Canadians Charged In American Flag Incident...

Six people were killed in 1993 when the WTC was bombed; 2,726 died on 9/11.

I'm sorry - they don't equate to me. Period.

I said I based it on the number of dead and wounded. What, you didn't believe me?

If the van containing the bomb had been moved just a few yards, it's entirely possible that both towers would have come down and killed significantly more people than that.



I believed you, but I wasn't - and still am not - completely sure of what exactly you meant.

Are you saying that setting off a massive bomb with the intent to bring down two of the world's tallest buildings, killing everyone inside in the middle of a workday, is only an attack if the plan completely succeeds? That the act of setting off a 1-ton bomb with the intent to destroy the World Trade Center and kill thousands of people is not an attack unless it actually succeeds?

You know what this reminds me of? I read a news article about a study a few weeks ago about how scientists could mess up people's sense of morality by using electromagnetic fields on people's brains. The people who had their morality messed with ended up making morality judgments based on the outcome rather than the intent of a wrongful act. Patt's acting like her brain has been pulsed with electromagnetism right now. Interesting.

IF is a mighty big word. We'll never know, will we?





I said I based my belief on the number of people who died. You said you believed me, but now you want to split hairs. Very fine frog hairs at that. Besides, how the WTC bombings in 93 have anything whatever to do with either 911 or Canada or the Olympics is really a stretch. But, no matter - you go where you please...

I'll argue the point at a later time. Maybe when the matter comes up in a thread regarding all terrorist acts that have taken place on US soil. I told you I didn't feel like arguing it tonight.

Goodnight.

Has nothing to do with the thread - has everything to do with a statement that you made in the thread; namely, that NYC had not been attacked in roughly 250 years prior to 9/11.

I suppose I should ask what your opinion that prior to 2001 NYC hadn't been "attacked" in over 200 years has to do with a Canadian replacing an American flag with a Canadian one after an ice hockey victory......

But, no matter. You go where you please.

This is how Iwanno's thread started and soon bam LOCKED.

Finish it now or be nice guys.. I like to hear the views ya have. thanks.

To me "attack" means when a person or party intends to harm another person or party. They can "attack" in a number of ways. One method was a bomb in a building and the other method was using planes.

To me both were "attacks" as they meant to harm people.

In one "attack" not as many people were killed or hurt but it was still an "attack", in my opinion.

I think what is meant is that one "attack" was more harmful because it killed and hurt more people.

But both are attacks. If 9/11 had not happened I would not be as outraged at the events we are discussing. I would still be angry because I respect what a flag stands for and to me it is a dishonor to the men and women who faught so I can have freedom.

I realize they did not light it on fire and say death to Americans but they did do a misdeed by their actions. I do agree and think if it was not a 9/11 event people would not be as upset as they are.

I'll put my hands up on this one - you are indeed right. In my initial post, I was being unecessarily flippant about the UK.

You paid the French to sort it for you...

Neither do we - or who funded them.

It's not about forgetting, at all, but remaining fearful of the memory forever can't be good and certainly lets those who would do it again know you're scared.

Actually, if is a reasonable thing here. The 1993 bombing caused sxtensive damage to the Marriott hotel the ballroom of which it was actually parked under. When the building was repaired this area was reinforced and partially survived the collapse of the North Tower right on top of it on 9/11 saving some of the survivors of the South Tower collapse who were trapped on the 3rd floor.

The reason for this reinforcement was the sheer force of the explosion unleashed upon the hotel which also did damage to both towers. Just a little more under the North tower and the damage to the base of the tower would have been much much worse, possibly even causing full or partial collapse as planned.

Don't forget, a lot of these terrorists have training in civil and structural engineering so they knew what they were doing.
The Marriott
The towers

A year seems a bit harsh but it's a f***ing stupid thing to do.

I'm guessing the guys who did it didn't realise it was a 9/11 memorial and assumed it was just a normal flag? Can't imagine they did it to be disrespectful to people who died on 9/11. I don't get why they didn't just replace the flags and leave the US one on the ground, or fly both with the Canadian one above the US one.

I think they probably had no idea why the flag was there at all. It was just a prank gone a bit wrong. No one was hurt.

They're not going to get a year in jail. That's just the maximum possible penalty.

And it's not even about the flag in question.. It's apparently about frog hair.