... the terror reaches usa, we all remember the wtc-victims usa strike back - but what changes? nothing i think. still terror in the whole world and today in news i read that bush is thinking about using nuclear weapons on strike against terror. wnere does that guy carry his brain? still killed all braincells using alcohol?? Oh, i forgot the Newslink, translated by Worldlingo.
"Give me liberty, or give me death!" Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775. -------------- Cited from "The Observer", on United Airlines Flight 93, September 11, 2001: "Bingham had overslept on the morning of 11 September and the friend with whom he had been staying, Matthew Hall, drove like a lunatic to get him from Manhattan to Newark, screeching to a halt outside Terminal A at 7.40am. Bingham sprang from the car, hauling an old blue and gold canvas duffle bag. He ran to gate 17, down the jetway, boarded the Boeing 757 and sat down in seat 4D, just behind the cockpit. Then he called Matthew on a cell phone: 'Hey, it's me. Thanks for driving so crazy to get me here. I'm in first class, drinking a glass of orange juice.' Flight 93 was due to take off at 8.01am. It pulled away from the gate, but there was a delay of 41 minutes, leaving its passengers to sit and wait before setting off on what would have been a six-hour journey across the continent to San Francisco. The crew had met an hour earlier to share out duties. LeRoy Homer's alarm had sounded at 4.45, so that he could put on his dark blue trousers, white shirt and United jacket, to become First Officer Homer. CeeCee Lyles had recently joined United after serving as a police officer; Sandra Bradshaw had a mind to quit sometime soon, to spend more time with her children. The pilot was Jason Dahl, who had learned to fly before he could drive. On 10 September, he had sat next to Nebraska businessman Rob McQuillen and told him that his greatest fear was landing on a wet surface. A third of the passengers and crew were there by the slimmest of chances. Dahl had rescheduled to get home to Colorado to pick up his wife and take her to London for their wedding anniversary. Deborah Welsh had been a flight attendant for 25 years and hated early flights, but had agreed to trade shifts to oblige a colleague. And some were travelling with death in mind: John Tagliani, retired waiter at a Manhattan steakhouse and collector of baseball memorabilia, was going to claim the body of his son, killed in a car crash while on honeymoon. Lauren Grandcolas was flying home from her grandmother's funeral. Christian Adams, deputy director of the German Wine Institute, had joked to colleagues over drinks at the airport Marriott Hotel that because his flight was leaving 15 minutes later than theirs, he would get some extra sleep. Two men aboard had also stayed at the Marriott, paying cash for seven rooms and high-priced meals: Ahmed al-Haznawi, a student from Saudi Arabia, and Ziad Jarrah, from Lebanon. They sat in first class, with a colleague, 'blending in', as they had been trained to do. After 41 minutes, at 8.42, UA93 groaned down runway four at Newark, light with passengers, heavy with 11,000 lbs of fuel. The view of lower Manhattan would have been a delight: the World Trade Centre towers punching their audacious glory into a blue sky. Coffee and breakfast were served. It was at 9.30 that three men with red bandanas suddenly rushed towards the cockpit and air traffic controllers in Cleveland picked up this message: 'Hey, get out of here!' The end had begun. Cleveland then picked up an announcement, probably from Jarrah having flipped the wrong switch, with a message he thought he was delivering over the PA: 'There is a bomb on board, we are meeting their demands, we are heading back to the airport.' This, as Jarrah knew, was nonsense; the plane began to climb. The tape recording in the cockpit is a 30-minute loop, beginning with wailing and screaming, someone pleading not to be hurt or killed. Somebody else chokes. Shortly afterwards, both pilots were seen lying motionless on the floor just outside the first-class curtain - they had had their throats cut, according to one passenger. Within six minutes, UA Flight 93 had changed course and was heading for Washington. Those on board, destined for destruction, relayed their final words of love and farewells over digital airwaves - and thereby into indelible technological posterity. The phone calls began, 23 from airphones, others by mobile, with passengers passing their cell phones to strangers. Through these calls those aboard UA93 learnt what was happening to America that morning. The first terrestrial phone to ring was answered by Deena Burnett, wife of the man sitting next to Mark Bingham, Tom Burnett. 'Are you okay?' she asked. 'No,' replied Tom, 'we've been hijacked. They've knifed a guy; there's a bomb on board; tell the authorities, Deena.' Bingham's call was to his mother was strangely formal: 'This is Mark Bingham,' her son said. Then only: 'I love you,' and he hung up. Such behaviour may seem strange, but not to Bingham's friend and former employer Holland Carney, who sees in his economy of language the first indications of revolt aboard UA 93. 'If I know Mark, he would not have said anything about what he intended to do. I remember him coming to work one day with a huge black eye. I asked what had happened, and he said two guys had jumped him and he had fought them off. I said that was dangerous - better to give them the money - but he would have none of it. That would have been him on the plane. He was not someone afraid to act.' Burnett made a second call, by which time Deena was watching the World Trade Centre collapse on television. Burnett fired a fusillade of questions: 'Are they commercial places?' Jeremy Glick learnt the same news from his wife, Lyz, in upstate New York. 'Is that where we're going too?' he asked her. 'Unlikely,' said Lyz, 'there's nothing left to crash into.' Todd Beamer's call to airphone operator Lisa Jefferson was, she says, a turning point in her life. 'I will play it over and over in my mind,' she says. The FBI was on the other line, offering guidance. 'I asked his name and he told me. And at that point his voice went up a little bit because he said: "We're going down, we're turning round. Oh I don't know, Jesus, please help us."' The two chatted about Beamer's family; his sons Drew and David. 'Then he said: "My wife is expecting," so we talked.' They discovered Jefferson and his wife shared the same Christian name. The conversation went from the sublime to the practical: 'He wanted me to recite the Lord's Prayer with him.' Then came the Psalm 23, with - according to Jefferson -- a number of other passengers now joining in, as though for a last rite. 'Lisa! Lisa!' shouted Beamer. 'I'm still here, Todd,' Jefferson said, 'I'll be here as long as you are.' 'From that point,' she says now, 'he said he was going to have to go out on faith because they were talking about jumping the guy with the bomb. He was still holding the phone, but he was not talking to me, he was talking to someone else and I could tell he had turned away. And he said: "You ready. Okay, let's roll."' 'We're all running to first class,' said flight attendant Sandy Bradshaw, implying the rebellion had begun in Bingham's compartment. Between rows 30 and 34, the revolt had brewed along with a pot of boiling water, which Bradshaw was planning to splash into a hijacker's face. The hijackers had chosen their flight badly: Glick was a 6'1" judo champion; Bingham was a rugby player; Burnett had been a college quarterback. Among the other passengers, Louis Nacke was a weightlifter and William Cashman a former paratrooper. The manual advising pilots to be careful and appease hijackers was about to be ripped up, along with the history of hijacking. No one will ever know how the plan to attack the terrorists was hatched, except for an indication to The Observer from an analyst of the recorder that the scuffle began not at the back of the plane but at the front - where Bingham was sitting. 'He was one of those who would have said: "This is ridiculous, let's kick their asses,"' Carney says There was talk of 'rushing the hijackers' - Glick, in a third call, asked Lyz if she thought it a good idea. She said she did. Deena Burnett disagreed. 'Tom, sit down,' she said. 'Don't draw attention to yourself.' 'If they're going to run this plane into the ground,' retorted her husband, 'we're going to do something.' From 9.57, the cockpit recorder picks up the sounds of fighting in an aircraft losing control at 30,000 feet - the crash of trolleys, dishes being hurled and smashed. The terrorists scream at each other to hold the door against what is obviously a siege from the cabin. A passenger cries: 'Let's get them!' and there is more screaming, then an apparent breach. 'Give it to me!' shouts a passenger, apparently about to seize the controls. Across the green pastures of Somerset County, Pennsylvania, gawping farmers and commuters watched a plane rock and sway out of the blue and crash to earth. Lauren Grandcolas had failed to reach her husband Jack, but left him a message. There had been 'a little problem' with the plane, but she was 'fine' and 'comfortable - for now'. Doug Macmillan, Beamer's best friend, has quit his job to administrate the Todd Beamer Foundation, aimed at raising funds for the children who lost parents aboard UA93. He also accompanied Lisa Beamer when she took UA93 on another day along its intended, proper route. 'I had breakfast with him every week for the last eight years,' says Macmillan. 'Every Friday morning and every other Sunday night. I knew him better than most people know their family members and I want to continue that legacy, not to allow Todd's death to be in vain, not to allow the terrorists to win. I felt a calling that I needed to do this.' Until the morning of 11 September, heroism was something that America watched in movies or read about in books. Now the country yearns for heroes, and it has them in abundance. That Bingham, Beamer, Burnett and the others saved hundreds of lives is the reason that they have become emblems of heroism. But the richness and appeal of their story lies in the fact that they so narrowly failed to save themselves. As Carney says: 'I can so much more easily imagine Mark bouncing out of the wreckage of the plane punching a high five and saying: "we did the bastards".' " "1 The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not be in want. 2 He makes me lie down in green pastures, he leads me beside quiet waters, 3 he restores my soul. He guides me in paths of righteousness for his name's sake. 4 Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me. 5 You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies. You anoint my head with oil; my cup overflows. 6 Surely goodness and love will follow me all the days of my life, and I will dwell in the house of the LORD forever." - Psalm 23 "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God" -Matthew 5:9 For further interest on UA93: http://www.unitedheroes.com/
I couldn't read that. I wouln't vicariously voy. [I always felt death was a kinda private thing, or at least, SHOULD be a kinda private thing]
Heartc's quote was like reading Reader's Digest.Is he talking about USA when saying those words of peace?They say freedom ,but it's not freedom for all ,it's just a lie to gain more and more power.Patrick Henry was also a freemason.I think time is soon when people start to open their eyes and seen what bush and his 'coalition' = new world order , Illuminati is all about.I saw an interesting documentary about Skull & Bones ,the secret society bush initiated -68 ,and also kerry @ -66 .Wow ,thes guys are really Healthy ...all I can say! Have you washed your brains lately? common carma? Those bastards will get what they deserve one day,but unfortunatly we have to endure it too.
WHAT is your problem with the stuff I quoted? I didn't write about USA, I wrote about the specific people aboard UA93. Guess they weren't even all US citizens. I dunno. "I think time is soon when people start to open their eyes and seen what bush and his 'coalition' [...]" Or maybe it's just time that you open your eyes and you deal with your own problems rather than looking for a scapegoat to blame all the worlds problems on. How about that? Guarantee you by the latter way you're not going to come up with solutions. Never works like that. Regards heartc
And btw, what exactly is a lie in the idea of freedom? You say "it's not freedom for all" and that Bush etc. are persuing an evil agenda for global domination or something. Look: As a matter of fact, in the history of the US, they were never an occupation force for a longer period of time. The Europeans did that. The Europeans were the ones with the colonies etc. Not the US. Instead, quite the opposite, the US was first a colony itself until Independence Day. This is just a FACT. I know that guys like you then often come up with "McDonalds" and "Cultural imperialism" or crap like this. My God. THIS is occupation for you? You are a Finlander, you should know better: Your country fought off the Russian threat of REAL occupation heroically several times. "McDonalds" is NOT occupation. When you Finlanders decide that McDonalds sucks, and don't go there anymore, it will close its shops in Finland. It's that easy. But obviously this is not the case and some Finlanders like to buy food there, so it's gonna stay there. This is part of their freedom. I tell you something: The US is INDEED interested in freedom and democracy also in other countries for two reasons: There has never been a war between two actual democracies and secondly, a free society goes hand in hand with capitalism. The US like freedom in other countries for self-interest in so far that you can do business a hell of a lot better with other free economies and thereby companies in other free countries than you can do for example with communist societies. I know, I know, capitalism is prolly a bad word for you. Well, once you come up with a better concept, I'll be glad to hear about it. You in Finnland also have capitalism. There might be some points different from the version in the US, but it's still basicly a free market. And this system works. It might not work perfectly. You know, personal misery is part of this world. There is NO system which could hinder that. As soon as any politician turns up and tells you otherwise, you got to listen closely because he is lying to you. There is no system/policy/politician that could bring heaven on earth. This is never gonna happen. Communism claims to do that, but failed miserably and instead brought disharray to his people. The state just cannot wish away all men's problem, and instead, as a side effect, if you believe it to do so and give it according power (like in Communism) then you'll only have the nasty side-effect that the state will abuse this power. We all know that politicians are generally full of it. You want to grand them ultimate power also in economy and trust them? Good luck. It has been tried already. And it was NOT good. The alternative concept is simply freedom and thereby economically-wise capitalism - which means NO concept. Leave it up to each individual - be him the CEO of a company (this position neither does fall from heaven) or the worker in the steel-works, to make the best out of himself he possibly can. I would be willing to listen to concepts which are not AS hardcore as the US version. But I also would like to tell you that this is what Germany for example did for the last several decades and still tries to maintain. Fact is we have a HIGHER percentage of unemployed (12%+) than the US, people here who are unemployed for longer than a year are getting cut their welfare money now to a sum you can hardly live with either, and will then also be FORCED by the state to abolish their own private life-insurance for example they paid into for decades already. And we now have ZERO economic growth, our state-forced and "secure" pension-system, which as a side-effect makes the work-force only more expensive for companies and thereby less competable, is mathematically not going to work out at all for this generation, so people got to make a private life-insurance in addition ANYWAY, and our state is in one of a hell of depth. And our state-forced and "secure" health-insurance is a joke just as well: When you REALLY need to have a helpfull and state-of-the-art surgery to make (and you WANT to re-ap the benefits of the latest scientific findings when it's about your or your children's health, don't you?), as long as it's not live-threatening, good luck having your state-forced health-insurance pay this. And, these days you even have to pay 10 EUR cash TOO everytime you visit your doctor. All this simply because the great "state takes care of you and nanny-sits you" just doesn't work out. But still many many people still don't want to see this and try to hold on the nanny-state even though it doesn't work properly anymore even these days, and will be completely a farce in the future, 15, 20, 30 years from now. But people don't want to see this. They love the concept of the nanny-state, as opposed to the evil "capitalist" society. And with every day that passes without moving forward and addopting a system that would work better, our state keeps ruining itself, because people don't want to be "evil capitalists". I tell you, when reality is as it is, and it might sound harsh, that doesn't mean that the guy who tells you about it is evil. He just tells you. Evil is he who's lying to you and promises you things out of the blue. And, for short, again on the thing "not freedom for all". As a matter of fact, your evil "Neocons" you are now blaiming are exactly those who indeed believe in the idea of freedom, also on the global scale, for the reasons I told you above. They are relatively "New" (thus "Neo"cons) in the US political arena. And many of them, for example Donald Rumsfeld, are former LEFTISTS. Because FREEDOM was a former LEFTIST idea. But while most of them have now become "nanny-state-social-justice-for-all" guys, some of them however discovered that the nanny-state isn't going to further their idea of social justice, but instead ruins itself. They found out that the nanny-state idea goes exactly OPPOSITE to the idea of individual freedom and prosperity. The other group of conservatives in the US are the "Isolationists" who would indeed be willing to pull out of most international affairs if it doesn't suit the US herself. Then, the other guys are the Democrats who also in some way are Isolationists (not on diplomacy, like the conservative Isolationists would be, but on actual matters and facts), only that they promote leftist-inner policy ideas, too (Nanny-State, etc.). "Freedom not for all" was especially true during the Cold War, yes. This was a whole different ballgame though. It was all about stopping the Communist Dictatorship from stepping over the world and thereby threaten also vital relations of the US, while at the same time avoiding a nuclear exchange with this same enemy. If the price was the freedom of people in some small country in the Middle-East, they took it. On both sides, USA just as USSR did. I would like to invite you however to compare the North Korea and South Korea for example. Up to the border where mostly US troops (under UN mandate!) fought off the communists back to, people are doing well. North of this border, people are living NOT in freedom, and they are NOT wealthy. North of this border a communist dictatorship reigns, one of the few left in this world. South of this border, FREEDOM, the PEOPLE reign. And the US, and the idea of freedom, has plenty to do with that, friend. As it has plenty to do with the fact that Europe is again free these days, and Germany was NOT turned into an agricultural subject after WWII defeat, but is one of the wealthiest nations on earth still, and that Europe is NO LONGER living under a nuclear umbrella and facing the Communist threat, either. The US has a lot to do with that, because it believes in the idea of freedom. Because this concept works. It's not perfect, nothing is. But it is the best. Then it's up to every individual. And NO ONE can take this burden from it. This is how the real world works. We do not live in heaven, see? And it's also obvious why the US does not venture into war with North Korea for example to "free" the people there. You call that hypocricy. I call that sane. Or do you want to see a nuclear war? But, I know anyway, people like you who would blame them for not "caring" about the North Korean people are the same who would be first to demonstrate once the US INDEED would go to war with NK. YOU are the hypocrites. The US and people like me are just realists. If that makes us sound hypocritical on some things, then this is because LIFE and the REAL WORLD is hypocritical on its own. It's not perfect and will never be. But we can make it better or worse. That's up to each one of us. And this is what freedom allows each one of us to do. For those of us living in a free society, it's mostly up to us. Rather than being up to a liar calling himself politician. Yes, we also still have rules to obey and there is policy being made. In Germany I'm forced to do and let alone more things than I would be in the US. But if you want ultimate freedom, and thereby also have ALL the self-responsibility and risk, each one of us is free to move to somewhere into the jungle. That would be ultimate freedom. And we are even free to do that. But remember that some people around the world wouldn't even be free to do so. Those East-German citizens during the Cold War, when Germany was still devided, who wanted to just MOVE, WALK over to West-Germany, were SHOT DEAD at the wall. Makes you wonder why Communism felt the need to shoot dead or put into the Gulag its own citizens who wanted to go. It's such a great concept after all?!? Or makes you also wonder why North Korean citizens you won't find here on this website or elsewhere on the Internet. What's so DANGEROUS about the Internet when Communism is SO GREAT and Kim Jong Il so RIGHT? Why is he afraid of the Internet? Why is he afraid of his citizens TALKING to the rest of the world? Maybe he is because he's just full of it, knows it and knows that his citizens know, and also knows that FREEDOM would quickly put an end to his power? Humm, could it be that simple??? Could that be the result when you believe in a concept that rather trusts the state than the individual citizen? History and presence seems to say so. Regards heartc P.S. And for all those who didn't get what I was trying to say above and believe in the idea that "Communism/Socialism would be a great concept, it only never really materialized as it was envisioned", now in shorter words: Driving your car into a tight corner at 200 km/h is a great concept, too. You however know it's not gonna work but is instead going to kill you. Same with Communism. Communism, and the "lighter" form of it - Socialism - claims to stand above natural law, which self-responsibility, "trust-only-yourself", "you don't get something for nothing" and "you can't eat the cake and keep it, too" are part of. This is why it has never and will never work. It is not real. It is a damn LIE. Either motivated by simple ignorance and wishfull thinking, or - worst case - plain simple power-gain of individuals in state-responsibility. Don't let yourself get fooled. YOU are the state, and YOU are the only one who in the end can take care of yourself and your children. It's up to you, and NO ONE can take and will take this responsibility away from you. All he's going to take away from you is your freedom. Don't let yourself get fooled this way.
Nice post (meaning the amount of text) ,fountain of expression seem to erupt there Be patient ,I'll read that tomorrow and reply ,need sleep now.
