thought upsets people a bit too much…Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2006 09 01 at 02:03 AM • permalinktfm - if I may quote Andrea above
nothing you said makes any sense.
what’s all this
Because it would give a mystical, spiritual, reason for those who are following a 1400 year old desert survival guide not to take action.
At the moment our responses to Islamic terror are rooted in the sane, rational world.
Thats not the world fanatics operate in.
Unless a negative action is followed by a negative response (in their terms) there is no down side to it for them.Sounds like gibberish too me.
O/T apologies.
Picked up my new Aus Passport today.... lol.
There is a holograph on the photo page. It’s a stylised kangaroo…
After my eposide with the flying kangaroo on August 4, it’s all a bit much of a coincedence!
I still reckon the photo isn’t me.
Skeptic
My point is. It will take a religous setback to really drive home the point that there is a cost to attacking others.
They blow up 1000 people, we blow up a holy site.
That simple enough for you or would you prefer me to type slower so you can read it easier.They are operating according to the infallible koran, the direct word of god, and are promised eternal bliss for killing ANY non believer.
Show their god is weak, cannot protect his most sacred sites, or clerics and their wordview will suffer. Show an overwhelmingly, crushing, response once. Then warn.
They dont give a rats fat about much else, they arent fighting for a political outcome, or an achiveable worldly goal. That leaves not much room for a deal when its slavery to the master religion, death or resistance.
Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2006 09 01 at 04:32 AM • permalinkJust thinking about those poor people driven to the choice of dying by fire or dying by jumping, and of the doomed passengers in the airliners, I become angry all over again. Muslims speak of their rage about something or other as an excuse for their nihilistic violence. Well my rage on September 11 was such that, if it had been me in command and not Bush, Kandahar, Tikrit, and Tripoli would have been piles of radioactive rubble by noon on Septenber 12. And those would have been just the warning shots, further terrorist attacks on Americans being met by further nukes. Bush has much more self control than I do. Muslims are lucky that he is President, for that and other reasons.
My contempt for islam is stronger than ever.
I didn’t see the doco - although I was up all night watching CNN when it happenned - but it was a topic of conversation at work today. And inevitably the subject of suicide, cowardice, whatever came up.
But all that implies free choice I said to my colleagues. Choice implies alternatives. Free choice presupposes freedom.
What those images of falling men and women epitomize is the end came of Islamist death cults: a choice between death and death. No choice. No freedom.
gms5 nails it.
#56 Thefrollickingmole
Feeding Islamic terrorists remains to pigs might work as well?
This reminds of soemthing I once read about the Indian Mutiny in 1857.
The Brits heard that the Hindus among their opponents had a religious belief about corpses needing to be whole, or there was something negative about it in their eyes.
So instead of using hanging as an execution method for condemned enemies, they let it be known publicly that they would tie the bodies to the front of cannons, so that the bodies would be blown apart. The goal was basically psychological - to cause fear and undermine the willingness of their opponents to fight - even though it physically didn’t mean killing any extra people.
Dunno if the Brits strategy worked or not - but it’s certainly an example of lateral thinking!
(PS - Not advocating anything for or against it, some comments just reminded me of it, thats all)
PPS - Actually, thinking about that some more, that Brit tactic could (arguably) be labelled as a terrorist-technique, because its only purpose was to induce fear. On the other hand, it didn’t kill anybody additional, it was just a change in methodology, so maybe it isn’t?
Hmmm. Anyway, I’m O/T. So back to the regular programme....
#40, agreed that the people who jumped were choosing between jumping and being burned alive. But in my mind, that was neither suicide, nor anything akin to euthanasia. Those people were murdered in the prime of life, and anyone who thinks less of them because they chose a less painful way is a hopeless, heartless fool.
Skeptic, you may not use my quote, which was directed at another, to support your own idiotic minging. By the way, for a “Skeptic” you strike me as strangely credulous, willing to give fanatic Muslims the benefit of the doubt at every turn. What you’re doing here isn’t skepticism, it’s simple contrarianism, and it’s coming close to trolling.
Dan Morgan: I stand by my statement that your jumping/euthanasia analogy makes no sense. The people who jumped were perfectly healthy, not “better off dead” as is claimed of people being euthanized. They were murdered, just as the people in the planes were murdered. (And no, I have no intention of or interest in getting into an argument over whether euthanasia = murder. Even if it is, the analogy still is wrong: people aren’t euthanised by being burned alive or thrown off the top of a building.)
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 09 01 at 09:32 AM • permalinkWhoops, didn’t read what RebeccaH typed.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 09 01 at 09:32 AM • permalinkThose people were murdered in the prime of life, and anyone who thinks less of them because they chose a less painful way is a hopeless, heartless fool.
I go with Rebecca as well. Not suicide, nor euthanasia. Murder.
Dan Morgan, your reasoning is off base, because you assume that the jumpers had a choice between miserable life and painless death. They didn’t. They had a choice between a horrible death (jumping) and a painful death (burning alive).
And, just to keep things in perspective, here is the definition for euthanasia:
Also called mercy killing. The act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, esp. a painful, disease or condition.
This hardly describes the situation of 9/11. Euthanasia was not involved. Those people were murdered.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 09 01 at 10:07 AM • permalinkI wonder if this “skeptic" over at Anonymous Lefty’s place is the same one:
Why is Tim Blair such a coward? He often jumps into this blog with an asinine comment like this one and then slinks away…
skeptic
If it’s the same one, that’s a supremely ironic comment coming from somebody who does exactly the same thing here with regularity.
Shall we now more easily be able to watch images of that terrible day?
Only if you are willing to accept that savage Islamic terrorists are trying to destroy Western civilization.
Oh, well. O/w, just go back to the latest NYT Bush-Amerikka-bashing article or, better yet, watch Spike Lee’s Bush-Amerikka-bashing documentary on Katrina. There’s plenty of dead bodies in that one, because “Bush doesn’t care about black people!”
LGF is hosting the Hi-Res Image of Ambulance 782. Damned if it doesn’t look like someone dragged a wreck out of salvage yard and jumped around on its roof, complete with footprints (upper left, below the number).
Posted by Spiny Norman on 2006 09 01 at 12:45 PM • permalink#64 ekb87,
That punishment was called “Kissing the gunners daughter”, or something similar.Posted by Daniel San on 2006 09 01 at 01:08 PM • permalinkSort of O/T, but not really...and some of you may already know this story:
How Budweiser handled those who laughed at those who died on the 11th of September, 2001…Thought you might like to know what happened in a little town north of Bakersfield, California.
On September 11th, a Budweiser employee was making a delivery to a convenience store in a California town named McFarland. He knew of the tragedy that had occurred in New York .
When he entered the business to find the two Arabs, who owned the business, whooping and hollering to show their approval and support of this treacherous attack.
The Budweiser employee went to his truck, called his boss and told him of the very upsetting event! He didn’t feel he could be in that store with those horrible people. His boss asked him, “Do you think you could go in there long enough to pull every Budweiser product and item our beverage company sells there? We’ll never deliver to them again.” The employee walked in, proceeded to pull every single product his beverage company provided and left with an incredible grin on his face. He told them never to bother to call for a delivery again.
Budweiser happens to be the beer of choice for that community. Just letting you know how Kern County handled this situation.
It seems that the Bud driver and the Pepsi man are neighbors. Bud called Pepsi and told him. Pepsi called his boss who told him to pull all Pepsi products as well!!! That would include Frito Lay, etc. Furthermore, word spread and all vendors followed suit! At last report, the store was closed indefinitely.
[courtesy United Possums International—a fellow who has seen action for a long time in this war —well worth visiting here]
Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 09 01 at 05:42 PM • permalinkIf you have a problem with euthanasia, you’ll have a problem with those who chose to jump, and will need to find some extenuation.
Since euthanasia and suicide are not the same thing, though they sometimes have similar motivations, this is not necessarily the case.
Some people have the fervent belief that every moment of life—no matter how agonizing—is sacred and must be clung to. Those who feel that way will have a problem with both euthanasia (the ending of one individual’s life by another to spare the former a painful death) and suicide (even when it’s an individual ending his own life to spare himself a painful death).
Some people are opposed to euthanasia because they believe that nobody is qualified to make better-off-dead judgements for somebody else. Those who feel that way would have no need to come up with extenuation for someone opting for a less-painful-but-sooner death over a more-painful-but-later one.
This circumstance was not euthanasia. And, while it was suicide, it was also murder, just as knowingly infecting someone with HIV or deliberately dumping toxins into a water supply is murder. The fact these victims managed to avoid some of the ‘painful’ part of the ‘painful death’ visited upon them doesn’t make their attackers any less murderers.
Another note on suicide. All suicides are not alike. In my own layman’s view, they break down into four basic motivations:
A) Better death—the person is going to die soon in some painful and/or unpleasant way (including mental death such as Alzheimer’s) and chooses a more peaceful/painless death.
B) Copping out—the person isn’t opting for one death over another, he’s opting for death over reduced ‘quality of life.’ Maybe he’s grieving over a lost loved one, maybe he’s going bankrupt or even to prison, maybe he’s facing shame/humiliation, maybe he’s experiencing a crippling (but non-fatal) disease or injury, etc.
C) Spite—aka “You’ll be sorry once I’m dead.” Sometimes combined with copping out.
D) Heroism—throwing yourself on a grenade, spending your life to buy time for others to escape death, killing yourself rather than reveal vital information, etc.
For me, the passing of time does nothing to soften the disgusting mass murder. I can’t look at newspaper photos of 9/11, let alone the film footage of it - it is just way too distressing, even now. I hope I never actually meet anyone who dares hold the view that the people who jumped from the towers are somehow cowardly - I’d gladly wring their worthless fucking necks.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
I lived in NY on 9/11. I KNOW OF NO ONE who thinks they are cowards. Desparate maybe, but none think them cowards.
What is it about a certain group of my countrymen who feel the need to constantly denegrate their countrymen? Why is it that so many Americans feel they have to show Europeans how much they hate their fellow Americans?