Interesting comment I heard on TV this morning from an expert in middle east terrorism etc...that being that Bin Laden's supporters traditionally do NOT wear the red head bands that were described as being worn by the hijackers... The Muslim extremists known as the 'Shiite's conversely, traditionally DO wear these as a symbol... Bin Laden's supporters are traditionally from the Sunnii sect...and the red headbands have never been worn by their followers... It could be an entirely different group responsible...
do OBL's guys wear blue turbans? : A vendor displays an Osama bin Laden brand turban outside a mosque in Islamabad September 14, 2001. Afghan Taliban clerics on Friday urge world's Muslim to unite against the U.S. in Friday prayers. (Aziz Haidari/Reuters)
I've heard nothing of any headbands,and who could have possibly described the hijackers ?? Do you have a link ?
I too have heard about the red headbands... "I've heard nothing of any headbands,and who could have possibly described the hijackers ??" The hostages that were on the cellphones described the terrorists as wearing red headbands...
DAROckets All the accounts from what the guys on the last plane (wo used their mobiles) state that they called and said "three men of arab appearance wearing red head bands" It's in numerous reports...and I have heard them say it on TV many times... I'll look for a link now...
DAROckets Same report is on most news sites... Quote "On flight 93 one person had been stabbed to death by hijackers that passenger Jeremy Glick described to his wife as "three Arab-looking men with red headbands", carrying a knife and talking about a bomb."
Once again,could you please provide a link ? I'm not doubting you,but I can't find it.I've been watching tons of news and have not seen mention of any headbands. Closest thing I've found is mention of a red box. http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/12/plane.phone.call/index.html
I'm sorry to have to repeat myself, but... DOESN'T ANYONE GET IT? IT DOESN'T MATTER IF BIN LADEN IS DIRECTLY REPSONSIBLE FOR THIS PARTICULAR ACT OR NOT. WE'RE GOING AFTER ALL TERRORISTS. HE IS KNOWN TO HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN TWO U.S. EMBASSY ATTACKS AND ONE ATTACK ON A U.S. DESTROYER. We may (or may not) ever find who exactly is responsible. But, we have now changed our approach to terrorism. The terrorists upped the stakes, and we're raising them. I also understand that the U.S. may not annihilate all terrorists groups in the world for either logistic or other reasons. Some countries and/or groups may now have better relations with our country. But, bin Laden applauded the attacks and has made recent threats against our country. With this new approach, if the U.S. feels any group to be a present threat they are saying they will go after them. I think that's pretty clear.
MSNBC has a link to red headbands A Heroic Last Stand is the article. The quote is "He said that they were Arabic-looking men. I think he said they were wearing red headbands." hmmmm rH
So, if we're attacking all terrorists, does that mean we're going after the IRA as well? How about Basque Fatherland and Liberty in Spain, the Japanese Red Army in Japan? The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam has about 10,000 members in Sri Lanka, and the Shining Path has about 2,500 members in Peru, and the Khemer Rouge still has about 2,000 members, are we going after them? We are not going after all terrorists. That will not happen. If we blow the crap out of various middle eastern countries without any hard evidence as to who did it, well just watch our support erode among many of our strongest allies, not to mention the neutral, or even hostile countries. Bush, through Collin Powell has made it clear that the reprisals for the WTC are going to be an all out war. If we declare war on a bunch of countries that had nothing to do with this, even those that have had strong ties to terrorism in the past, then I will be ashamed, because we will have taken everything that makes america great and thrown it away for revenge. It would be the international equivelent of convicting someone for a crime exclusively on the basis of having been convcted of a crime in the past. We are better than people like bin ladden. If we can't exist without staying true to ourselves then we deserve to wither away and die. At least if the United States is going to become the home of a fascist, agressive police state, we can let the old country die away through a coup or something, so that the memory of what was great can remain unperverted. Check out this from the national archives describing the bill of rights: And, as the constitution says: Notice it says all men. Not all american men, but all men. Those people out there who violate this, either by beating up arabs because they are of the same race as the terrorists, or those who talk about nuking poor oppressed afghan citizens, many of whom oppose the rule of their oppressive government, are just as bad as those asses in Palastine who cheered when they learned about the WTC. G.K. Chesterton once said: You shouldn't defend this country because you live in it. It shouldn't be reduced to 'us vs. them'. It is those of us who value every inspirational thing that the United States stands for vs. the evil, hateful bastards that want to force everyone to live the same hateful, pathetic lives that they do. Thank You. End of Rant.
Ottomaton, Good example of leaping before looking. You obviously did not read my entire post. If you had, you'd have seen this: I do disagree however. I think the Constitution does "mainly" apply to citizens of this country. Those who are not citizens are not guaranteed the same rights. Otherwise, there wouldn't be illegal immigrants.
I would just like to make a little note here ... the head bands don't mean crap. It sounds like more rubbish of opinions and people acting like they know what they are talking about. I believe our government knows a tad bit more than we do about their gang colors and what not. They have many suspects rounded up, not to mention they have been watching a few of these people before they went kamakazi. Maybe the government knows who really did do it, and are trying to blame it on the Bin Laden. Or they could have been wearing them to throw us off, to think they were someone else. Who knows? There is more than meets the eye ...
Ok, my bad. Lets try Iraq. Their national TV applauded the action by saying something to the effect of 'now the devil country will see that their actions have conciquences?'. If they had nothing to do with this, should we declare war on them just because they we don't like them? From my understanding, this violates those beliefs that I consider to make this country great. If as whole those beliefs never existed, then... well I don't know what, but to think this makes me pretty sad, like everything that makes me proud to be American was only a mirage. Again, see above. You may be right, but if you are I am suddently less overwhelmingly proud of my country. I really hope that you are wrong.
Sorry, I intended to included this quote, which pretty much gives me the confidance to say that, while I really hope that our reprisal is swift, painfull, decisive, and overwhelming, I really believe that we should rigorously defend the idea that we must take the high moral ground and only attack those responsable, and do everything within our power to avoid killing innocents.
I believe everyone who has posted on here has echoed those same sentiments. No one wants more innocent people to die. It's just a very sad inevitability of war no matter how hard you try.
In starting and waging a war it is not right that matters, but victory. Adolf Hitler While I obvioulsy disagree with that (and all things Hitler), it's weird how everything takes on an even worse connotation when Hitler says it. If that quote had been "I like ice cream" we'd probably all think twice before getting our next bowl of Blue Bell.
Isn't the difference between shi'a muslims and sunni muslims simply structural? Shi'a muslims believe that only the blood of Mohammed should be in control, religiously, while Sunnis believe that it could be any holy person. Perhaps someone more familiar with Islam could help me out. Incidentally, Otto had a good point about one thing: Bush has called this a war on terrorism: if he doesn't go after everyone, everywhere, it will be racist. I'm withholding judgement, so far, since it makes sense the focus would be on the middle east immediately.
