The triple towers

[MasterX25]

I heard the news that the America is going to rebuild the twin towers but not two but three towers. To me that sounds abolutly crazy. The terrorist targets the twin towers because it is important to them, so won't the terrorst target the triple towers after it is built in the 2012(the year they estimate the compltete of the towers). What do you think?

[Akiha]

Think about it maybe a little farther. Many are also predicting that this war and terrorism will be wiped out by then. If the terrorism is gonw by then, then thered be no reason to worry...but, in contraspect, if the war got worse by that, which im hoping it doesnt, then yes, it could be used as another target. Personally, i say dont. It would save moeny, and the possibility of another attack, even if just by chance. Why rebuild the target that was used before..?

[chiking1]

If USA did build 3 towers, and by 2012 still haven't killed all the terroists yet, then there are 2 possibilities, 1) Terroists bomb the 3 towers, 2) the government shoots down the planes before they bomb the towers. Either way, the terroists will try to destroy them.

[Cloud]

no matter what terrorists are going to exist and will try to attack the united states in one form or another. if the towers dont get built then the terrorists are bound to just find another target to attack. altho i do believe that it will be a huge waste of money but seeing as the government is already in a huge debt then it doesnt really matter all that much except taxes are likely to go up.

[mind_fissure]

who says they're going to use planes? its unlikely they'll attack in that manner again. its more likely they'll sucide bomb it like crazy. i think its a waste of money to build a giant target for terrorists. if they want to honor and remember what happened on 9 11 build a nice memorial garden where the towers used to be, and build a giant slab of stone that has all the people who died name's on it. either way 9 11 will be forgoten in 100 years. it wasn't SO horrible... i don't even consider the "war on terrosim" a real "war" because its more like small skirmishes between us and pathetic people that decided to pick up a rifle and fight the american invasion of their country. this is what i hear every day "5 americans died today! and 40 terrorists were killed." i think the government has made this into way more then what it really is.

[Nihsnek]

Terrorist wouldn't dare to attack us again on our own soil...as long as someone with strength is in office.

[mind_fissure]

i think they're more pissed off and motivated then ever to attack us. they might not be able to attack us on a greater skale they never were in the first place. but its pretty easy for one person i repeat one person to make a huge batch of explosives and blow up any thing they like out of hate and anger.

[Vampyrelord]

Terrorist wouldn't dare to attack us again on our own soil...as long as someone with strength is in office.

They wouldn't dare?! They're suicide bombers, they aren't afraid of attacking!

Oh and if you think Bush has strength, you are severely mistaken. However this is all off topic.

Suffice to say I think with new security measures it is now practically impossible to launch an assault like 9/11.

[MasterX25]

As they say, there is always a way to bypass security, never undersetimated the mastermind of the terrorist. That is what happen and look at America, though it is difficult to hunt down terroist if they are about to suicide and try to get into the triple towers, this what will hapen:
1) get shot and if unlike shots the bomb
2) Bomb blows up
either way something is going to happen. America should think of beating the terrorst before building a target for them.

[Vampyrelord]

Oh come on, there are already loads of terrorist targets. And the more they try to kill the terrorists, the stronger they make them.

Why?

It is impossible to destroy an ideal, and as long as Israel and America continue to attack the Muslim world they will continue to be the victims of terrorism.

[Tokoyami]

Oh come on, there are already loads of terrorist targets. And the more they try to kill the terrorists, the stronger they make them.

Why?

It is impossible to destroy an ideal, and as long as Israel and America continue to attack the Muslim world they will continue to be the victims of terrorism.
True, it is an endless war. But weve been fighing a "war on terror" long before George Bush declared one to make himself look nice in office. Its just since 9/11, an attack on our own soil, we've taken it more seriously.

True there is always a way to get around the law, rules, etc. But i dont think an airliner would be used again. "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me" that whole idea.

[Nihsnek]

It is impossible to destroy an ideal, and as long as Israel and America continue to attack the Muslim world they will continue to be the victims of terrorism.

You remind me of Neville Chamberlain. Keep telling yourself everything is alright. Keep telling yourself that Vampyre. If we don't stand up, then look what will happen! Look what has happened in the past! Muslim radicals will not stop peacefully!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/816232/posts

[dragoneyes001]

maqking the triple towers is a good idea! it really doesn't matter if its a target or not.

the US will be smoked again by terrorists no matter what Nihsnek thinks the government could remove all freedoms and litterally run the US as the Gestapo ran europe with constant security checks and they will still get through.

the nature of terrorists is to by-pass security to carry out your objectives.

terrorists are not an army they are indeviduals or groups of indeviduals that make a plan and set their own timetable for its completion this is why there really is no way to win the war on terrorism since any group of people can become the terrorists of tomorow it only takes the target to piss someone off for whatever reason for a terrorist group to be created.

Bin Laden will die of old age before the US finds him and if that is not telling enough that terrorist supporters still exist in enough numbers to conseal the most wanted man by the US then nothing is.

[Tokoyami]

You remind me of Neville Chamberlain. Keep telling yourself everything is alright. Keep telling yourself that Vampyre. If we don't stand up, then look what will happen! Look what has happened in the past! Muslim radicals will not stop peacefully!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/816232/posts
Vamp never said any of that. He didnt say everthing will be alrite, he said u cant kill an idea. He said as long as America and Isreal are attacking the muslim world, they will be victims of terrorists.

I think he worded that wrong tho, i think he should have said, "as long as Muslims feel the U.S. and Isreal are any form of a threat to them, the U.S. and Isreal will be victims of terrorists."

[crash5s]

I heard the news that the America is going to rebuild the twin towers but not two but three towers. To me that sounds abolutly crazy. The terrorist targets the twin towers because it is important to them, so won't the terrorst target the triple towers after it is built in the 2012(the year they estimate the compltete of the towers). What do you think?

Put it this way, if we don't build new towers there are thousands of other sky scrapers that are just as (if not more) important to America. There are countless targets to hit.

Futhermore if we know they are going for a specific target, it makes other areas safer, and makes it easier for us to defend.

[Ollson]

You talk a lot about terrorists here.
May i ask how you define the word "terrorist"?

If America keeps making people angry then yes, it will get attacked.
If America stops making people angry then no, it won't be attacked.

[crash5s]

You talk a lot about terrorists here.
May i ask how you define the word "terrorist"?

If America keeps making people angry then yes, it will get attacked.
If America stops making people angry then no, it won't be attacked.

America is going to be attacked regardless. Everybody in the world wants America to do different things, even the "terrorists" have different view points. Regardless of what America does somebody will get pissed off and want to attack us.

That's how it is with any super power.

The only thing we can do is accept that we can never make everybody happy, somebody will always be mad regardless. Thus act in our own best interest and deal with the problems as they come.

[Cloud]

i kind of agree with crash5s in the way that we can never make everybody happy but i dont think that we should only act in our best interest. we make up only a percentage of this worlds populatioin and we have to care about others and not just ourselves. and besides its that kind of attitude that makes people hate us in the first place

[crash5s]

i kind of agree with crash5s in the way that we can never make everybody happy but i dont think that we should only act in our best interest. we make up only a percentage of this worlds populatioin and we have to care about others and not just ourselves. and besides its that kind of attitude that makes people hate us in the first place

Through history the greatest power in the world has always been hated. It's a mixture of envy and that people all expect said power to shoot itself in the foot to help. The next super power will be the same.

America does countless acts that aren't good for us, yet help the world community. Just out of kindness, that won't change. We also give away more money then any other nation, even to our enemies.

However when stuck in a place where all options piss somebody off (which is most often the case) we can't do much more then accept that somebody will be upset, and then make the decision that helps us. To make a decision that harms us, just to make one group happy (and still piss off another group) is flat out assinine.

I'm not saying we should just say "screw the world", and we don't. I'm saying we shouldn't shoot ourselves in the face, just to please a group of people. Which is what a lot of nations think we should be doing.

[Joe Black]

Personally, I would have to agree with VampireLord 100% that during and after the war, terrorism will continue. It doesn't matter methodically on how to terrorize a nation, just send a message. We heard the message loud and clear with the towers, and another security issue like that would be most likely averted. (unless they're really stupid) Another method will probably be used, if there are further attacks.

Ironic actually, I'm sure everyone has noticed this. "The War on Terror" declared by the United States is terrorism, only that it's more 'ethical' in the eyes of the people. Invading a country, capturing their leader, and implimenting a new gov't system doesn't seem like the most peaceful action. More, of an agressive action, whose obvious response to such actions is retaliation. (such as more threats on our 'home soil')

However, I think building the Triple Towers would be a great idea, as it impliments a message back at the terrorists groups, that we are not going to bend to their violent will. We are only going to be stronger, more powerful, and especially more learned in our future actions. (On a side note, it could also represents in my opinion, the Holy Trinity which will 'protect' them.)

[Cloud]

Through history the greatest power in the world has always been hated. It's a mixture of envy and that people all expect said power to shoot itself in the foot to help. The next super power will be the same.
America does countless acts that aren't good for us, yet help the world community. Just out of kindness, that won't change. We also give away more money then any other nation, even to our enemies.
However when stuck in a place where all options piss somebody off (which is most often the case) we can't do much more then accept that somebody will be upset, and then make the decision that helps us. To make a decision that harms us, just to make one group happy (and still piss off another group) is flat out assinine.
I'm not saying we should just say "screw the world", and we don't. I'm saying we shouldn't shoot ourselves in the face, just to please a group of people. Which is what a lot of nations think we should be doing.

yeah i guess you have some good points there. I agree with you on everything you just said.

Back to the "Triple Towers" tho... i still believe that they shouldnt be built. joe made a good point with the not being bent by their violent wills but we can show that another way instead of wasting a ton of money erecting three towers. such as with spending more money on the people in this country or in other countries. either way it would be better then the towers in my opinion

[Mashu-truth seeker]

The triple towers project is just a big middle finger to the terrosts and is just asking for trouble. I know that the government wants to make a show that we're resiliant and can bounce back but its assinine to assume that it won't become another target for them again. We're getting into a pissing match with a group that doesn't care what tactics they need to use to get the job done, whether it be kill themselves or their own. I'm not saying necassarliy that the towers will get hit but it will piss the fundamentalists off more, which in the long run just means more trouble...

[Wolfman Walt]

This may just be my personal opinion, but I think doing almost anything is a big middle finger to the terrorists. I mean, technically, our continued existance and not bowing into their every demand is a middle finger to them. Pretty much ANYTHING we do will piss them off or justify their cause, that's one of the things with this type of terrorism.

It's also worth mentioning, that place would be rebuilt no matter what, and while it may or may not be a terrible idea for this particular project, I think it's honestly up to the investors and designers.

[Mashu-truth seeker]

True, its up to them, I just don't wanna see it get taken advantage of again, and I agree that by western civilization just existing it pisses em off...

[Wolfman Walt]

Ironic actually, I'm sure everyone has noticed this. "The War on Terror" declared by the United States is terrorism, only that it's more 'ethical' in the eyes of the people.

It depends on how you wish to define terrorism which is still a very hotly debated topic. Generally speaking though - you're wrong. Terrorism is GENERALLY defined as individuals don't belong to any recognized armed forces or who don't adhere to the laws of war who intend to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act. Given that we don't fall under that definition at all, I'm sorry, you're wrong.

[razasharp20]

I think we're kinda off track on this debate. We shouldn't be asking when the terrorists will attack the buildings again, but rather should we be rebuilding in the first place. I think, as a USA citizen that we need to rebuild and try to move on. 9/11 was one of the most shocking and tragic days of my life and living in fear of something like that occuring again just sucks. I really feel at some point you have to trust your government to protect its citizens against these attacks. While they didn't on 9/11 I feel they will if we decide to rebuild. Saying they shouldn't rebuild not only shows an instilled fear of the terrorists, but also a lack of faith in government. I guess it is kind of hard to trust with Bush running the show but I feel safer in the US than anywhere else

[Wolfman Walt]

Do we even have to ask "should" something be built there? The guy who leases the space spends bucko dollars to hold the space so it's either he has a replacement building there or some other guy will just buy the space from him and have a building put on it, though I doubt that's possible being that Silverstein (the smuck who is the lease holder) signed a 99 year lease in 2001. Given that it's being built in lower manhatten, should it be any suprise that it's gonna be a tall building?

[Fect]

These are kinda small posts. If you guys would elaborate on your ideas more, then this would be a very interesting debate.

[MasterX25]

Put it this way, if we don't build new towers there are thousands of other sky scrapers that are just as (if not more) important to America. There are countless targets to hit.
Futhermore if we know they are going for a specific target, it makes other areas safer, and makes it easier for us to defend.
Well, yea your right but the towers are importanat to the people and if rebuilt and destroyed, it would shatter dreams of Americans making a good target and one that would be worth waiting.

[Buuhan1]

By 2012 huh? The year the maya calendar ends.

[Chrono Detector]

I knew they were going to rebuild the tower again, but I didn't know they were going to build three towers. No offense, but why rebuild something that is gone? Its going to be the main target of terrorists again. And even if they were going to attack it, they would probably use a different technique this time. I'm pretty sure more security will be upgraded in the future, but still, terrorists will try to find another way to attack it or destroy it.

No offense to Americans, I think George Bush should really stop intefering with the Middle Eastern crisis. Thats how America attracted enemies and terrorism, I guess. Leave it to them and let nature take its course, no need to interfere and try to make the situation "better", because it isn't, its going to escalate it further.

[Wolfman Walt]

I knew they were going to rebuild the tower again, but I didn't know they were going to build three towers. No offense, but why rebuild something that is gone?
Because then that's a giant waste of space in the middle of Manhatten that cuold be used for bussinesses. That's not very condusive to capitalism. The fact of the matter is, that it's terrorism's GOAL for us to not rebuild a building like that due to the fact that it's playing some part on our economy. By not rebuilding atleast SOMETHING in that area, we're simply showing that we are infact afraid of it.

Its going to be the main target of terrorists again.
And if it's not, something else is gonna be attacked. It's not like terrorists just go "OH HEY, TWIN TOWERS!" They attack ANY target of opportunity in the hopes that they'll be able to force the government to falling to their will.

No offense to Americans, I think George Bush should really stop intefering with the Middle Eastern crisis. Thats how America attracted enemies and terrorism, I guess. Leave it to them and let nature take its course, no need to interfere and try to make the situation "better", because it isn't, its going to escalate it further.
Good thing no one asked you as what does that have to do with ANYTHING in this topic?

[blackrican]

ok first i didn't know they were building 3 towers. I heard they were gonna build one tower. and second, i dont think they should build it, i think they should just make a memoral out of it. what is the point of rebuilding towers there, plus they are still finding remains at the wtc site.

[Nihsnek]

No offense to Americans, I think George Bush should really stop intefering with the Middle Eastern crisis. Thats how America attracted enemies and terrorism, I guess. Leave it to them and let nature take its course, no need to interfere and try to make the situation "better", because it isn't, its going to escalate it further.

THAT'S HOW WE ATTRACTED TERRORISM??!!? Are you kidding me?!?! Leave it to them!?!?

Who are you? Neville Chamberlain??! No need to interfere? Should we let them blow up innocents? Should we let them ATTACK AMERICAN SOIL AND GET AWAY WITH IT? SHOULD WE?!? Muslim extremist are NOT going to just stop!! They are no different in the terms of violence, than the Nazis! Do you not see what they have been doing? What they are doing? Do you think everything will work itself out?

DO YOU WANT ANOTHER HOLOCAUST?

[Shinomori]

Yes.

The only difference being that Hitler killed Jews because he was a psychopath concerned with creating a master race, while Arabs become terrorists because they don't want to be slaves to America like we're trying to make them.

I can sure see the similarities between gassing millions of Jews in genocide and blowing up a few airplanes.

[dragoneyes001]

THAT'S HOW WE ATTRACTED TERRORISM??!!? Are you kidding me?!?! Leave it to them!?!?
Who are you? Neville Chamberlain??! No need to interfere? Should we let them blow up innocents? Should we let them ATTACK AMERICAN SOIL AND GET AWAY WITH IT? SHOULD WE?!? Muslim extremist are NOT going to just stop!! They are no different in the terms of violence, than the Nazis! Do you not see what they have been doing? What they are doing? Do you think everything will work itself out?
DO YOU WANT ANOTHER HOLOCAUST?

do you truely believe that having US troops in the middle east for the last number of DECADES has no relevance as to why American soil was attacked?

[Chrono Detector]

No offense and correct me if I'm wrong, isn't George Bush always trying to intefere with the Middle Eastern crisis? And what I meant about the Middle Eastern countries having conflicts with each other, I think no other country should interfere with their affairs.

[Random Havoc]

I think building the towers is a great idea. First it'll just help the economy, give place to workers, it's a great thing. Terrorist? hah, they'll try and attack the most precious thing we have anyways. If not the toweres then something else, there's no proof saying only the towers will fall therefore we shouldn't build anymore. It makes even less sense saying taht if now there will be 3 tower, the chances of a terrorist attack will be tripled!!!

As long as they want to hurt us they will resort to terrorism. If not the towers, then your house... they want to hit somewhere. We just have to make sure security is in top notch degree.

Also, do you think the terrorist just jump up one morning out of bed and say "hey let's go bring down those towers!". Like any project it can take up to many years planning something like this. And as for the events of 9/11, that project as such a scale will never happen again... at least in the aviation department. Because of that, building new towers with the middle finger is just showing the terrorist that no matter how many times they try and hurt us we will keep standing up. To the terrorist, this will be demotivating them more than inspiring them for another attack. They spent years planning the last and now America rebuilds.

[Vampyrelord]

do you truely believe that having US troops in the middle east for the last number of DECADES has no relevance as to why American soil was attacked?

Okay, this is crazy - Nihsnek, it is a testament to your ignorant views that you have managed to make dragoneyes and myself agree. Seriously, it's quite an achievement.

[Neve]

@ Vampyre - please do not directly insult the views of the opposition.

[Wolfman Walt]

while Arabs become terrorists because they don't want to be slaves to America like we're trying to make them.

Hahahahaha. Sorry, that line was just so absurd and far out in left field I had to laugh at it. HAHAHAHA. Arabs as slaves to America? I sincerely hope you're joking or atleast have some evidence for that statement. Arabs become terrorists for many reasons, most of which, however, have to do with Israel and limiting Western Influence, not becoming slaves or whatever you were trying to imply.

isn't George Bush always trying to intefere with the Middle Eastern crisis?
You could replace "George Bush" with any leader of importance and you'd get still get a "yes" depending on how you want to define "interfere". Kofi Anan? Always trying to interfere. Tony Blair? Always trying to interfere. Pretty much anyone in the U.N. is trying to "interfere" in the middle east. Hell, you could probably replace "George Bush" with any president for the past 50 odd years and still get a 'yes'.

I think no other country should interfere with their affairs.
Because world war II definetly showed us that being Isolationists was definetly the way to go with foreign policy.

[Nihsnek]

The only difference being that Hitler killed Jews because he was a psychopath concerned with creating a master race, while Arabs become terrorists because they don't want to be slaves to America like we're trying to make them.

Muslim extremist are psychopaths

http://www.consumptionjunction.com/downloads/cj_34947.wmv

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/video/armstrong-murder2.wmv

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/video/korean2.wmv

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/video/johnson-murder.wmv

http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/pictures033104.html

What!?!!?? Are you THAT ignorant you have to come up with nonsensical ideas now? We are not trying to make anyone into "slaves", such as your anti-american mind suggest.

I can sure see the similarities between gassing millions of Jews in genocide and blowing up a few airplanes.

Oh yea, there's NOTHING wrong with deheading innocents, torturing innocents, killing innocents. They didn't just "blow up a few airplanes", they killed 3,000 innocent hardworking Americans. Want to lose your daddy tommorow? What about your mother? Speak again when you have some sympathy in your anti-american heart.

[Shinomori]

Muslim extremist are psychopaths
http://www.consumptionjunction.com/downloads/cj_34947.wmv
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/video/armstrong-murder2.wmv
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/video/korean2.wmv
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/video/johnson-murder.wmv
http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/pictures033104.html
What!?!!?? Are you THAT ignorant you have to come up with nonsensical ideas now? We are not trying to make anyone into "slaves", such as your anti-american mind suggest.

Americans, just like you and I, are apparently psychopaths also.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/nation/052104-1vv.htm

Or did you not get the memo?

And we're attempting to set up puppet democracies and Westernize a place that wants to be left alone. We are doing this AGAINST THEIR WILL, THAT IS WHY THEY FIGHT US. As stated in other topics, it's just like the American Revolution. Boston Tea Party and such. The British oppressed the colonists, and we rebelled. THE SAME THING IS HAPPENING. We're denying them the FUNDAMENTAL American tenet - FREEDOM. Freedom means letting them do what they want. Such as having their own government. Working out their own problems. Which is something, at this moment, that they are not allowed to do.



Oh yea, there's NOTHING wrong with deheading innocents, torturing innocents, killing innocents. They didn't just "blow up a few airplanes", they killed 3,000 innocent hardworking Americans. Want to lose your daddy tommorow? What about your mother? Speak again when you have some sympathy in your anti-american heart.

I didn't say there was nothing wrong.

I said that comparing 3000 people to the Holocaust was a pretty dumb idea.

Hell, 1,000,000 > 3000.

They attacked us because we're not moral, in their opinion. It is one thing to do thusly. I supported invading Afghanistan AND KILLING AL-QAEDA. Then they said "Oh, let's take out the Taliban also." That was a bit...gray. That was the previously established government. AND IT WASN'T WHAT WE WENT IN FOR. We went in to get Bin Laden and kill as many TERRORISTS as we could. Then we decided "Let's invade Iraq. They're bad people too." BAD IDEA. We COMPLETELY stopped our PRIMARY purpose - the capture or killing of TERRORISTS. And it became a "LET'S SPREAD DEMOCRACY!" war. And I'm pretty sure people SHOULD be allowed to pick their government.

Or do you not support freedom?

If you don't, you're CLEARLY more anti-american than me.

[hinamori_momo]

three towers?

*sigh* Dispite the War On Terror, there is ALWAYS going to be terrorists, from one country or another.

It is a nice thought that we all can live in peace and harmony without conflict. But there is always something that we don't agree on.

Personally I see it as another target. A Garden would be nice - something peaceful and harmonious.

[Delta]

Alright first I gotta say you guys really need to stop telling the mods how to do their jobs, they're reasonable people and I'm sure they would be happy to answer any questions you have about their actions through PMs, and even if they dont, tough crap, thats the way the world works sometimes.

All that aside I gotta throw my opinion in on this, not rebuilding the towers or putting something in their place doesnt make any sense, giant pile of rubble in the middle of the city where every square foot is valuble = not the smartest plan of action from a buisiness standpoint. Also rebuilding dont taunt terrorists anymore then any of our other tall buildings, our existance taunts them, they dont like us, you really think Osama will chill out if we dont rebuild the towers? Hell no.

That said, why arent we going after the people that accually, you know, caused 9/11 instead of dicking around in nearby countries that have oil? Mby if we hadn't been focused on "Iraqi Freedom", which, by the way, did anyone care about "Iraqi Freedom" before Bush started talking about possibly going to war, how bout all the people in the world that are in similar or even worse situations to the Iraqi's, why dont we care about their freedom? All that aside mby if we werent focused on that our search for Osama wouldnt look as bleak as it does now (http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=158398). What happened to hunting Osama down and getting him "dead or alive"? Why have we become so distracted from hunting down the prick that planned and had a hand in carrying out 9/11? That doesnt bother anyone, espeacially everyone that supports Bush? I thought he was a "strong leader" who wouldnt let anyone get away with attacking us, what the hell happened? Mby i'm crazy but it pisses me off, and I'm surprised anyone could look past all of that.

Thats just how I see it, I could be out of my mind, but if I am, plz show me and back it up with some soild proof that we're as interested in hunting Osama now as we claim to be, and we're not just interested in giving fat government contracts to the good ol' boys in the oil industry.

[dragoneyes001]

I didn't say there was nothing wrong.

I said that comparing 3000 people to the Holocaust was a pretty dumb idea.

Hell, 1,000,000 > 3000.

the Holocaust was 6,000,000 dead add to that 15 million Russians mostly civilians (they lost 23 million during WW2 of the 68 million total deaths during WW2 china lost 10 million to the Japanese).

and no they are not comparable in any way the 2602 dead during 9/11 plus 24 missing don't even compare to the deaths one concentration camp building had during WW2.

In 1967, a Philippine ferry collided with an oil tanker, killing 4,341.
The hajj has suffered numerous tragedies in recent years. The worst was in 1990, when 1,426 pilgrims were killed during a stampede in an overcrowded tunnel leading to a holy site in Mecca.
The data, based on Belarus national cancer statistics, predicts approximately 270,000 cancers and 93,000 fatal cancer cases will be caused by Chernobyl (3). The report also concludes that on the basis of demographic data, during last 15 years, 60,000 people have died additionally in Russia because of the Chernobyl accident, and estimates of the total death toll for Ukraine and Belarus could be another 140,000 (4).
Katrina Death Toll 1,723

although the means of 9/11 were unprecedented in the US the shear quantity of press the tragedy has received in relation to the total number of deaths is insanely large when you consider the death tolls in so many other locations around the world that are lucky to get two minutes of attention.

[Cloud]

Yeah a garden would be a nice thing to put where the towers used to be located. It would be a nice memorial to those killed on that day and would show the terrorists how kind we can be and how America isn't all that bad. And then they would stop attacking us. No?... Yeah I thought it was a bit farfetched too...

Seriously tho, I do think that a garden would be a nice touch. Not only would it look good in the middle of that busy place but also it would be a nice touch to add to such a primarily metal area that is filled with nothing but businesses. Now, I know that the three towers might create some jobs. And i Know that it would be nice to have more jobs available here in the US but they can always build the three towers else where. The area where the Twin Towers were attacked should be memoralized(might just be a word...) with a garden. The Triple Towers can be built somewhere else altho I still stand by what I said before and how it will be a huge waste of money and will just be another target for the terrorists to target whereas it's highly doubtful that terrorists would blow up a garden.

[Delta]

While it's not exactly a garden, they are having a park area where around where the towers used to stand, with two big holes in the ground where the towers used to stand. You can read all about it here (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/09/11/sunday/main832639.shtml), Also I think there are going to be 4 towers, not 3.

[Cloud]

Well 4 towers is an even bigger waste of money so theres another argument against the towers being rebuilt.

With the garden tho... It's really lame that there will be the two holes in the middle of a park(if they do do a garden/park there). I think that hinamori-momo's idea of a garden would be better. The garden would represent a peaceful environment in an area that was once hectic and filled with painful memories.(still filled with painful memories but still you get the point). The holes in the middle of the park would just make people sad as they walked through it. Whereas a garden would be nice and filled with plently of pretty flowers to make people happy instead of more full of sadness i think

[Delta]

Well 4 towers is an even bigger waste of money so theres another argument against the towers being rebuilt.

With the garden tho... It's really lame that there will be the two holes in the middle of a park(if they do do a garden/park there). I think that hinamori-momo's idea of a garden would be better. The garden would represent a peaceful environment in an area that was once hectic and filled with painful memories.(still filled with painful memories but still you get the point). The holes in the middle of the park would just make people sad as they walked through it. Whereas a garden would be nice and filled with plently of pretty flowers to make people happy instead of more full of sadness i think

It's not really a waste of money, I'm sure the towers will pay for themselves buy renting out space to buisnesses, thats what most skyscrappers do, and they make out fine. Also, did you even bother to read the article I posted? They're not just going to be holes in the ground, there will be water flowing down through the holes and at the bottom of the waterfall the names of all the 9/11 dead will be displayed. Personally I think it's not a bad idea at all.

[Cloud]

It's not really a waste of money, I'm sure the towers will pay for themselves buy renting out space to buisnesses, thats what most skyscrappers do, and they make out fine. Also, did you even bother to read the article I posted? They're not just going to be holes in the ground, there will be water flowing down through the holes and at the bottom of the waterfall the names of all the 9/11 dead will be displayed. Personally I think it's not a bad idea at all.

Of course I read it. The hole is going to have names of dead people in it so it will be like a memorial such as the Vietnam War Memorial Wall which makes people sad as they see all of those names of people that died. That's my opinion tho. Some people will think that it is a required memorial for the people that died but I just think that it would make me sad to walk into a park and see the names of numerous people that died on 9/11. And I think it would be best to have the names listed somewhere else such as the internet or something so that the dead people's names are accesible but not where everyone will see it and be sad every time they pass by it. Again thats just my opinion so no getting mad about that.

As for me saying that the towers were a waste of money, I completely didn't even think about them renting out space. I don't know why but I was just thinking of towers that were just there as memorials or something. My bad. I honostly have no idea why I thought that tho. It's not like I had heard that they would just be a memorial so I feel stupid for not thinking about them renting out the space to pay for themselves.

[crash5s]

Of course I read it. The hole is going to have names of dead people in it so it will be like a memorial such as the Vietnam War Memorial Wall which makes people sad as they see all of those names of people that died. That's my opinion tho. Some people will think that it is a required memorial for the people that died but I just think that it would make me sad to walk into a park and see the names of numerous people that died on 9/11.

Have you ever even been to the V memorial?

I live in DC and as such have been to most of these "sad places" hell, Arlington Cemetary is about a 10 min walk from me, and we walk through there all the time, as do most locals.

These places are very far from sad. It's more of a "park" then anything else. Yes it does have some far deeper meaning, but nobody pulls a tear jerker. Now and then you stop and think, most of the time you just enjoy where you are. Because they are all very peaceful (something rare in a major city) safe, and quiet.

Most of the "parks" here are monuments to dead people, or large sums of dead soldiers. Yet they also are the most popular parks in DC. Apart from Arlington Cemetary (which has a strict no running no playing ball ect policy) that's where people take their families to have fun and spend the weekend. And really the only reason Arlington is treated that way is because on any given day they bury several people and nobody want's a train of joggers going by a funeral.

[Cloud]

Have you ever even been to the V memorial?

I live in DC and as such have been to most of these "sad places" hell, Arlington Cemetary is about a 10 min walk from me, and we walk through there all the time, as do most locals.

These places are very far from sad. It's more of a "park" then anything else. Yes it does have some far deeper meaning, but nobody pulls a tear jerker. Now and then you stop and think, most of the time you just enjoy where you are. Because they are all very peaceful (something rare in a major city) safe, and quiet.

Most of the "parks" here are monuments to dead people, or large sums of dead soldiers. Yet they also are the most popular parks in DC. Apart from Arlington Cemetary (which has a strict no running no playing ball ect policy) that's where people take their families to have fun and spend the weekend. And really the only reason Arlington is treated that way is because on any given day they bury several people and nobody want's a train of joggers going by a funeral.


Yes, I have been to the Vietnam Memorial. And it made me sad to think about all of the people that died in that "war"(the U.S. still calls it a conflict the last I knew). And like I said it was in my opinion. I can't look around the park areas that are memorials and see the park. All I can think about it why the park is there or why it was dedicated. So if I were to go to the park they build where they Twin Towers used to be then I would be sad to see a list of names, whereas I might be able to not be sad if I wasn't reminded with such a reminder of the horrific event. This is how I feel. Other people might not feel the same way about memorials and might be able to be happy while standing in the areas but I, for one, can not. They make me sad.

[crash5s]

Yes, I have been to the Vietnam Memorial. And it made me sad to think about all of the people that died in that "war"(the U.S. still calls it a conflict the last I knew). And like I said it was in my opinion. I can't look around the park areas that are memorials and see the park. All I can think about it why the park is there or why it was dedicated. So if I were to go to the park they build where they Twin Towers used to be then I would be sad to see a list of names, whereas I might be able to not be sad if I wasn't reminded with such a reminder of the horrific event. This is how I feel. Other people might not feel the same way about memorials and might be able to be happy while standing in the areas but I, for one, can not. They make me sad.

Fair enough but do you live in NYC? Did you have friends that died there?

I worked at the pentagon, had friends that died there, and I'd go to the memorial there and treat it as a park.

I'm also a military vet with medals.

I guess that gives me a different take on things but I don't view memorials as places of emotional problems. But rather as places of respect.

IMHO if you don't have a direct relationship to the event, you don't have a soap box to stand on about how it should be remembered.

[Cloud]

I also see the memorials as places of respect for when people die in a war or protecting this country. As wrong as this may sound, the people involved in 9/11 didn't choose to go fight for their country or choose to give there lives in any way.(most of the people not including firefighters/policemen that did give there lives to save lives). I'm not trying to disrepect the people that died that day but I'm probably not going to go to a memorial for the Twin Towers out of respect for them either. I went to the Vietnam Memorial to show my respect(in a way) to the people that died.

Even if I do not go to the Twin Tower Memorial to show respect for the people I will still go just to see the memorial. It is a nice thing to leave behind for people that died in a mass incident like that. And are you saying that you will be able to go to the memorial and not think of your friends that died in the Pentagon? I'm not saying that you will begin to cry or anything but you'll be sad won't you? When I think about death, whether I knew the person who died or not, I become sad because a life was lost. When I go to memorials I think about death and therefore become sad. I do not break out in tears but I do become sad.

I do agree with your last opinion. Seeing as I don't have a direct relationship to the event then I don't get a major say in how it should be remembered. I was just voicing my opinion on how it should be remembered. The final say is not up to me but I was just saying what I thought might be good. I just figured that most people would want to go there to remember but not be saddened even more but you have made your point and I'll just leave this alone now.

[crash5s]

I do agree with your last opinion. Seeing as I don't have a direct relationship to the event then I don't get a major say in how it should be remembered. I was just voicing my opinion on how it should be remembered. The final say is not up to me but I was just saying what I thought might be good. I just figured that most people would want to go there to remember but not be saddened even more but you have made your point and I'll just leave this alone now.

And this is the critical point.

As for me. As a military vet (with honors) a Pentagon worker (and was in the Navy on 9/11) a combat veteran, I see no problem with any of this. Again I lost friends at both locations.

I can't equate my service to that of a person that served in another war, nor would I ever dare to claim I know anything about what they went through. But I can tell you this, as an American veteran the one thing critical that all of us hold above anything else is the ability to say "I never turned my back on my friend" **** political parties, screw the war, that's the code of honor we all live by.

I run miles around the Iwo Jima daily, that's where I work out. I don't think that's bad, and most active duty military members do the same. Then walk it off in Arlington Cemetary. Hell when I worked at the Pentagon I would run from home, through memorial, walk it off in the cemetary, walk to work then shower and dress.

It's not about being sad, it never has been. IMHO the only sad place is the tomb of the unknowns, because there is no closure.

For the rest, why not enjoy the space others earned for us? I'm out of the service, and out of the government now, but I still grasp what it's all about. It's not about polictical parties (I'm a democrat BTW), it's about living your life and having no regrets. Because in the end, that's what matters.

EDIT:

Though I guess you could chalk that up to military pride, and the fact that we don't whine and winge as much as the rest of the public.

[Nihsnek]

We are doing this AGAINST THEIR WILL, THAT IS WHY THEY FIGHT US.

How many Iraqis have you spoke with?


I said that comparing 3000 people to the Holocaust was a pretty dumb idea.

Hell, 1,000,000 > 3000.

Again, my point was missed. I never compared the 2, I suggest you re-read my post.

They attacked us because we're not moral, in their opinion. It is one thing to do thusly. I supported invading Afghanistan AND KILLING AL-QAEDA. Then they said "Oh, let's take out the Taliban also." That was a bit...gray. That was the previously established government. AND IT WASN'T WHAT WE WENT IN FOR. We went in to get Bin Laden and kill as many TERRORISTS as we could. Then we decided "Let's invade Iraq. They're bad people too." BAD IDEA. We COMPLETELY stopped our PRIMARY purpose - the capture or killing of TERRORISTS. And it became a "LET'S SPREAD DEMOCRACY!" war.

I guessed I missed the whole memo on how Al-Qaeda isn't a terrorist organization.


And I'm pretty sure people SHOULD be allowed to pick their government.

Or do you not support freedom?

If you don't, you're CLEARLY more anti-american than me.

They did pick their government. How many of them turned out to vote even though they had the fear of terrorism? They picked it alright. Did you get that memo?

[mixmastermind]

This whole argument goes under the assumption that, if built, terrorists are sure to attack again.

What about after terrorists attacked the USS Cole? America didn't just rethink its whole Navy over after one speed boat attack, it just rebuilt and went on. Terrorists don't continuously attacked the same spot over and over again.