World Trade Center Rebuilding

[Sporadica]

Now I know the Freedom tower is working on the 75th floor right now. My question is what would you have picked for the WTC to be rebuilt?

Personally I'm going to have to go with Penn & Teller on this one where I would want to build the exact same towers in the exact same place. Basically saying "Screw you Al Queda, we're going to get on with our lives" and to me it makes a statement of "you can't stop us"

[trooneh]

I'm with you on that one, but hopefully the completed product of 1WTC will be cool looking.

[Tristin.]

not in the same place, for the same reasons that they never raised the titanic when it was possible, respect, respect for the many lives lost at that spot. rebuild them if you wnt, but not in the same spot

[Unlucky_Leprechaun]

Interesting debate that went on for a long time with the families of the victims. I can see your point about rebuilding them in the same spot, but also see Tristin's point also. I say rebuild them next to the spot and make them one story higher and make a memorial garden in the exact spot--something that shows respect to the victims and someplace that the victims loved ones/families can go and pay their respect

[slappy]

Well, the reason that they are building the freedom tower is because it is a modern design ant the original towers where a 60's design. Also, the design of the freedom tower makes it stronger. The original towers where too narrow in the emergency exits and that is why so many people died that day. If you look at the new WTC 7 building and there emergency exit system the stairwell is extremely wide and can fit five to ten people lined up next to each other whale the old towers where narrow and only had room for two people on one step. The twin towers where un-safe the way where, and to rebuild them the same way they where will just show terrorists that we did not learn from our mistakes, and to have all of these modern buildings in lower manhattan than have big ugly blocks standing there would actually I beleve be an insult to the dead because it would show we have not moved on and we just want to relive the past.Because building an even bigger tower is an even bigger fuck you.



http://electronic-architecture.wikispaces.com/file/view/686FreedomTowerWorkRampsUp_pic1.jpg/140307701/686FreedomTowerWorkRampsUp_pic1.jpg

[Unlucky_Leprechaun]

The original towers where too narrow in the emergency exits and that is why so many people died that day.

No,the reason they died was because of terrorism. The older design may have been a contributing factor

[slappy]

No,the reason they died was because of terrorism. The older design may have been a contributing factor

Well, more people would have survived if the exits where wider

[pageplant77]

I agree. I've seen the artists depiction of the new WTC and I think it looks way to modern and it will clash horribly with the New York Skyline.


......fucking terrorists.......

[Iris]

I agree. I've seen the artists depiction of the new WTC and I think it looks way to modern and it will clash horribly with the New York Skyline.

I disagree. I think it's an important symbol of the future and should look more modern than the other buildings around it, as it represents overcoming obstacles and becoming even greater as a result. I've passed it a few times and I think it's looking great.

[Portable Desert]

It's time for the skyline to change. We shouldn't hold back new art and design, the same way the old buildings replaced the architecture that came before them. Cities evolve into newer shapes,and that is a good thing.

[prob1996]

I'm anxious to see the finished building. I don't like the design on paper on how it's going to look but I think when you see the actual building, it'll be better than some concept drawing. It should be more modern, a fine example of progress. My only gripe is that is taking sooo long. I understand why but just feel it should've moved faster.

[Sugaree]

No. It's an absolute waste of time and money. The best thing to have done was to empty the two spots of where the towers stood and keep them empty. It's a complete bastardization of the memory of the people who died. We should have kept the spaces empty. I think the memory of the towers before the attacks is good enough, and there are plenty of pictures to pass on to future generations. There's no need to rebuild anything. Fuck all this "Screw you terrorist" bullshit that gets shoved in your face. People like to think that rebuilding the towers will "show the terrorists" we've moved on. It won't. It'll only tell them to try something bigger and worse.

[Iris]

No. It's an absolute waste of time and money.

Not true. It'll provide thousands of jobs and be a symbol of rising above the horror of 9/11.

The best thing to have done was to empty the two spots of where the towers stood and keep them empty. It's a complete bastardization of the memory of the people who died. We should have kept the spaces empty.

That does no good. Then it's just a sad reminder of something terrible. The new world trade center is a monument to the people who died and honors their memory by psychologically fighting back against the organization/terrorists who stole all those innocent lives.

Fuck all this "Screw you terrorist" bullshit that gets shoved in your face. People like to think that rebuilding the towers will "show the terrorists" we've moved on. It won't. It'll only tell them to try something bigger and worse.

Yes it will. Getting back on your feet is the only way to strike back at adversity. Now terrorists can't gleefully point at the empty ground to prove that they have power and control as there will be a building even greater than the first two there.

[Sugaree]

Not true. It'll provide thousands of jobs and be a symbol of rising above the horror of 9/11.

It's been almost 10 years since the event occurred. Why is it even relevant? No one really truly cares for what happened, because the only people who mention it are trying to get votes in the next election. True, it will provide jobs, but how many people in this country will be qualified for them? You can't just get a job; you need to meet qualification and standards.

That does no good. Then it's just a sad reminder of something terrible. The new world trade center is a monument to the people who died and honors their memory by psychologically fighting back against the organization/terrorists who stole all those innocent lives.

"Psychologically fighting back"? I haven't heard that one before. I'm still not convinced that this was worth the time. There's plenty of monuments around the country that honor the people who died in the WTC, Pentagon, and Flight 93. Why is it so important to have one more no matter where it is? We're treating the place like it's sacred ground; like it's the American version of Jerusalem. It's not holy ground, it's just concrete. Keeping it empty will symbolize that we won't build upon the memories of others. We're trying to restore something that can't be brought back.

Yes it will. Getting back on your feet is the only way to strike back at adversity. Now terrorists can't gleefully point at the empty ground to prove that they have power and control as there will be a building even greater than the first two there.

Terrorists don't point at their victories all the time. I think you have the entirely wrong idea of what a terrorist is. Power is what it all comes down to. I see nothing more than that. Thinking we're a powerful country when we're policing the world and don't care to address issues on the home front does not symbolize power. Power is symbolized in the well being of a country's citizens, how stable the society at large is, and the progression of government and society.

[slappy]

No. It's an absolute waste of time and money. The best thing to have done was to empty the two spots of where the towers stood and keep them empty. It's a complete bastardization of the memory of the people who died. We should have kept the spaces empty. I think the memory of the towers before the attacks is good enough, and there are plenty of pictures to pass on to future generations. There's no need to rebuild anything. Fuck all this "Screw you terrorist" bullshit that gets shoved in your face. People like to think that rebuilding the towers will "show the terrorists" we've moved on. It won't. It'll only tell them to try something bigger and worse.

So, what you're saying is that whenever something bad happens to our country we need to just leave it as is? Should we have left the uss Arizona just sitting there as a reminder and no memorial? If we did that there would not be a place to go for people like me who lost a member of ther family in attacks like that.

[Sugaree]

So, what you're saying is that whenever something bad happens to our country we need to just leave it as is? Should we have left the uss Arizona just sitting there as a reminder and no memorial?

...You do realize that the USS Arizona is still in Pearl Harbor, right? I mean actually IN the water. Right? The only reason it hasn't been moved is because it's just one massive grave. It's still leaking oil from its reserves. Since I was there myself, I think it was a bit disrespectful to build upon the grave of thousands of dead servicemen. Even if you go there to pay respects, you're standing on a grave. It's no different than going to Ground Zero. You're standing on a massive grave site. Don't build on it, don't tread on it, leave it alone and move on.

[Unlucky_Leprechaun]

Building om memorials has taken place in the United States since the Revolutionary War. many grave sites and battle locations have memorials built in/on or around the sites. It is good for the history and for the families to go. Grave site or not, I see no downside at all to building a memorial for the fallen. From my understanding, the new WTC building in next to actual ground zero and the park will be over the actual site (I may be mistaken) but the parks will symbolize and give the families a place to mourn and visit. I see nothing wrong with building the new buildings and "moving on".

[Iris]

It's been almost 10 years since the event occurred. Why is it even relevant? No one really truly cares for what happened, because the only people who mention it are trying to get votes in the next election. True, it will provide jobs, but how many people in this country will be qualified for them? You can't just get a job; you need to meet qualification and standards.

10 years is not such a long time. And it's relevant because it was an important and tragic event in US history and has had long-lasting effects (the War on Terror, attack on the Taliban etc). And there are many, many people who have excellent qualifications but no job since the economy's been pretty bad. That is not going to be a problem.

"Psychologically fighting back"? I haven't heard that one before.

Terrorism is all about psychological warfare. About creating fear, terror. Showing them and ourselves that they are not going to control us through this fear is fighting back, psychologically.

I'm still not convinced that this was worth the time. There's plenty of monuments around the country that honor the people who died in the WTC, Pentagon, and Flight 93. Why is it so important to have one more no matter where it is? We're treating the place like it's sacred ground; like it's the American version of Jerusalem. It's not holy ground, it's just concrete. Keeping it empty will symbolize that we won't build upon the memories of others. We're trying to restore something that can't be brought back.

Being a monument is only a small part of the purpose of the World Trade Center. That's really just a side point. It's more about symbolism. I was just addressing your comment that it's disrespectful to the people who died. It's not. Rebuilding is a much greater way to respect their deaths. It's like someone getting remarried after their spouse dies; the spouse would want the widow(er) to rebuild her/his life instead of being alone as a constant reminder of her/his loss.


Terrorists don't point at their victories all the time. I think you have the entirely wrong idea of what a terrorist is. Power is what it all comes down to. I see nothing more than that. Thinking we're a powerful country when we're policing the world and don't care to address issues on the home front does not symbolize power. Power is symbolized in the well being of a country's citizens, how stable the society at large is, and the progression of government and society.

I think you have the wrong idea of what terrorism is. Terrorism is purely a way to strike fear into the enemy instead of waging outright warfare, since the group conducting the terrorism would not win in open combat. The ruins of the twin towers is evidence to the power the terrorists have by causing fear. Do you know how many New Yorkers were traumatized by seeing the twin towers fall? By feeling a total loss of security? That is the goal of the terrorists, which is why building a new world trade center that is bigger and greater than the ones before is a great remedy to the fear and insecurity that followed 9/11. Terrorists don't control countries, they can't exhibit their power through citizens, but rather through fear.

[slappy]

...You do realize that the USS Arizona is still in Pearl Harbor, right? I mean actually IN the water. Right? The only reason it hasn't been moved is because it's just one massive grave. It's still leaking oil from its reserves. Since I was there myself, I think it was a bit disrespectful to build upon the grave of thousands of dead servicemen. Even if you go there to pay respects, you're standing on a grave. It's no different than going to Ground Zero. You're standing on a massive grave site. Don't build on it, don't tread on it, leave it alone and move on.

Do you know what the memorial at ground zero is going to be built out of? the seel from the world trade center. Also, just looking at a google map can show you that the foundation of the world trade center is still there. That there is a 16 block footprint. We don't just leave that big open space alone.

[Portable Desert]

...You do realize that the USS Arizona is still in Pearl Harbor, right? I mean actually IN the water. Right? The only reason it hasn't been moved is because it's just one massive grave. It's still leaking oil from its reserves. Since I was there myself, I think it was a bit disrespectful to build upon the grave of thousands of dead servicemen. Even if you go there to pay respects, you're standing on a grave. It's no different than going to Ground Zero. You're standing on a massive grave site. Don't build on it, don't tread on it, leave it alone and move on.

Well, actually, they are standing OVER it...:p

[Sporadica]

One thing in regards to 9/11 is that I think people will remember it longer and even our children will feel for it because there is countless hours of videos and thousands of photographs even same with WW2 & Vietnam. Whenever I watch 9/11 footage I get these chills/shivers and I kind of feel I was there even though I wasn't and I can't really remember the news footage.

[slappy]

One thing in regards to 9/11 is that I think people will remember it longer and even our children will feel for it because there is countless hours of videos and thousands of photographs even same with WW2 & Vietnam. Whenever I watch 9/11 footage I get these chills/shivers and I kind of feel I was there even though I wasn't and I can't really remember the news footage.

I know, it dose the same to me, but I remember that day like it was yesterday, even though I was 7 I still remember that hole day.

[Sage]

The biggest insult any enemy can face is to be ignored. Why people insist upon going out of our way and spending billions upon billions of dollars to prove some stupid ideal to a bunch of religious fuckwits who are probably the Middle Eastern equivalent to rednecks. You wanna know how to get over 9/11? Stop glorifying it and stop giving terrorist groups the attention they want.

I don't give a flying fuck about 9/11 as a media sensation. I think our handling of the situation in the decade that followed the event is exponentially worse than however many people died that day.

[Iris]

The biggest insult any enemy can face is to be ignored. Why people insist upon going out of our way and spending billions upon billions of dollars to prove some stupid ideal to a bunch of religious fuckwits who are probably the Middle Eastern equivalent to rednecks. You wanna know how to get over 9/11? Stop glorifying it and stop giving terrorist groups the attention they want.

I don't give a flying fuck about 9/11 as a media sensation. I think our handling of the situation in the decade that followed the event is exponentially worse than however many people died that day.

You're right, it would have been better to completely ignore it. But we're human and there was a huge tragedy so of course we were upset. The world isn't full of feeling-less, apathetic people, which is a GREAT thing. I am proud that 9/11 had such a great impact on people. It shows we all have the capacity to care. So maybe reacting to the disaster wasn't the most efficient way to deal with the terrorists, but it was definitely the best way.

[Peace God]

not in the same place, for the same reasons that they never raised the titanic when it was possible, respect, respect for the many lives lost at that spot.
How is that disrespecting them? Please tell me. PLEASE TELL ME.

[embers]

Terrorism is all about psychological warfare. About creating fear, terror. Showing them and ourselves that they are not going to control us through this fear is fighting back, psychologically.

...

I think you have the wrong idea of what terrorism is. Terrorism is purely a way to strike fear......

No, I think you definitely have the wrong idea of what terrorism is. I come from a very politically unstable country (Pakistan, we harboured bin Laden, remember?), and I can sure as hell tell you that there is little to no 'psychological' instigation of fear involved in terrorism. It's all physical. From suicide bombs, to torture, to kidnaps, to beheadings, it's not like you can just stand in front of them and say 'lololol i'm psychologically fighting back'. You'd have your head cut off. Sure, they may be some fear involved after they have done something drastic, but the terrorists in question don't fight through fear, they fight through real violence with real victims.

The same terrorists you're talking about who would fail in 'outright warfare' are, and I quote Cloud from another thread, 'strategically dicking' your military in Afghanistan. These aren't just some mountain-bound cowardly people who send a kid at a time with explosives strapped around their chests, these are real people with real agendas. Your psychological shit is worth nil.

I'm with Sage and Murdoc on this one.

[Iris]

No, I think you definitely have the wrong idea of what terrorism is. I come from a very politically unstable country (Pakistan, we harboured bin Laden, remember?), and I can sure as hell tell you that there is little to no 'psychological' instigation of fear involved in terrorism. It's all physical. From suicide bombs, to torture, to kidnaps, to beheadings, it's not like you can just stand in front of them and say 'lololol i'm psychologically fighting back'. You'd have your head cut off. Sure, they may be some fear involved after they have done something drastic, but the terrorists in question don't fight through fear, they fight through real violence with real victims.

The same terrorists you're talking about who would fail in 'outright warfare' are, and I quote Cloud from another thread, 'strategically dicking' your military in Afghanistan. These aren't just some mountain-bound cowardly people who send a kid at a time with explosives strapped around their chests, these are real people with real agendas. Your psychological shit is worth nil.

Creating fear IS their main purpose. They are terrorists, they create terror. That's why they are called terrorists. The Taliban who controlled Afghanistan weren't terrorists. They were brutal and cruel but they were a government. There is a very big difference. They helped terrorists and hid them but they weren't terrorists themselves. Terrorism is nothing but fear-the United States has suffered far more damage fighting wars than from the collapse of the twin towers yet it's the twin towers tragedy that sparked the heightened level of security, the fear and paranoia, the need of the Department of Homeland Security etc. My parents and older relatives always talk about a time when no one was afraid and there was no need for security, even though there was the cold war, the war in Vietnam, the assassination of JFK and more. Because there was no terrorism. You never had to wonder if the plane you're on will be the one terrorists choose to explode. Terrorism is unexpected and sudden; it's meant to incite fear. You don't actually win a war through terrorism.

Also psychology is a very large part of war. It can ignite a group to fight harder even though all odds are against them (like in the American Revolutionary War) or can cause a complete disheartening of a war (like the Vietnam War). Don't underestimate the power psychology plays in all of this. I was watching a documentary about the women who were under the Taliban regime in Afghanistan a little while ago, and in one part women brought the journalists into a secret beauty parlor that was completely illegal but which helped them rebel against the regime in the only way they could. That is psychologically fighting back. And that is a large purpose of the third World Trade Center.

Oh and those terrorists that are "strategically dicking" us are the same ones that lost all their strongholds and were kicked onto hiding in desolate mountainous regions of Afghanistan a few months after 9/11. The same ones that watched as Afghanistan had it's first democratic election. I call that a success. I'm not denying that they don't have pretty intricate plans rather than primitive bombings but they have been kicked out, lost their control on any part of the world, and are only able to (pathetically) assert their power through acts of terrorism.

[slappy]

Ground zero when I went in 08
http://yfrog.com/kia3kzhj

Ground zero now
http://hippwaters.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/ground-zero_jan-2011.jpg?w=500&h=375

I think they are moving to slowly

[embers]

Creating fear IS their main purpose. They are terrorists, they create terror. That's why they are called terrorists.

No, it isn't their main purpose. It is their primary method (instilling fear via brutal techniques) of getting a government or governments to listen to or conform to their viewpoint. The purpose of a terrorist isn't as its name suggests - terrorists don't exist to create fear, they use it as a tactic.

The Taliban who controlled Afghanistan weren't terrorists. They were brutal and cruel but they were a government. There is a very big difference. They helped terrorists and hid them but they weren't terrorists themselves.

I know they were a government, but a government can consist of terrorists. The Taliban also used fear-inducing tactics to keep their people silent and to maintain an oppressive regime, and while what they were/are doing in their own country may not be terrorism as such, what they are doing in MY country definitely IS.

Terrorism is nothing but fear

As I said before, fear is only a tactic of terrorism. Terrorism itself is far more than fear.

Also psychology is a very large part of war. It can ignite a group to fight harder even though all odds are against them (like in the American Revolutionary War) or can cause a complete disheartening of a war (like the Vietnam War). Don't underestimate the power psychology plays in all of this. I was watching a documentary about the women who were under the Taliban regime in Afghanistan a little while ago, and in one part women brought the journalists into a secret beauty parlor that was completely illegal but which helped them rebel against the regime in the only way they could. That is psychologically fighting back. And that is a large purpose of the third World Trade Center.

Psychology may play a large part in fighting against oppressive, cruel regimes, however it has no part in raising a finger to terrorism by erecting another World Trade Center. Do you honestly think the radical men in my country and others are going to be psychologically butthurt because the Americans replaced another World Trade Center?

The women you were talking about were living under an oppresive, Islamic regime whereby women are regarded as second class citizens and have little to no rights. Perhaps raising a psychological middle finger there is good for morale, but it certainly will do no good in a country that's already bombed the living fuck out of a fair few others in revenge. And rebuilding the center certainly won't 'show' the terrorists how you've moved on, I doubt they could give an ounce of shit.

Oh and those terrorists that are "strategically dicking" us are the same ones that lost all their strongholds and were kicked onto hiding in desolate mountainous regions of Afghanistan a few months after 9/11.

Lol are you joking? They may be hiding in desolate mountainous regions of Afghanistan, but they're also supported by organisations like my country's military (which has its own agenda) and they also exist and are training in north-west Pakistan (Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, formerly NWFP) and in Waziristan, not to mention the province of Balochistan and other countries like Uzbekistan. Yeah, that's a pretty damn restricted space they're in.

I call that a success.

Do you call killing 20-30 civilians (if not more) per terrorist/insurgent a success? The US drone strikes are so fucking inaccurate that I'm actually surprised the US still use those things.

I'm not denying that they don't have pretty intricate plans rather than primitive bombings but they have been kicked out, lost their control on any part of the world, and are only able to (pathetically) assert their power through acts of terrorism.

Did you honestly just call terrorism pathetic? Is there something wrong with you? Do you realise how effective it is and has been? A while ago, the frequency of suicide bombs in the capital / other cities had grown to almost once or twice a week. Do you know how scared anybody was to go outside, to go to a market in the capital, to go hang out with friends, to do anything? Unlike your media, ours didn't censor anything. We saw the results of every bombing in the capital on live TV, and it was absolutely disgusting and shocking. Our favourite politician was shot and bombed near where I lived. Do you have any idea how scary, horrible and real that was? Sitting here and reading you call this shit pathetic makes my blood boil.

[ShyGuyInChicago]

How is that disrespecting them? Please tell me. PLEASE TELL ME.

It could be considered disrespectful because rebuilding the Twin Towers could be seen as tying to pretend the attacks never happened.

[slappy]

It could be considered disrespectful because rebuilding the Twin Towers could be seen as tying to pretend the attacks never happened.

And the big memorial in the front yard is gonna hide it?

[Wicked_Syn]

Only thing I have to say is each and every victim who died that day due to the events that day, may you rest in peace.

Oh, and rebuilding our twin towers may seem like a good idea to some but I do think that we are gloating a bit to much with rebuilding the towers to the near same exact height and on the same exact spot as the old ones. It's like kind of like getting punched in the face from some person and then thanking them for it. The person who punched you is going to get irritated from your remark and punch you again. Plus, the fact that we killed Bin Laden..

[Sage]

The world isn't full of feeling-less, apathetic people
Are you insinuating something? I don't appreciate that.

It shows we all have the capacity to care.
You really needed three thousand people to die and a ten-year long crusade in the Middle East to demonstrate that?

So maybe reacting to the disaster wasn't the most efficient way to deal with the terrorists, but it was definitely the best way.
I have no idea how you're evaluating "best", then, because the waste of life, time, and money coming from the wars that followed the event sure as hell don't justify themselves.

[Sugaree]

10 years is not such a long time. And it's relevant because it was an important and tragic event in US history and has had long-lasting effects (the War on Terror, attack on the Taliban etc). And there are many, many people who have excellent qualifications but no job since the economy's been pretty bad. That is not going to be a problem.

You know what else was an important and tragic event in US history? The killing of innocent natives who wished to be left alone. These "long-lasting" effects weren't that long lasting. The War on Terror is a waste of money along with trying to attack the Taliban. Just because we can go into another country and swing our dick around doesn't mean we should. Also, the issue of jobs is going to be a problem. The workers who were mostly laid off were industry workers. They had jobs in automobile plants and other production factories. Most office/desk jobs haven't been affected as much. There is going to be a huge problem filling all those empty places with people who actually qualify.



Terrorism is all about psychological warfare. About creating fear, terror. Showing them and ourselves that they are not going to control us through this fear is fighting back, psychologically.

No, terrorism is about controlling people through fear. The creation of fear is only a side benefit. It's not psychological warfare if it involves the physical killing of people. Sachal brings up many excellent points in this regard. What do you think terrorists do to create fear? Give someone the stink eye or point a gun at them? It's not psychological at all. Fighting back psychologically is just giving them the attention they want. Terrorists survive through attention. The attention they get furthers there cause and agendas even further. Rebuilding the World Trade Center is just giving them attention. So just rebuilding and saying "LOOK AT US PSYCHOLOGICALLY FIGHT YOU" is not going to work.

Being a monument is only a small part of the purpose of the World Trade Center. That's really just a side point. It's more about symbolism. I was just addressing your comment that it's disrespectful to the people who died. It's not.

Bullshit it isn't disrespectful. It's no different than building homes on top of unmoved graves! Masking this all as a "monument" is just fucking stupid. The official count of victims from the World Trade Center attacks was 2,823 people. Only 1,058 of them were identified and only 289 whole bodies were found. Don't you realize that people's ashes and bones were in the rubble? Hardly anyone who were on the impacted floors survived, and they were lucky enough not to have lost a limb. Most of them literally vaporized in a few seconds. Face it, those two foundation holes are graves. Building on them is not showing respect, it's tainting the resting place of hundreds of people.


I think you have the wrong idea of what terrorism is. Terrorism is purely a way to strike fear into the enemy instead of waging outright warfare, since the group conducting the terrorism would not win in open combat. The ruins of the twin towers is evidence to the power the terrorists have by causing fear. Do you know how many New Yorkers were traumatized by seeing the twin towers fall? By feeling a total loss of security? That is the goal of the terrorists, which is why building a new world trade center that is bigger and greater than the ones before is a great remedy to the fear and insecurity that followed 9/11. Terrorists don't control countries, they can't exhibit their power through citizens, but rather through fear.

See my comments above about what terrorism is. I'm not explaining myself twice.

Do you know what the memorial at ground zero is going to be built out of? the seel from the world trade center.

Oh wow, believe it or not, that makes absolutely NO DIFFERENCE!

Also, just looking at a google map can show you that the foundation of the world trade center is still there. That there is a 16 block footprint. We don't just leave that big open space alone.

Yes, you can leave that "big open space" alone. Is it that hard to just...walk away?

Well, actually, they are standing OVER it...:p

Nevertheless, it still applies.

The world isn't full of feeling-less, apathetic people, which is a GREAT thing.

Yes, the world IS filled with feeling-less people. The only reason you don't hear about them is because you decide to ignore them.

So maybe reacting to the disaster wasn't the most efficient way to deal with the terrorists, but it was definitely the best way.

Wait...what? How can reacting to the disaster not be efficient but also the best way to deal with 9/11? Where the fuck did you come up with that?

Creating fear IS their main purpose. They are terrorists, they create terror. That's why they are called terrorists. The Taliban who controlled Afghanistan weren't terrorists. They were brutal and cruel but they were a government. There is a very big difference. They helped terrorists and hid them but they weren't terrorists themselves. Terrorism is nothing but fear-the United States has suffered far more damage fighting wars than from the collapse of the twin towers yet it's the twin towers tragedy that sparked the heightened level of security, the fear and paranoia, the need of the Department of Homeland Security etc. My parents and older relatives always talk about a time when no one was afraid and there was no need for security, even though there was the cold war, the war in Vietnam, the assassination of JFK and more. Because there was no terrorism. You never had to wonder if the plane you're on will be the one terrorists choose to explode. Terrorism is unexpected and sudden; it's meant to incite fear. You don't actually win a war through terrorism.

Also psychology is a very large part of war. It can ignite a group to fight harder even though all odds are against them (like in the American Revolutionary War) or can cause a complete disheartening of a war (like the Vietnam War). Don't underestimate the power psychology plays in all of this. I was watching a documentary about the women who were under the Taliban regime in Afghanistan a little while ago, and in one part women brought the journalists into a secret beauty parlor that was completely illegal but which helped them rebel against the regime in the only way they could. That is psychologically fighting back. And that is a large purpose of the third World Trade Center.

Oh and those terrorists that are "strategically dicking" us are the same ones that lost all their strongholds and were kicked onto hiding in desolate mountainous regions of Afghanistan a few months after 9/11. The same ones that watched as Afghanistan had it's first democratic election. I call that a success. I'm not denying that they don't have pretty intricate plans rather than primitive bombings but they have been kicked out, lost their control on any part of the world, and are only able to (pathetically) assert their power through acts of terrorism.

*sigh* Making this point that terrorism is "psychological warfare" isn't getting you anywhere. It's a circular argument and had no place in this discussion in the first place. Just let it go.

[ShyGuyInChicago]

And the big memorial in the front yard is gonna hide it?

I didn't mean to imply that. I did not have the memorial in mind when I said what I said

[RoseyCadaver]

The biggest insult any enemy can face is to be ignored. Why people insist upon going out of our way and spending billions upon billions of dollars to prove some stupid ideal to a bunch of religious fuckwits who are probably the Middle Eastern equivalent to rednecks. You wanna know how to get over 9/11? Stop glorifying it and stop giving terrorist groups the attention they want.

I don't give a flying fuck about 9/11 as a media sensation. I think our handling of the situation in the decade that followed the event is exponentially worse than however many people died that day.

I think you just hit the nail of the head.Thumbs up.


It's a rather touchy situation.You could go with "respect the dead " thing and say we shouldn't build upon it,or we could go with,lets show them they can't stop us attitude.I find that is where most people are divide on this subject.

I'm a bit on the fence with this thing,but if I had to pick a side,it would be we should build upon it.That is just my opinion.

[Peace God]

It could be considered disrespectful because rebuilding the Twin Towers could be seen as tying to pretend the attacks never happened.
Any decision that is made will be seen as disrespectful by many. People will bitch and make a huge deal out of this no matter what.

[Iris]

Ugh I'm not bothering with quoting, it would take too much time. Ok. Here goes:

embers- A. I think I've been misunderstood. Obviously they're inciting terror for a reason. They don't just do it as some fun activity with no real purpose. That I'm not disputing. In order to do that they need to incite fear. Terrorizing, then, becomes a primary purpose. It goes far beyond just a tactic.
B. Just because a dictatorship uses fear-inducing tactics doesn't mean the government is full of terrorists. On the contrary it might even be legal to commit those acts of terror, which is generally contrary to the illegality of the acts of terrorists we're speaking about.
C. I'm not sure 'butthurt' is the right word, but it would send a message that we're not just going to get knocked down and stay down. And despite your doubts I really do think it will have an impact on the terrorists. I also mentioned earlier that it's important for Americans as well, it gives us a boost to see that The World Trade Center is being rebuilt after the devastation of 9/11. Oh and by the way the US only attacked Afghanistan after the Taliban refused, a few times, to hand over bin Laden. It wasn't like they weren't given a choice.
D. Nevertheless they were kicked out and are still hiding. Just because there are organizations that support them doesn't mean they are in any way able to truly fight back. They are restricted to acts of terror, in their own country and others.
E. whether the War On Terror was handled correctly is an entirely different issue. I'm saying the fact that the US was able to kick them out in a few months was a success. Also can you tell me where you got the 20-30 civilian deaths information? I'm legitimately curious about that.
F. Yes, I honestly just called terrorists pathetic. There are many things wrong with me but that statement isn't one of them. And (AGAIN) I think you misunderstood me. I think they're pathetic by enforcing their beliefs in such a terrible way. I think they're pathetic for attacking civilians all the time. I think they're pathetic because they are PATHETIC excuses for human beings. That is why they are pathetic. Maybe you'd prefer a different term? Pricks, assholes, dickheads, shitfaces: take your pick.

Sage-A. I'm not insinuating anything, calm down.
B. -sigh- but this isn't about that. It's about people reacting to the twin towers. That's all I'm talking about. It's great that even the world suffers tragedies every day, people still have the capacity to care and haven't been completely desensitized.
C. I think you're forgetting what we're debating. The way people reacted-by being saddened, horrified, reaching out and trying to help others. I'm not talking about the following War on Terror. My point is that it's good that we reacted so strongly to the attack instead of paying it little attention to show the terrorists they can't intimidate us. It's good that we cared so much.

Murdoc- A. 9/11 and the killing of the Native Americans (I assume that is what you're referring to as the only natives in the US are the Native Americans...) are completely different in literally every way. Different circumstances, different purpose, different mentality. You can't even compare the two. As for the job issue, I disagree. While other jobs may have been laid off more, there are many, many former office job holders that need jobs in New York and other states. I think that for this debate though we're just going to have to wait and see.
B. Ok. I'll start again. Warfare is much more than waving a gun around and bombing. Emotions play a huge role. Emotions ranging from motivation, to down-heartedness to fear. Terrorism especially is all about fear. It's about stealing away your security. Fear is a powerful motivator, and terrorists hope that the fear they create will force the US to do what they want. By destroying the twin towers the terrorists struck fear in the hearts of many in the world, because everyone felt unsafe, like they'd be the next to die, even though in reality the vast majority of them will never suffer through a terrorist attack. That is psychology. By killing a few to generate fear that anyone could be next. It's far more than just actual, physical murders. The thing about psychology is it's often hidden. You don't realize what a great impact terrible physical acts have on you mentally. Rebuilding the World Trade Center gives the American people a sense of closure, after the confusion and turmoil following the fall of the twin towers. It also impacts the terrorists, mentally, by rebuilding over the ruins of the terrorists' greatest victory.
C. Except that the WTC isn't just a regular building, it's also partially a monument. It's a way to remind people of the devastation of 9/11, not forget it. Also it's not being built on the actual place the twin towers stood-there real monuments are being built and will be completed this September. Where the WTC is being built was once Radio Row and the Hudson Terminal.
D. Not true. There are lots of good and sympathetic people out there. I think you are the ones who's doing some ignoring.
E. The right thing/best thing to do is often not the most efficient thing. Like trying not to target civilians in a war, for example. In this case it's good that people reached out and reacted to 9/11 instead of ignoring the horrors. You just described yourself how the site is now a mass grave of unidentified victims. Are you saying we should have just said "whatever" and moved on with our lives??
F. telling me that terrorism isn't psychological warfare isn't getting you anywhere either. I completely believe it is and I will continue to prove it is if it's challenged. Deal with it.

[embers]

C. I'm not sure 'butthurt' is the right word, but it would send a message that we're not just going to get knocked down and stay down. And despite your doubts I really do think it will have an impact on the terrorists. I also mentioned earlier that it's important for Americans as well, it gives us a boost to see that The World Trade Center is being rebuilt after the devastation of 9/11.

Do you think the people that did it actually expected America to 'stay knocked down'? It's an act of terrorism. It wasn't meant to try and topple an entire country, it was an attack on America. Believe me, they don't care if you rebuild the towers or not. In fact, they'd probably take the sensible route and not build over people's graves either.

Oh and by the way the US only attacked Afghanistan after the Taliban refused, a few times, to hand over bin Laden. It wasn't like they weren't given a choice.

Are you joking? The Taliban offered to hand over bin Laden provided the US could give them evidence that bin Laden was behind it, which isn't hard. The US refused and promptly invaded Afghanistan. Also, bin Laden is believed now to have been hiding in Pakistan for the past 10 years - which means the Taliban had more than easy access to him. Their offer was valid.

D. Nevertheless they were kicked out and are still hiding. Just because there are organizations that support them doesn't mean they are in any way able to truly fight back. They are restricted to acts of terror, in their own country and others.

Bullshit they're hiding. They are not, and that would be clear to you if you had the slightest clue of the state of several countries your country is militarily involved in. And I'm pretty sure their being able to commit acts of terror (with funding from the ISI among other militaries/organisations) isn't actually a 'restriction', since that is why they exist in the first place. To commit acts of terror.

Also can you tell me where you got the 20-30 civilian deaths information? I'm legitimately curious about that.

I wish I had the microsoft excel table my father had compiled while he was the head of BBC Urdu, but for now I suppose this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan) has to suffice. While by the list you can see an immense amount of civilians killed, down by the 'civilian casualties' section you'll see that the number of civilians is hotly debated. I can tell you, from the data BBC Urdu has compiled, that the 10:1 ratio of civilian to militant casualties referred to in the article is the most accurate on that wikipedia page (the ratio is probably higher than that).

And that's just Pakistan.

F. Yes, I honestly just called terrorists pathetic. There are many things wrong with me but that statement isn't one of them. And (AGAIN) I think you misunderstood me. I think they're pathetic by enforcing their beliefs in such a terrible way. I think they're pathetic for attacking civilians all the time. I think they're pathetic because they are PATHETIC excuses for human beings. That is why they are pathetic. Maybe you'd prefer a different term? Pricks, assholes, dickheads, shitfaces: take your pick.

I wouldn't choose any of those terms. This isn't a situation in which you sit down and call them names. You may think what they are doing / how they do it is pathetic; I think it's fucking dreadful. They are not pathetic, they are relentless. They aren't pathetic excuses for human beings, they are the essence of the term 'fight for your beliefs', and they won't stop until their pseudo-religiously and politically motivated strife is over. They aren't pathetic for enforcing their beliefs in the way they do - they're a force to be reckoned with.

9/11 and the killing of the Native Americans (I assume that is what you're referring to as the only natives in the US are the Native Americans...) are completely different in literally every way. Different circumstances, different purpose, different mentality. You can't even compare the two.

How are they so different and why can't you compare the two?

Ok. I'll start again. Warfare is much more than waving a gun around and bombing. Emotions play a huge role. Emotions ranging from motivation, to down-heartedness to fear.

Actually, these days, instances of combat involving soldiers are few and far between. Emotion has little to do with it.

Terrorism especially is all about fear. It's about stealing away your security.

No, I've said this before. It isn't. You ignore what I say and assert that it is. In fact, terrorism is more about sending a message in an effective and attention-drawing way than it is about inciting fear in a government or people.

Fear is a powerful motivator, and terrorists hope that the fear they create will force the US to do what they want.

No, they believe they are in a full war with the US because they want them to, and I quote from Osama bin Laden's letter to the US after 9/11:

...to end your support of the Indians in Kashmir, the Russians against the Chechens and to also cease supporting the Manila Government against the Muslims in Southern Philippines.

...among other things. They don't want the US to submit in fear, they want to drive the US out of several countries in which they are involved, and there's perhaps a sub-agenda to get the US to implement sharia law, but they probably know that isn't going to happen.

By destroying the twin towers the terrorists struck fear in the hearts of many in the world, because everyone felt unsafe, like they'd be the next to die, even though in reality the vast majority of them will never suffer through a terrorist attack. That is psychology. By killing a few to generate fear that anyone could be next.

But that wasn't their intention. Sure, as a bonus, it's all good, but their intention was to send a message to the US government. If the population shat themselves in the process, then they could take it as a compliment.

Rebuilding the World Trade Center gives the American people a sense of closure, after the confusion and turmoil following the fall of the twin towers. It also impacts the terrorists, mentally, by rebuilding over the ruins of the terrorists' greatest victory.

Lol, you seriously think it's going to impact the terrorists mentally. Let me tell you, rebuilding some towers, or killing bin Laden, won't bring the Americans closure. There are still families who've lost their relatives, there are still the pictures and videos of when it happened, there are the people who witnessed it. Rebuilding over it isn't going to raise a mental middle finger to the terrorists. They don't care.

The right thing/best thing to do is often not the most efficient thing. Like trying not to target civilians in a war, for example. In this case it's good that people reached out and reacted to 9/11 instead of ignoring the horrors.

But was what America did the right thing to do? ...do you know what they did?

telling me that terrorism isn't psychological warfare isn't getting you anywhere either. I completely believe it is and I will continue to prove it is if it's challenged. Deal with it.

Good, keep telling yourself that because regardless of what you think terrorism is, people will continue dying and the terrorists are not going to lose an hour's sleep because some oppressed woman in their country or some well-off American 'psychologically fought back'. My country, my government, isn't in decline because of the fear or psychological terror the terrorists create, but because they know they won't stop. That if they don't conform to the terrorist's views, they will have to continue fighting a war that won't end on several fronts. That isn't psychological war, that is real, physical, violence and real, brutal, terrorism. Deal with it.

[tav18]

I agree with the rest of america- the towers should be re-built not that ugly freedom tower, they belong in tokyo not a city like new york besides osoma is dead this should be a second oppritunity to rebuild what stood for our freedom not to rebuild something stupid and pointless- and nobody should bash me for my opinion i loved the twin towers as much as i love new york and america !!!

[Sugaree]

Murdoc- A. 9/11 and the killing of the Native Americans (I assume that is what you're referring to as the only natives in the US are the Native Americans...) are completely different in literally every way. Different circumstances, different purpose, different mentality. You can't even compare the two.

The white settlers who forcefully took land and killed Native Americans were terrorists. What makes it any different than what happened on 9/11? I guess that once a few planes are involved, that changes the entire situation.

B. Ok. I'll start again. Warfare is much more than waving a gun around and bombing. Emotions play a huge role. Emotions ranging from motivation, to down-heartedness to fear. Terrorism especially is all about fear. It's about stealing away your security. Fear is a powerful motivator, and terrorists hope that the fear they create will force the US to do what they want. By destroying the twin towers the terrorists struck fear in the hearts of many in the world, because everyone felt unsafe, like they'd be the next to die, even though in reality the vast majority of them will never suffer through a terrorist attack. That is psychology. By killing a few to generate fear that anyone could be next. It's far more than just actual, physical murders. The thing about psychology is it's often hidden. You don't realize what a great impact terrible physical acts have on you mentally. Rebuilding the World Trade Center gives the American people a sense of closure, after the confusion and turmoil following the fall of the twin towers. It also impacts the terrorists, mentally, by rebuilding over the ruins of the terrorists' greatest victory.

You might as well just be writing a letter to terrorists saying that you're terrified. Seriously, this is just a circular argument. So if two people stare each other down, are you saying the first one who becomes afraid is the victim of a terrorist? That's essentially what you're implying. War is actual physical fighting with psychological side effects. Since when has any war been fought with psychological weapons? It's merely a benefit for the opposing force to become afraid. There has never been one great victory for any terrorist organization. You speak of this like it was all a game to them. You obviously had no intention to look at all the countries we are militarily involved in. Once again, Sachal has given you the necessary information. 9/11 wasn't about terrorists trying to create fear, it was a message from Bin Laden and his cronies for the United States to get the fuck out of countries that they had assets in.

C. Except that the WTC isn't just a regular building, it's also partially a monument. It's a way to remind people of the devastation of 9/11, not forget it. Also it's not being built on the actual place the twin towers stood-there real monuments are being built and will be completed this September. Where the WTC is being built was once Radio Row and the Hudson Terminal.

I doubt anyone remembers the Battle of the Bulge or Gettysburg. For the sake of argument, I'll make a bet that no one even remembers some of the key battles of the Revolutionary War. What about other important events in world history like the Napoleonic Wars or the French Revolution? I see no monuments for people who died then, nor have I heard of any. The bottom line is that this is just another memorial that is masking the fact that the nation is being willfully ignorant. Like the family members need to know that there's a memorial to their dead son, daughter, husband, or wife? Sure, some of them may enjoy it, but that doesn't go for all of them. Just leave the spaces empty! It's that simple!

D. Not true. There are lots of good and sympathetic people out there. I think you are the ones who's doing some ignoring.

:rolleyes:

E. The right thing/best thing to do is often not the most efficient thing. Like trying not to target civilians in a war, for example. In this case it's good that people reached out and reacted to 9/11 instead of ignoring the horrors. You just described yourself how the site is now a mass grave of unidentified victims. Are you saying we should have just said "whatever" and moved on with our lives??

That's what I've been saying all along in this thread! The United States has willfully blinded itself to life AFTER 9/11. People did the same thing after the attack on Pearl Harbor. We seem to have moved on from that; why can't we move on from 9/11? And don't bring up the issue of how tragic it was or that it was only a decade ago. Those points have already been made time and time again, and I would like to see a better argument. Good Lord, what more do you want done to the site? Should we build a 9/11 amusement park?

F. telling me that terrorism isn't psychological warfare isn't getting you anywhere either. I completely believe it is and I will continue to prove it is if it's challenged. Deal with it.

I have yet to see substantial proof on your part that terrorism is psychological warfare. But hey, if you wanna stand up, look like an idiot, and say "WE'RE PSYCHOLOGICALLY FIGHTING THEM", then please go ahead. It just makes you the laughing stock and giving terrorists the attention they want.

[Iris]

embers-A. First, you're disregarding the part about the boost it gives Americans, which is a vital part. Second, it's not being built on the actual site; it has no remains of the dead under it. Third, I think you're wrong. It will affect the terrorists to see the new World Trade Center built. It was a big success of theirs, 9/11, it will affect them when the World Trade Center is rebuilt. It shows they can attack us in horrific ways and we won't give in, won't stand down, which is their goal. It may not deter them, but it will definitely affect their morale.
B. I can guarantee that the US would not have received bin Laden (the Taliban and Al-Qaeda would have found a way to sneak him away), even if they bothered to provide evidence. Also the Taliban offered to try bin Laden only in a Islamic court, probably only one that supported bin Laden's actions, which would not have dealt the punishment that man deserved. The US asked for bin Laden and would have given him a trial. The Taliban refused.
C. Most of these terrorists were once part of the Taliban regime, which was a government. When the US first invaded the Taliban attacked as an army, not a terrorist group. Only when they lost all their strongholds did they have to act like/become terrorists in order to fight back.
D. It's sad that there are so many innocent casualties of war. That part is not something my country is proud of (I hope). But I still firmly believe that the fact that the Taliban were forced to retreat so quickly is a success. It would have been better if this entire situation had been handled differently though, I admit.
E. Being an extremist in anything isn't good. Right now by arguing with all you people I'm fighting for my beliefs, but I'd never hurt you for believing differently. That's what the terrorists are doing. They are pathetic for enforcing their beliefs like this. They are not only being narrow-minded and egotistical but they have no idea where the border between fighting for your beliefs and pure barbarism lies. That is something I consider pathetic. No one is doubting their strength and ability (I just spent a really long time trying, in vain it seems, to show you how they are deeply affecting every psychologically as well as physically) but their lack of compassion and this idea that anyone in the way of their beliefs should be plowed over is barbaric, primitive and utterly pathetic.
F. 9/11 is an act of terrorism-meant to strike fear. Killing the Native Americans was a (terrible) way to imperialize. 9/11 was done stealthily, suddenly and was a shock, in a modern world where right and wrong are much more apparent (and people are, in general, more humanitarian). Killing the Native Americans was outright, and at a time when killing natives was considered acceptable. The affects weren't long-lasting in this case because the people at that time simply didn't care about the merciless attacks on the Native Americans. It was a terrible event, undoubtedly, but it was not like 9/11.
G. I am not ignoring you, I'm disagreeing and saying my opinion. The same thing you're doing to me. You're saying terrorism is purely the message behind it the physical attack. I'm saying terrorism is that and so so much more. I'm saying the fear the terrorists are actively generating is the main purpose of terrorists, in order to get what they want, yes, but the terrorism itself is purely fear. Do you want to agree to disagree or keep going around in circles?
H. Yes but the terrorism itself is for fear. Terrorism is a tactic which spreads fear. It's part of something greater but the terrorism in itself is to spread fear.
I. Do you know what closure is? It's feeling like an event has come full circle, that a traumatic event has come to a conclusion. Building a new World Trade Center is the finalization of the trauma following the collapse of the twin towers. Look up for the "terrorists don't care" part.
J. I've said multiple times that I think the War on Terror should have been handled differently. I don't want to get into that and add another topic to debate about. I've got enough on my plate debating you, Murdoc and Sage already. When I say reacting I'm talking about not being apathetic to the pain of the people who suffered through the trauma of watching the twin towers fall. Nothing else.
K. I can understand why Pakistan is giving up the fight much more than the US is (though as far as I know the Pakistani government is cooperating with the US. Am I wrong?); they are easier targets for the Taliban and therefore it is much more than just psychological. I am not talking about Pakistan though, I'm talking about the US (and other countries that terrorists attack that are also not neighboring Afghanistan). The US hasn't been bombed repeatedly like Pakistan. It isn't under constant threat of a neighboring country. In the US the terrorists can only fight through fear since they are not capable of attacking openly and constantly. The physical attacks are far more psychological in the US.

Murdoc- A.The white settlers were not terrorists. They arrived openly, for a different purpose in a different time and got what they wanted through physical means-murders and exiles, and not psychological means-intimidation, fear, like terrorists do (yes I'm still sticking with that).
B. I'm growing tired of trying to explain my point about the part psychology is playing in all of this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_warfare -read that. See how it's all about intimidation and fear to help get results? If you still don't get the connection I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince you anymore.
C. Again you are comparing situations that are completely opposite and are only united by the fact that people died. 9/11 was a sudden terrorist attack (in the 21st century) on unsuspecting civilians and was meant to generate fear. It also happened fairly recently. Unlike all those other conflicts you described. In 300 years no one will know the details of 9/11 by heart. But there are still 290 years until that time in which people are still in pain from the loss of their loved ones. Monuments respect that. Most people will appreciate this. Leaving the spaces empty, on the contrary, accomplishes nothing.
D. The attack on Pearl Harbor took a long while to get over as well, and began the US's active military involvement in WWII. I wouldn't call that quickly moving on. It took a while for people to get through it. Also most of the Americans who died weren't civilians, which lessened the blow (whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is something I refuse to argue right now). The real monuments being built on the foundation of the twin towers are pretty simplistic. Go google them. They are only there to recognize the loss of all those innocent people. And the New World Trade Center isn't being built on the site. For the third time, only part of it's purpose is to be a monument. That is not so much. Stop complaining.
E. Not even going to waste my time replying.

[TheMatrix]

If you're going to be a good debator, you'll need to quote, or you'll look like an idiot. Your choice.
So let's begin....
embers-A. First, you're disregarding the part about the boost it gives Americans, which is a vital part. Second, it's not being built on the actual site; it has no remains of the dead under it.
How do you know? Do you have a source?

Third, I think you're wrong. It will affect the terrorists to see the new World Trade Center built.
Oh will it now? You think they're going to take offence? Probably not. Instead, they'll keep those new towers in mind in case there's something else they want to destroy.

It was a big success of theirs, 9/11, it will affect them when the World Trade Center is rebuilt.
See previous.

It shows they can attack us in horrific ways and we won't give in, won't stand down, which is their goal.
We didn't. But our media did. And that's probably good enough for them.

It may not deter them, but it will definitely affect their morale.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that their morale will be very important when they're bombing a place.

B. I can guarantee that the US would not have received bin Laden (the Taliban and Al-Qaeda would have found a way to sneak him away), even if they bothered to provide evidence.
Provide evidence for what and whom?

Also the Taliban offered to try bin Laden only in a Islamic court, probably only one that supported bin Laden's actions, which would not have dealt the punishment that man deserved.
Are you sure? Do you have a source?

The US asked for bin Laden and would have given him a trial. The Taliban refused.
I could say your quote, but then about the US:
Also the US offered to try bin Laden only in an American court, probably only one that supported our actions, which would not have dealt [-]the[/-] unfair punishment that man didn't deserve.

C. Most of these terrorists were once part of the Taliban regime, which was a government. When the US first invaded the Taliban attacked as an army, not a terrorist group. Only when they lost all their strongholds did they have to act like/become terrorists in order to fight back.
Remind me again: why was the US there?

D. It's sad that there are so many innocent casualties of war. That part is not something my country is proud of (I hope).
This is something that we should save for a different debate.

But I still firmly believe that the fact that the Taliban were forced to retreat so quickly is a success.
Again, why was the US there?

It would have been better if this entire situation had been handled differently though, I admit.
Okay, how?

E. Being an extremist in anything isn't good. Right now by arguing with all you people I'm fighting for my beliefs, but I'd never hurt you for believing differently. That's what the terrorists are doing. They are pathetic for enforcing their beliefs like this. They are not only being narrow-minded and egotistical but they have no idea where the border between fighting for your beliefs and pure barbarism lies. That is something I consider pathetic. No one is doubting their strength and ability (I just spent a really long time trying, in vain it seems, to show you how they are deeply affecting every psychologically as well as physically) but their lack of compassion and this idea that anyone in the way of their beliefs should be plowed over is barbaric, primitive and utterly pathetic.
I'm going to have to agree with you there.

F. 9/11 is an act of terrorism-meant to strike fear.
Fear of.......?

Killing the Native Americans was a (terrible) way to imperialize.
Mmmm, quite.

9/11 was done stealthily, suddenly and was a shock, in a modern world where right and wrong are much more apparent (and people are, in general, more humanitarian).
Oh yeah? Not everyone is....

Killing the Native Americans was outright, and at a time when killing natives was considered acceptable.
Acceptable!?!? What on earth are you talking about?

The affects weren't long-lasting in this case because the people at that time simply didn't care about the merciless attacks on the Native Americans. It was a terrible event, undoubtedly, but it was not like 9/11.
For the Native Americans, I'm pretty sure it was, actually.

G. I am not ignoring you, I'm disagreeing and saying my opinion. The same thing you're doing to me. You're saying terrorism is purely the message behind it the physical attack.
It was, right?

I'm saying terrorism is that and so so much more. I'm saying the fear the terrorists are actively generating is the main purpose of terrorists, in order to get what they want, yes, but the terrorism itself is purely fear. Do you want to agree to disagree or keep going around in circles?
If he disagrees and you disagree with his disagreement, then this will "go in circles" for quite some time until somebody facepalms and gives up.

H. Yes but the terrorism itself is for fear. Terrorism is a tactic which spreads fear. It's part of something greater but the terrorism in itself is to spread fear.
/facepalm

I. Do you know what closure is? It's feeling like an event has come full circle, that a traumatic event has come to a conclusion. Building a new World Trade Center is the finalization of the trauma following the collapse of the twin towers. Look up for the "terrorists don't care" part.
I said that at the way beginning of this post. Try not contradicting yourself next time ;)

J. I've said multiple times that I think the War on Terror should have been handled differently. I don't want to get into that and add another topic to debate about. I've got enough on my plate debating you, Murdoc and Sage already.
Are you implying that they are going to win this because you can't find the evidence and contentions to support your very own case?

K. I can understand why Pakistan is giving up the fight much more than the US is (though as far as I know the Pakistani government is cooperating with the US. Am I wrong?); they are easier targets for the Taliban and therefore it is much more than just psychological.
That's not nice to say; rephrase it please.

I am not talking about Pakistan though, I'm talking about the US (and other countries that terrorists attack that are also not neighboring Afghanistan).
Then why mention it in your post?

The US hasn't been bombed repeatedly like Pakistan. It isn't under constant threat of a neighboring country. In the US the terrorists can only fight through fear since they are not capable of attacking openly and constantly.
Try that bad city with no police.

The physical attacks are far more psychological in the US.
Because the media chooses to make it seem like that.

Murdoc- A.The white settlers were not terrorists. They arrived openly, for a different purpose in a different time and got what they wanted through physical means-murders and exiles,[
And the terrorists did that too, minus the murders and exiles of course.

and not psychological means-intimidation, fear, like terrorists do (yes I'm still sticking with that).
And how do you think the Native Americans felt?

Hmm?

That's what I thought.
B. I'm growing tired of trying to explain my point about the part psychology is playing in all of this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_warfare -read that. See how it's all about intimidation and fear to help get results? If you still don't get the connection I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince you anymore.
Your problem.

C. Again you are comparing situations that are completely opposite and are only united by the fact that people died.
You are apathetic and heartless if you do not think that is a serious thing.

9/11 was a sudden terrorist attack (in the 21st century) on unsuspecting civilians and was meant to generate fear. It also happened fairly recently. Unlike all those other conflicts you described. In 300 years no one will know the details of 9/11 by heart. But there are still 290 years until that time in which people are still in pain from the loss of their loved ones.
How many years does a person live, again?

Monuments respect that. Most people will appreciate this. Leaving the spaces empty, on the contrary, accomplishes nothing.
Like so many others have suggested: build one. But not a new tower in the exact same spot.

D. The attack on Pearl Harbor took a long while to get over as well, and began the US's active military involvement in WWII. I wouldn't call that quickly moving on. It took a while for people to get through it. Also most of the Americans who died weren't civilians, which lessened the blow (whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is something I refuse to argue right now).
It should be - you don't kill your opponents troops on their own soil, unless they have provoked it.


E. Not even going to waste my time replying.
If you're going to be in a debate, you should reply, unless of course you want to dodge the question.

Speaking of wasted time: I spent over 45 minutes typing out this long reply. And you?

[embers]

embers-A. First, you're disregarding the part about the boost it gives Americans, which is a vital part. Second, it's not being built on the actual site; it has no remains of the dead under it.

Fair enough.

Third, I think you're wrong. It will affect the terrorists to see the new World Trade Center built. It was a big success of theirs, 9/11, it will affect them when the World Trade Center is rebuilt. It shows they can attack us in horrific ways and we won't give in, won't stand down, which is their goal. It may not deter them, but it will definitely affect their morale.

Where do I begin? First off, I know it was a 'big success' of theirs, however, bin Laden's letter explained how it was a message he was sending to the government. He wasn't going to give a shit whether it would be rebuilt or not, because fact is, he killed over 2,000 people. The property itself doesn't matter, and its rebuilding certainly doesn't. Those deaths will stick with people for the rest of their lives, whether or not the towers are rebuilt.

It certainly won't affect their morale, either. They are occupied with far too many other things to care.

B. I can guarantee that the US would not have received bin Laden (the Taliban and Al-Qaeda would have found a way to sneak him away), even if they bothered to provide evidence. Also the Taliban offered to try bin Laden only in a Islamic court, probably only one that supported bin Laden's actions, which would not have dealt the punishment that man deserved. The US asked for bin Laden and would have given him a trial. The Taliban refused.

No, they offered to hand bin Laden to a neutral country (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5) from which the US could collect him. If he was to be tried in an Islamic court (which he wasn't), under shariah people can demand that the murderer be sentenced to death (which he most likely would have been) for his crimes.

C. Most of these terrorists were once part of the Taliban regime, which was a government. When the US first invaded the Taliban attacked as an army, not a terrorist group. Only when they lost all their strongholds did they have to act like/become terrorists in order to fight back.

They attacked using guerilla tactics, which they still use to date against the allied forces in Afghanistan and other governments.

They are pathetic for enforcing their beliefs like this. They are not only being narrow-minded and egotistical but they have no idea where the border between fighting for your beliefs and pure barbarism lies. That is something I consider pathetic. No one is doubting their strength and ability (I just spent a really long time trying, in vain it seems, to show you how they are deeply affecting every psychologically as well as physically) but their lack of compassion and this idea that anyone in the way of their beliefs should be plowed over is barbaric, primitive and utterly pathetic.

I think you don't know the definition of pathetic. Let's look it up.

pa·thet·ic (p-thtk) also pa·thet·i·cal (--kl)
adj.
1. Arousing or capable of arousing sympathetic sadness and compassion: "The old, rather shabby room struck her as extraordinarily pathetic" (John Galsworthy).
2. Arousing or capable of arousing scornful pity.

If the extremists' tactics are capable of arousing scornful pity to you, then by all means, call them pathetic. But me, I'll call them barbaric, I'll call them primitive, but I certainly would not call them pathetic.

F. 9/11 is an act of terrorism-meant to strike fear. Killing the Native Americans was a (terrible) way to imperialize. 9/11 was done stealthily, suddenly and was a shock, in a modern world where right and wrong are much more apparent (and people are, in general, more humanitarian). Killing the Native Americans was outright, and at a time when killing natives was considered acceptable. The affects weren't long-lasting in this case because the people at that time simply didn't care about the merciless attacks on the Native Americans. It was a terrible event, undoubtedly, but it was not like 9/11.

This is an altogether different debate which we shouldn't get into right now.

G. I am not ignoring you, I'm disagreeing and saying my opinion. The same thing you're doing to me. You're saying terrorism is purely the message behind it the physical attack. I'm saying terrorism is that and so so much more. I'm saying the fear the terrorists are actively generating is the main purpose of terrorists, in order to get what they want, yes, but the terrorism itself is purely fear. Do you want to agree to disagree or keep going around in circles?

1. I'm not saying terrorism is purely the message behind it. Terrorism is more the physical violence while psychology has little to do with it (as the fear is a side-effect), and the physical violence is carried out in order to send a clear and hostile message.
2. Again, terrorism is not purely fear. Read below.

H. Yes but the terrorism itself is for fear. Terrorism is a tactic which spreads fear. It's part of something greater but the terrorism in itself is to spread fear.

Terrorism isn't a tactic that spreads fear. Terrorism involves using fear as a tactic, less so than physical violence, but it is there. The main purpose of terrorism is not, and never has been, to spread fear.

I. Do you know what closure is? It's feeling like an event has come full circle, that a traumatic event has come to a conclusion. Building a new World Trade Center is the finalization of the trauma following the collapse of the twin towers. Look up for the "terrorists don't care" part.

I don't know whether you've suffered due to 9/11 or not, but I'm pretty sure those closely affected by it will not gain closure due to some trivial building project.

I am not talking about Pakistan though, I'm talking about the US (and other countries that terrorists attack that are also not neighboring Afghanistan). The US hasn't been bombed repeatedly like Pakistan. It isn't under constant threat of a neighboring country. In the US the terrorists can only fight through fear since they are not capable of attacking openly and constantly. The physical attacks are far more psychological in the US.

I don't know how many times I'll say it.

Physical: main.
Psychological: beneficial side-effect.

If the terrorism spreads fear, then so be it. But it doesn't necessarily mean that spreading fear is terrorism's purpose, nor its primary tactic, even in America. You've somehow gotten the image that terrorists are fighting through fear because they can't physically attack America - that isn't true. All it is, is that they are unable to physically fight America, but will do every chance they get. That doesn't mean they're sitting down going 'hurr Americans scared good tactic amirite'.



Look, I don't know how long you want to keep running around saying terrorism is psychological. It isn't. Just because you've been safe enough NOT to have been attacked post-9/11 doesn't mean that the terrorists are sitting there planning to let some petty 'fear' take its toll and bring America to its knees. That isn't what terrorism is about, and while you may fear being attacked because of increasing instabilities, that isn't something terrorists are planting in your head to bring you down. It's a real, valid fear and should be treated with every ounce of a validity such a threat can receive.

[Iris]

If you're going to be a good debator, you'll need to quote, or you'll look like an idiot.

I find it interesting that you only say that to me and not anyone else who had no, and at the very most, little evidence to support their claims. But I'll keep your advice in mind. Thank you.

How do you know? Do you have a source?

http://www.wtc.com/about/memorial-and-musuem -the New World Trade Center is not being built on the actual site.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6_World_Trade_Center -the New World Trade Center is being built on the remains of the 6 World Trade Center, which wasn't attacked but damaged from the attacks on the Twin Towers and therefore demolished.

Oh will it now? You think they're going to take offence? Probably not. Instead, they'll keep those new towers in mind in case there's something else they want to destroy.

Ok then, where's you're evidence of this? In this case we're both assuming since there is no real way to prove this. You think it will have no affect. I think it will.

We didn't. But our media did. And that's probably good enough for them.

How did the media give in and show weakness? Right after the attack everyone was horrified-that isn't a weakness. But now we've gotten back on our feet. The media is being supportive of this.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that their morale will be very important when they're bombing a place.

Knowing that no matter how many times they bomb a place, it will get cleaned up and people will move on does affect morale.

Provide evidence for what and whom?

Provide evidence of Ossama bin Laden's participation in the planning of 9/11.

Are you sure? Do you have a source?

Do you really think they would have simply handed him over??

I could say your quote, but then about the US:
[I]Also the US offered to try bin Laden only in an American court, probably only one that supported our actions, which would not have dealt [-]the[/-] unfair punishment that man didn't deserve.

You have a point, and perhaps they should have tried to find some middle country. However the Taliban said they are willing to give over bin Laden if evidence of his guilt was provided. If he had gone on trial in the US that is exactly what would have happened.

Remind me again: why was the US there?

Because they wanted the Taliban to hand over the terrorists the Taliban were protecting. The Taliban themselves weren't the terrorists, at least originally.

This is something that we should save for a different debate.

Agreed.

Again, why was the US there?

^

Okay, how?

Not going to go into that now. I simply don't have the time. After this debate is over then maybe I'll debate the War on Terror.

Fear of.......?

Fear that anyone could be the next to die. Fear meant to motivate people to do what they want. Terrorism is their tactic for this purpose.

Oh yeah? Not everyone is....

In comparison to the people in the 1600s, 1700s is what I'm talking about.

Acceptable!?!? What on earth are you talking about?

Yes, during that time it was acceptable. I did not say I think it's acceptable. This is a time where slaves were treated brutally, mercy was rarely shown, humanitarianism was practically non-existent. It was a different time, the world at a different stage, people had different reactions.

For the Native Americans, I'm pretty sure it was, actually.

It was terrible. It was massacre. It was cruelty, brutality. But that's not what terrorism is (though it's often the outcome of an act of terrorism).

It was, right?

If he disagrees and you disagree with his disagreement, then this will "go in circles" for quite some time until somebody facepalms and gives up.

I know. I'm going to try to stop with that part of my argument.

/facepalm

:P

I said that at the way beginning of this post. Try not contradicting yourself next time ;)

How did I contradict myself?

Are you implying that they are going to win this because you can't find the evidence and contentions to support your very own case?

Lol I'm implying that I literally don't have the time to add another thing to the debate. I won't be able to respond, for lack of time.

That's not nice to say; rephrase it please.

:confused: What's not nice?

Then why mention it in your post?

I mentioned it because embers mentioned it.

Because the media chooses to make it seem like that.

Again, how?

And the terrorists did that too, minus the murders and exiles of course.

Um. The murders and exiles are what characterized the settling of the Europeans in America. That's kind of only what they did. It's a huge difference between the settlers and terrorists.

And how do you think the Native Americans felt?
Except in that case the fear was, like Murdoc said, a side effect, an extra bonus to the settlers. It wasn't the purpose.

You are apathetic and heartless if you do not think that is a serious thing.

I said they were different situations. I never said one is more or less serious than the other. The outbreak of yellow fever and the Crusades both had many people dying. But they are not comparable.

How many years does a person live, again?
The pain of loss lives on through many generations. 9/11 was a huge blow.

Like so many others have suggested: build one. But not a new tower in the exact same spot.

It is not in the same spot.

It should be - you don't kill your opponents troops on their own soil, unless they have provoked it.

How is that relevant to this debate?

If you're going to be in a debate, you should reply, unless of course you want to dodge the question.

Did you bother reading what I refused to reply to? It was basically me being called an idiot for believing that psychology plays a large part in terrorism. How do you suggest I respond?

Speaking of wasted time: I spent over 45 minutes typing out this long reply. And you?

Try twice that time since I'm debating 2 more people than you.

Where do I begin? First off, I know it was a 'big success' of theirs, however, bin Laden's letter explained how it was a message he was sending to the government. He wasn't going to give a shit whether it would be rebuilt or not, because fact is, he killed over 2,000 people. The property itself doesn't matter, and its rebuilding certainly doesn't. Those deaths will stick with people for the rest of their lives, whether or not the towers are rebuilt.

He killed 2,000 people and instead of sitting there shocked we're moving on and rebuilding. He hit us hard and we're still not going to give in. No matter how many times he attacks, we will not give in. That is a very powerful message.

It certainly won't affect their morale, either. They are occupied with far too many other things to care.

I disagree. Since we're both assuming things in this particular argument I don't think it's going to go anywhere.

No, they offered to hand bin Laden to a neutral country (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5) from which the US could collect him. If he was to be tried in an Islamic court (which he wasn't), under shariah people can demand that the murderer be sentenced to death (which he most likely would have been) for his crimes.

Of course they proposed the idea of a third country days after the bombings, probably when it was apparent that the US would win. By then it was a full out war, much more difficult to stop.

http://www.slate.com/id/117156/ -a loophole in shariah law is that you need two eyewitnesses and a confession. They could have used that as a way to acquit bin Laden.

They attacked using guerilla tactics, which they still use to date against the allied forces in Afghanistan and other governments.

guerrilla tactics and terrorism.

I think you don't know the definition of pathetic.
Scornful is exactly the way I feel about them. Not so much 'pity' though. I'll give you this one though-I'll find a better term to describe them.

This is an altogether different debate which we shouldn't get into right now.

I completely agree. All I did was answer your question.

1. I'm not saying terrorism is purely the message behind it. Terrorism is more the physical violence while psychology has little to do with it (as the fear is a side-effect), and the physical violence is carried out in order to send a clear and hostile message.
2. Again, terrorism is not purely fear. Read below.
Terrorism isn't a tactic that spreads fear. Terrorism involves using fear as a tactic, less so than physical violence, but it is there. The main purpose of terrorism is not, and never has been, to spread fear
Physical: main.
Psychological: beneficial side-effect.

If the terrorism spreads fear, then so be it. But it doesn't necessarily mean that spreading fear is terrorism's purpose, nor its primary tactic, even in America. You've somehow gotten the image that terrorists are fighting through fear because they can't physically attack America - that isn't true. All it is, is that they are unable to physically fight America, but will do every chance they get. That doesn't mean they're sitting down going 'hurr Americans scared good tactic amirite'..

In November 2004, a United Nations Secretary General report described terrorism as any act "intended 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"

http://www.stonehearthnewsletters.com/terrorism-is-a-tactic-not-a-cause-not-a-movement-not-an-enemy-texas-am-authority-on-homeland-security/human-behavior/
Terrorism uses physical violence to spread fear, because fear is how you get someone to do what you want. It's a very powerful motivator.

I don't know whether you've suffered due to 9/11 or not, but I'm pretty sure those closely affected by it will not gain closure due to some trivial building project.

This is hardly a "trivial" building project. http://www.wtc.com/about/ -perhaps we should check up the definition of "trivial"? It's a massive building project meant to honor the fallen while at the same time move on.

Look, I don't know how long you want to keep running around saying terrorism is psychological. It isn't. Just because you've been safe enough NOT to have been attacked post-9/11 doesn't mean that the terrorists are sitting there planning to let some petty 'fear' take its toll and bring America to its knees. That isn't what terrorism is about, and while you may fear being attacked because of increasing instabilities, that isn't something terrorists are planting in your head to bring you down. It's a real, valid fear and should be treated with every ounce of a validity such a threat can receive.
I'm starting to think that this is more about people underestimating the power of psychology than terrorism. Just because a threat is psychological rather than physical does not make it less valid. And in my case I'm not even arguing that. No matter how many times terrorists attack the US, the US won't give in. Simply physically attacking won't get them anywhere. Because it will hurt
a few thousand people, which is terrible, but only a small percentage of the US. However if they attack physically to creates fear in everyone, then they are attacking the entire US.

[Awesome]

Life goes on. With you opinion that we should rebuild them, how about You knock em down so we build bigger better ones. It'll look neat.

[Iris]

Life goes on. With you opinion that we should rebuild them, how about You knock em down so we build bigger better ones. It'll look neat.

Please tell me this is a joke. Are you serious???

[Awesome]

Please tell me this is a joke. Are you serious???

Read what he said on the first page, Because I dont get this as a joke.

[Iris]

The point of the new World Trade Center is far from just being a large, tall building. It's a step towards the future. If your argument is that it shouldn't be built on the same spot as the twin towers, it's not being built there. What exactly is your objection??

[Awesome]

Yeah, like Lilys said there not being but exactly on top. I attached a photo I took of the construction site. See that big black rectangle in the middle? Thats the footprint of the Old Tower, Tower 1. Tower 2's footprint is over to the right of the picture.

There going to make the footprints into a big fountain with waterfalls, all neat stuff, a memorial site.