On September 11th, 2001 the third world war started. nothing much more to say, where have you been on this day?

I was on a beach in france, not far away from bordeaux, digging a hole in the sand to search shelter from the wind. In the news they said more than 100.000 people were killed and I was kinda waiting for armageddon to come. 
So what were you doing?

Would you believe that I had to google the date:o We are so use to it being called nothing but 911 it did not click.

What was I doing, a "C" Check on an ATR 42-500.

Matt

I can't say I agree with the 11th being the start of WWIII.
And to avoid any political discussion I'll leave it at that.

But I will answer your question.
I was eating a bowl of cereal in my undies,
when I decided to turn the TV on and watch the news.

First thing I see... Flight 175 crashing into the south tower.
Absolute shock, I just could not believe what I had just witnessed.

I would also strongly disagree with 9/11 being the start of WWIII, and wish to avoid it like Steve-o.

I was at school, in math class.  Our fire alarm rang at almost the exact time the first plane hit the towers, and we learned of the news when we reentered.  I watched the tv when I got home, transfixed for hours.  There was an air of excitement then (I was in middle school)-these days, when my friends and I speak of the wars we'll be fighting in several years, the conversations carry a more solemn tone.

Hm. I was in my science class I believe. Didn't know much about it throughout the day until I got home. I was only 12 and the school didn't want to have to break the news I guess.

I was installing digital boxes for NTL customers. Had just connected a box up as the second plane hit. For a few seconds I thought it might be a film preview, thinking it looked really realistic....then I saw the word 'Live' in the corner of the screen and felt quite sick.

Quote:



For it to be called a war, does not a declaration of war have to be made, otherwise it is just a conflict. An example, the Faulklands is referred to as the Faulklands War, but as no declaration of war was ever made between England and Argentina, it is the Faulklands Conflict. Just a though in this day of crossing T's and dotting i's.
Matt

A paradign shift has occurred on what we call war and how nations participate in such a war.  But unfortunately, too many try to apply concepts formulated upon old paradigms to this new paradigm, and the old concepts just don't fit, so the unfamiliar attributes of the new paradigm cause many to reject descriptions of the new paradigm.  But unfortunately, we can reject descriptions based on the attributes of the new paradigm on a conceptual level, but the reality of the events are not subject to such conceptual considerations.

Just got back from school. Switched on the TV and there it was.

Asleep at home... My sister woke me up and told me that some plane had flown into the wtc... The first thing I thought was "what an idiot!" I was also thinking it was some Cessna that hit it... that wasn't long before the second plane hit.. that is when it hit me that somewthing was really wrong... I remmeber the newsreader started to cry... Still gives me goosebumps

We should bear in mind that 1000 years ago, the Crusaders sacked Jerusalem.  They didn't just knock it about a bit, they went in determined to slaughter every living thing in the city - men, women, children, horses, dogs, cats, goats, chickens, etc.  They did it because they fervently believed that God wanted them to do it, and would reward them for it in the afterlife.

If airliners had been available, the Crusaders would have fought each other for the honour of being the first pilot to crash into the city.  They were just as fanatical as the Islamic nutters who crashed into the WTC a thousand years later.

/soapbox

Gryshnak

I was at home that day and saw the entire day's news coverage on BBC1. will never forget that second plane hitting the tower 

Quote:

In actual fact this is exactly what's behind so many of these conflicts we're faced with today. People have very long memories.

Also, we must remember, the Muslems WON the Crusades!   

Quote:

I assume that proves that you're a rational person & not a fundamentalist.

Quote:

That's as may be but this is exacly how these religious fundamentalists think. There are many examples of long-held grudges being a constant source of conflict for centuries. Take the "Troubles" in Northern Ireland which are still simmering today after over 300 years.

Quote:


It would appear the Peace Loving Nation seems to think that the end of a rifle barrel is the answer and that any other Peace Loving Nation that does not agree with the first Peace Loving Nation is only against said Peace Loving Nation. A certain Peace Loving Nation is a relative newcomer when it comes to being the victim of terrorism. Maybe they should listen to other nations that have been dealing with it for a lot longer.

If you feed a terrorist or fund a terrorist, you are a terrorist. Should be a lot of Peace Loving Nationals locked up then for funding the IRA then.

Quote:



Your point is well understood.  It is unfortunate that we have war, but peace at any cost has never secured peace, but subjugation.  And endless talking to those who have agressive and violent intentions do nothing but cause those with the violent intentions to express contempt toward the endless talkers.

History is replete with examples of these points.  Why should things suddenly change now?  Negotiations can only succeed if all parties are willing to express good faith and a willingness to resolve problems with solutions that are mutually palatable.

...And if your post was in response to mine: I never said they did all I said was that I can't understand someone committing suicide over a difference of opinion. I thought I made a special point not to mention Muslims. My point is that it does the individual no good to die just to further their beliefs. If that individual believes it does, then that is beyond my understanding.

Quote:

Fundamentalism is defined as the strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles. It is not restricted to any nationality or creed. In fact the term originated in the United States. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fundamentalism&x=26&y=11

Fundamentalism is dangerous whoever practices it.

Quote:




Nobody's committing suicide in order to secure the deaths of others over evolution in those American schools that you refer to.


However, those Fox News journalists that were freed last week had to convert to Islam at gunpoint.  Imagine a pro-creation Christian in "those" American Schools going to an evolutionist and forcing him/her to embrace creation at gunpoint.

And one other point that I forgot to mention:

The ONLY schools in American that have the freedom to include or exclude evolution in their curriculum are privately funded schools.  All government schools follow the NEA guidelines which teach primary and secondary curriculums regarding evolution.  But typically in their zeal, the instructors in the primary and secondary schools tend to present the THEORIES of evolution as accepted fact.  Usually, the only students who to have been equipped to understand the difference between theories and facts in this regard tend to come from households that you may characterize as zealots.  When these students question ther veracity of the presented material, the instructors reluctantly concede the point.

Quote:

Until people realise that this is the whole point we will get nowhere.

Quote:



Uhhh, the Crusades did end.  It ended in failure after the 3rd Crusade.  The goal of the Crusades was for European Christians to wrest the control of Jerusalem from the Muslems by force.  They failed.

However, there have been other violent encounters between Christians and Muslems, such as the invasion of Eastern Europe by the Ottoman Turks, the Moors invading Spain, etc.  And now we have the violence involving islamic radicals.  What we have today cannot be construed at a continuation of the Crusades.

Quote:

Winners write history, losers have to swallow anything the winner writes about them. No side came out clean handed, heroes or not.

---

Quote:

OK gonna list all 4 crusades and the factions involved. Dont forget that there was probably even less unity at the Muslim side of the conflict than on the Christian side...

Turks means Turkic here...
1st crusade:
Participants

Seljuk Turks (Sunni Turks) controlling turkey and large parts of Syria. Fighting not only against the crusaders but also with their three own factions

Fatimids (Shia Arabs) Just captured Jersualem from the Seljuks

Crusaders: France, Germany, Italy, Byzantines
Results:
Mass murder of Jews and almost the total population of Jerusalem killed.

2nd crusade
Mainly Seljuks against Crusaders. Resulted in the capture of Damascus, but some important strongholds on the southeastern coast of what is now Turkey were lost.

3rd crusade
Fatimids getting in trouble with the Seljuks who want to take Egypt. Things are getting interesting here now.
Fatimids getting really scared after the Seljuks lay siege to Cairo. They ask for and get help from the (Christian) king of Jerusalem. Seljuks raid Antioch to get the Crusaders attention. After the raid both armies retreat to their territories.
Second invasion attempt, same story, Seljuks retreating to Alexandria. After that success for some reason the Crusader king breaks his alliance and attacks the city where they gained a victory the last time. Seljuks and Fatimids unite against the crusaders.
Logically after that unity the Fatimid commander is found guilty of treason and killed. The succeeding head of state of the combined nation dies a few weeks later and is succeeded by Saladin. Remember that even while he is the ruler of both Seljuk and Fatimid territory now, Saladin does NOT have full control over all his forces (being a Sunni)

For a while there were very few hostilities, but internal conflicts at the Crusaders side (piracy and raids on Haji caravans by some of the factions)finally angered Saladin so much that he decided to get rid of the crusader kingdom.

After killing almost the whole Crusader army in a desert battle he marched on Jerusalem, laid siege to the city which eventually gave up. Saladin agreed on a sum to pay for each inhabitant alive. The sum was paid partially by the crusaders and by Saladin himself, allowing all the surviving inhabitants to leave the city unharmed

4th crusade
For the record... they never got past Byzantium after they laid siege to the city when denied access....

Rest of the crusades is totally out of context, but there was one where there was a short period of Christian control over Jerusalem.

---

OK now Spain (especially for dcunning as he's talking BS here Quote:

Moors invading Spain, etc

)
Basically there was a civil war there, in which one of the factions decided to take a chance and form an alliance with the Arabs. The first wave could land unnoticed as the locals thought that they were mere traders.

After that recon mission the main force landed (1700 arab soldiers + 12000 of the spanish commander), which eventually managed to win a battle in which they were outnumbered. With the Spanish (Catholic Visigoth) king killed there wasn't much to stop further invasion. Eventually it became independent of its African roots, and at that time was one of the richest areas in europe.

Most interesting fact about that period in history is that often Jewish soldiers fought alongside the Arab soldiers against the Christian (read: Catholic) armies. Also there were large groups of jews that went to Al-Andalus in that time. The situation got worse when the Berber invasions started...

And the aftermath...

Saladin eventually became an Arabic icon, even though he wasn't an Arab at all.

Shia branch was pushed to the outskirts of the Arab empire, with some small concentrations left in the area once under control of the Fatimids (that's why Saudi Arabia has a grudge against Iran, as the Saudis claim that Iran is inciting civil unrest in the Shia areas on the eastern coast). This whole thing should be seen in context of the Quoran... as every faction claimed his right by alleged family links to certain Imams and such, being with the wrong faction could be seen as high treason.

Al-Andalus was reconquered with much bloodshed, ethnic cleansing and the other usual war stuff that happens when religion is involved

My pieces come from the detail texts on the individual crusades.

And if you actaully take the time to read the Al Andalus article you get a much more balanced view.

The wikipedia article you bring up here is the literature definition from the 1800s, which makes the word Moors a general denominator for north africans in general.

Anyway... gonna summarize it ONE MORE TIME
After the Visigoth king dies, the Al Andalus kingdom eventually becomes a mixed society (that's why i talk about 'Berber invasions), which is culturally different compared to the area where the 'arab' (actually Berbers and Ethiopians) came from. Only after the african faction decides to enlarge its influence again (probably jealous about the wealth of their spanish neighbours) they start harassing the other religions followers after they invade the iberian peninsula.

And ontopic now
What most people forget is that the majority of the Sunni population doesn't share ANY of the ideas that are part of the Al Qaeda philosophy (Wahhabism), except the anti-americanism.

Shias hate them because the Wahhabbites see them as heretics.
Most Sunnis don't share their extremist views on society either, as they conflict with their local / regional / national customs.

And the most troubling thing about it is that the whole thing was 'invented' by a british spy who wanted the saudis to topple the ottoman empite...

Very interesting. I've had a quick search & found several accounts of the Moors being invited to Spain. It's difficult to know how reliable these accounts are & if there's any substance to them. Here's one example. http://digital.library.upenn.edu/women/eagle/congress/cantrell.html
Quote:

In some accounts Roderic impregnated Cava, Count Julian's daughter.

Quote:

That's about the gist of it. http://history-world.org/history_of_spain6.htm

Quote:

Most profound.