Good luck laughing now, guys: Urgent international news!

[Captain Caps]

Read it and be sick:

Bin Laden To Die On Live TV?

The estranged wife of Osama bin Laden has told Russian television that the al Qaeda leader plans to die at the hands of his elder sons on live television before he is captured by U.S. or British authorities. "And that will be the signal for a new wave of terror," Sabiha bin Laden added, noting that the terrorist targets include "the Capitol in Washington, Big Ben in London and the Eiffel Tower." The televised suicide would presumably occur on the Arab all-news channel Al Jazeera.
----
Report from the Internet Movie Database

This is what we're supposed to laugh at? Me, I'm scared (bleep)less!

Sincerely,

John "Captain Caps" Kilduff

[Joe Tully]

A) No, you are not supposed to laugh at this. You are supposed to laugh at funny stuff. :rolleyes:

B) These are just words. Not really happy words, but still, they're just words. We'll do what we have to do, and if something like this happens, we'll deal with that. That's how life goes.

C) I know that this is the Anigen board, but can we try to avoid this stuff? Personally, I come here to enjoy myself.

Oh well...

Hey, new smiley. Bosko! :bosko: I love it!

Whew...that made me feel better!

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Captain Caps
Read it and be sick:

Bin Laden To Die On Live TV?

The estranged wife of Osama bin Laden has told Russian television that the al Qaeda leader plans to die at the hands of his elder sons on live television before he is captured by U.S. or British authorities. "And that will be the signal for a new wave of terror," Sabiha bin Laden added, noting that the terrorist targets include "the Capitol in Washington, Big Ben in London and the Eiffel Tower." The televised suicide would presumably occur on the Arab all-news channel Al Jazeera.
----
Report from the Internet Movie Database

This is what we're supposed to laugh at? Me, I'm scared (bleep)less!

Sincerely,

John "Captain Caps" Kilduff Well Big Ben and the Eiffel Tower are just land marks as for the White House well it was burned during the war of 1812 so what ever they do to it can be rebuilt.

[Calhoun07]

I am sure we will have to continue fighting terrorism after Bin Laden's death, but I am not afraid. All this time, Bin Laden's threats have been empty. They have a loud bark but little bite.

[Frozen]

Er... Pyscho-fox, I think you might want to re-examine the logic of your last post. Sure, momuments can be re-built, but what about the lives lost when they're destroyed..?

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Frozen
Er... Pyscho-fox, I think you might want to re-examine the logic of your last post. Sure, momuments can be re-built, but what about the lives lost when they're destroyed..? Yes if they destroyed those momuments lives would be lost and that would tragic but destroying them is not very stratigic on their part. It would kinda pale in comparision of 9-11

[Frozen]

Not very... strategic?

Forget it, I'm out of this thread before somebody says something inhumane... oh, damn, too late.

[Calhoun07]

I am almost afraid to jump in here....political threads often lead to being closed and sometimes end up in rules being broken and warnings being issued....so I will try to be careful and hope that we can all keep a level head here.

There is no way I would try to categorize terrorism attacks on a certain kind of scale. I think I know what Psycho Fox is trying to get at here...9-11 was a horrible disaster and anything else would not be quite as horrific. At least that's how I read it. But whether it's a car bomb in Israel, planes flying into skyscrapers, or anthrax in a letter, I put it all on one level...evil and horrible and wrong.

When I saw on the news all the recent terrorist attacks in Israel, I was grief stricken. While their car bombs and such may not be on the same scale as our 9-11 attack, I regret to see that other people I know brushed it off as nothing much at all. It's not nothing much at all. The little attacks lead to something larger. The attack on the WTC back in the early 90's or so was just a precursor to what happened on 9-11. The smaller attacks should not be graded on any kind of a scale.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Frozen
Not very... strategic?

Forget it, I'm out of this thread before somebody says something inhumane... oh, damn, too late. Yes it would be tragic for those that would lose their life but it wouldn't be strategic thus why I think it is pure BS there are other targets that would do more economic damage or casualties.

[Failure]

I dont think anybody's trying to be insensitive here, but I think all Psycho Fox is saying is if you wanted to hurt the US for example, it'd be more "strategic" to hit the Sears Tower where tens of thousands could die, rather than the Lincoln Memorial, where maybe hundreds would die.

All of its pretty fricking evil and downright wrong, but in terms of casualties the Sears tower would be more devastating.

[Maxie Zeus]

OK, first thing to do is separate the loss of life from the loss of the monument.

I think PsychoFox has made clear that when he shrugs off an attack on Big Ben or the Eiffel Tower or the Capitol, he is not shrugging off the loss of life. Quite the contrary: What would be truly catastrophic would be an attack that succeeded in killing thousands, and that attacks on these monuments would not have that kind of impact. It is tragic when even one person loses their life in a terror attack, but that means that the death of thousands really is a thousand times worse than the death of only one.

It is the loss of the monument itself that he seems to shrugging off. Imagine an attack that did not kill anyone, only destroyed a monument; imagine, for instance, the destruction of Mount Rushmore. He asks: How is that a tragic loss? It can always be rebuilt.

Well, I actually disagree with this logic. Part of the terrorist's avowed aim is to destroy the landmarks of Western civilization: it is an assault not only on the people of the West, but upon the material fabric of Western culture. Remember, these are the same maniacs who destroyed ancient Buddhas in Afghanistan. The object is not only to kill those who do not share their fanaticism, but to erase all evidence of their existence. To destroy the Capitol is a statement against the ideals of liberty and self-government for which it stands; similarly for the beautiful geometry and delicate engineering of the Eiffel Tower and Big Ben. And we should take such attacks for what they are: calculated desecrations of our cultural symbols.

Imagine a jetliner crashing into and destroying the Statue of Liberty, and then imagine yourself saying, "Eh. No biggie." Or, for you non-Yanks, imagine one of your nation's symbols undergoing a similar fate.

[don Jaime]

Big Ben would likely involve a large loss of life. It's attached to the Houses of Parliament. Conceivably it could rival the Pentagon's damage. The Eiffel would also see large loss of life, but not on the order of these others.

I don't believe he can die on live TV. Where's he gonna find it? If he's in Afghanistan, there just isn't any. Most places he would run to hide aren't known for their TV, either. Frankly, I'll be amazed if we ever know his fate for sure. And it's always been a given that his capture or death could start retribution attacks. It's just another headache we have to deal with as we mop him up.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by don Jaime
And it's always been a given that his capture or death could start retribution attacks. It's just another headache we have to deal with as we mop him up. Well maybe we could turn him over to China. They can hold him hostage any more attacks anywhere and they start cutting him up.

[Failure]

Originally posted by Maxie Zeus
Well, I actually disagree with this logic. Part of the terrorist's avowed aim is to destroy the landmarks of Western civilization: it is an assault not only on the people of the West, but upon the material fabric of Western culture. Remember, these are the same maniacs who destroyed ancient Buddhas in Afghanistan. The object is not only to kill those who do not share their fanaticism, but to erase all evidence of their existence. To destroy the Capitol is a statement against the ideals of liberty and self-government for which it stands; similarly for the beautiful geometry and delicate engineering of the Eiffel Tower and Big Ben. And we should take such attacks for what they are: calculated desecrations of our cultural symbols.

Imagine a jetliner crashing into and destroying the Statue of Liberty, and then imagine yourself saying, "Eh. No biggie." Or, for you non-Yanks, imagine one of your nation's symbols undergoing a similar fate.

I'd still rather have a terrorist attack on something like Mt. Rushmore than in a civilian area. Yes, they are attacks on our symbols of identity, and I agree, we should take such attacks as very grave issues. But at the same time, re-building a monument is much easier than rebuilding dead people. After the initial shakeout, rebuilding a monument would bring about so much pride and enthusiasm to the nation's people. We saw how people bonded after 9-11, think about the thousands that would show up to help carry a brick or put down some mortar. It would be a greater symbol of our way of life than any monument could ever be. I think targeting a symbol would actually work against terrorists' goals in the long-run and just strengthen our resolve.

[Calhoun07]

Rebuilding dead people??? Sounds like something out of the lab of Dr Frankenstien! :D

[DR. BELCH]

--I hate to admit it, I believe freedom must often be bought in blood and schemes. Let Osama go out in what he thinks is his blaze of glory, and let the severed snake's head continue to snap studidly as it lies detached from the body. Rather ignorant of him to announce his intent to bomb this and that...he knows we'll just beef up security and be ready to shoot his planes down like skeet...or if it's our planes he plans to use again, that proves he's even dumber than I've just purported.... :wakko:

[Failure]

Originally posted by calhoun07
Rebuilding dead people??? Sounds like something out of the lab of Dr Frankenstien! :D

LOL. I knew that sounded weird!

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by Failure


I'd still rather have a terrorist attack on something like Mt. Rushmore than in a civilian area. Yes, they are attacks on our symbols of identity, and I agree, we should take such attacks as very grave issues. But at the same time, re-building a monument is much easier than rebuilding dead people. After the initial shakeout, rebuilding a monument would bring about so much pride and enthusiasm to the nation's people. We saw how people bonded after 9-11, think about the thousands that would show up to help carry a brick or put down some mortar. It would be a greater symbol of our way of life than any monument could ever be. I think targeting a symbol would actually work against terrorists' goals in the long-run and just strengthen our resolve.

Oh, I agree absolutely: Given a choice between killing thousands in a parking lot and killing no one when you blow up Rushmore, I say kiss Mt. Rushmore goodbye.

My only point is that the loss of a monument is still an awful thing, even if it can be rebuilt. I think your final point that "targeting a symbol would actually work against terrorists' goals in the long-run and just strengthen our resolve" reflects my point. The reason it would strengthen our resolve is precisely because it would outrage us so much. Frankly, I'd have been far more horrified by the Washington plane hitting the Capitol than hitting the Pentagon, because the Capitol is a much dearer symbol to me.

[Clayface]

Not to seem insensitive to the current serious discussion, but I thought I'd point out the great article about Bin Laden in this week's Onion:

http://www.theonion.com/onion3745/bandaged_bin_laden.html

[Failure]

Originally posted by Maxie Zeus
Frankly, I'd have been far more horrified by the Washington plane hitting the Capitol than hitting the Pentagon, because the Capitol is a much dearer symbol to me.

I agree with you. I've never really thought of the Pentagon as a "classic" symbol representing the US. Of course, there's questions as to if that plane was intended to hit the Pentagon or not. If it was the Capitol or even the White House...

[Calhoun07]

It's been confirmed that plane was supposed to hit the White House. I didn't think there was any doubt left about that.

So would it have been better if the terrorist hit the White House instead if there were fewer people in there cuz it had been virtually evacuated rather than hitting the Pentagon?

[Failure]

Originally posted by calhoun07
It's been confirmed that plane was supposed to hit the White House. I didn't think there was any doubt left about that.

So would it have been better if the terrorist hit the White House instead if there were fewer people in there cuz it had been virtually evacuated rather than hitting the Pentagon?

Ok, I couldnt remember if it was confirmed or not to hit the White House.

From a casualty point it might have been better to have hit the White House, as long as there wasnt too much debris flying around that would take out cars and bystanders. From a symbolic point, I think it would've been worse to hit the White House than the Pentagon.