I rember seeing the breaking news and thinking what a terrible accident, even when the 2nd aeroplane hit it didn't occur to me that it was deliberate which was incredibly naive. To me it didn't seem real, I couldn't comprehend that people were involved, it was an aeroplane hitting a building, it was only 10 mins later that I realised that I was watching people being killed.
It changed the way that I view any sort of breaking news, before it would be who's died, now when there is an accident or some incident my first thought goes to terrorism which is so incredibly depressing .
I was living in Heidelberg Germany at the time. My husband was posted there with the British army, working on the near by American army base. He came home switched on the news and just said "Look !"
I couldn't take in the enormity of it. I very stupidly thought at first that it all must be some kind of mistake.
Why is there always some who brings up the 9th November (with what I image is a little smirk at how clever they are, not saying you've done that Hieronymous). 9/11 was an event that happened in America and the Americans decided to name it based on their date format. If it had happened here it would have been 11/9, if it had happened in China it would have been 2001/11/9. It's just a name at this point, like the 7/7 bombings.
No I'm neither smirking nor thinking I'm clever. I just find this reversal so bloody irritating. Maybe I shouldn't but I do. It's completely illogical.
9/11 was an even bigger story than JFKs assassination, I would argue its been the biggest news event since world war 2.
The follow up to 9/11 also led to nearly 8500 troops dying in both Iraq and Afghanistan, their lives should be remembered on this day since they were directly linked.
I have already made this point but will do so again as you don't seem to have picked up on it.
Kennedy was assassinated at a time when relations between the free world and the Soviet Union were extremely tense. Only a year before the shooting, the world really, truly, actually DID come close to nuclear war.
Kennedy's killing was believed by many at the time to be the work of a Soviet agent (LH Oswald) who was an American citizen who had once defected to the Soviet Union and only returned to the US recently. Some believed he had been planted by the KGB to kill Kennedy on their behalf. Again, tension between east and west escalated.
Also, it was after JFK's killing that Lyndon B Johnson authorised the US military to escalate its operations in Vietnam. Kennedy had wanted to pull American troops out, famously quoting "If we didn't invade Cuba, which is so near, why should we invade Vietnam, which is so far?" The path to peace in SE Asia was abruptly cut short on that afternoon in Dallas.
Johnson unleashed the American war machine on Vietnam and as a result, 58'000 American troops died and 300'000+ were seriously wounded, which makes Afghanistan and Iraq look like small beer in comparison.
Want some figures?
Vietnamese civilians killed (estimated) 450'000
Vietnamese troops killed: 313'000
Australian, New Zealand, Thai and Phillipines troops killed: 900+
The comparisons between 11 September 2001 and 23 November 1963 are relevant and tell an awful story of what happens when nations lash out in retaliation after an atrocity is committed against them.
Calm heads and statesmanship are what is needed, not ridiculous "Wars on Terror" which are destructive, expensive and unwinnable.
I have already made this point but will do so again as you don't seem to have picked up on it.
Kennedy was assassinated at a time when relations between the free world and the Soviet Union were extremely tense. Only a year before the shooting, the world really, truly, actually DID come close to nuclear war.
Kennedy's killing was believed by many at the time to be the work of a Soviet agent (LH Oswald) who was an American citizen who had once defected to the Soviet Union and only returned to the US recently. Some believed he had been planted by the KGB to kill Kennedy on their behalf. Again, tension between east and west escalated.
Also, it was after JFK's killing that Lyndon B Johnson authorised the US military to escalate its operations in Vietnam. Kennedy had wanted to pull American troops out, famously quoting "If we didn't invade Cuba, which is so near, why should we invade Vietnam, which is so far?"
Johnson unleashed the American war machine on Vietnam and as a result, 58'000 American troops died and 300'000+ were seriously wounded, which makes Afghanistan and Iraq look like small beer in comparison.
Want some figures?
Vietnamese civilians killed (estimated) 450'000
Vietnamese troops killed: 313'000
Australian, New Zealand, Thai and Phillipines troops killed: 900+
The comparisons between 11 September 2001 and 23 November 1963 are relevant and tell an awful story of what happens when nations lash out in retaliation after an atrocity is committed against them.
Calm heads and statesmanship are what is needed, not ridiculous "Wars on Terror" which are destructive, expensive and unwinnable.
". . . in the final analysis it is the people and the Government [of South Vietnam] itself who have to win or lose this struggle. All we can do is help, and we are making it very clear. But I don't agree with those who say we should withdraw. That would be a great mistake. I know people don't like Americans to be engaged in this kind of an effort. Forty-seven Americans have been killed in combat with the enemy, but this is a very important struggle even though it is far away."
"Now, we have been able to hold this line against this internal subversion by the Communists, as well as the external threat of military invasion, because for many years the United States has assisted these countries in meeting their own problems. We are assisting the people of Viet-Nam. We are assisting countries in Latin America which are faced with staggering problems. If we stop helping them, they will become ripe for internal subversion and a Communist takeover."
Who said this?
Of course Kennedy was going to pull out of Vietnam. Except, likely as not, he wasn't.
I was working on the trading floor at the time and CNN Was on the screens and I still remember that day so vividly, just watching what we initially thought was an accident and then seeing another plane crashing into the 2nd tower live on tv was the most awful thing I've seen ever.
My son was 3 and he remembers it because he came home from nursery and couldn't watch Teletubbies because all the channels were showing the footage.
Was a horrific day. I think of it as my JFK moment.
Even tho it's been 14 years it still surreal watching the footage now.
". . . in the final analysis it is the people and the Government [of South Vietnam] itself who have to win or lose this struggle. All we can do is help, and we are making it very clear. But I don't agree with those who say we should withdraw. That would be a great mistake. I know people don't like Americans to be engaged in this kind of an effort. Forty-seven Americans have been killed in combat with the enemy, but this is a very important struggle even though it is far away."
"Now, we have been able to hold this line against this internal subversion by the Communists, as well as the external threat of military invasion, because for many years the United States has assisted these countries in meeting their own problems. We are assisting the people of Viet-Nam. We are assisting countries in Latin America which are faced with staggering problems. If we stop helping them, they will become ripe for internal subversion and a Communist takeover."
Who said this?
Of course Kennedy was going to pull out of Vietnam. Except, likely as not, he wasn't.
Very naughty. To edit a speech and leave out some of the key elements to make it fit what you want to say.
Kennedy made those comments in September 1963 when he was starting the campaign trail for the 1964 Presidential election.
The Report of the Taylor-McNamara mission to South Vietnam said, as a prelude to those comments, the following:
By late 1963, Kennedy's position on the war was ambiguous. He told Senate leader Mike Mansfield that he was determined to withdraw US forces from Vietnam after the 1964 election but any announcement of this before the election could lead to a conservative backlash and could possibly cost him the election.
(Source: Public Papers of the President of the United States, John F Kennedy, 1963. Washington DC)
What you quoted was electioneering in an interview with Walter Cronkite, not his intended foreign policy. He kept his real intentions closer to his chest.
Very naughty. To edit a speech and leave out some of the key elements to make it fit what you want to say.
really, what bits of the speech did I edit? Which bits of that speech did I leave out that change the meaning of those quotes? That is not a rhetorical question.
Kennedy made those comments in September 1963 when he was starting the campaign trail for the 1964 Presidential election.
The Report of the Taylor-McNamara mission to South Vietnam said, as a prelude to those comments, the following:
By late 1963, Kennedy's position on the war was ambiguous. He told Senate leader Mike Mansfield that he was determined to withdraw US forces from Vietnam after the 1964 election but any announcement of this before the election could lead to a conservative backlash and could possibly cost him the election.
What you quoted was electioneering in an interview with Walter Cronkite, not his intended foreign policy. He kept his real intentions closer to his chest.
So if that's the case why are you portraying something as certain fact? When there's no general consenus on the matter. That's very naughty. But I'm glad to hear you admit that "His real intentions were closer to his chest". Do you think one of his brother's would know his "real intentions"?
"Yeah, but, you know, he's frequently taken that, those, that line or that position on some of these matters. I don't think that the fact he has an independent view from the executive branch of the government, particularly in Southeast Asia, indicates that the lines aren't straight. I, no, I just, I think every. . . . I, the president felt that the. . . . He had a strong, overwhelming reason for being in Vietnam and that we should win the war in Vietnam."
Is likely that any pull out would have been dependent on the perception of victory? Definitely. Who wants a lost war on their resume?
No I'm neither smirking nor thinking I'm clever. I just find this reversal so bloody irritating. Maybe I shouldn't but I do. It's completely illogical.
I didn't think you were, I've seen some people who clearly were over the years.
Normally I'd agree with you on the date thing. At work after a system update my laptop started showing the dates in American and I got that changed back sharpish as it bugged me, but like I said 9/11 is just a name at this point, named by Americans for an American event in the American date format.
I was working at home and watching the events happen on the TV. One thing I still remember is an annoying customer who phoned up to complain that his website was running slow and we had to do something about it as it was taking people too long to buy his stupidly priced bottles of wine.
We tried to explain to him that the internet was running slow because everyone was trying to find out what was going on in the states but apparently that wasn't good enough and we had to personally stop the attacks and fix the internet so his website would speed up.
really, what bits of the speech did I edit? Which bits of that speech did I leave out that change the meaning of those quotes? That is not a rhetorical question.
So if that's the case why are you portraying something as certain fact? When there's no general consenus on the matter. That's very naughty. But I'm glad to hear you admit that "His real intentions were closer to his chest". Do you think one of his brother's would know his "real intentions"?
"Yeah, but, you know, he's frequently taken that, those, that line or that position on some of these matters. I don't think that the fact he has an independent view from the executive branch of the government, particularly in Southeast Asia, indicates that the lines aren't straight. I, no, I just, I think every. . . . I, the president felt that the. . . . He had a strong, overwhelming reason for being in Vietnam and that we should win the war in Vietnam."
Is likely that any pull out would have been dependent on the perception of victory? Definitely. Who wants a lost war on their resume?
Have you seen the full text of the speech...? Shall I post it on here...?
No, I'm not going to do that because it would bore everybody witless. Instead I will refer you to chapter 125 of the Taylor-McNamara report titled: "President John F Kennedy's remarks on the situation in Vietnam, 2 September 1963 which also includes the full text of his interview with Walter Cronkite. You might learn something.
Example: But on November 12, he (Kennedy) listed the objectives as being "Bring Americans home, permit the South Vietnamese to maintain themselves as a free and independent country and permit democratic forces in the country to operate".
Left that bit out, didn't ya...?
Kennedy wanted out of Vietnam. Just about every historian, biographer, analyst and even the bleedin' Warren Commission Report into the Assassination said so. But I guess you know best so I'll leave it there and let it drop because you've selected bits from a TV interview held during an election campaign and like the sound of it.
OK folks.... back on topic. Sorry for the diversion but while I thought I was talking to an open mind I felt it was a point that was worth pursuing.
I was off school as it was a Baker day. The programme I was watching was interrupted and I remember thinking that I thought something must have gone wrong in the cockpit for both pilots to let an aircraft hit a building like that on a clear day. Then I watched the second plane go in. I was watching whatever channel it was where ou saw it approaching from a distance and I thought, 'oh that helicopter is getting quite close', then with horror realised it was a jet aircraft and then it hit. And then I don't think I moved from the TV for hours.
It sounds weird, but I was only a young teenager at the time and that moment really did change my rosy view of the world forever, honestly, it was never the same after that.
The jumpers was the worst thing. I mean how appalling does your life have to be at that point that you have to decide whether to burn to death or jump to your death. It just doesn't bear thinking about.
14 years ago today 9/11 happened it seems like yesterday when you think about it but it was that long ago. A very horrible day and 3,497 innocent people being killed by those terrorists. I cant imagine the horror being on the planes that were heading towards the towers, people trapped inside the towers, in New York city where people lived and seen it all, also in the pentagon where people worked and the hijacked plane crashed into it and also in that pennsylvania field where a hijacked plane crashed there only due to the passengers trying to take control of the plane but couldnt. I still makes me wonder how those terrorists got on the plane with weapons that nobody detected as they must of had alot of weapons to control everyone on the plane. It took 10 years to find Osama and kill him since he was behind these attacks. I do hope the victims families are ok and have been able to move on with life despite losing a loved one
I dont want any conspiracy theories in this thead this thread is to pay respect to the dead
14 years ago today 9/11 happened it seems like yesterday when you think about it but it was that long ago. A very horrible day and 3,497 innocent people being killed by those terrorists. I cant imagine the horror being on the planes that were heading towards the towers, people trapped inside the towers, in New York city where people lived and seen it all, also in the pentagon where people worked and the hijacked plane crashed into it and also in that pennsylvania field where a hijacked plane crashed there only due to the passengers trying to take control of the plane but couldnt. I still makes me wonder how those terrorists got on the plane with weapons that nobody detected as they must of had alot of weapons to control everyone on the plane. It took 10 years to find Osama and kill him since he was behind these attacks. I do hope the victims families are ok and have been able to move on with life despite losing a loved one
I dont want any conspiracy theories in this thead this thread is to pay respect to the dead
A noble sentiment, well made, Princess.
The reason those individuals were able to do what they did was principally twofold.
Firstly, America was an open society where people who were already within their borders were able to move freely and many of them chose to do so by air. There were no serious checks and controls over who got on and off of aircraft flying internally within the country. This was an opening that bin Laden and his cohorts spotted and exploited.
Secondly, they operated strategically. They didn't need a lot of weapons because once they had taken control of the aircraft, the threat of one person wearing a body bomb was so obvious to the passengers in three of the aircraft that they held back in the hope that their military might find a way to save them rather than attempt to take control of the aircraft back and risk the bomb being detonated, which would result in the death of all.
It was only on United 93 that the passengers rushed the cockpit, which did result in the deaths of all the passengers. I wonder if they knew that in so doing, they saved the White House from destruction which, most believe, was the intended target for that airplane.
It was an incredibly heroic attempt which failed to save any lives in the plane, but did deprive Al Qaeda of their greatest propaganda coup. For that, America is grateful.
Comments
It changed the way that I view any sort of breaking news, before it would be who's died, now when there is an accident or some incident my first thought goes to terrorism which is so incredibly depressing .
R.I.P to all who were lost.
I couldn't take in the enormity of it. I very stupidly thought at first that it all must be some kind of mistake.
Exactly. Not the 9th day of the 11th month
No I'm neither smirking nor thinking I'm clever. I just find this reversal so bloody irritating. Maybe I shouldn't but I do. It's completely illogical.
Exactly!!
I have already made this point but will do so again as you don't seem to have picked up on it.
Kennedy was assassinated at a time when relations between the free world and the Soviet Union were extremely tense. Only a year before the shooting, the world really, truly, actually DID come close to nuclear war.
Kennedy's killing was believed by many at the time to be the work of a Soviet agent (LH Oswald) who was an American citizen who had once defected to the Soviet Union and only returned to the US recently. Some believed he had been planted by the KGB to kill Kennedy on their behalf. Again, tension between east and west escalated.
Also, it was after JFK's killing that Lyndon B Johnson authorised the US military to escalate its operations in Vietnam. Kennedy had wanted to pull American troops out, famously quoting "If we didn't invade Cuba, which is so near, why should we invade Vietnam, which is so far?" The path to peace in SE Asia was abruptly cut short on that afternoon in Dallas.
Johnson unleashed the American war machine on Vietnam and as a result, 58'000 American troops died and 300'000+ were seriously wounded, which makes Afghanistan and Iraq look like small beer in comparison.
Want some figures?
Vietnamese civilians killed (estimated) 450'000
Vietnamese troops killed: 313'000
Australian, New Zealand, Thai and Phillipines troops killed: 900+
The comparisons between 11 September 2001 and 23 November 1963 are relevant and tell an awful story of what happens when nations lash out in retaliation after an atrocity is committed against them.
Calm heads and statesmanship are what is needed, not ridiculous "Wars on Terror" which are destructive, expensive and unwinnable.
". . . in the final analysis it is the people and the Government [of South Vietnam] itself who have to win or lose this struggle. All we can do is help, and we are making it very clear. But I don't agree with those who say we should withdraw. That would be a great mistake. I know people don't like Americans to be engaged in this kind of an effort. Forty-seven Americans have been killed in combat with the enemy, but this is a very important struggle even though it is far away."
"Now, we have been able to hold this line against this internal subversion by the Communists, as well as the external threat of military invasion, because for many years the United States has assisted these countries in meeting their own problems. We are assisting the people of Viet-Nam. We are assisting countries in Latin America which are faced with staggering problems. If we stop helping them, they will become ripe for internal subversion and a Communist takeover."
Who said this?
Of course Kennedy was going to pull out of Vietnam. Except, likely as not, he wasn't.
My son was 3 and he remembers it because he came home from nursery and couldn't watch Teletubbies because all the channels were showing the footage.
Was a horrific day. I think of it as my JFK moment.
Even tho it's been 14 years it still surreal watching the footage now.
Very naughty. To edit a speech and leave out some of the key elements to make it fit what you want to say.
Kennedy made those comments in September 1963 when he was starting the campaign trail for the 1964 Presidential election.
The Report of the Taylor-McNamara mission to South Vietnam said, as a prelude to those comments, the following:
By late 1963, Kennedy's position on the war was ambiguous. He told Senate leader Mike Mansfield that he was determined to withdraw US forces from Vietnam after the 1964 election but any announcement of this before the election could lead to a conservative backlash and could possibly cost him the election.
(Source: Public Papers of the President of the United States, John F Kennedy, 1963. Washington DC)
What you quoted was electioneering in an interview with Walter Cronkite, not his intended foreign policy. He kept his real intentions closer to his chest.
really, what bits of the speech did I edit? Which bits of that speech did I leave out that change the meaning of those quotes? That is not a rhetorical question.
So if that's the case why are you portraying something as certain fact? When there's no general consenus on the matter. That's very naughty. But I'm glad to hear you admit that "His real intentions were closer to his chest". Do you think one of his brother's would know his "real intentions"?
"Yeah, but, you know, he's frequently taken that, those, that line or that position on some of these matters. I don't think that the fact he has an independent view from the executive branch of the government, particularly in Southeast Asia, indicates that the lines aren't straight. I, no, I just, I think every. . . . I, the president felt that the. . . . He had a strong, overwhelming reason for being in Vietnam and that we should win the war in Vietnam."
Is likely that any pull out would have been dependent on the perception of victory? Definitely. Who wants a lost war on their resume?
I didn't think you were, I've seen some people who clearly were over the years.
Normally I'd agree with you on the date thing. At work after a system update my laptop started showing the dates in American and I got that changed back sharpish as it bugged me, but like I said 9/11 is just a name at this point, named by Americans for an American event in the American date format.
$90 Million
Oil digging, oil exploration and shares in oil companies as well as being the ceo of oilfield services company sure made dicky boy a lot of money
You say 9/11, i say follow the money
There's always 1 t w a t on every thread.
I say post in the 9/11 conspiracy thread
So how much of that $90 million was made after 2001?
We tried to explain to him that the internet was running slow because everyone was trying to find out what was going on in the states but apparently that wasn't good enough and we had to personally stop the attacks and fix the internet so his website would speed up.
Have you seen the full text of the speech...? Shall I post it on here...?
No, I'm not going to do that because it would bore everybody witless. Instead I will refer you to chapter 125 of the Taylor-McNamara report titled: "President John F Kennedy's remarks on the situation in Vietnam, 2 September 1963 which also includes the full text of his interview with Walter Cronkite. You might learn something.
Example: But on November 12, he (Kennedy) listed the objectives as being "Bring Americans home, permit the South Vietnamese to maintain themselves as a free and independent country and permit democratic forces in the country to operate".
Left that bit out, didn't ya...?
Kennedy wanted out of Vietnam. Just about every historian, biographer, analyst and even the bleedin' Warren Commission Report into the Assassination said so. But I guess you know best so I'll leave it there and let it drop because you've selected bits from a TV interview held during an election campaign and like the sound of it.
OK folks.... back on topic. Sorry for the diversion but while I thought I was talking to an open mind I felt it was a point that was worth pursuing.
It sounds weird, but I was only a young teenager at the time and that moment really did change my rosy view of the world forever, honestly, it was never the same after that.
The jumpers was the worst thing. I mean how appalling does your life have to be at that point that you have to decide whether to burn to death or jump to your death. It just doesn't bear thinking about.
I dont want any conspiracy theories in this thead this thread is to pay respect to the dead
A noble sentiment, well made, Princess.
The reason those individuals were able to do what they did was principally twofold.
Firstly, America was an open society where people who were already within their borders were able to move freely and many of them chose to do so by air. There were no serious checks and controls over who got on and off of aircraft flying internally within the country. This was an opening that bin Laden and his cohorts spotted and exploited.
Secondly, they operated strategically. They didn't need a lot of weapons because once they had taken control of the aircraft, the threat of one person wearing a body bomb was so obvious to the passengers in three of the aircraft that they held back in the hope that their military might find a way to save them rather than attempt to take control of the aircraft back and risk the bomb being detonated, which would result in the death of all.
It was only on United 93 that the passengers rushed the cockpit, which did result in the deaths of all the passengers. I wonder if they knew that in so doing, they saved the White House from destruction which, most believe, was the intended target for that airplane.
It was an incredibly heroic attempt which failed to save any lives in the plane, but did deprive Al Qaeda of their greatest propaganda coup. For that, America is grateful.
NEVER forgive the culprits
Around $50 million
He got a $20 million dollar exit from Halliburton in 2000. He had to step down as CEO in order to be eligible for VP
Conveniently Halliburton was chosen as the go-to contractor for the Iraq War, for which the company earned $39 billion dollars.
He continues to hold stocks and shares in Halliburton and is part of a parent company...
So who carried out 9/11 then?
Saudis
Really............No way:o