The Commercialization of Tragedy: Why I dislike September 11th [Archive]

uniquinous

09-11-2006, 04:59 PM

Let's break this down a bit...

We have memorial day to celebrate our veterans who die in war would you like to ignore that holiday as well?...is... this a holiday now?

A tragedy like 9/11 has never occured in the the history of the US. There has been terrorist and the like, but nothing as large as 9/11. We were attacked on our soil, by foreign people.You think this has never occured before? :huh: Perhaps it hasn't in *your* short life, but you are kidding yourself if you think America has never been attacked by "foreign people". Terrorist attacks happen more frequently then you know (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html). Pearl Harbor, the attack of innocent Americans just sitting around, killed just as many people as 9/11. Oh right, their deaths don't mean as much because they were sitting around on large expensive equipment which got bombed to bits.

So civilians have never been attacked on American soil, eh? Revolutionary war was just... well apprently that doesn't count. And the 200,000 farmers with pitchforks of the Civil war was from us so that must be insignificant... Spanish American War: useless by your standards I guess... I suppose the 13,283 dead in the Mexican American War doesn't count either...

So um... at what point does one human life, working in a business complex, hold more weight then someone sitting around on a navy base or wanting to just be left at peace? At what point do 2819 American lives outweigh hundreds of thousands of genocide victims in Darfur or other places?

Lemme just give you the answer: because you look, dress, and act just like the people who died in the world trade center, and it makes you a whole lot more scared for yourself then compared to someone who isn't as much like you are.

But hell, you're right, it was SOOOO long ago, lets forget all about it. Hell, lets forget the 4th of July too, no need to bother with that silly tradition anymore, it was even longer ago.Actually you are reversing my point. I'm saying we are overshadowing the significant stepping stones in our history with what would otherwise be insignificant. Our independance? Large milestone. Honoring our veterans? Worthwhile. Tremendous scams and false pride which got a lot MORE Americans killed then the actual attack? Crap.

Okay, it's great that you don't care about 9/11 but other people do. Trying to belittle just makes you look like an asshole. Okay, so you're mad at the media for doing whatever it is their doing. STOP WATCHING THE MEDIA! Don't come complaining here.Don't put words in my mouth, and my complaint is about facing a problem not ignoring it. Your solution of "shut your eyes real tight and go away" doesn't much address the problem, now does it? Heck, if no one ever posted things here that might be controversial, we wouldn't need forums at all. So sorry, I won't be going anywhere. State your opinions and counterexamples and DEAL with me being here. Else you can take your own advice and go away if it's too much to handle.

Serge

09-11-2006, 04:59 PM

Watch the South Park episodes about 9/11.

mushroom_girl

09-11-2006, 05:30 PM

I watched the special on channel 2 last night. The documentary about firemen that turned into 9/11 footage of being trapped under the rubble and being with the firemen of one house. It was really amazing how those guys just jumped right into the action...but it was depressing.

We talked today about that stupid conspiracy. Some kid in my class believes it, and I went off on him. He watched the anti-loose change when he got home, and called me to apoligise. We also talked about our personal stories.

The whole day was actually a very appropriate one. We had 2 moments of silence, and talked about many other topics.

I don't see why it shouldn't be a day of mourning. A lot of people were hurt by it. And even though people are hurt by driving and smoking, etc...doesn't mean that this day isn't special. It was an attack on america, not just those people there.

So go ahead and say that it's enough already, but until they construct something in its place, it won't calm down.

Put the towers back up!

VAMP7

09-11-2006, 05:32 PM

why so they can knock them back down?

All the saftey featurs that were supposed to help failed so why but new ones in.
leave it down and forget about it.

The Pirate

09-11-2006, 05:34 PM

VAMP7 - They are constructing the Freedom Tower. Read up on it.

Hellblazer

09-11-2006, 05:36 PM

mushroom_girl

09-11-2006, 05:54 PM

why so they can knock them back down?

All the saftey featurs that were supposed to help failed so why but new ones in.
leave it down and forget about it.
It's amazing that it stood for so long, especially with the impact. And no, the security features did amazing, considering that they weren't designed for that kind of impact.

Rebuild the towers, and don't let people work on the really high floors. It'd be a big "F-YOU!" to the terrorists. Seriously, think of the message that would send if they just put them right back.

Hellblazer

09-11-2006, 05:58 PM

It's amazing that it stood for so long, especially with the impact. And no, the security features did amazing, considering that they weren't designed for that kind of impact.

Rebuild the towers, and don't let people work on the really high floors. It'd be a big "F-YOU!" to the terrorists. Seriously, think of the message that would send if they just put them right back.

That'd say, pretty much, "Look how lazy we are. We waited five years, basically doing nothing, flitting around an idea of building a 'freedom tower' and then we decided to piss you off again and build a new target for you. Have fun!"

TakeOffYourPant

09-11-2006, 05:58 PM

I will start with a disclaimer: I appologize to whoever this upsets - I don't intend pain upon anyone.

This date, even half a decade after the event, has been grossly blown out of proportion. 2819 people died, 5 years ago. From that we get media sales, hollywood hits, documentaries, credit card deals, TV specials, conspiracy theories, and the continued retardation of our current president, to name a few.

Two thousand eight hundred and nineteen people.

Let's put this number in perspective, really.

2819
1200 people die every day from smoking
153,000 people die every day
2669 Americans died in Iraq
19900 Americans wounded in Iraq
10,000,000 people were killed in the holocaust (not counting open war casualities)

2819 is a pinprick for America - it's a splinter. It stings, it sucks, but you pull it out, let things rebuild, learn from it, and move on. Instead we get this blind sense of national pride and rage. It sends people off to fight senselessly while following a leader too stupid to realize The mission was never and WILL never be accomplished.

We stand by idly as genocide occurs in the world, but we get all up in arms because of a pinprick that happened half a decade ago. Spare me the senseless commercialization, advertisements, movies, deals, "memorial packages", schemes, and scams. It was tragic, but we don't need to be constnatly blinded with this overbearing sense of pride that's being stuffed down our tiny throats.

Enough is enough already.

Bro i am not american, and i have nothing with this, but my opinion is, the problem is not really the fact, it could just have die none, but the form how it happened, the strategy they had to get a airplane and just explode it in the world trade center, the impact it makes understand, it means like, if they have strategy enough to take a airplane and just destroy it in world trade center, what mutiple form of how to kill much people, and make much impact they have in their hands.

mushroom_girl

09-11-2006, 06:00 PM

That'd say, pretty much, "Look how lazy we are. We waited five years, basically doing nothing, flitting around an idea of building a 'freedom tower' and then we decided to piss you off again and build a new target for you. Have fun!"
Umm...no, it wouldn't. It'd say "look, you're not going to stop us from having what we want there. Bitches."

Oh, one more thing that pisses me off...the mayor of New Orleans saying "It's been 5 years and you still haven't fixed that hole in the ground."

I want to punch that guy. Not only did everyone around pitch-in and help out, but they got the bulk of it cleaned up pretty fast.

Jerk.

Hellblazer

09-11-2006, 06:03 PM

Umm...no, it wouldn't. It'd say "look, you're not going to stop us from having what we want there. Bitches."

Oh, one more thing that pisses me off...the mayor of New Orleans saying "It's been 5 years and you still haven't fixed that hole in the ground."

I want to punch that guy. Not only did everyone around pitch-in and help out, but they got the bulk of it cleaned up pretty fast.

Jerk.

It still looks pretty crappy. No, not as bad, but when you think about how a foundation for the Freedom Tower could be there already after 5 years, then yes, he's partially correct.

mushroom_girl

09-11-2006, 06:03 PM

It still looks pretty crappy. No, not as bad, but when you think about how a foundation for the Freedom Tower could be there already after 5 years, then yes, he's partially correct.
Have you ever been to Ground Zero yourself?

Buster

09-11-2006, 06:10 PM

Why is this blowen out or proportion?

Lets take a look at New York...

First with whats in New York:

New York has many shops, which could of been damaged,
New York has many people, which could of been killed,
New York is where the UN meets.

So this may not of only been an attack on the towers, maybe it was an attack on the shops, the people, the UN, and the towers, but this misson was messed up.

Now lets look at how many people live in New York:

In 2000 the est. was 18,976,457. Now think of how many people could of been in New York, this is just a number off the top of my head, but Im going to say 2,000.

So thats about 18,978,457 people that could been attacked or some yeah know could of been.

So yeah 2819 people died, but... thats 2819 more people that should not of died that day.

Now yes there have been alot of things blowen out or proportion.... but think of ever thing in this world.... Just as an example Christmas... I mean really: http://www.christmas.com/

But now lets think.... beside money being waste did something bad happen on Christmas? No, but something did on 9/11, so it does need some respect.

So yeahs I say respect, but is this blowing out or proportion really respect, I guess thats for you to deside.

Me I have to say, some remembrances, even if its not in the must just of ways, is better then forgetting, just because you want to.

|ReNeGaDe|

09-11-2006, 06:10 PM

Have you ever been to Ground Zero yourself?

Yes :p

Hellblazer

09-11-2006, 06:11 PM

Have you ever been to Ground Zero yourself?

Yes, about a year ago. The majority is cleaned up, but there's still stuff there.

The Pirate

09-11-2006, 06:12 PM

Yeah, uniq! This is a good 9/11 thread. I mean, it really shouldn't be enforced like it is. Do you see anyone making a huge deal about how horrible WW II was, for example? No! So why continue this trend about 9/11 in the media? Just let us remember it and leave it at that.

November 11- Veterans Day
Date changes- Memorial Day
June 6- D-Day
September 2- VJ Day
September 14- POW/MIA Recognition Day
September 17: POW/MIA Day
May 1- Yom HaShoah ( I may be wrong on the day, it is Nissan 27 in the Hebrew calender)

shatterstar

09-11-2006, 06:14 PM

why so they can knock them back down?

All the saftey featurs that were supposed to help failed so why but new ones in.
leave it down and forget about it.

wrong. wrong. wrong. thats giving in to the terror of the event. that one act has made you afraid of making progress. building an identical pair of twin towers is a perfect way of showing the finger to whoever did this.

Bro i am not american, and i have nothing with this, but my opinion is, the problem is not really the fact, it could just have die none, but the form how it happened, the strategy they had to get a airplane and just explode it in the world trade center, the impact it makes understand, it means like, if they have strategy enough to take a airplane and just destroy it in world trade center, what mutiple form of how to kill much people, and make much impact they have in their hands.

agreed. the sheer ballsy nature of the plan is incredible.
Umm...no, it wouldn't. It'd say "look, you're not going to stop us from having what we want there. Bitches."

Oh, one more thing that pisses me off...the mayor of New Orleans saying "It's been 5 years and you still haven't fixed that hole in the ground."

I want to punch that guy. Not only did everyone around pitch-in and help out, but they got the bulk of it cleaned up pretty fast.

Jerk.

what is he saying, albeit in a more jeff-like manner, that you didnt say in your first line? i dont think he's talking about cleaning up the rubble. fine, it got cleaned, everyone pitched in, all that jazz. then what? has everyone been cowed? has the spirit been crushed so hard that 5 years on there is nothing but tears? i would have thought new twin towers would be up 4 years ago.

Hellblazer

09-11-2006, 06:14 PM

November 11- Veterans Day
Date changes- Memorial Day
June 6- D-Day
September 2- VJ Day
September 14- POW/MIA Recognition Day
September 17: POW/MIA Day

And yet those aren't blown out of proportion, You must pay closer attention to the argument at hand before jumping in, m'kay?

Jeffery

09-11-2006, 06:16 PM

mushroom_girl

09-11-2006, 06:18 PM

Yes, about a year ago. The majority is cleaned up, but there's still stuff there.
Look at what you said. "The majority is cleaned up."

It's going to take a long time to get it completely cleaned. Everyone knew that. Bush even said it in his speech on 9/11.

Everyone knew it would take a long time. Don't complain about that. What they should be doing is making a better plan than the freedom tower. I really don't like it.

Hellblazer

09-11-2006, 06:27 PM

Look at what you said. "The majority is cleaned up."

It's going to take a long time to get it completely cleaned. Everyone knew that. Bush even said it in his speech on 9/11.

Everyone knew it would take a long time. Don't complain about that. What they should be doing is making a better plan than the freedom tower. I really don't like it.

Well putting up the twin towers again instead of the freedom tower is the same thing. Both would take a long time considering how fast our government moves these days.
By majority, I meant the large stuff. All that little stuff has to be hauled out still in order for anything to be built there.

The Pirate

09-11-2006, 06:32 PM

And yet those aren't blown out of proportion, You must pay closer attention to the argument at hand before jumping in, m'kay?

Really?
Last time I checked I got the day off Veterans Day and Memorial Day.
Every year on D Day the television has programs about what happened over 40 years ago.
VJ Day is celebrated around the world for the end to the worst war in history. 9/11 is only in the US.
Holocaust Recognition Day (Yom HaShoah) - Is a NATIONAL Holiday in Isreal. 9/11 is not a National Holiday.

I quoted your previous post, therefore I was at the arguement at hand.

Mushroom_girl - what do you think is wrong or bad about the Freedom Tower?

Well putting up the twin towers again instead of the freedom tower is the same thing. Both would take a long time considering how fast our government moves these days.
By majority, I meant the large stuff. All that little stuff has to be hauled out still in order for anything to be built there.

Freedom Tower has NOTHING to do with the government. Construction began in April this year, and the final plans for the tower were unveiled only around two months ago. The tower is expected to be finished in 2011.

5 years for a building that is 1,776 feet high, is not slow.

You may want to know a little bit about an argument at hand before jumping in, m'kay? ;-)

Hellblazer

09-11-2006, 06:34 PM

Really?
Last time I checked I got the day off Veterans Day and Memorial Day.
Every year on D Day the television has programs about what happened over 40 years ago.
VJ Day is celebrated around the world for the end to the worst war in history. 9/11 is only in the US.
Holocaust Recognition Day (Yom HaShoah) - Is a NATIONAL Holiday in Isreal. 9/11 is not a National Holiday.

I quoted your previous post, therefore I was at the arguement at hand.

Mushroom_girl - what do you think is wrong or bad about the Freedom Tower?

Yes, holidays, blah blah blah. Those holidays aren't drilled into our brains like 9/11 currently is.
And, yes, technically Buch instituted "Patriot Day" on 9/11.

The Coder

09-11-2006, 06:38 PM

I was actually expecting my school to do something special, because our county was hit by a plane.

My friend actually animated a plane hitting a building today...

The Pirate

09-11-2006, 06:51 PM

Yes, holidays, blah blah blah. Those holidays aren't drilled into our brains like 9/11 currently is.
And, yes, technically Buch instituted "Patriot Day" on 9/11.

9/11 was 5 years ago. It is relevant.
"Patriot Day" only works if the President issues a proclaimation on that year, also the "holiday" itself is only lowering all flags halfway. The overblown part is not part of the "holiday" itself, but Americans selling the idea to eachother.

Hellblazer

09-11-2006, 06:54 PM

Freedom Tower has NOTHING to do with the government. Construction began in April this year, and the final plans for the tower were unveiled only around two months ago. The tower is expected to be finished in 2011.

5 years for a building that is 1,776 feet high, is not slow.

You may want to know a little bit about an argument at hand before jumping in, m'kay? ;-)

Really? The construction has nothing to do with the government? Well, the actual, manual-labor construction doesn't, but the government of New York sure as hell had something to do with the plans and such.

Construction began in April? You mean the end of clearing out that sh*thole began in April. So, for a building that was unveiled only two months ago, yes, that is a long time. Higher-ups knew exactly what was going to be built there before the unveiling. There should have been no debris left on the site so they could have gotten started on the foundation straight away.
2011 my a**. At this rate it looks more like 2013 at least...

Oh, and that's real cute usuing my words against me. Eat them.

Edit: @ Ach: Hey, man, isn't it apparent I have respect for the event but not the government's involvement in getting other plans going? Nice neg. It really makes no sense at all and contradicts itself. I have nothing against those who died, just those who are or aren't doing anything.

deleryn

09-11-2006, 06:55 PM

For some reason, this makes me think of the way people always say, "They don't make men like they used to." or, "I had to walk uphill 5 miles in the snow both ways to get to school when I was young." For a lot of people, this is their generation. People in a generation have to have a special reason for doing things the way they do and want to associate the pride they have in being able to complain about paying 3$ a gallon for gas and getting ripped off by clinical psychologists.

I think a lot of people are going to associate 9/11 with their generation a lot like people associated WW2 or Vietnam or whatever with theirs. At least when you're smoking you're making a conscious decision to do something bad for you. These people didn't have any idea that their lives would be taken by a group who think that an average American is part of a "Great Satan".

I also think my opinions have more merit because they're shorter. Argue all you want but they're my opinions and they're shorter than some and they certainly have some attractive qualities because of that. I'm disgusted too with some of the stuff I see but that's how capitalism works. If you think Bush is trying to get free popularity for the Republican party, would any other president in his/her right mind want to directly deny the American majority something they want to see?

Hellblazer, I don't have to read anything. It's a free country! :p
La-la-lalala-la, la-lala-lala. Wait. Did I just say Allah? :confused: :lol:

Hellblazer

09-11-2006, 06:56 PM

Hellblazer, I don't have to read anything. It's a free country! :p
La-la-lalala-la, la-lala-lala. Wait. Did I just say Allah? :confused: :lol:

Huh?

deleryn

09-11-2006, 06:58 PM

Huh?

You said somewheres that people shouldn't just jump in this thread without reading all of the posts by the boring masses of lamewads. I did. Screw you. :bigsmile:

The Pirate

09-11-2006, 07:11 PM

Really? The construction has nothing to do with the government? Well, the actual, manual-labor construction doesn't, but the government of New York sure as hell had something to do with the plans and such.
Nice way to change from talking about federal government to city government. All the city government had to do is approve plans, then there is Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Which I know you were not talking about when you said the government is slow), then the rest is basically Larry Silverstein (basically the owner),David Childs (architect), and and those working under them.

Construction began in April? You mean the end of clearing out that sh*thole began in April. So, for a building that was unveiled only two months ago, yes, that is a long time. Higher-ups knew exactly what was going to be built there before the unveiling.

Dude.
Final plan was unveiled about two months ago which is not long ago. Construction did start in April, and that has nothing to do with the government.
Higher ups drew the plans and discussed them, saying they knew about them before unveiling them is just about as obvious as saying "you thought before you posted [that is assuming your post was worth billions of dollars only if you thought first.]".

There should have been no debris left on the site so they could have gotten started on the foundation straight away.
2011 my a**. At this rate it looks more like 2013 at least...

What I have said can be backed up by many sources. I want to know where your claims of being slow come from.

russian

09-11-2006, 07:16 PM

. . .this thread swallows and Osama Sucks, err shut up Richard.

Lord Achilles

09-11-2006, 07:22 PM

I agree with Uniq's point (to an extent), but not with the approach he/she/it took.

Uniq, you're right in the sense that the amount of people lost is like pulling a single hair from a head. There's no doubt there. I just think your delivery may have been a bit too harsh. Just imagine you lost someone that day. Sure, people have lost people in MUCH larger scale tragedies... WWII for example. But the reason this one is so sensitive was because, well, we knew when our sons went off to war, they could die. This was more or less - I wake up, go buy my morning coffee, get to the office, turn on the computer, get crushed and burnt to death by a hunk of flaming steel. It was unexpected, there was nothing in the back of our minds that thought "I could lose him today, in such a dangerous setting." It just happened. Not to mention this wasn't a war on a distant battlefield, or on some high sea - it was in our homes and lives.

I do agree that it's bullshit how much the media is exploiting this. But in a different sense. There is no doubt that this is the worst act of terrorism the US has ever seen, and the worst attack on American soil ever seen. When I look back on the eleventh of September, 2001, I want to say I stood tall and didn't bow down to the faceless cowards who attacked us. I want to remember how brave I was. But instead, the media is STILL going "oohhh, the hearts of the nation are broken. Come cry with us."

No.

What was your initial reaction to 9/11? When you got home, and saw on your TV that the towers had collapsed as a result of a terrrorist act, did you say "oh my, that's so sad. I'm going to go mourn." No, you said "THOSE MOTHERBUTTERS."

I was NOT sad. I was LIVID PISSED and wanted to go out and kill whoever did this.

Why focus on the sadness of this? We're past that. Or at least we should be. Honor the people who died, don't mourn them. They died gloriously.
And honor them on your own. If my dad dies, I don't want it on TV every year.

Remember the anger, and look back on that knowing you stood tall, wondering where dad kept his .22 to find you some terrorists.

Serge

09-11-2006, 07:31 PM

I swear, the first time Ach ever ate Cheerios, Santa Claus must have pissed in them.

russian

09-11-2006, 07:32 PM

Remember the anger, and look back on that knowing you stood tall, wondering where dad kept his .22 to find you some terrorists.

Your anger is ordinary.

Buster

09-11-2006, 07:42 PM

PSST, please READ a thread before replying to it. No one has said it should be ignored. No one has said it should be forgotten about. What HAS been said is that it should not be exploited the way it has been by the media or by private companies.

PLEASE, next time you reply, try and read the thread first.

I did read the thread, I got to the point at the bottom of that post. :cool:

ThinkTank

09-11-2006, 07:46 PM

Uniquin is a computer. :eek:

BaxVarlet

09-11-2006, 07:55 PM

...is... this a holiday now?

No, but this strenghtens my point. It hasn't been blown out of proportion in the way your first post makes it out to be because it is NOT a holiday.

You think this has never occured before? :huh: Perhaps it hasn't in *your* short life, but you are kidding yourself if you think America has never been attacked by "foreign people". Terrorist attacks happen more frequently then you know (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html). Pearl Harbor, the attack of innocent Americans just sitting around, killed just as many people as 9/11. Oh right, their deaths don't mean as much because they were sitting around on large expensive equipment which got bombed to bits.

Your little personal attacks aside...
Pearl Harbor was not like 9/11. Pearl Harbor was a military location, the Twin Towers were not. There was a world war happening when Pearl Harbor happened, there was no when 9/11 happened. They are not the same thing. They were both horrible, but not the same thing. And tuck you, I didn't say their deaths were less important, what an assholish thing for you to say.

So civilians have never been attacked on American soil, eh? Revolutionary war was just... well apprently that doesn't count. And the 200,000 farmers with pitchforks of the Civil war was from us so that must be insignificant... Spanish American War: useless by your standards I guess... I suppose the 13,283 dead in the Mexican American War doesn't count either...

WARS! They were doing goddamn wars. And no, before you quote me in saying people who die in war are less important, I DON'T/HAVEN'T said it. 9/11 was not during a jucking war, so therefore it's different. As far as I'm concerned, people should still be mourning Pearl Harbor and other awful incidents in our history, and some people do.

So um... at what point does one human life, working in a business complex, hold more weight then someone sitting around on a navy base or wanting to just be left at peace? At what point do 2819 American lives outweigh hundreds of thousands of genocide victims in Darfur or other places?

They don't. But you have to expect Americans to mourn over American deaths. People die every second of every day, you can't mourn them all. That may seem harsh, but it's true.

Lemme just give you the answer: because you look, dress, and act just like the people who died in the world trade center, and it makes you a whole lot more scared for yourself then compared to someone who isn't as much like you are.

Again, puck you, I didn't say any of that shit.

Actually you are reversing my point. I'm saying we are overshadowing the significant stepping stones in our history with what would otherwise be insignificant. Our independance? Large milestone. Honoring our veterans? Worthwhile. Tremendous scams and false pride which got a lot MORE Americans killed then the actual attack? Crap.

So you're saying that because we're mourning 9/11, we've automatically forgotten the war in Iraq? No seriously, what is your point there? If you're saying we shouldn't honor the deaths at 9/11 I disagree with you.

Don't put words in my mouth, and my complaint is about facing a problem not ignoring it. Your solution of "shut your eyes real tight and go away" doesn't much address the problem, now does it?

What am I pretending that didn't happen? Media retardedness, I'm well aware of that. Am I ignoring the significance of 9/11, no that would be you. What exactly is your problem with 9/11? That is overshadows the war in Iraq? I'm quite capable of dealing with both issues at the same time.

Heck, if no one ever posted things here that might be controversial, we wouldn't need forums at all. So sorry, I won't be going anywhere. State your opinions and counterexamples and DEAL with me being here. Else you can take your own advice and go away if it's too much to handle.

I agree, didn't mean to think otherwise. You posted your opinion, I posted mine, yes that is how forums work. I don't want you go anywhere, I'm just addressing my opposite opinion to yours, if you think that means I want you to leave, I guess you're free to your opinion.

R G

09-11-2006, 08:04 PM

Two thousand eight hundred and nineteen people.

Let's put this number in perspective, really.

2819
1200 people die every day from smoking
153,000 people die every day
2669 Americans died in Iraq
19900 Americans wounded in Iraq
10,000,000 people were killed in the holocaust (not counting open war casualities)

Let me put this in perspective for you...
-1200 people die every day from smoking despite knowing that smoking kills for several decades now - hard for me to feel any remorse or tears for a bucnh of idiots who contribute to their own death
-153000 people die every day and probally more than that are born...it is the natural cycle of life what is your point
-2669 American died in Iraq - you failed to mention Afganistan and Pakistan
-19900 people were wounded in Iraq - many more than that were injured doing working at their job in the boarders of USA within that period of time
-10 million people were killed in the holocaust - this is the only think you got right in this post....these unfortunate people and the people that were killed in 9/11 died at the hands of someone else...citizens just like you and I.

2819 is a pinprick for America - it's a splinter. It stings, it sucks, but you pull it out, let things rebuild, learn from it, and move on. Instead we get this blind sense of national pride and rage. It sends people off to fight senselessly while following a leader too stupid to realize The mission was never and WILL never be accomplished.

No...it was a time to wake up and realize what http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=warnings
had been ignored for way too long by an inept admistration way before our current President ever took office...

9/11 was not the end...it is just the precurssor of things to come as long as there are Islamic radicals who will stop at nothing to kill in the name of Mohommad and to be rewarded with their 40 virgins for being a martyr in their jihad.

Hellblazer

09-11-2006, 08:12 PM

Nice way to change from talking about federal government to city government. All the city government had to do is approve plans, then there is Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Which I know you were not talking about when you said the government is slow), then the rest is basically Larry Silverstein (basically the owner),David Childs (architect), and and those working under them.

Um, you might want to note that I never actually said the word "federal", just government.
Yes, sure, most of the planning, according to you, is apparently not done by the government. Fine.

Dude.
Final plan was unveiled about two months ago which is not long ago. Construction did start in April, and that has nothing to do with the government.
Higher ups drew the plans and discussed them, saying they knew about them before unveiling them is just about as obvious as saying "you thought before you posted [that is assuming your post was worth billions of dollars only if you thought first.]".

Non, no, no. I was talking about the fact that they probably had the plans done before the unveiling, at least a bit of time's worth before. They could have started then. I'm just wondering why it's taken five whole years to even get started.

What I have said can be backed up by many sources. I want to know where your claims of being slow come from.
Well, that's simple logic. Five years+no work during them=slow in my opinion.

Jeffery

09-11-2006, 08:20 PM

What was your initial reaction to 9/11? When you got home, and saw on your TV that the towers had collapsed as a result of a terrrorist act, did you say "oh my, that's so sad. I'm going to go mourn." No, you said "THOSE MOTHERS."

My reaction was "Oh shit, I better go gas up my truck." And I did.

uniquinous

09-11-2006, 08:32 PM

I don't see why it shouldn't be a day of mourning. A lot of people were hurt by it. And even though people are hurt by driving and smoking, etc...doesn't mean that this day isn't special. It was an attack on america, not just those people there.
Yes, let it be a day or mourning. Mourning does NOT involve full media coverage. Mourning does NOT need a hollywood movie. And mourning CERTAINLY DOES NOT need to be advertised.

The whole day was actually a very appropriate one. We had 2 moments of silence, and talked about many other topics. I find this interesting - the first one wasn't enough? The origins of a Moment of Silence came from religeon in order to use that time to reflect and meditate on life. In fact, my college, founded on Quaker values, still uses this self-reflection today in everyday meetings. Anyway, the point is self-reflection. I wonder how many grade school students knew and used it as such.

Regarding Hellblazer and Pirate: If we used *half* our war efforts/manpower to rebuild New York City instead of march off and kill some other country's innocent civillians in the exact same terror tactics they used on us (but somehow we were justified?), things would have been done by now - no matter WHAT they wanted to complete.

Just imagine you lost someone that day.
See this is my point in a nutshell: if *I* lost someone that day, I would be PISSED at the media. I dislike what they are doing now but if someone actually tried to PROFFIT from the death of my loved one, I would want you to forcibly use every single one of those shiny weapons you have Ach. I would want to sue the crap out of them - anything, just to ensure they let the dead die already. You can share mourning with close loved ones, and you can share empathy with distant strangers. The reverse is not true, and yet this is what the media and hollywood is forcing. I think you agreed with me on this point further in your post.

Does anyone here think the constant replaying of the video is HELPING anyone who lost a loved one in those buildings?

When I look back on the eleventh of September, 2001, I want to say I stood tall and didn't bow down to the faceless cowards who attacked us. I want to remember how brave I was. But instead, the media is STILL going "oohhh, the hearts of the nation are broken. Come cry with us."

No.

What was your initial reaction to 9/11? When you got home, and saw on your TV that the towers had collapsed as a result of a terrrorist act, did you say "oh my, that's so sad. I'm going to go mourn." No, you said "THOSE MOTHERFUCKERS."

I was NOT sad. I was LIVID PISSED and wanted to go out and kill whoever did this.
Actually, my thoughts were "that is so sad".

I didn't get blinded with sadness nor blinded with anger. People would start sizing up my Indian friend because he wore a turbin. India! Not some crazed Muslim from Iraq! People were ignorant, dumb, and blinded by their stupidity.

You don't need to break down with the rest of the nation as the media suggests, but *bravery* is not a matter of getting pissed either. Bravery is NOT about getting even. Bravery is neither patriotism nor profit; not pride nor sorrow.

"Bravery is the capacity to perform properly even when scared half to death.” -Bradley

Bravery is about not letting TERRORism TERRORize. The minute you allow fear to stop your life, the second you begin to hate blindly, then they have already succeeded in their goal, and you are no better then they are.

"There will be more wars until men grow brave enough to stop them"
~unknown

Hellblazer

09-11-2006, 08:35 PM

Lord Achilles

09-11-2006, 08:43 PM

See this is my point in a nutshell: if *I* lost someone that day, I would be PISSED at the media. I dislike what they are doing now but if someone actually tried to PROFFIT from the death of my loved one, I would want you to forcibly use every single one of those shiny weapons you have Ach. I would want to sue the crap out of them - anything, just to ensure they let the dead die already. You can share mourning with close loved ones, and you can share empathy with distant strangers. The reverse is not true, and yet this is what the media and hollywood is forcing. I think you agreed with me on this point further in your post.

Does anyone here think the constant replaying of the video is HELPING anyone who lost a loved one in those buildings?

No no no no no no nooo. You misunderstood. I totally agree with you, I said that in my post. I think it's stupid and ironic. They have programs and documentaries to help cope, by showing everyone they're mourning die? That doesn't make sense. They need to stop - I agree.
My point was that I do agree, I just believe that your delivery of your point was a little too harsh.

Actually, my thoughts were "that is so sad".

I didn't get blinded with sadness nor blinded with anger. People would start sizing up my Indian friend because he wore a turbin. India! Not some crazed Muslim from Iraq! People were ignorant, dumb, and blinded by their stupidity.

You don't need to break down with the rest of the nation as the media suggests, but *bravery* is not a matter of getting pissed either. Bravery is NOT about getting even. Bravery is neither patriotism nor profit; not pride nor sorrow.

"Bravery is the capacity to perform properly even when scared half to death.” -Bradley

Bravery is about not letting TERRORism TERRORize. The minute you allow fear to stop your life, the second you begin to hate blindly, then they have already succeeded in their goal, and you are no better then they are.

"There will be more wars until men grow brave enough to stop them"
~unknown

When I said anger, I didn't mean go out and commit senseless hate crimbs against anyone who looks like they're from the middle east. I meant be angry by choice, to not fall apart and wallow in the morbid effects the terrorists left on us. I refused to lay down and weep, because that was their goal. To tear us apart. I wanted to be angry at them, and I refused to bow down to what they wanted to accomplish.
My point was - if they're going to exploit anything, at least don't make it the replaying of those who died, but rather those who lived on.

uniquinous

09-11-2006, 08:58 PM

Pearl Harbor was not like 9/11. Pearl Harbor was a military location, the Twin Towers were not. There was a world war happening when Pearl Harbor happened, there was no when 9/11 happened. They are not the same thing. They were both horrible, but not the same thing. And nuck you, I didn't say their deaths were less important, what an assholish thing for you to say.Yes, they were exactly the same thing. America WAS NOT participating in World War II. We had not gone to war. A war was going on, elsewhere in the world, which we were not a part of. Then, out of nowhere, we got bombed. Innocent men, women, and children died, simply because they were on a base during "peace time", as far as America was concerned. On the very next day, Congress approved of America's entry into the war. SIMILARLY, many people died in 9/11 from an unseen attack which pulled us into a war against the people who attacked us. They were the same, except 9/11 didn't take out our finest military equipment in the process. About the same number of people died in both cases. Will you continue to say they are not the same?

Lemme just give you the answer: because you look, dress, and act just like the people who died in the world trade center, and it makes you a whole lot more scared for yourself then compared to someone who isn't as much like you are.
Again, puck you, I didn't say any of that shit.Actually, that's EXACTLY what you said:
you have to expect Americans to mourn over American deaths. You mourn them more because they look, talk, dress, and act, just like you, and that scares you, that it hit so close to you. Whether you realize that's what is inherent in your quote or not, it actually is the underlying psychology.

Let me put this in perspective for you...Well done RG, you've managed to completly miss the point via semantics and minor corrections which have nothing to do with my meaning. I'm not asking you to be remorseful for those who smoke, the normal death rate, etc etc. It really doesn't matter that I didn't type "Afganistan and Pakistan" to get my point across. And you are sadly mistaken if you think the victims of the holocaust didn't die "at the hands of someone else...citizens just like you and I" (as you say) I'm saying a ton of deaths happen every day, many of which we have the technology and the ability to drastically reduce, but don't.

We as a society allow for smoking, despite the 1200/day death toll.
We as a society have the technology to have cars drive themselves. But heck, installing sensors all over the roads and in every car would cost too much money and THAT holds more weight then all the drunk or poor drivers in the world.

My point is that these 2819 deaths, compared to the grand scheme of things on a daily basis, are actually very small, and otherwise blown out of proportion from the media. Attack that point, not the insignificant details of my supporting evidence, please.

Ach - sorry for the misread - I agree with you.

mantis33

09-11-2006, 09:06 PM

Wow, uniq seems to be making a lot of friends in this thread. :rolleyes:

Well, I'm a conservative so you should already know my position on this.

ThinkTank

09-11-2006, 09:08 PM

Wow, uniq seems to be making a lot of friends in this thread. :rolleyes:

Well, I'm a conservative so you should already know my position on this.

I love you.

BaxVarlet

09-11-2006, 09:27 PM

uniquinous

09-11-2006, 09:27 PM

It's a debate - people disagree. The question is whether people can disagree, state their points, and continue on unaffected, or if a little discourse creates that much trouble that people can't handle it.

I didn't start this thread to make friends - that's not what I'm here for. I'm here for intelligent discussion.

Serge

09-11-2006, 09:29 PM

Uniq, Pearl Harbor and 9/11 ARE DIFFERENT! Sure, there are some similarities, but there are a lot of differences as well.

You can use all the lucking psycho-shit you want. I don't mucking value American life over non-American life. All Americans should be more concerned about 9/11 it was a tucking wake up call.

Because you infer that i'm rucking more "scared" because white middle class people were killed, instead of someone across the globe doesn't make it true, and is in fact very insulting to me.
You should be insulted. You're a racist, classist, nationalist, piece of garbage. You don't care that thousands of "foreigners" die every day. They don't look like you, big kcufing deal, but when blonde-haired blue-eyed americans die, the world is supposed to slob our knob, even five years later.

BaxVarlet

09-11-2006, 09:31 PM

You should be insulted. You're a racist, classist, nationalist, piece of garbage. You don't care that thousands of "foreigners" die every day. They don't look like you, big kcufing deal, but when blonde-haired blue-eyed americans die, the world is supposed to slob our knob, even five years later.

What the spuck are you talking about? I'm not a racist/classist/nationalist.

No one bucking wants the whole world to mourn for 9/11.

Duffman

09-11-2006, 09:34 PM

I wonder if they have moments of silence in Iraq for the 44000 civilians (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/) that have been killed because of military intervention there. Probably not.

Although since America intervened and removed Saddam Hussein, Iraq's media and bloomed and they have a lot more media outlets. Over 200 newspapers in March 2004 compared to just six when Saddam was in power. Even though they are considered to have a heavy pro-American bias and are always targeted by insurgents maybe they will get the quality media that will allow them to be informed of all the horrific acts of violence happening to their country and in particular, to their news writers.

Oh god what are we doing.

R G

09-11-2006, 09:35 PM

Yes, they were exactly the same thing. America WAS NOT participating in World War II. We had not gone to war. A war was going on, elsewhere in the world, which we were not a part of. Then, out of nowhere, we got bombed. Innocent men, women, and children died, simply because they were on a base during "peace time", as far as America was concerned. On the very next day, Congress approved of America's entry into the war. SIMILARLY, many people died in 9/11 from an unseen attack which pulled us into a war against the people who attacked us. They were the same, except 9/11 didn't take out our finest military equipment in the process. About the same number of people died in both cases. Will you continue to say they are not the same?

If Bax don't say it I will. They were different in many regards.

Before Pearl Harbor we were not officially entered in the war but were were assisting way before our official entry into it.

You have completely ignored the fact that Pearl Harbor is and was a military target with very large strategic benefits at the time in the Pacific. If the Japanese had concentracted on the fuel depots things in the Pacific could have been alot different than what eventually happened.

The World Trade Center and Pentagon were striked for nothing more than a target of terror for the benefit of Islam as a religion.

Well done RG, you've managed to completly miss the point via semantics and minor corrections which have nothing to do with my meaning. I'm not asking you to be remorseful for those who smoke, the normal death rate, etc etc. It really doesn't matter that I didn't type "Afganistan and Pakistan" to get my point across. And you are sadly mistaken if you think the victims of the holocaust didn't die "at the hands of someone else...citizens just like you and I" (as you say) I'm saying a ton of deaths happen every day, many of which we have the technology and the ability to drastically reduce, but don't.

Yes but you use your lame points in an attempt to belittle a tragic event...

You can go back and read my holocaust statement. I said that is the only thing you got right...as those poor souls were innocent beings too.

We as a society allow for smoking, despite the 1200/day death toll.
We as a society have the technology to have cars drive themselves. But heck, installing sensors all over the roads and in every car would cost too much money and THAT holds more weight then all the drunk or poor drivers in the world.

My point is that these 2819 deaths, compared to the grand scheme of things on a daily basis, are actually very small, and otherwise blown out of proportion from the media. Attack that point, not the insignificant details of my supporting evidence, please.

So you think this is over huh? You think that religious radicals like those that piloted the airplanes in to the building and into the fields are all happy now and will just go away as soon as the US and their Allies leave Iraq and Afganistan?

The sad thing is that this religious war started before 9/11...how soon people forget about the first attempt of trying to topple the World Trade Center...or all of the other terrorist things that have gone on...http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=warnings all the while going relatively unnoticed with very little attention....Terrorist love people like you Uniq...the people that say forget about it...no big deal...just a prick in the finger as you put it...we need to talk things out...it's not a big deal...

How many people have to die before it's a big deal? Ten Thousand? A Hundred Thousand? A Million?

Trust me this is just the beginning...That prick in the finger will lead to Heads lopped off if it goes unchecked...time to wake up.

Serge

09-11-2006, 09:36 PM

They don't. But you have to expect Americans to mourn over American deaths. People die every second of every day, you can't mourn them all. That may seem harsh, but it's true.

Here, you valued the lives of Americans over non-Americans.

That makes you classist/racist/nationalist.

Your thing about Pearl Harbor being different. At the time that Pearl Harbor happened the US wasn't officially involved in WWII yet. That attack was just as unexpected.

Pre-Emptive: The US was unofficially involved in several wars across the world when 9/11 happened.

uniquinous

09-11-2006, 09:39 PM

Uniq, Pearl Harbor and 9/11 ARE DIFFERENT! Sure, there are some similarities, but there are a lot of differences as well.You keep saying it is different but you don't say how or why. It was two groups of people going about their business not involved with nor expecting any war acts that both got attacked out of "the blue". Please elaborate on why you think they are different?

You can use all the lucking psycho-shit you want. I don't mucking value American life over non-American life. All Americans should be more concerned about 9/11 it was a tucking wake up call. I'd ask you to calm down but that would just piss you off more. So instead I'll tell you to at the very least keep in mind the age groups that read these things, please. My point is that this day allows for emotion to blind action, and I don't think you want to prove me right. Yes, all Americans should have been concerned with 9/11. Yes it WAS a wake up call, but my alarm doesn't last for 5 years. You saying you don't value American lives more then non-Americans directly contradicts your previous statement of "you have to expect Americans to mourn over American deaths". You see this directly implies that Americans (or more specifically, you) will not mourn over non-American deaths as much. If this weren't the case, if all things WERE equal, this statement wouldn't stress American deaths at all, and would reduce down to "you have to expect Americans to mourn over ALL deaths". It's not "psyho-shit" - it's how your brain works.

Because you infer that i'm rucking more "scared" because white middle class people were killed, instead of someone across the globe doesn't make it true, and is in fact very insulting to me.If I called you a coward for disliking gay squirrels, you wouldn't get upset at this. Why? Because it's completely false and absolutely nothing of it hits home with you. You are very clearly upset at the accusation. I'm not saying you're a bad person for that fear - it's the very same fear which captivated most of America. "oh shit if it happened to this random white middle class person it could happen to anyone!" It's how terrorism works. So I'm not pointing fingers at you and calling you dumb or a coward - I'm just saying... what they did, worked on you, for all the things you've shown thus far, and your continued demonstration of cursing very clearly shows that I'm hitting close to home because there's some sense of truth. I'm sorry I upset you, but that's just how terrorism works, and that's what you're displaying.

BaxVarlet

09-11-2006, 09:39 PM

Here, you valued the lives of Americans over non-Americans.

That makes you classist/racist/nationalist.

You understand nothing, this makes you a dumbass.

I was smucking talking about most americans. They don't mourn everyone who dies, but they do mourn when Americans die.

By your logic, you're also a yucking racist. How dare YOU not mourn everyone who dies!

As for my personal views on mourning the dead. I do NOT look at any physical characteristic of those who have died. You say I do again and you will just be spouting flowers out of your behind, again.

Your thing about Pearl Harbor being different. At the time that Pearl Harbor happened the US wasn't officially involved in WWII yet. That attack was just as unexpected.

Pre-Emptive: The US was unofficially involved in several wars across the world when 9/11 happened.

No bother arguing this point anymore. It is historically proven that in fact, these too events are different things.

TakeOffYourPant

09-11-2006, 09:39 PM

Uniq you have kind a limited and could vision to the fact, it is kind you just see the numbers of people that died, and you campare to like people who die smoking, but the fact is not it, the fact is, Someone keep a big airplane with people in, pass for all the segurance of the airport, act in the airplane and just destroy it in somewhere, you know the power of destruction that airplane have, you know the power of inteligence you need to have to pass for airport police, you know the perfect strategy you need to have to take a airplane while it is plaining, and the exactly sense you need to have to pilot it exactly to world trade center. The point is, if someone can use all the strategy and powers and skills that i have told, they for sure can make a pretty bigger destruction.

For Example, first semester of this year (or maybe now in the begging of the second) 2 airplanes that would plan from londres to new york, would be victims of terrorist again, and the destruction would be pretty greater, since they had a plan to destroy the airplane at ocean, so they could get a bigger space of destruction. Dude, can you see the difficult of all of that, you can see how they have to work and thinking about it for like years. There is the problem, the problem is not the 11 september, the problem is the strategy and consequences that 11 september can bring FOR THE FUTURE.

EDIT : 69 posts ;))

BaxVarlet

09-11-2006, 09:42 PM

You see this directly implies that Americans (or more specifically, you)

This is XUCKING WRONG. God damnit.

You want me to go through and show you every single minute difference between the two events? too bad, I'm not going to waste my time. In fact this will be my last post on these forums. Not worth it anymore.

Peace.

Serge

09-11-2006, 09:45 PM

You understand nothing, this makes you a dumbass.

I was smucking talking about most americans. They don't mourn everyone who dies, but they do mourn when Americans die.

By your logic, you're also a yucking racist. How dare YOU not mourn everyone who dies!

As for my personal views on mourning the dead. I do NOT look at any physical characteristic of those who have died. You say I do again and you will just be spouting flowers out of your behind, again.

No bother arguing this point anymore. It is historically proven that in fact, these too events are different things.
I'm not a racist, I don't mourn the deaths of people I don't know regardless of race. Actually, the only death I've ever felt sad about was the death of my 1st grade teacher who was a different race than me.

Anyway, I won't call you racist, you still value a random American more than a random non-American.

How many of the people on those planes or in those towers were rapists? bigots? child/spouse abusers?

Serge

09-11-2006, 09:46 PM

Way to go, eunoch.

Scare him off before I got my turn.

uniquinous

09-11-2006, 09:50 PM

Before Pearl Harbor we were not officially entered in the war but were were assisting way before our official entry into it. Lemme get this straight - you are claiming that bombing the crap out of a country that has not declared war is justified because they are offering relief and aid to those in need? :confused: By that logix we should start bombing the UN right away! Now tell me, do you really think America had absolutel no involvement in other countries at the time of 9/11? Do you not know *WHY* these radicals BOMBED us in the first place?

The World Trade Center and Pentagon were striked for nothing more than a target of terror for the benefit of Islam as a religion.Wait wait wait - you're saying they bombed the PENTAGON, the headquarters of the United States Department of Defense, the very SYMBOL of our military, for nothing more then terror? It... couldn't have *anything* to do with a strategical hit to our defense, much like Pearl Harbor? :huh:

So you think this is over huh? You think that religious radicals like those that piloted the airplanes in to the building and into the fields are all happy now and will just go away as soon as the US and their Allies leave Iraq and Afganistan? Actually you are the first person in this entire thread to mention things being over. No one has said that. No one.

Furthermore, no one is saying "forget about it". I've mentioned several times now that we need to LEARN from this and MOVE ON. Media exploitation does not help us to that goal.

How many people have to die before it's a big deal? Ten Thousand? A Hundred Thousand? A Million?

Trust me this is just the beginning...That prick in the finger will lead to Heads lopped off if it goes unchecked...time to wake up.
This is a poor slippery slope argument. We HAVE woken up, we ARE smarter, and no one is neglecting the defense of this country by allowing the dead to die (or at the very least, let those who lost people on that day deal with their grief in their own methods). In short: it is not the layperson getting false pride stuffed down his throat that will determine whether we can defend ourself in the future. Accountants in Jersey, farmers in Texas, real estate owners in Nebraska, do not benefit from this constant thorn of a reminder.

Serge

09-11-2006, 10:10 PM

This is KCUFING WRONG. God damnit.

You want me to go through and show you every single minute difference between the two events? too bad, I'm not going to waste my time. In fact this will be my last post on these forums. Not worth it anymore.

Peace.

Well, at least there was one good result of 9/11/01.

The Pirate

09-11-2006, 10:20 PM

Um, you might want to note that I never actually said the word "federal", just government.
Yes, sure, most of the planning, according to you, is apparently not done by the government. Fine.

Haha! Since you didn't say federal doesn't mean you didn't mean it. I think it is obvious you were talking about the federal government. If you weren't please start explaining how New York state, county, or city government is slow.

Most of the planning? It is a private business! The government does butt in and go "Hey nice design rich man, but since your last famously large building was blown up we are going to design your next one for you!"
The guy got a 99 year lease in July 2001 and made billions of dollars of insurance when the buildigs blew up a few months later. The guy wants more money, he is a business man. A new patriotic building is going to make him tons of money, not the government[taxes are a different matter].

Non, no, no. I was talking about the fact that they probably had the plans done before the unveiling, at least a bit of time's worth before. They could have started then. I'm just wondering why it's taken five whole years to even get started.
No duh! Unveiling means realease to the public! Who wants to see final plans that are not completed? The architect would be fired.
The did start before the unveiled the final plans! They started construction in April. . . final plans released in July!

Now seriously. Why would you think it would take five years to start building a 1,776 feet building on Ground Zero? Hmmm. Maybe, because for a while it was being cleaned up and investigated?! Hmmm, maybe the investors wanted to think about risking billions of dollars a little bit before starting building another momumental skyscrapper in the lot that has been attack repeatedly?

Well, that's simple logic. Five years+no work during them=slow in my opinion.

Your equation is off.

Five years - cleaning - investigation - investors anaylzing + lots of work from many many people = decent rate.

R G

09-11-2006, 10:23 PM

Lemme get this straight - you are claiming that bombing the crap out of a country that has not declared war is justified because they are offering relief and aid to those in need? :confused: By that logix we should start bombing the UN right away! Now tell me, do you really think America had absolutel no involvement in other countries at the time of 9/11? Do you not know *WHY* these radicals BOMBED us in the first place?

No I was just pointing out that despite the fact that we were not officially entered into WWII we were heavily involved already and Germany and Japan figured it would just be a matter of time before we actually entered the war.

Wait wait wait - you're saying they bombed the PENTAGON, the headquarters of the United States Department of Defense, the very SYMBOL of our military, for nothing more then terror? It... couldn't have *anything* to do with a strategical hit to our defense, much like Pearl Harbor? :huh:

Yep that is what I am saying...Anyone would be very naive to think that all the brass in the military is housed in that one building. Even if everyone in the Pentagon died the military would have kept on ticking....

Guess you never seen the Pentagon...lol It covers many acres of land and for many years was the largest office complex in the world and a concrete hardened structure. One airplane running into it is not going to do much damage....also remember according to evidence that the Pentagon was not the original target. I think it was the White House or Capital first. The sole purpose of the attacks were symbolizms to scare....Think about it....World Trade Center....Pentagon...Capital...White House...You think it was a coincidense that United and American airlines were used rather than Delta or Airtran or Comair or some other irrelevant name carrier was not used? I am sure if there was an Airline called States Air it would have been used too.

Actually you are the first person in this entire thread to mention things being over. No one has said that. No one.

Furthermore, no one is saying "forget about it". I've mentioned several times now that we need to LEARN from this and MOVE ON. Media exploitation does not help us to that goal.

Moving on does not help us to keep our guard up to prevent something like this happening again...

This is a poor slippery slope argument. We HAVE woken up, we ARE smarter, and no one is neglecting the defense of this country by allowing the dead to die (or at the very least, let those who lost people on that day deal with their grief in their own methods). In short: it is not the layperson getting false pride stuffed down his throat that will determine whether we can defend ourself in the future. Accountants in Jersey, farmers in Texas, real estate owners in Nebraska, do not benefit from this constant thorn of a reminder.

I would like to think that we have woken up and that we have learned from this event...but as time passes so do people memory.

I don't think it is a slippery slope argument at all...Again the question how many people have to loose their life before it is not considered "a prick in the finger" as you put it or just take one for the team? You started the thread Uniq...to belittle the loss of life now tell me how many people have to die before it is important or significant in your eyes.

The Pirate

09-11-2006, 10:26 PM

Regarding Hellblazer and Pirate: If we used *half* our war efforts/manpower to rebuild New York City instead of march off and kill some other country's innocent civillians in the exact same terror tactics they used on us (but somehow we were justified?), things would have been done by now - no matter WHAT they wanted to complete.Boo-sha.

A) That is not agreeing with you.
B) Saddam used terror tactics on his own people.
C) Afganistan and Iraq would be under harsh rule, and not under a developing democracy that they have today.
D) I think you meant Boo-ya[?]

shatterstar

09-11-2006, 10:33 PM

No I was just pointing out that despite the fact that we were not officially entered into WWII we were heavily involved already and Germany and Japan figured it would just be a matter of time before we actually entered the war.
As the US was at this point in various flashpoints all over the world and especially the gulf.
at both times, attacks on US soil had not impinged on the general public's thoughts. both had a common "wtf, WE were attacked", effect.

Moving on does not help us to keep our guard up to prevent something like this happening again...
You are confusing moving on and forgetting about it. 2 different things. moving on means learning from an incident, honoring the memory of those fallen by ensuring that such a thing never happens again. its a spiritual and cultural change that will take decades to complete. the end of the cold war marked the point when the world truly moved on from the effects of WWII.

moving on most certainly does not include murdering other innocent civilians in return and having an out-control disproportionate sob-fest once a year.

I don't think it is a slippery slope argument at all...Again the question how many people have to loose their life before it is not considered "a prick in the finger" as you put it or just take one for the team? You started the thread Uniq...to belittle the loss of life now tell me how many people have to die before it is important or significant in your eyes.

we have said it repeatedly in both threads. noone is trivializing the lives lost. in fact what we are saying is that this media frenzy and contrived 'mourning' once a year is an insult to the memory of those who lost their lives in 9/11 as well as those all over who lose their lives to injustice and prejudice but are not deemed profitable enough to be a story.

R G

09-11-2006, 10:36 PM

Originally Posted by uniquinous
Regarding Hellblazer and Pirate: If we used *half* our war efforts/manpower to rebuild New York City instead of march off and kill some other country's innocent civillians in the exact same terror tactics they used on us (but somehow we were justified?), things would have been done by now - no matter WHAT they wanted to complete.

The innocent civilians you mention are those that are planting the road side bombs are the ones actually shooting back? I know that some innocent civilians have been killed, sadly though that is part of war(vast improvement from firebombing entire cities though).

Wait Wait...We used the exact same terror tactics on them as they used on us? I don't remember ramming planes full of people into buildings full of people...Oh do tell...*Pulls up a chair*

shatterstar

09-11-2006, 10:41 PM

either you are an idiot or are being intentionally obtuse.

planes were rammed into buildings and people were killed with the intention of frightening (aka terrorizing) the US into doing a number of things, starting with forcing them out of the israeli alliance. they most certainly didnt do it because mcdonalds makes godawful food.

now the US is invading countries and people are being killed with the intention of stopping terrorism being conducted on the US. ad are you saying that if a hypothetical attack on 9/11 had lasted years americans would not have fougtht back and stayed innocent victims.

notice two things:
1. the similiarities.
2. the vicious cycle.

R G

09-11-2006, 10:43 PM

we have said it repeatedly in both threads. noone is trivializing the lives lost. in fact what we are saying is that this media frenzy and contrived 'mourning' once a year is an insult to the memory of those who lost their lives in 9/11 as well as those all over who lose their lives to injustice and prejudice but are not deemed profitable enough to be a story.

This thread was created with the intent of nothing more than trivializing the event...comparing innocent death with smokers...a prick on the finger...Go back and read the thread again.

R G

09-11-2006, 10:48 PM

Duffman

09-11-2006, 10:51 PM

Timeline.
--
America goes into agreement with Iraq, selling them bio-weapons and WMD's

America influences the two militarist groups (Kurds and Shi'ites) to rebel against Saddam.

Saddam uses his 'harsh rule' and the weapons America sold him to kill rebels.

America puts sanctions on Iraq with the idea of getting Iraq to get Saddam out of power.

Hundreds of thousands of people die from common disease and dirty water which were unable to be cured because of sanctions.

Islam extremists attack World Trade center.

America invades killing thousands more civilians. Reason: To get back the WMD's they sold to Iraq now they have shown they might fight back.
--

Soldiers target terrorists? Guck, they miss a lot.

Daemon Bloodmaw

09-11-2006, 10:51 PM

*attempts to get back to the original topic*

Here is my take on all of this.

What happened was terrible, it really was. All civilians, all heading off in planes to do whatever aspect of their lives, visiting their family, business, whatnot. We should mourn it, we should feel a bit sad, a bit empathetic. We shouldn't be afraid, we should be pissed. I can remember sitting in class and listening to people's parents pull them out of school because they were afraid, and in the 7th grade, I remember thinking that was ridiculous. I was jealous, because I was in Spanish class. But I also knew that I was pretty damn safe in school.

What I find more terrible is the number of movies produced about the flight, the towers, the disasters, all of that. Which is what I believe was the original topic, that Hollywood is exploiting 9/11. I refuse to watch movies that are reinactments of something that terrible. It's desecration. I'd be livid if it was my family they showed on one of those movies.

But the rest of you have your heads so far stuck up your asses and are too busy bickering to acknowledge that, and you ought to be ashamed. Each and every last one of you who turned this into some stupid argument.

You can look at 9/11 from a lot of ways. My personal view is this: Don't take anything for granted. It was a reminder that we're not as invincible as we like to think, and something of a wakeup call that the world isn't such a nice place.

Edit: This shouldn't be about the god damn war. It should be about the people who died.

shatterstar

09-11-2006, 10:54 PM

I quote uniq's 1st post again for your benefit.

This date, even half a decade after the event, has been grossly blown out of proportion. 2819 people died, 5 years ago. From that we get media sales, hollywood hits, documentaries, credit card deals, TV specials, conspiracy theories, and the continued retardation of our current president, to name a few.

Two thousand eight hundred and nineteen people.

Let's put this number in perspective, really.

2819
1200 people die every day from smoking
153,000 people die every day
2669 Americans died in Iraq
19900 Americans wounded in Iraq
10,000,000 people were killed in the holocaust (not counting open war casualities)

2819 is a pinprick for America - it's a splinter. It stings, it sucks, but you pull it out, let things rebuild, learn from it, and move on. Instead we get this blind sense of national pride and rage. It sends people off to fight senselessly while following a leader too stupid to realize The mission was never and WILL never be accomplished.

We stand by idly as genocide occurs in the world, but we get all up in arms because of a pinprick that happened half a decade ago. Spare me the senseless commercialization, advertisements, movies, deals, "memorial packages", schemes, and scams. It was tragic, but we don't need to be constnatly blinded with this overbearing sense of pride that's being stuffed down our tiny throats.

Enough is enough already.

I would like to point out several things to you:

This date, even half a decade after the event, has been grossly blown out of proportion.

that means that as bad as 9/11 was, this frenzy of contrived mourning is both over-the-top and just plain wrong.

Two thousand eight hundred and nineteen people.
Let's put this number in perspective, really.

2819
1200 people die every day from smoking
153,000 people die every day
2669 Americans died in Iraq
19900 Americans wounded in Iraq
10,000,000 people were killed in the holocaust (not counting open war casualities)

lets put this number in perspective - that does not mean saying '2819 is a nothing number and not worth thinking about". that means "the number is large, but there are far far larger cruelties and injustices that have happened and are going on even now.

by rights the 50k people who died in turkey in an earthquae should be mourned by a year. deaths are deaths. saying that 9/11's deaths are worse because either a) they were american or b) they were terrorist attacks are both extremely parochial.

2819 is a pinprick for America - it's a splinter. It stings, it sucks, but you pull it out, let things rebuild, learn from it, and move on. Instead we get this blind sense of national pride and rage. It sends people off to fight senselessly while following a leader too stupid to realize The mission was never and WILL never be accomplished.
this is the linchpin of our argument. see my previous post. i can get more eloquent than that.

We stand by idly as genocide occurs in the world, but we get all up in arms because of a pinprick that happened half a decade ago. Spare me the senseless commercialization, advertisements, movies, deals, "memorial packages", schemes, and scams. It was tragic, but we don't need to be constnatly blinded with this overbearing sense of pride that's being stuffed down our tiny throats.

comes back to the first point. enough of this self-pitying misery. change the world.

You failed to point out the differences too...Terrorist target innocent people and Soldiers target terrorists...

terrorists are a tiny minority of the total population. if that were not true, this good green world we call him would a radioactive rock.
or are you calling entire countries terrorists now? i certainly would like to think there's a difference between the peope who did 9/11 and people who are fighting back against what, in their view, are invaders.

remember this, there is a justification for every kind of violence. in my view anyone who kills another human being without his own life being threatened (sometimes even then) is a murderer.

edit: daemon, you're right. this argument isn't appropriate. i never wanted to get in but some things needed to be said. im done.

meat.eater

09-11-2006, 11:11 PM

This date, even half a decade after the event, has been grossly blown out of proportion. 2819 people died, 5 years ago. From that we get media sales, hollywood hits, documentaries, credit card deals, TV specials, conspiracy theories, and the continued retardation of our current president, to name a few.

Two thousand eight hundred and nineteen people.

Let's put this number in perspective, really.

2819
1200 people die every day from smoking
153,000 people die every day
2669 Americans died in Iraq
19900 Americans wounded in Iraq
10,000,000 people were killed in the holocaust (not counting open war casualities)

2819 is a pinprick for America - it's a splinter. It stings, it sucks, but you pull it out, let things rebuild, learn from it, and move on. Instead we get this blind sense of national pride and rage. It sends people off to fight senselessly while following a leader too stupid to realize The mission was never and WILL never be accomplished.

We stand by idly as genocide occurs in the world, but we get all up in arms because of a pinprick that happened half a decade ago. Spare me the senseless commercialization, advertisements, movies, deals, "memorial packages", schemes, and scams. It was tragic, but we don't need to be constnatly blinded with this overbearing sense of pride that's being stuffed down our tiny throats.

Enough is enough already.

Yes. Let's put this into perspective. Wonderful idea.

1 person is one life.
1 life is one addition to our nation.
1 addition to our nation is something to be proud of.
2819 of those additions died.

If you compare 9/11 to other events, as you have done, be sure to be fair about it.

-People die from smoking because of personal choice. Nobody chose to get terrorized.
-People die every day. Congratulations, yes they do. There's also 7 billion of them and more are born each day than die.
-Yes, people die in war. There was no draft. The men in the military were asked to do their duty. We're not wronging anyone.
-Same answer.
- I dont think there is a single person who doesnt think the Holocaust was the worst show of human-caused events (arguably the crusades) in modern history.

Yeah. You're right. It stings. Goddamn well should. 2819 (which seems to be a number you're fond of saying frequently) innocent people died in a tragedy, an awful tragedy. Just because there are other tragedies should not and does not dwarf the terror that the united states felt on that day. Dont compare it. You lived through it. Dont compare it.

Furthermore, these terrorist attacks didnt just kill 2819 people. It also terrorized 300,000 people. Is that number big enough? Yeah, the media makes money off of shit like this, but what doesnt the media make money off of? Just because there's media involvement doesnt dwarf the tradegy. Do I think other war-time attacks and disasters around the world are painful also? Absolutely! I've sent money to Indonesia, New Orleans and the military. Can I directly relate to it? No, I havent lived it. I lived 9/11. I felt that sense of emptyness and "terror." Dont say my feelings should be forgotten, or we should move on from them. If we forget about 9/11, 9/11 will happen again.

No, it's not time to "move on." 9/11 is something that will stay with me my entire life. Not negatively, but for watching firefighters save 20,000 lives (is that one big enough?). For watching this nation benefit from that national pride, and dont you dare call it fake, watching people sob in the arms of a complete stranger.

Maybe I'd be a little more sympathetic to your terrible life being exposed to the media (gasp; yeah, we see the media - learn to filter it with that divine perceptiveness you seem to be showcasing), if you hadnt exclaimed it on the very day that I, along with millions (still big enough?) of people who participated in a moment of silence for the people who died and lived that day.

I will start with a disclaimer: I appologize to whoever this upsets - I don't intend pain upon anyone.

Poor timing. Explain that disclaimer to the woman who lost her fiance, and will never know what her life would have been like without September 11th. If you want to put things in perspective, think of that plus 2819 families who's lives completely changed.

uniquinous

09-11-2006, 11:13 PM

This is XUCKING WRONG. God damnit.

You want me to go through and show you every single minute difference between the two events? too bad, I'm not going to waste my time. In fact this will be my last post on these forums. Not worth it anymore.

Peace.You say it's wrong, you say it's different. I'm not asking for every minute detail - I'm looking at the larger picture - reasons why they are so different, and NO ONE has been able to provide such things.

No I was just pointing out that despite the fact that we were not officially entered into WWII we were heavily involved already and Germany and Japan figured it would just be a matter of time before we actually entered the war.As Duffman pointed it out, we had our hand in the cookie jar in Iraq at the time as well, even moreso with much more direct devastation. With WWII we were offering aid and got bombed for it. With 9/11 our actions brought harm to people. Note the difference, and how Pearl Harbor was even LESS justified then 9/11.

Yep that is what I am saying...Anyone would be very naive to think that all the brass in the military is housed in that one building. Even if everyone in the Pentagon died the military would have kept on ticking....Are you suggesting that even after Pearl Harbor was bombed the military stopped ticking? :huh: I think you get a little too caught up on words and miss the big picture. The point: killing even THREE top generals, or even the president, does not in any way destroy our government nor military. HOWEVER, must like the bombing of a naval base (for a random example, take Pearl Harbor), it certainly does damage.

Moving on does not help us to keep our guard up to prevent something like this happening again...I'm not saying we should wipe it from the history books - I'm saying we, the public laypeople of the United States need not be constantly confronted with it - that does NOT help us prevent a recurrence, does it? If you disagree, please tell me what part of the last 9/11 movie better prepares random American civilians from dealing with such a threat in the future.

Do scams and movies improve our security? Or does intelligence? Is this information best served in the hands of military personel, or civilians?

I don't think it is a slippery slope argument at all...Again the question how many people have to loose their life before it is not considered "a prick in the finger" as you put it or just take one for the team? You started the thread Uniq...to belittle the loss of life now tell me how many people have to die before it is important or significant in your eyes.
See this is where you are wrong. This is the definition of a slippery slope argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope) - you increase numbers in hopes of proving a point where such numbers would never get that high. I could present the same but opposite slippery slope as follows: what if only 1,000 people died, or 100, or 5? How few would it need to be before people didn't blow this out of proportion? One plane just went down in the middle of nowhere, and that's always in the background compared to the other targets. Why? Slippery. Slope. The hypotheticals are moot because there is no "WHAT IF", there is WHAT HAPPENED.

This thread was created with the intent of nothing more than trivializing the event...comparing innocent death with smokers...a prick on the finger...Go back and read the thread again.
This statement is completely false. This thread was created with the intent of nothing more then trivializing the exploitation of the event... placing the context of these deaths in the grander worldview of death..."a prick on the finger...Go back and read the thread again"

meat.eater

09-11-2006, 11:23 PM

By the way, I dont disagree that the media has been exploiting the situation. But, you're letting the exploitation of the media sway you just as much as it sways others.

Argue against the media. Dont argue against the event. I'll back you with that. But what's sad is that you've allowed the media to convince you that what happened isnt a very big deal.

Realist

09-11-2006, 11:28 PM

But what's sad is that you've allowed the media to convince you that what happened isnt a very big deal.

It really isn't.

And find whatever 9/11 families you want and I'll tell it to them too.

The world's a big place, kids.

People die, it happens. It's sad when it happens. But there's a time when you've just gotta get over it. Now's the time.

drakonfire

09-11-2006, 11:28 PM

i'm gonna be silly and not read all the replies and just post my 2 cents on the matter

first let me say i have a slightly different perspective on this than most, i felt the shockwave from the Oklahoma City Bombing in my house, i was walking down the hall from the bathroom, to talk to my mom about my schoolwork (i was home schooled) and all of the sudden it was just BOOM and a rumble. my mom took me over to a friends house and she went downtown to see if she could help, a daycare had been hit and she is a pediatric nurse -- i was pretty young when all this happened, but it does give me a lot to reflect upon when i do think about it

anyway, uniq, i agree with you to a point, the commercialization disgusts me, i'm pretty sure anyone who mentioned making a movie out of the OKC bombing would have been mobbed by locals -- though that hasn't prevented us from turning the memorial into a tourist attraction

anyway, that said, i disagree with the war in iraq sucking, while i think it could have (and should have) been handled a lot better, i'm pretty sure a lot of those soldiers who died over there felt it was worth it, the war was retaliation yes, but it has also sent a message that we will not tolerate this kind of provocation, to attack a military installation that could threaten you (pearl harbor) is one thing, don't get me wrong thats not at all cool, but to hijack a civilian aircraft and then ram into into an office building is beyond wrong and we need to remember it, just like we remember pearl harbor, just like we remember our vets, we need something to hold on to, something to show future generations that we didn't forget, we did move on, but we did something about it, something so that they might feel a bit more secure, because, in my opinion, if we hadn't of done anything, even the half-arsed effort we have given, we would have been on the butt end of any number of attacks

i am not saying i agree with everything that has resulted from sept. 11th, or think bush is a great president or the war in iraq should spread to all of the middle east, i am simply stating my opinion on the matter

Daemon Bloodmaw

09-11-2006, 11:33 PM

You can be over something and still acknowledge that it was a tragedy.

Personally, 9/11 did not effect me very much. But I remember one very important thought.

Like I said, I was at school when it happened. School began just a few days ago, and we were in the auditorium getting our student handbooks and listening to the Vice Principal talking about whatever. And suddenly he takes the mic again, and he's a pretty funny, laid-back guy, and he gets real serious right before I get my handbook, and he says that the towers and pentagon have been hit by planes. And I looked at him from literally just a few feet away, cocked my head, smiled, and walked by him thinking it was some kind of a bizarre joke.

So yea, I think it's a pretty big deal if that's the way I used to think in terms of invincibility.

uniquinous

09-11-2006, 11:35 PM

-People die from smoking because of personal choice. Nobody chose to get terrorized. Nobody chooses to die from smoking either. People chose to live in a large city of a country that was antagonizing a radical movement at the time. Neither the smoker nor the businessman's death was wanted.
-People die every day. Congratulations, yes they do. There's also 7 billion of them and more are born each day than die. My point: 2819 is a small fraction of the people who die every day. The world population didn't feel 9/11 - that was the point of that statistic.
-Yes, people die in war. There was no draft. The men in the military were asked to do their duty. We're not wronging anyone. If Bush told them to start shooting each other... would that still be them just doing their duty? :dry: Mission Accomplished, right? Yeah just doing their duty by following crap intelligence... Again, the point was to show how many LIVES are LOST in a relevant manner to this topic. Any mortality statistic would have done just fine here.

Just because there are other tragedies should not and does not dwarf the terror that the united states felt on that day. Dont compare it. And why is that? 400,000 died in Darfur to date in genocide. You're saying that should not dwarf the 2000 that died here? :huh: You don't think that's the slightest bit larger and more pertinent? We can DO SOMETHING about that growing number. Yes, things do need to be compared and placed in their world perspective

Dont say my feelings should be forgotten, or we should move on from them. If we forget about 9/11, 9/11 will happen again.No one has said your feelings should be forgotten, or that we shouldn't learn from this - but you prove my point by showing how emotion and pride blind people from seeing what's actually happening. You're so quick to raise the defense you don't even know what you're defending against. This, essentially, is the same pride that drove (and still drives) America in this war.

For watching this nation benefit from that national pride, and dont you dare call it fake, watching people sob in the arms of a complete stranger. You call that pride? I call that comfort. Pride is coming together as a nation to do something benevolent in the world. False pride is banding together to fight against opposition. Terrorist talked smack bout our mommas and we went to go bust a cap in their ass. This is the "pride" of street gangs.

Maybe I'd be a little more sympathetic to your terrible life being exposed to the media...

Poor timing. Explain that disclaimer to the woman who lost her fiance, and will never know what her life would have been like without September 11th. If you want to put things in perspective, think of that plus 2819 families who's lives completely changed.Except, *I* have no harmed them. These were not my actions, and your insinuation of such again demonstrates blind emotion. Our "pride" made us quick to point fingers and attack, even tho the attack was reckless.

No, it's not MY terrible life being exposed to the constant bombardment of the media, it's that poor woman who lost her fiance. It's the families. It's not being able to grieve as they wish because some hollywood whore is making money off their misery. This thread never had any intention to belittle the grief of those who have lost someone. If your "pride" stopped you from seeing that - go back and reread.

Daemon Bloodmaw

09-11-2006, 11:40 PM

Uni, read my post at the top of the page please.

meat.eater

09-11-2006, 11:42 PM

It really isn't.

And find whatever 9/11 families you want and I'll tell it to them too.

The world's a big place, kids.

People die, it happens. It's sad when it happens. But there's a time when you've just gotta get over it. Now's the time.

Should you dwell on it and let it consume your life? Hell no. Should you forget about it? Hell no! Nobody goes through every day of the last 5 years and thinks: "wow... 9/11... how terrible..." Widows have remarried. People have payed their respects and dont dwell on it daily. Does remembering it for once day to pay your respects really qualify as "time to forget it?"

Let's put things in perspective, again.

60,000,000 years is the estimated age of the earth.
70+ years is the average human lifetime expectancy.
5 years have past since 911.

Has it really been so long? Or are you going to patronize anyone who cares to remember the morning of the 11th? I know I'll remember it every September 11th of my life, along with everyone alive during it and old enough to remember it from America. Is that wrong? It's not hurting anything. It's not making anyones life any worse. It's just human emotion. The media will die down. The memories wont. Dont discredit the memories.

uniquinous

09-11-2006, 11:46 PM

sorry I missed this one...

What I find more terrible is the number of movies produced about the flight, the towers, the disasters, all of that. Which is what I believe was the original topic, that Hollywood is exploiting 9/11. I refuse to watch movies that are reinactments of something that terrible. It's desecration. I'd be livid if it was my family they showed on one of those movies.This is really the core of my argument, but it's all media, not just movies. It's any single person who tried to benefit either financially or sociopolitically on the grief of others. And I'm not just talking about the people who were in a position that, given any other person in that position, the exact same steps would have been taken. I'm talking about people elevating themselves and going out of their way to profit from these events.

You can look at 9/11 from a lot of ways. My personal view is this: Don't take anything for granted. It was a reminder that we're not as invincible as we like to think, and something of a wakeup call that the world isn't such a nice place.Truth

Daemon Bloodmaw

09-11-2006, 11:49 PM

True, but the movies are more noticeable to me. They tend to involve all of it. Directors and producers get acclaim, actors become famous, everybody gets paid.

And now that my point has been made and seen, I'm off to bed. :)

Realist

09-11-2006, 11:54 PM

Should you forget about it?

Depends on what you mean by "forget." If it influences your life in any way beyond a simple memory or slight grief, then yeah, you should forget about it. If it inspires anger or sentimentalism, then yes, forget about it as soon as possible.

Feelings are dangerous. This is an important lesson to take from world history. Ideas are dangerous too. Feelings which inspire harmful ideas are incredibly dangerous. 9/11 has a strong potential to cause such feelings. Again, better to forget.

Memories are not objective. Feelings are not rational, and rarely helpful. Feeding yourself negative feelings over a fairly meaningless event is destructive. It clouds your vision. Open your eyes to the world as a whole, do some research about some other countries and places. Get a sense of context. Americans need it badly.

Duffman

09-12-2006, 12:01 AM

Don't polarize it too much X. Just like being overly sentimental can be dangerous, holding nothing dear would be far from ideal.

meat.eater

09-12-2006, 12:16 AM

Depends on what you mean by "forget." If it influences your life in any way beyond a simple memory or slight grief, then yeah, you should forget about it. If it inspires anger or sentimentalism, then yes, forget about it as soon as possible.

Feelings are dangerous. This is an important lesson to take from world history. Ideas are dangerous too. Feelings which inspire harmful ideas are incredibly dangerous. 9/11 has a strong potential to cause such feelings. Again, better to forget.

Memories are not objective. Feelings are not rational, and rarely helpful. Feeding yourself negative feelings over a fairly meaningless event is destructive. It clouds your vision. Open your eyes to the world as a whole, do some research about some other countries and places. Get a sense of context. Americans need it badly.

Agreed, in the sense of creating anger. But belittling a national tradegy does nothing.

Context is irrelevant when you simply remember that we were attacked. One murder, where I'm from, makes headlines. This is 2800+ murders. That's a big deal to me. You can compare everything. But fact is, everythign is relative. On September 11th, 2001, 2819 more people died then were supposed to. And thats worth the memory, the people who survived are worth the prayers, and the people who saved others are worth the respect. Thats what I thought about today. Not vengance on Terrorism. Not the war in Iraq. I thought about the people.

meat.eater

09-12-2006, 12:26 AM

Uniquin - from your points, you seem to be arguing the use of American resources, and actions resulting from 9/11. You seem to be arguing the exploitation of the media. These are valid arguments, even if i dont agree with some parts of them.

However, you've allowed your hate for these things to bleed into the event that tragically caused them, whether they were right or not. You've allowed yourself to compare 9/11 to other things, like it's just another day.

Be mad at the effects. Dont be mad at the suffering people feel and the remembrance they remark on. You've confused yourself a bit, claiming "Why I dislike 9/11."

I sincerely hope you dont disrespect 9/11 or "dislike" it. And for that reason, I am not going to argue with your asinine points against the event, in hopes that it's just transferred angst toward the effects of the event.

uniquinous

09-12-2006, 12:26 AM

Agreed, in the sense of creating anger. But belittling a national tradegy does nothing.No one's trying to belittle it tho. The realists (no pun intended) are actually just trying to put it into its actual perspective.

It's like this: you put a person's left hand into really cold water for a while, then ask them to place it in luke-warm water - it feels warm to them. Now repeat with the right hand and start with really hot water - the luke-warm water feels cold. It's a matter of perspective. Many people in this thread are red-hot over this issue, and others are luke-warm.

But fact is, everythign is relative. On September 11th, 2001, 2819 more people died then were supposed to.Yes, the fact is, everything is relative. In september 11th, 2001, tens of thousands more people died then "were supposed to", and only 2819 were from the WTC. When were they "supposed" to die? Were they SUPPOSED to die from heart disease or cancer? Alzheimers, or diabetes? A drunk driver or a mugging-gone-wrong? By Fire or by water? your powers combined.. I AM CAPTAIN PLANET!!!

meat.eater

09-12-2006, 12:34 AM

No one's trying to belittle it tho.

By comparing it to other deaths and calling it insignificant, that is the definition of belittling it.

Yes, the fact is, everything is relative. In september 11th, 2001, tens of thousands more people died then "were supposed to", and only 2819 were from the WTC. When were they "supposed" to die? Were they SUPPOSED to die from heart disease or cancer? Alzheimers, or diabetes? A drunk driver or a mugging-gone-wrong? By Fire or by water?

Unfortunately, dying of old age isnt always the case. You're comparing things that are unfair and unpredictable to something deliberate and violent toward our country! Do you not see how that is completely different?!

uniquinous

09-12-2006, 12:42 AM

By comparing it to other deaths and calling it insignificant, that is the definition of belittling it. Actually, comparing it to everything else puts it in perspective - no more larger nor smaller, but exactly in perspective. The only beLITTLING you may percieve stems from the fact that the numbers, in their actual place are LITTLE. If you can find a place where I've called a single death insignificant or worthless, please point it out. I've called this an insignificant stepping stone in our history - I think that's the closest you can get.

You're comparing things that are unfair and unpredictable to something deliberate and violent toward our country! Do you not see how that is completely different?!Are you saying this terrorist act wasn't unfair and unpredictable? :huh: It seems to me that I'm comparing one unfair and unpredictable act, with others.

Realist

09-12-2006, 01:11 AM

Context is irrelevant when you simply remember that we were attacked.

No, it isn't.

meat.eater

09-12-2006, 02:02 AM

All of the things that are addressed here (inefficiency of fear, governmental action after the attacks, media involvement after the attacks) could, and have been, addressed without bashing and disrespecting the event of of the Terrorist attacks.

I know now that the intention was not to bash 9/11 (even though the title reads "why I dislike 9/11"). Bringing these issues up, though they are valid, in this context is insulting and sickening to me. But they are the issues nonetheless. It was in poor taste in how they were presented.

With that said, these issues have been addressed before, on these forums, and I made my opinions known in those specific threads, so it's reduncant at this point.

If you want to talk about media, talk about media, not 9/11.
If you want to talk about governmental action, talk about governmental action, not 9/11.

9/11 is a touchy subject, and, though I understand now what your purpose is, the way you are stating many things alludes from your objective and presents your arguments in a way that confuse the intentions and make people think you're bashing the actual attacks.

You dont have to be required to feel anything besides sympathy, Uniquin, as you've let me know, but others, like myself, were powerfully impacted by 9/11, and we have the right to be.

So, all I can say is: be careful with your words, dont create false intentions.

EDIT:
Real - back up your arguments rather than just pointing out your basic thought - you tend to do that a lot.

DeathWish

09-12-2006, 02:07 AM

O u mods stop acting like u know stuff....

Realist

09-12-2006, 02:27 AM

Ok, meat. Well I want to talk about 9/11 itself.

And what I see is that a few thousand people died in an attack. Not particularly relevent in itself, violence and death from violence were pretty common last century and have been pretty common this century. Even so, other preventable deaths far outweighed those caused directly by violence, but we don't need to go into that at the moment.

And a few nice buildings and planes were destroyed. Ok.

If all this happened in any other country, would you care much? No, and don't say yes because you're lying. So you aren't just taking this completely out of context, you're putting it in a very specific context--the context of "America" the idea/abstract concept itself being attacked. There's a reason you call it a "national tragedy" and not a "human tragedy."

Look at what you said, and how it contradicts itself.

Agreed, in the sense of creating anger. But belittling a national tradegy does nothing.

Context is irrelevant when you simply remember that we were attacked. One murder, where I'm from, makes headlines. This is 2800+ murders. That's a big deal to me. You can compare everything. But fact is, everythign is relative. On September 11th, 2001, 2819 more people died then were supposed to. And thats worth the memory, the people who survived are worth the prayers, and the people who saved others are worth the respect. Thats what I thought about today. Not vengance on Terrorism. Not the war in Iraq. I thought about the people.

The stuff in red is particularlist American nationalist sentimentalism. The stuff in blue is universalist concern over human destruction. You seem to want it both ways. The universalist nature of death itself gives you an excuse/reason to heighten your nationalistic feelings. Yes, this is a problem. Nationalism (often referred to as patriotism in the US) is evil. Nationalism is the cause of the vast majority of the human problems of the last hundred years. So don't say all this bs 9/11 grieving is harmless, it isn't.

If it is truly correct that you only remember 9/11 because all death anywhere distrubs you, so be it. But this is simply not the case.

Hellblazer

09-12-2006, 05:22 AM

A) That is not agreeing with you.
B) Saddam used terror tactics on his own people.
C) Afganistan and Iraq would be under harsh rule, and not under a developing democracy that they have today.
D) I think you meant Boo-ya[?]

A) Yes, it mostly is getting my idea that there is a slowness on re-construction due to laziness across.
B) So? That's not what he said, he was talking about the terror tactics used on us,
C) Wow, you honestly think the war in Iraq is justified? It was for oil, in the first place. Then that idiot in the White House thought Saddam had WOMD and went along with that idea, trying to re-build something somewhere else, a government, when we could have all that man-power back here doing something like, I don't know, re-builing the Twin Towers so we can say "Pwn'd".
D) No.

uniquinous

09-12-2006, 07:41 AM

Realist is right, fully. If you want to talk about the human devastation, this pales in comparison to any other horrid act which has happened or is still happening. If you want to talk about this as "the largest and only American attack on our soil by foreigners" well, with enough meaningless specification you can make anything "the largest and only". I could say I am the most intelligent TAO mod from Jersey who owns a Boston Terrier. The fact is, when talking about this event, those specifications don't really matter.

Would it really be less devastating if the terrorists got US citizenship before blowing things up? NO - so let's not care where they are from, but rather that there was a terrorist act somewhere in the world.

What frightens people? Was it the fact that A terrorist act occured somewhere? No - the ONLY reason you feel emotion is because it happened in your country. Let's face it, if you didn't know anyone who died that day, or if you don't know any victim of the Darfur genocide, you have no reason to stop and mourn for that specific person in the same way a widow or child would.

Yet people are still frenzied about this event? Why? This is what I've been getting at. Why? Why? Why?

You're afraid.

It hit too close to home and you're afraid - not that some tragedy happened (because it's a pretty small one), but because our overinflated nationalistic pride tells us to be, for no reason. And as soon as you allow TERROR to creep in, the TERRORists succeed in their goal.

I'm not pissed at all media, I'm pissed at media regarding 9/11.
I'm not pissed at all war strategies I'm pissed at war strats of 9/11
These things MAKE this day - it's not just about people dying anymore
It's about movie deals, exploitation, etc.

Us working ourselves up EVERY YEAR over this is just the United States jerking itself off. It's the US trying to overcompensate for a small penis by showing how large and grandiose and blown out of proportion we can make everything else.

If we were satisfied with the hand that we were dealt, if we weren't trying to overcompensate for our underachievments, we would have moved on as a nation already. I think the best idea I've heard was that they should have just put up another building, just one floor higher, and gone on with life.

I send my condolenses to those who directly lost a loved one in this human tragedy, but I refuse to let TERROR run even a second of my life, especially 5 years later.

R G

09-12-2006, 07:55 AM

As Duffman pointed it out, we had our hand in the cookie jar in Iraq at the time as well, even moreso with much more direct devastation. With WWII we were offering aid and got bombed for it. With 9/11 our actions brought harm to people. Note the difference, and how Pearl Harbor was even LESS justified then 9/11.

What???:confused: You think the issues in Iraq had more to do about the destruction of World Trade Center than anything else. And by saying that Pearl Harbor was even LESS justified than 9/11 then are you stating that you feel that the events on 9/11 are more justified?? Why do you feel that innocent people dying could be more justified?

Are you suggesting that even after Pearl Harbor was bombed the military stopped ticking? :huh: I think you get a little too caught up on words and miss the big picture. The point: killing even THREE top generals, or even the president, does not in any way destroy our government nor military. HOWEVER, must like the bombing of a naval base (for a random example, take Pearl Harbor), it certainly does damage.

No Where you come up with that???but I am saying that the vast majority of the Pacific fleet was based out of Pearl Harbor...The Japanese could have controled the Pacific if their attacks were more effective.

I'm not saying we should wipe it from the history books - I'm saying we, the public laypeople of the United States need not be constantly confronted with it - that does NOT help us prevent a recurrence, does it? If you disagree, please tell me what part of the last 9/11 movie better prepares random American civilians from dealing with such a threat in the future.

It's talked about one time a year for the most part...Do you really think that is too much?

Do scams and movies improve our security? Or does intelligence? Is this information best served in the hands of military personel, or civilians?

Intelligence often can come in the form of movies and books. It just so happens that those that make those movies and books make money off of their endeavors too. I am not saying it is right...

I don't think it is a slippery slope argument at all...Again the question how many people have to loose their life before it is not considered "a prick in the finger" as you put it or just take one for the team? You started the thread Uniq...to belittle the loss of life now tell me how many people have to die before it is important or significant in your eyes.
See this is where you are wrong. This is the definition of a slippery slope argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope) - you increase numbers in hopes of proving a point where such numbers would never get that high. I could present the same but opposite slippery slope as follows: what if only 1,000 people died, or 100, or 5? How few would it need to be before people didn't blow this out of proportion? One plane just went down in the middle of nowhere, and that's always in the background compared to the other targets. Why? Slippery. Slope. The hypotheticals are moot because there is no "WHAT IF", there is WHAT HAPPENED.

Well I will answer your "Slippery Slope" question and not try to hide behind excuses as you have done.

If just one person dies at the hand of a terrorist or any other individual for that matter it is significant in my eyes. ;)

This statement is completely false. This thread was created with the intent of nothing more then trivializing the exploitation of the event... placing the context of these deaths in the grander worldview of death..."a prick on the finger...Go back and read the thread again"

But in your attempt to trivialize the exploitation you also trivialized the event itself. It is sad that you do not realize that.

terrorists are a tiny minority of the total population. if that were not true, this good green world we call him would a radioactive rock.
or are you calling entire countries terrorists now? i certainly would like to think there's a difference between the peope who did 9/11 and people who are fighting back against what, in their view, are invaders.

remember this, there is a justification for every kind of violence. in my view anyone who kills another human being without his own life being threatened (sometimes even then) is a murderer.

No I never said entire countries are terrorists...where you got that I have no idea. I will say that terrorist are more prevalent in some countries more than others though.

You are extremely naive to think that your life is not at risk by the hands of others just for the fact that you may live in America.

theburning

09-12-2006, 08:06 AM

Swartzstrom

09-12-2006, 08:13 AM

I will start with a disclaimer: I appologize to whoever this upsets - I don't intend pain upon anyone.

This date, even half a decade after the event, has been grossly blown out of proportion. 2819 people died, 5 years ago. From that we get media sales, hollywood hits, documentaries, credit card deals, TV specials, conspiracy theories, and the continued retardation of our current president, to name a few.

Two thousand eight hundred and nineteen people.

Let's put this number in perspective, really.

2819
1200 people die every day from smoking
153,000 people die every day
2669 Americans died in Iraq
19900 Americans wounded in Iraq
10,000,000 people were killed in the holocaust (not counting open war casualities)

2819 is a pinprick for America - it's a splinter. It stings, it sucks, but you pull it out, let things rebuild, learn from it, and move on. Instead we get this blind sense of national pride and rage. It sends people off to fight senselessly while following a leader too stupid to realize The mission was never and WILL never be accomplished.

We stand by idly as genocide occurs in the world, but we get all up in arms because of a pinprick that happened half a decade ago. Spare me the senseless commercialization, advertisements, movies, deals, "memorial packages", schemes, and scams. It was tragic, but we don't need to be constnatly blinded with this overbearing sense of pride that's being stuffed down our tiny throats.

Enough is enough already.

This was a bulletin on Myspace.

:dry:

Honestly, however, I agree with it. I'm not sure on the whole thing, but wasn't George Bush informed that terrorists were going to strike America? In that case, George Bush utilized the terrorist attack of 9/11 to run over to Iraq and take their oil. If my memory serves me, there was already talk of oil shortage and gas prices rising before 9/11.

shatterstar

09-12-2006, 09:39 AM

No I never said entire countries are terrorists...where you got that I have no idea. I will say that terrorist are more prevalent in some countries more than others though.

You are extremely naive to think that your life is not at risk by the hands of others just for the fact that you may live in America.

well, you said the US armed forces are killing terrorists, while the terrorists are killing innocent civiilans.

well, the truth is, in the name of fighting terrorism, the US has taken on entire countries. they have very emphatically declared war on nations, which very obviously goes above and beyond just killing terrorists. so unless you think entire countries are terrorists, i dont see how you can justify the wars as being just the 'killing of terrorists'.

I repeat, MY life, YOUR life, the life of your neighbour's cat are NOT in danger from terrorism. yes, there is a chance of being shot by some extremeist nut with a mad-on over the US, but is it greater than being run over? dying from mugging? shot by your nutty classmate? please put your fear in perspective.

yes, it is perfectly acceptable to be afraid at the time of 9/11? but now? how can you justify living in fear 5 years on?

you have given the terrorists exactly what they want. irrational fear. congratulations.

New Setup

09-12-2006, 09:59 AM

What about all the children who died, in Iraq children that never had something to do with the war, Europe Calls the Amreican for Killers, not for heros it wasn't right what maybe 100 man did or more one (Osama Bin Laden) why do people that never did something bad to America have to pay. You attacked a country, because you where thinking that they had Chemical Weapons, we all knew that wasn't the real reason and now we all now that they don't have Chemical Weapons, you just make war.

Swartzstrom

09-12-2006, 10:20 AM

uniquinous

09-12-2006, 10:42 AM

What???:confused: You think the issues in Iraq had more to do about the destruction of World Trade Center than anything else. And by saying that Pearl Harbor was even LESS justified than 9/11 then are you stating that you feel that the events on 9/11 are more justified?? Why do you feel that innocent people dying could be more justified?I'm saying a group of people have a *better* claim to do damage if they feel it is defense for the damage we have caused them, then because we are giving someone else aid. Follow me here... "better" does not mean "good". "More justified" does not mean "justified death". It means they had more reason - harm from self defense is still harm, but it's still better then harm from random assualt. Now 9/11 wasn't self defense, but we WERE doing damage to them directly with sanctions, whereas Pearl Harbor, a non-wartime base, was bombed because we were offering AID to other countries. You don't see the difference?

No Where you come up with that???but I am saying that the vast majority of the Pacific fleet was based out of Pearl Harbor...The Japanese could have controled the Pacific if their attacks were more effective.You have this way of pulling out unfounded "what if" situations in continued slippery slope arguments. You can't argue "IF attacks were more effective", you can't argue "IF thousands more died on 9/11" - you can only argue what HAPPENED.

It's talked about one time a year for the most part...Do you really think that is too much?Too much? It's the CONTENT. Movie deals opening up one time a year = too much. Heck if you make the claim "it's just something that happens once a year that's not too much" we might as well get bombed every year by that logix. It's not how often, it's how and to what extent.

Intelligence often can come in the form of movies and books.No, military intelligence which will aid in the defense of this country will NOT come in the form of movies or books. Those are the LAST sources that know anything. Military intelligence that will aid this country does not come from those sources, and it need not be held by the random layperson.

Well I will answer your "Slippery Slope" question and not try to hide behind excuses as you have done.

If just one person dies at the hand of a terrorist or any other individual for that matter it is significant in my eyes. ;) You're getting better at name-calling - now try backing it. What excuses have I been hiding behind exactly? :huh:

See it's this part of "hand of a terrorist or any individual" that kills your argument (watch, I'm going to back a claim now...). If the individual doesn't matter, you shouldn't differentiate between terrorist, and everyone else. Do you think a single death by a foreign terrorist holds any more weight then by a domestic terrorist? What about a single death by a random murder? Your differentiation of *who* kills shows that you clearly don't just care that a life was lost, but *how* it was lost. You don't care about a life lost in Darfur right now. You care about something that hits close to home.

This was a bulletin on Myspace.Really? Cuz I wrote that post myself - it wasn't taken from anywhere (I don't even use myspace). Did someone from the forums take it and run with it there? Would be amusing.

you have given the terrorists exactly what they want. irrational fear. congratulations.BINGO!

Daemon Bloodmaw

09-12-2006, 10:45 AM

Everybody seems to be making one point, that it is wrong to feel empathy just because it happened in America?

Katrina disturbed me more than the tsunami. 9/11 disturbed me more than the London bombings.

What is wrong with that? Isn't that the way it should be?

A friend of a friend is cheated on. Sucks for him.
Your friend is cheated on. Round up your buddies and kick some ass.

Some guy in another city gets robbed. Sucks for him.
Your neighbour gets robbed. Neighborhood watch.

I'm not going to feel empathetic everytime something bad happens in another country. I'll help out, but I have my own problems here in my country. I sent money to tsunami aid, but I gave more to Katrina. I don't care about starving people in Africa, but I do care about the guy freezing to death in Boston.

I'd like to think that's the way it'd be with the other people in my country. We spend too much time helping other countries while we have so many of our own problems.

Edit: Oh, fear. I don't have it. I flew about 4 days after the last terror plot was interrupted in London without so much as a single worry. I was more worried about being held up in security. Out of Logan because it was a nonstop flight, even though Providence is way better.

uniquinous

09-12-2006, 10:49 AM

But this is the exact reason I and shatterstar have very deliberately diffentiated between "people who have lost a loved one in the attack" and everyone else who just feels bad despite not losing anyone.

The former category can be placed with "Your friend is cheated on. Round up your buddies and kick some ass" and "Your neighbour gets robbed. Neighborhood watch".

Everyone else who can't stop mourning and producing movies despite no direct involvment or loss falls along with "A friend of a friend is cheated on. Sucks for him" and "Some guy in another city gets robbed. Sucks for him".

Regardless of extent, it boils down to "some people in another city had something bad happen to them." Your response: sucks for them.

shatterstar

09-12-2006, 10:57 AM

of course it will be like that. we are all only human. but even then, there are limits right?

katrina flooded a city, the tsunami killed 100k people. katrina was closer to home so it affected you more. thats fine. but how much more? should there not be a limit on how much more you are affected, which is set by the severity of the 2 incidents?
and secondly, do you let that fear and concern govern your actions 5 years on?

yes 9/11 hit close to home, be affected by it. you are human. but if you really are sincere, spare some empathy for the rest of the people around the world who are far far worse off. instead of bemoaning the loss, appreciate what you have living in such an advanced country and do your bit to make the world at peace. i dont mean to preach, but this is how i look at life from this perspective.

Daemon Bloodmaw

09-12-2006, 11:11 AM

Yup, basically.

I'm not mourning. I show my respects, like I do to any other tragedy. It was just in my backyard this time, which makes it more important to me. To be honest, yesterday was just another day for me, but I acknowledge the significance of the day.

I'm the kinda guy who's against illegal immigration, believes everybody who comes here should speak English, and thinks that the death penalty should be exacted quickly and with a shotgun. Please don't debate me on these things here, it is not the place.

But I think it's a good reference point to my own feelings on the matter. ;)

Northwind

09-12-2006, 11:13 AM

Ugh. Is there seriously no topic that cannot be turned into some internet flame-war around here? The most shocking thing about all of this to me is that despite the fact that most people posting here largely agree with each other and yet find some nit-picky point or another to argue over. Isn’t this just a (MUCH) smaller version of the divides between people that prompted both the terrorists and America’s response to the terrorists? Namely, trivializing our similarities, over-emphasizing our differences, and the demonization of the “other.” Be the change that you want to see in the world (I think Gandhi said that).

I’m gonna make some statements here. Before simply agreeing with me or telling me what an idiot I am, take some time to think about your own thoughts and whether you largely disagree or largely agree with these. Pay attention to your response. Notice if you choose some little corner of these to disagree with in order to “keep the controversy going.” It’s my contention that we consistently ignore our areas of agreement in order to focus on the areas of disagreement. This is neither healthy nor helpful.

9/11, despite being a “drop in the bucket” regarding world population, was a significant milestone in human history (note, I’m not saying just “American” history). The symbolic weight of the fact that the very heart of the most powerful nation in the world was so brazenly attacked highlighted the soft underbelly of the “first world” and overtly opened a conflict between cultures. Yes, there had been terrorist attack before these, but none of them had the brute force of the impact of the events of 9/11. It is notable to me that on the night of the attacks, the people of Iran turned out by the thousands to hold vigils for the lives lost on that day. That even people from a regime hostile to the American government should turn out of their own accord to honor our civilian dead says something about the scope of this event to the world.

The media has responded to these events by doing what they do. I’m not really gonna lose sleep over it. I didn’t want to see it, so I didn’t turn on the television yesterday. Everyone who felt likewise could have done the same. Is all this focus on 9/11 commemoration or exploitation? Probably a bit of both. I personally don’t see the harm in acknowledging the importance of this day. What would have been the alternative? Continue to show the soap operas and sitcoms? That is better . . . how? This was truly a momentous moment in history and to pretend that we, as a culture, aren’t going to acknowledge the anniversary of this moment seems naïve at best. Like it or not, this is how we commemorate things in America.

There doesn’t need to be a contest regarding tragedies. Certainly there have been situations that have resulted in a much larger loss of lives (Rwanda and Darfur to name just two). However, the simple fact is that neither of these countries was in the position that the United States is in to influence world events. This isn’t to suggest that the deaths of the people who died in those countries were any less important that those who died on 9/11, but that their counties of origin were less powerfully able to influence the world around them. This is simply acknowledging the reality of the disparity between the powers of various countries. Without even getting into whether this is good or bad, it is certainly true that more people around the world are affected by what happens in the U.S. than are affected by what happens in, say, Rwanda.

No doubt people can find plenty to quibble with regarding the above. However, I have purposely not taken a strident tone so that others could “hear” them for what they are -- my thoughts about these events. If you want to flame me for them, go ahead, but I’m not going to play that game.

It seems to me that the one really important area for people to think about and contest regards the proper RESPONSE to 9/11. This is vitally important as it directly impacts what will happen in the future. People should continue to pose questions such as: should the war in Iraq continue? How will we deal with the methodology of terror? Etc. These questions make a difference.

P.S. This thread wasn't a complete waste of bandwidth, I particularly loved this bit of comedic genius. There should have been no debris left on the site so they could have gotten started on the foundation straight away.
2011 my a**. At this rate it looks more like 2013 at least...
I had no idea they were now hiring teenage boys for engineering skyscrapers. Congrats Hellblazer on the new job! :bigsmile:

Realist

09-12-2006, 11:15 AM

It hit too close to home and you're afraid - not that some tragedy happened (because it's a pretty small one), but because our overinflated nationalistic pride tells us to be, for no reason.

Not for no reason.

Every culture needs its myths, to bring its adherents closer together, to spread its values, to induce conformity. We no longer live in tribes, but we are still tribal animals--we must replace any uniting act which would've comforted us in the olden days: a communal hunt, someone gets mauled by a tiger, a communal funeral and burial of the dead, which everyone attends, grief affects the community in entirety. The shared feelings brings them closer together and they decide to stick it out, thus enhancing the possibility of survival.

A few thousand years later, that no longer happens. We live too far away from each other to be communal in our nice American tribe. But luckily we have television to bring the death and grief into everyone's homes. So when something big happens, we can still revert to our old tribal emotions, all at the same time, with every other American we've never even met.

This is what everyone in the media was gawking about in the days following the event, oh my look everyone's so nice to each other now, everyone's closer together, everyone's united, there is a feeling of goodwill everywhere, we're all just Americans now aren't we? Yeah we are, one big tribe of clueless drones, willing to throw out all the social and intellectual advances of the last ten thousand years all to feel like part of the tribe again. All it takes is a little magnificant death, a few heroes, and a whole lot of mythmaking. Ha ha.

Luckilly that's over. But as myths are prone to do, 9/11 stays etched in our communal mind---Our National Tragedy---which affected every single one of us tribemembers, even if it didn't---which everyone felt---

I think tribalism is ingrained in our minds. It is a constant human impulse, to belong to a group greater than ourselves, an exclusivist group that we can go to for support and commonality. A group that shares our hallowed experiences. A group that shares our myths, and tells us, yes, no matter how absurd this sounds, we believe it too , so it must be true. 9/11 is a book of the American Bible, one of the most effective ones yet.

Swartzstrom

09-12-2006, 11:20 AM

Really? Cuz I wrote that post myself - it wasn't taken from anywhere (I don't even use myspace). Did someone from the forums take it and run with it there? Would be amusing.

Wait a minute-I forgot, Savanna posted it. She probably copied it and posted it as a bulletin on Myspce.

Daemon Bloodmaw

09-12-2006, 11:32 AM

Northwind took a lot of the concepts I had and put them into words. And then added some things that I didn't even begin to grasp at before.

Maybe I'm not coming off this way, but I am trying to avoid sounding argumental, since arguments are what prompted me to post in the first place. Keeping a calm tone with my posts. :)

shatterstar

09-12-2006, 11:46 AM

aye, i agree with northy (seeing the big picture as always) and daemon. i apologize if i sounded argumentative or flamed anyone, it was not my intention.

Northwind

09-12-2006, 12:52 PM

Look at all the agreement around here!

Now let's all hold hands and sing! :)

Repeat after me: Kum ba yah, my Lord, Kum ba yah . . .

Everybody now!

Realist

09-12-2006, 01:15 PM

It's pretty easy to agree with most of what NW said since everything after the second paragraph can be summed up as: Lots of people think 9/11 is important because the dominant nation of the world was attacked, something that hadn't happened in a long time.

Oh really? Yes, this is a true fact, most people indeed do think that. And you know what? You're correct that pretty much everyone will agree with the fact that most people think it; and this agreement is a [fairly irrelevent] similarity among us.

But it says nothing about the reasons Americans obsess over 9/11 (Americans don't obsess about all moderately important things)-- Nor does it say anything about the effect of this obsession--nor does it either justify it, or oppose it, or even confront it. And that is what we're actually arguing about, on this thread and in the war of ideas as a whole, and that is what is actually relevent.

We don't "largely agree with each other." Nothing could be further from the truth. There are a lot of vastly important cultral/intellectual battles being fought right now, and 9/11 is central to a good many of them. How we look at 9/11, and how we look at how other people look at 9/11, is incredibly relevent, and implying that its just some petty argument with no real basis is, frankly, silly.

uniquinous

09-12-2006, 01:24 PM

Like it or not, this is how we commemorate things in America....not.

No one is saying we should forget 9/11. No one is saying disavow any knowledge of it. Some of us however ARE saying we have long since surpassed the extent of reasonable acknowledgement - that we let TERROR take hold of our lives, allowing terrorists to succeed in their mission - that the events that came from 9/11 were founded on blind pride and emotion - that people continue to profit from this loss of life - that we continue to lose lives based on poor military decisions - that we spend more money and effort on war efforts, movies, books, and memorials then relief sent to the households who are now one person less.

I agree with the majority of what you state Northwind, but it was limited, and I just don't like the "turn off the TV for the day" answer. Avoidance is not bringing resolution. The people who mourn directly for their loved ones need not be constantly shown the videos on this day. So yes, it *does* do more harm then just going about daily routine. It helps no one to make movies, and it only has the ability to further harm people emotionally.
I'm saying remember it, but let the actual mourners grieve naturally.

Realist - correct. By "no reason" I should have more specifically stated "no logical reason". Yes, common enemies bring people together - heck it was the founding principle I used that allowed The Arcadians to come together so strongly at first. But as you said, we aren't little tribes anymore.

Wait a minute-I forgot, Savanna posted it. She probably copied it and posted it as a bulletin on Myspce.link me por favor?

Excaliber

09-12-2006, 02:09 PM

I will start with a disclaimer: I appologize to whoever this upsets - I don't intend pain upon anyone.

This date, even half a decade after the event, has been grossly blown out of proportion. 2819 people died, 5 years ago. From that we get media sales, hollywood hits, documentaries, credit card deals, TV specials, conspiracy theories, and the continued retardation of our current president, to name a few.

Two thousand eight hundred and nineteen people.

Let's put this number in perspective, really.

2819
1200 people die every day from smoking
153,000 people die every day
2669 Americans died in Iraq
19900 Americans wounded in Iraq
10,000,000 people were killed in the holocaust (not counting open war casualities)

2819 is a pinprick for America - it's a splinter. It stings, it sucks, but you pull it out, let things rebuild, learn from it, and move on. Instead we get this blind sense of national pride and rage. It sends people off to fight senselessly while following a leader too stupid to realize The mission was never and WILL never be accomplished.

We stand by idly as genocide occurs in the world, but we get all up in arms because of a pinprick that happened half a decade ago. Spare me the senseless commercialization, advertisements, movies, deals, "memorial packages", schemes, and scams. It was tragic, but we don't need to be constnatly blinded with this overbearing sense of pride that's being stuffed down our tiny throats.

Enough is enough already.

And almost all of the other U.S. citizens care about 9/11 including our President.

I am sensing that you don't care about 9/11 after reading your post... Did you make some huge typo or something? Please fill me in...

I definately didn't think I would be hearing this from you...

Excaliber

09-12-2006, 02:15 PM

R G

09-12-2006, 02:57 PM

well, you said the US armed forces are killing terrorists, while the terrorists are killing innocent civiilans.

well, the truth is, in the name of fighting terrorism, the US has taken on entire countries. they have very emphatically declared war on nations, which very obviously goes above and beyond just killing terrorists. so unless you think entire countries are terrorists, i dont see how you can justify the wars as being just the 'killing of terrorists'.

I repeat, MY life, YOUR life, the life of your neighbour's cat are NOT in danger from terrorism. yes, there is a chance of being shot by some extremeist nut with a mad-on over the US, but is it greater than being run over? dying from mugging? shot by your nutty classmate? please put your fear in perspective.

yes, it is perfectly acceptable to be afraid at the time of 9/11? but now? how can you justify living in fear 5 years on?

you have given the terrorists exactly what they want. irrational fear. congratulations.

You think that the US has taken on entire countries?...that is not true at all. The vast majority of the people in the countries that the US has sent troups are more than happy to see us there....but to find that out you have to either talk to someone from one of those countries or talk to a soldier that was there....both of which I have had the opportunity to do. The media makes it sound gloom and doom...but then again American media is lame in reporting what is really happening and is more concerned about increasing ratings...Good news is bad for ratings.

There are countries that habor more terrorist than others...and yes we do have troups in those countries....I believe they invited them all to a tea party first but when they didn't show up the US had to go hunt them down...:rolleyes:

Like I have said before... Terrorism is only going to get worse. If one of these nut jobs gets a hold of a nuke they will use it....and then your little theory of more of a chance of getting ran over or whatever really holds as much water as a bucket with no bottom at that point. Terrorist thrive and succeed more on those who are willing to put their "rose colored glasses" on(like yourself) than those who are willing to wake the fuck up and realize that this is a differnet world than it was.

Excaliber

09-12-2006, 03:06 PM

R G

09-12-2006, 04:01 PM

I'm saying a group of people have a *better* claim to do damage if they feel it is defense for the damage we have caused them, then because we are giving someone else aid.

Now surely you don't really think that because of sanctions of one country in a totally differnet hemisphere would be a just reason to damage two office buildings in that country...especially when that has nothing to do with it in the first place.

Follow me here... "better" does not mean "good". "More justified" does not mean "justified death". It means they had more reason - harm from self defense is still harm, but it's still better then harm from random assualt. Now 9/11 wasn't self defense, but we WERE doing damage to them directly with sanctions, whereas Pearl Harbor, a non-wartime base, was bombed because we were offering AID to other countries. You don't see the difference?

Iraq sanctions had nothing to do with this...Show me differnet.

You have this way of pulling out unfounded "what if" situations in continued slippery slope arguments. You can't argue "IF attacks were more effective", you can't argue "IF thousands more died on 9/11" - you can only argue what HAPPENED.

There are many strategic scholars who would back up what I posted on "if the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor were more effective" statement....;)

Too much? It's the CONTENT. Movie deals opening up one time a year = too much. Heck if you make the claim "it's just something that happens once a year that's not too much" we might as well get bombed every year by that logix. It's not how often, it's how and to what extent.

Too much...not enough...Isn't it all really a matter of opinion?

No, military intelligence which will aid in the defense of this country will NOT come in the form of movies or books. Those are the LAST sources that know anything. Military intelligence that will aid this country does not come from those sources, and it need not be held by the random layperson.

Oh really?...What made you think that I would think that military intelligence would come in the form of movies and books? I was talking about the general populous....

You're getting better at name-calling - now try backing it.

The only name I called you was Uniq...Show me different.

See it's this part of "hand of a terrorist or any individual" that kills your argument (watch, I'm going to back a claim now...). If the individual doesn't matter, you shouldn't differentiate between terrorist, and everyone else.

For purposes of discussing 9/11 why should I not use the term terrorist? If it looks like shit, smells like shit...well guess what...I am going to call it shit. If that offends you in some way then...Oh well, you will get over it.

Do you think a single death by a foreign terrorist holds any more weight then by a domestic terrorist?

Absolutly not! The Oklahoma City Federal Building was just as much a tragedy as the World Trade Center....and that was a domestic terrorist.

What about a single death by a random murder?

Well its 2800 times more people!!!! So to anyone with any bit of logic and gives a flying fuck about another human being then of course their reaction is going to be magnified more than if it was just the one person....That being said though I am outraged anytime I hear about someone killing someone else.

You don't care about a life lost in Darfur right now. You care about something that hits close to home.

I could say the same about you...I mean you had a choice to open a topic to discuss and you chose to trivialize the deaths of 9/11 instead of dicussing the atrocities of the genocide in Darfur...

Did you make a thread about the genocide in Darfur? ;) I didn't think so...:dry:

shatterstar

09-12-2006, 04:04 PM

S_K_O_F

09-12-2006, 04:12 PM

While I agree that the commercialization of this event is out of hand, I definately don't think we need to let that day free from our minds.

I do admit, though, I got real real tired of hearing about it yesterday.

Hellblazer

09-12-2006, 04:14 PM

Frozen Toast

09-12-2006, 04:17 PM

I was watching this document, And the US people were telling the us grovement that they family die in 911 but they didn't, They want kindless towards them and some money switch i think is low low low to human race.

R G

09-12-2006, 04:28 PM

RG - 1 question. can you claim that every single person who has died at the hands of the US armed forces is a terrorist? and please differnetiate between the terrorists the US went in to find and those who decided to fight against people who they saw as invaders. the first were the ones the US claims to have goe after, the second are the ones provoked by the US's prescence.

Absolutly not! These SOB's often hid in civilian targets including schools, hospitals and places of worship. It's not your ordinary battle where people just show up on opposite sides and start battling as if it were a modern day TAO battle.

your 2nd paragraph...wtf?

It was Sarcasm...guess you didn't get it.

3rd paragraph. first of all, stop using labels like 'rose colored glasses'. they are used to dismiss an argument by applying a deragatory label to that argument.

What are you the forum police? :dry: I used it to illustrate a point.

are you really that terrified of terrorism to think that it will become the biggest source of death on US soil (replaccing car crashes)?

No...Did I say that? Cancer and Heartattacks will hold that spot for a while.

actually the thrive on you, who run scared into stupid violent acts and give them more reason to kill. people like me try not to give int ot fear and never accept violence as a solution. where is this provocation that I am supposedly supplying to the terrorists?

You sound like a person that would sit and watch your mom or sister get violently raped and murdered...all the while thinking about your own sorry ass. But that is just my opinion...;)

excalibre - you came in 1/2 way and missed the context. read rg's post that i responded to.
to put it simply, there is a chance for a terrorist attack. the last one killed 2k people out of 300 million. it is a reason to be concerned and steps should be taken to prevent it.
but what are the odds of it happening to you in particular? is there enough reason for rg's "we're all going to die, haaalp!!" attitude? is there that much reason to walk around in fear?

Gee why don't we play Russian Roulette with each other with that mentality? :roulette:

Maybe one of the 7 chambers in a gun will not go off...but then again it could...point is you never know when your number is up. I would rather play Russian Roulette with an empty gun myself.

Hellblazer

09-12-2006, 04:39 PM

Kreator

09-12-2006, 05:38 PM

Making a horrible tragedy into something that money can be made off of is why I pretty much dislike the US Government at the moment. If people seriously enjoy movies that depict real events of people getting killed by another's cruelness, then I would suggest they turn to movies like "Terminator" or "Scarface". 911 is horrible, yes, but there is a time to move on, and to stop making money off horrible events and to stop living in the past, no matter how bad the past was. And if you take any kind of pride from this, I seriously suggest you read a book. If you take any security from this, I suggest you get a .22 and a missle launcher..

Daemon Bloodmaw

09-12-2006, 06:17 PM

Speaking of urban warfare, my brother is a marine and he was telling me about the field exercises they do to prepare for Iraq. Boobie traps, etc.

Good stuff, he says it's all pretty well detailed.

Excaliber

09-12-2006, 07:09 PM

Northwind

09-12-2006, 09:21 PM

We don't "largely agree with each other." Nothing could be further from the truth. There are a lot of vastly important cultral/intellectual battles being fought right now, and 9/11 is central to a good many of them. How we look at 9/11, and how we look at how other people look at 9/11, is incredibly relevent, and implying that its just some petty argument with no real basis is, frankly, silly.
Oops, I mistakenly thought that all that was happening here was a bunch of people pointlessly arguing on the internet over the tiniest details related to 9/11 so that they could feel superior to those with whom they "disagreed."

I didn't realize that what was actually taking place was a brave and noble struggle regarding "a lot of vastly important cultural/intellectual battles being fought right now."

My mistake. How silly of me. Please carry on. :rolleyes:

uniquinous

09-12-2006, 10:51 PM

Now surely you don't really think that because of sanctions of one country in a totally differnet hemisphere would be a just reason to damage two office buildings in that country...especially when that has nothing to do with it in the first place.Again you misread (or purposely just misquote). I will repeat myself in hopes you read it a bit more closely: There is a difference between JUST, and MORE just. Here I'll put it in basic math for you. The number -3 (negative three), is MORE positive then -9, yet neither one is positive. Similarly, bombing a country that is providing aid, is LESS JUST then bombing a country indirectly harming you, while both are unjust.

There are many strategic scholars who would back up what I posted on "if the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor were more effective" statement....;) And no one has denied that. Similarly, there are many strategic scholars who would state "if the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbot were LESS effective it wouldn't have worked as well as it did". Yes - there will always be scholarly WHAT IFs. Again you fail to see my point: "what if"s don't matter. WHAT HAPPENED does matter. You can't base an argument on something that never existed. Sure, the reaction to the initial effect is an accurate portrayal, but the initial effect is what's inaccurate. It's like starting a sentence with "If the world were flat..." Anything stemming from it is useless, even if it applies to that scenario.

Too much...not enough...Isn't it all really a matter of opinion?It's also a matter of opinion that terrorist bombings of the US were bad. If you want to boil things down using that logic, the entire discussion falls apart. So far you've used oversimplification and abstract ideas that don't apply as the foundation of your argument. Stop beating around the bush and address the issue directly.

Oh really?...What made you think that I would think that military intelligence would come in the form of movies and books? I was talking about the general populous....I didn't, you said this in direct response to my point:Intelligence often can come in the form of movies and books.You misread the point, yet again, and believed "intelligence on how to stop further acts" meant the education of the general populus? Come on, use at least some of the context clues in the sentences I type.

The only name I called you was Uniq...Show me different.I never said you were only calling me names...Show me different. :dry: (and then look at the text you send shatterstar for the answer to your idiotic search for a contrast)

For purposes of discussing 9/11 why should I not use the term terrorist? If it looks like shit, smells like shit...well guess what...I am going to call it shit. If that offends you in some way then...Oh well, you will get over it.Because you weren't talking about 9/11 in that sentence - you were making a generalization: "If just one person dies at the hand of a terrorist or any other individual for that matter it is significant in my eyes" It talks about your reaction to death as a generalization with not a single context clue stating it's only your opinion of 9/11. You make it sound like it's your general opinion, yet you still split that general opinion - it's HOW you differentiate that shows your bias.

If you cared equally, it wouldn't matter whether it was foreign or domestic terrorist, whether murder happens between strangers or acquaintences, etc etc etc. But no, you made two very clear distinctions: terrorist, and everyone else. Making that distinction means they are not the same.

THAT is the point which you missed.

I could say the same about you...I mean you had a choice to open a topic to discuss and you chose to trivialize the deaths of 9/11 instead of dicussing the atrocities of the genocide in Darfur...

Did you make a thread about the genocide in Darfur? ;) I didn't think so...:dry:So not making a thread on an online forum immediately means I don't care about something... Let's see, by that logic I don't care about my family, friends, pets, education, profession, etc etc etc. You can infer all of that based on your logix. Well done.

Stop ignoring the points with exagurated scenarios that didn't happen, semantics, avoidance, or attacking the most insignifcant detail of the greater point.

Here they are:
1) Media coverage as well as other organizations exploit what happened for profit [this is fact at this point]
2) The exploitations serves to exagurate the true extent of the damage, blowing it well out of proportion
3) The exploitations serve to further emotionally harm the people who actually lost someone that day by replaying incredibly devastating footage non-stop (and make profit off it), thus disrupting the natural mourning of this group by forced emotion
4) Given (3), these exploitations really only serve the people who were NOT directly harmed in this tragedy
5) Due to (4), these exploitations continue to raise a false sense of pride and an emotion within this mentioned group that is blinding to rational thought
6) Due to all of the above, we allow TERRORists to bring forth the exact TERROR they wanted. That's a MISSION ACCOMPLISHED for you Mr. President.

Daemon Bloodmaw

09-13-2006, 12:22 AM

SpikeTV is pretty ballsy.

They showed Fight Club tonight, which is an awesome movie but... Watching the final scene in that movie, with those last 2 towers standing before they explode, was kinda strange.

Was just kinda weird the day after 9/11, y'know?

Swartzstrom

09-13-2006, 08:21 AM

EDIT: I dropped small fonts especially for this post.

I watched the special on channel 2 last night. The documentary about firemen that turned into 9/11 footage of being trapped under the rubble and being with the firemen of one house. It was really amazing how those guys just jumped right into the action...but it was depressing.

It was their duty. Get over it.

We talked today about that stupid conspiracy. Some kid in my class believes it, and I went off on him. He watched the anti-loose change when he got home, and called me to apoligise. We also talked about our personal stories.

The way you sound, a conspiracy isn't possible, especially by the hands of the American Government. I believe Bush was warned terrorists were going to attack. He saw it as an excellent attempt to run right over to Iraq to jack some oil from them. And if it comes to it, this war will still be going on when Bush has to leave office. And it would be an excellent thing to bring up, so that he is granted emergency powers to stay in office long after his term has expired. This isn't wishful thinking, it's contemplation. It makes perfect sense, and avoids all the stupid big, huge, massive thoughts behind it. All it takes is for Bush to become addicted to his 'power'.

The whole day was actually a very appropriate one. We had 2 moments of silence, and talked about many other topics.

I don't see why it shouldn't be a day of mourning. A lot of people were hurt by it. And even though people are hurt by driving and smoking, etc...doesn't mean that this day isn't special. It was an attack on america, not just those people there.

Whoever is still hurt by an event five years ago should stop being a bitch and move on. Five years is a long time. Whoever still feels emotional, mental, or spiritual after-effects of 9/11 should go see a psychiatrist.

So go ahead and say that it's enough already, but until they construct something in its place, it won't calm down.

Put the towers back up!

Why? So another plane can slam into that building, too? 'Cause if I were a terrorist, I'd slam another plane into America for being so arrogant.

If 9/11 was to be remembered, it should be for other countries, especially our enemies. It was the day that the terrorists woke America up from their ignorant belief that no one could or would possibly attack them. It's our fault, so stop complaining.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

uniquinous

09-13-2006, 08:32 AM

Interesting last phrase there

Hey can you get me a link to that myspace bulletin?

WaCk-HeAd

09-13-2006, 12:31 PM

First of all, I'm not going to adress 9/11 because I'm not American and I never went through something similar in The Netherlands.

Feelings are dangerous.

Realist, ever read "Brave New World"?

Interesting last phrase there

Never heard it before?

http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&q=One+man%27s+terrorist+is+another+man%27s+freedom +fighter&btnG=Google+zoeken&meta=

http://books.google.nl/books?q=One+man%27s+terrorist+is+another+man%27s+f reedom+fighter&ots=TZuNnN3JB5&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title

---------

Although I'm not going to respond to 9/11, I'd like to say some words about the war on Terror.

To me personally, thinking you can actually fight and most of all defeat terrorism is one of the silliest things I've ever heard.

Nobody wants to be a terrorist or was born a terroist. Terrorism is created by oppression, poverty, injustice, but most of all by complete and utter dispair. It's something you can absolutely not fight with tanks and guns. It is created by tanks and guns.

Two examples which makes me personally understand the position of many "terrorists" are the Palestina/Israel conflict and the "crisis" about Iran.

We in the west already complain when "many" foreigners come to our country. With the US it's for example Latin Americans, with Western-Europe it's the Moroccans, Algerians, Moluccans(sp?) and Eastern-Europeans.

Imagine 50% of your country is taken over by those same foreigners and you can't do anything about it because their military is far superior.

Your country's faith is determined by an organisation (UN) greatly influenced (if not controlled) by supporters of the same people who invaded your country and it's decided you lose halve your country. You fight several wars and you get humiliated over and over again. Imagine being born and still living in the same refugee camp. How's that for oppression, injustice, poverty and complete and utter despair?

Wouldn't you think of terrorism? I definitely would.

Another example. We absolutely can't allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon, because they might be a threat. Iran is threat to us? Lets try to see things from their perspective. Europe and the US just invaded their neighbour for still unclear reasons. Europe and the US are responsible for a gigantic percentage of the crises in the world. Ever.

Europe and the US have a bazillion nuclear weapons, Iran has none and they stand absolutely NO chance if Europe and the US also attack them. Is it really that strange for them to want to feel, at least feel, they have a little security as well?

Enough with the ranting, it basically just comes down to this.

Fighting terrorism with more oppression, more injustice and creating more poverty is absolutely stupid, and I very seriously question what I would do if the tables were turned

R G

09-13-2006, 01:33 PM

Again you misread (or purposely just misquote). I will repeat myself in hopes you read it a bit more closely: There is a difference between JUST, and MORE just. Here I'll put it in basic math for you. The number -3 (negative three), is MORE positive then -9, yet neither one is positive. Similarly, bombing a country that is providing aid, is LESS JUST then bombing a country indirectly harming you, while both are unjust.

Your quote as you wrote it: I'm saying a group of people have a *better* claim to do damage if they feel it is defense for the damage we have caused them, then because we are giving someone else aid..

Your implication was the attack on 9/11 was more justified than the attack on Pearl Harbor...Was it not?

It's also a matter of opinion that terrorist bombings of the US were bad. If you want to boil things down using that logic, the entire discussion falls apart. So far you've used oversimplification and abstract ideas that don't apply as the foundation of your argument. Stop beating around the bush and address the issue directly.

Only a compete moron or idiot would think that the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were not bad. Surely you are not going to use the opinions of idiots and morons to help your argument....Oh wait...YOU JUST DID!

I didn't, you said this in direct response to my point:You misread the point, yet again, and believed "intelligence on how to stop further acts" meant the education of the general populus?

I think you totally misread or interpreted my original point and thought I said that military finds information from books and movies...How you derived at that I will never know?

Because you weren't talking about 9/11 in that sentence - you were making a generalization: "If just one person dies at the hand of a terrorist or any other individual for that matter it is significant in my eyes" It talks about your reaction to death as a generalization with not a single context clue stating it's only your opinion of 9/11. You make it sound like it's your general opinion, yet you still split that general opinion - it's HOW you differentiate that shows your bias.

Well let me refresh your memory since you seem to forget the rest of thread. I asked you how many people have to die in a terrorist attack before you consider it to be significant? (You never answered me) I then told you that "If just one person dies at the hand of a terrorist or any other individual for that matter it is significant in my eyes". Remember too this conversation all started with your attempt to trivialize the event of 9/11.

It's also rather amusing that you skip over "any other individual for that matter it is significant in my eyes"...and make assumtions that I only care about death of people because terrorist killed people...much the same way that shatterstar did too.

If you cared equally, it wouldn't matter whether it was foreign or domestic terrorist, whether murder happens between strangers or acquaintences, etc etc etc. But no, you made two very clear distinctions: terrorist, and everyone else. Making that distinction means they are not the same.

Try reading the sentence again...If just one person dies at the hand of a terrorist or any other individual for that matter it is significant in my eyes"....not sure why you can't grasp that concept?

We were talking about murder at the time and you wanted to throw Darfur in there too..Oh by the way...Genocide is a form of murder for the record.

AND THAT is the point which you missed

So not making a thread on an online forum immediately means I don't care about something... Let's see, by that logic I don't care about my family, friends, pets, education, profession, etc etc etc. You can infer all of that based on your logix. Well done.

No but by trying to trivialize an event as horrific as 9/11 with trying to compare smokers and a compare it to "a prick in the finger" and such it does tell me that you really don't give a damn about the loss of lives that occured that day.

And whereas you concentrate your efforts on trivializing 9/11 or any other horrific event rather than addressing the other autrocities of this world it does not say much for you....Sorry if that offends you.

Stop ignoring the points with exagurated scenarios that didn't happen, semantics, avoidance, or attacking the most insignifcant detail of the greater point.

You started this whole thread on exaggerations in an attempt to trivialize the event. The most significant point should have been that over 2800 people perished that day. Sure people have made movies and books on the event...not much different than any other significant event in the modern history of the human race....including murders, WWII, Jewish death camps, other Terrorist Attacks etc etc.

1) Media coverage as well as other organizations exploit what happened for profit [this is fact at this point]

Gee!! thanks for that bit of useless information....They have and always will as long as there is a market for it.

2) The exploitations serves to exagurate the true extent of the damage, blowing it well out of proportion

No it allows people to get a sense to understand what those people went throught that lived through the event...as well as celebrate those that persevered in the face of adversity.

3) The exploitations serve to further emotionally harm the people who actually lost someone that day by replaying incredibly devastating footage non-stop (and make profit off it), thus disrupting the natural mourning of this group by forced emotion

I can't recall the name of the guy who said "Let's Roll" as he organized a coup to take over the terrorist on the flight that crashed in Pennslyvania, but I tell you what if he was my father, uncle or brother or good friend I would want movies and stories about that to be made. There were many other people who I am sure endured and did their best to persevere too.

4) Given (3), these exploitations really only serve the people who were NOT directly harmed in this tragedy

Matter of opinion. Some people like to share stories of their lossed loved ones to cope with their loss. No one forces the ones who do not cope in this manner to go to the movie theather or read a book about a subject that might tramatize them.

5) Due to (4), these exploitations continue to raise a false sense of pride and an emotion within this mentioned group that is blinding to rational thought

No it brings us all together for a common goal. That is to live in a free society without having to worry about some nut job who wants to kill you so he can satisfy his God...

To be more viligiant in a world of uncertainty to insure that this does not happen again.

6) Due to all of the above, we allow TERRORists to bring forth the exact TERROR they wanted. That's a MISSION ACCOMPLISHED for you Mr. President.

Your problem with 9/11 is that you think it helps the President in some way....all of your other diatribe aside I think that is the jest of your feelings.

camolots_guardi

09-13-2006, 02:56 PM

Lol Speak your mind I guess

Realist

09-13-2006, 03:28 PM

NW, I'm not going to even respond to your pointless derisive sarcasm, which addresses none of my points nor the issue at large. I would like to reply to the other message you sent me though.

So far as I have seen, tribalism has never in the history of mankind been used by any large group to suggest a unified "human" tribe. Rather, it has always been a matter of us vs. them, it has always increased bounderies between tribes proportinally to the increased connection within the tribe, it has always been you're either with us or against us. Yeah, the goal is human unity, but lacking that the goal is more individuality; selfishness has never killed as many people at patriotic selflessness (whether its the deluded WWI soldier or modern day suicide bomber). Maybe if we got invaded by aliens from outer space we could form a human tribalism :| but then if we happened to win we'd probably commit a few genocides against them, too.

Realist, ever read "Brave New World"?

No, but I've heard of it before. Should I?

R G

09-13-2006, 03:55 PM

It was their duty. Get over it..

Why should they not be admired and celebrated for their actions of bravery and excellence in saving as many lives as they could? Think about it...Firemen run into a building while everyone else is running out? Pretty noble don't ya think?

The way you sound, a conspiracy isn't possible, especially by the hands of the American Government. I believe Bush was warned terrorists were going to attack. He saw it as an excellent attempt to run right over to Iraq to jack some oil from them. And if it comes to it, this war will still be going on when Bush has to leave office. And it would be an excellent thing to bring up, so that he is granted emergency powers to stay in office long after his term has expired. This isn't wishful thinking, it's contemplation. It makes perfect sense, and avoids all the stupid big, huge, massive thoughts behind it. All it takes is for Bush to become addicted to his 'power'..

Yea Bush was warned about the possiblity of terrorist attacks...both of them were(Jr & Sr) and several other Presidents have been warned about possible terrorist attacks...Heck President Clinton had the opportunity to bring in Osama(for the first Trade Center bombing), but didn't...to busy trying getting his rocks off I guess.:eek:

The idea of Emergency Powers being inacted to stay in office is about as absurd as I have heard. The Supreme Court would step in very fast to prevent something as ridiculous as that from happening....

Tell ya what though...If you think it has a chance of happening how about we place a little wager on it...How does say $5K sound?

Whoever is still hurt by an event five years ago should stop being a bitch and move on. Five years is a long time. Whoever still feels emotional, mental, or spiritual after-effects of 9/11 should go see a psychiatrist.

Tell that to Uniq or some of these other crying ass people who think the memory of 9/11 needs to be suppressed so that no one is hurt or tramatized by the rememberance of the death of 2800 people.

Why? So another plane can slam into that building, too? 'Cause if I were a terrorist, I'd slam another plane into America for being so arrogant.

So if I walk up to you and hit you in the face with a 2x4 you gonna get back up or just lie there? Not me! Way too many pansy-ass people in this world today...not willing to fight and just sit and take it. There are somethings in this world worth fighting for....

If it's not the World Trade Center it will be some other target of opportunity....could be the Sears Tower, Empire State Building, John Hancock Building, TransAmerica Building who knows....

If 9/11 was to be remembered, it should be for other countries, especially our enemies.

That makes no sense at all!

It was the day that the terrorists woke America up from their ignorant belief that no one could or would possibly attack them. It's our fault, so stop complaining.

This is precisely one of the reasons that 9/11 should never be forgotten.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Problem with that quote is the terrorist in this war are not fighting for freedom.

WaCk-HeAd

09-13-2006, 03:58 PM

No, but I've heard of it before. Should I?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World

You might find it interesting.

WaCk-HeAd

09-13-2006, 04:04 PM

Maybe if we got invaded by aliens from outer space we could form a human tribalism :| I?

Err, I don't know where I read it anymore, but if I recall correctly many internationalists think the only way to World Peace is an alien invasion.

AND! If an alien invasion occurs I have an awesome distraction for my plan to take over Portugal and then Europe and the WORLD!

Awesome

Northwind

09-13-2006, 04:42 PM

NW, I'm not going to even respond to your pointless derisive sarcasm, which addresses none of my points nor the issue at large. I would like to reply to the other message you sent me though.
Derisive -- not really, I'd call it more "deflating" but we don't need to quibble over semantics. Sarcasm -- yeah, you got me there. Pointless -- not exactly. My point (see!) was that we collectively delude ourselves that we are doing something so IMPORTANT here that it justifies us in being crappy to each other in defense of our positions. When in reality, we are just using that excuse to further our own agendas and our sense of our "rightness" and others "wrongness." Isn't it possible to strongly advocate for one's position without denigrating the intelligence or decency of those with whom we disagree about some small sliver or other? (Though I will admit, that the evidence is in support of the "NO" position.) And my other point is that isn't this just a microcosm of what is wrong with the extremism and polarity that led to the whole 9/11 troubles to begin with? So anyway, I would prefer that my comments be taken as "pointed deflating sarcasm," but call it what you will.
So far as I have seen, tribalism has never in the history of mankind been used by any large group to suggest a unified "human" tribe. Rather, it has always been a matter of us vs. them, it has always increased bounderies between tribes proportinally to the increased connection within the tribe, it has always been you're either with us or against us. Yeah, the goal is human unity, but lacking that the goal is more individuality; selfishness has never killed as many people at patriotic selflessness (whether its the deluded WWI soldier or modern day suicide bomber). Maybe if we got invaded by aliens from outer space we could form a human tribalism :| but then if we happened to win we'd probably commit a few genocides against them, too.
Well, I do agree that invasion by aliens would probably help us pull together as humans. Short of that, however, I think that our "tribes" have gotten larger and larger over the years. The advantages of mass media is such that it enables us to cross larger boundaries and connect more people. Where previously people thought of themselves as primarily "southerners" or "northerners," (until some time after the Civil War) now most think of themselves as Americans. Where previously Europe was splintered into various warring factions, we how have the European Union. I think it is reasonable to assume that this will continue to happen as media becomes even more accessible to all and we become more intertwined financially. It becomes easier and easier to identify with people with whom we are familiar and on whom we are mutually financially dependent.

It seems unlikely that we can abolish the basic human trait of "tribalism" by some wave of the rationalist hand, though we can work toward a more united tribalism of the human race. Pointless (yes, pointless) invective and denigration of others is only more of the same BS that already divides us enough. Seeking common ground with our fellow travelers on the tiny ball floating in the vastness of empty space that we live on is not just some Pollyanna fantasy (though it is partly that), it is also a requirement for mutual coexistance. What side are you on?

Also, I don't really want to go into it right now, but your apparent fear of feelings is both short-sighted and small-minded (which is surprising coming from you). I know you pride yourself on your rationalism, but to dismiss the importance of feelings in favor of pure "logic" (or whatever) is to ignore useful data. Why do you think we evolved "feelings?" Might they not have been useful to survival? Are we really so technologically and culturally advanced that we can afford to simply discard such important information? Fear of feelings is as limiting as being a slave to them. Awareness of, acknowledgement of, and honoring of feelings seems so much more useful on soooo many levels. I can go into this more if you wish, but don't want to bore you to death. (Oops, too late!)

uniquinous

09-13-2006, 04:49 PM

Your implication was the attack on 9/11 was more justified than the attack on Pearl Harbor...Was it not?YES...would be a just reason to damage two office buildings in that countryNO. Note the difference. If you can't, go back and reread.

Only a compete moron or idiot would think that the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were not bad. Surely you are not going to use the opinions of idiots and morons to help your argument....But there's one small thing - I used exagurated opinion (but opinion nonethless) in the EXACT same manner you did for the express purposes of showing you how absolutely ridiculous such an argument foundation is. In other words, as you just stated, trying to wash away an argument with something like "but that's your opinion" is absolutely moronic. In other words, you should try to avoid doing just that in the future. Make counterarguments/examples, show *why* you disagree with the opinion, but don't just wave it away with "it's an opinion" - try using some intelligence.

I think you totally misread or interpreted my original point and thought I said that military finds information from books and movies...How you derived at that I will never know?See here's how this worked: I made a statement on security and military intelligence. You quoted that, and directly replied (http://www.tacticsarena.com/forum/showpost.php?p=969404&postcount=102) with your "movies and books" idea, which in no way helps security and military intelligence, as you so clearly stated. This is precisely how I derived this - let me know if you need help with any other basic observance.

I asked you how many people have to die in a terrorist attack before you consider it to be significant? (You never answered me) No one will answer you because it's irrelevant. No one has claimed a single life was meaningless in their own regard, but people in this thread have stated how our loss wasn't too large in the grand scheme of things. There are no cutoffs. That's like asking "what height is too tall?" The daily mortality rate went up 1%. That was 5 years ago. While there is no clearcut boundary, I think it's safe to say 1%, on 1 day, 5 years ago, is pretty small. Despite this, every life lost was significant - but the combined total was not placed in perspective.

It's also rather amusing that you skip over "any other individual for that matter it is significant in my eyes"...and make assumtions that I only care about death of people because terrorist killed people...much the same way that shatterstar did too.As soon as you need to distinguish between terrorist or anyone else, you are saying there is a difference between the two groups. So tell me: what is the difference besides your personal bias? Heck replace the "terrorist" with any other term and you'll see how clear my point is:
"I like white people, or any other individual for that matter"
"I hate gay men, or any other individual that's not straight" (only an example)
Notice the stress? Notice how, by taking one term and holding it different from "other individuals" I make it different and regard them differently? They say "I like white people more" and "i hate gay men more then other questioning people". Similarly, you regard terrorist murders different then any other murder, for the simple reason that you held them differently in your language (consciously or subconsciously). This is bias. Shatterstar picked up on it as well - time to take the hint.

So you thought it wasn't bias, and gave the following reason:We were talking about murder at the time and you wanted to throw Darfur in there too..Oh by the way...Genocide is a form of murder for the record.No, we weren't. Again, if you go back to the quote which you were directly responding to, you will see we weren't talking about Darfur at all. In fact, you didn't even so much as type the word "Darfur" until pages after that point - try a better excuse.

No but by trying to trivialize an event as horrific as 9/11 with trying to compare smokers and a compare it to "a prick in the finger" and such it does tell me that you really don't give a damn about the loss of lives that occured that day.See I try to put it in actual perspective, if you only see it as small within that larger perspective, IT'S BECAUSE IT IS. Any trivialization is what you give it though. I didn't compare smokers to terror victims (tho it's all your blinded emotion will allow you to see), I compared a daily problem (uneeded death) this country can actually DO SOMETHING ABOUT with a similar problem which this country can't do anything about.

You started this whole thread on exaggerations in an attempt to trivialize the event. Sure people have made movies and books on the event...not much different than any other significant event in the modern history of the human race....including murders, WWII, Jewish death camps, other Terrorist Attacks etc etc. Show me a single fact I have stated that is exagurated. Show me a single time when I have abnormally or incorrectly increased my facts to create a false argument in my favor. You say the exploitation was not different then other significant events? Do you think telemarkets called people's houses in 1945 to tell them about Holocaust credit card deals? How many blockbuster movies were made about it? 2 (perhaps that is exaguration), and over a time period of 60 years? You think they sold "Auschwitz - never forget" T-shirts in malls? Yes, it IS much different that other significant events.

No it allows people to get a sense to understand what those people went throught that lived through the event...as well as celebrate those that persevered in the face of adversity.People understood that pretty well within the first few days of the aftermath. The point was hit home upon the making of the first movie. The second movie was kicking a dead horse. There's understanding, and then there's overkill. We've hit the overkill mark.

I can't recall the name of the guy who said "Let's Roll" as he organized a coup to take over the terrorist on the flight that crashed in Pennslyvania, but I tell you what if he was my father, uncle or brother or good friend I would want movies and stories about that to be made.And if your family member was someone who just went to work that day and was killed unexpectantly, you would hate to have movies remind you of that. Are you saying the praise and honor of the heros should outweigh the concurrent harm these things do to the loved ones of everyone else? That's America for you - even more arrogant then me. I think a LITTLE modesty is in order.

Some people like to share stories of their lossed loved ones to cope with their loss. No one forces the ones who do not cope in this manner to go to the movie theather or read a book about a subject that might tramatize them.Yes, but it's the act of sharing that is therapeutic. You think a widow who sees footage of the buildings collapse (because let's face it, it's shoved in our face at this point - hard to miss) actually likes it? Why don't we start sending home footage of soldiers who were tortured and killed to their widows? I'm sure they'll love that! It will help them "cope with their loss". :dry: No, no one forces them to see the movies - they are just struck with the knowledge that someone else is profiting off their dead loved ones (and I'm not talking about the heros). Again, something I'm sure people love.

No it brings us all together for a common goal. That is to live in a free society without having to worry about some nut job who wants to kill you so he can satisfy his God...Yeah and what actions did we take to achieve that goal? To go cause terror in someone else's country? Ensure they aren't socially free? Because some nutjob, our president, wants to kill them so he can satisfy... "God bless America". :dry:

What hypocritical, biased crap.

Your problem with 9/11 is that you think it helps the President in some way....all of your other diatribe aside I think that is the jest of your feelings.erm, no. I've made rather strong points you can only fend off with semantics, avoidance, undersimplification, or attacking the most insignifcant detail of the greater point.

The political actions of our president falls into the exploitation that I'm upset with, but it's only a small part of all my points. I'm making valid claims with backed evidence. You are not. Don't brush it off with "you don't like the president", it seems like you're just grasping at straws now.

Duffman

09-13-2006, 08:57 PM

Good video yes yes?

http://www.videosift.com/story.php?id=10557&where=index

meat.eater

09-13-2006, 09:28 PM

Of course we're afraid. Of course we know that terrorism's goal is to create terror, hense the word. We're aware of this, and how its giving them what they want. And we're still afraid. So... what's your point? (this is from several pages back).

shatterstar

09-13-2006, 09:50 PM

Absolutly not! These SOB's often hid in civilian targets including schools, hospitals and places of worship. It's not your ordinary battle where people just show up on opposite sides and start battling as if it were a modern day TAO battle.
and triggering civilian caualties with the aim of finding all these terrorists is different from civilian casualties in 9/11 with the aim to bring down 'american terrorists' is different how exactly?

It was Sarcasm...guess you didn't get it.

Northwind was sarcastic. you were on the deepnub level.

What are you the forum police? :dry: I used it to illustrate a point.

no. you used it to dismiss my point. you used a stereotyped phrase into which to fit my point, giving it all the characteristics of the stereotype, hence dismissing its validity.

No...Did I say that? Cancer and Heartattacks will hold that spot for a while.
go read your last few posts again with an open mind. look how they sound to someone else.

You sound like a person that would sit and watch your mom or sister get violently raped and murdered...all the while thinking about your own sorry ass. But that is just my opinion...;)

no. i would fight and die for them. yet, i would not a) lock them indoors in fear of them being raped and killed or b) exterminate anyone and everyone who looks at them funny. what i would do as ensure they took all reasonable precautions.

do not use such an analogy with me ever again.

Gee why don't we play Russian Roulette with each other with that mentality? :roulette:
Maybe one of the 7 chambers in a gun will not go off...but then again it could...point is you never know when your number is up. I would rather play Russian Roulette with an empty gun myself.

do i need to say anything about comparing the entire length and breadth of human interaction with a game of chance?
i'm not going to read the rest of your stuff. i can hold a discussion with a person, not primal fear.

If you take any security from this, I suggest you get a .22 and a missle launcher..
you realize that a .22 is a ladies gun and a missile launcher is well, a missile launcher?

Although I'm not going to respond to 9/11, I'd like to say some words about the war on Terror.

To me personally, thinking you can actually fight and most of all defeat terrorism is one of the silliest things I've ever heard.

Nobody wants to be a terrorist or was born a terroist. Terrorism is created by oppression, poverty, injustice, but most of all by complete and utter dispair. It's something you can absolutely not fight with tanks and guns. It is created by tanks and guns.

Two examples which makes me personally understand the position many "terrorists" are in are the Palestina/Israel conflict and the "crisis" about Iran.

We in the west already complain when "many" foreigners come to our country. With the US it's for example Latin Americans, with Western-Europe it's the Moroccans, Algerians, Moluccans(sp?) and Eastern-Europeans.

Imagine 50% of your country is taken over by those same foreigners and you can't do anything about it because their military is far superior.

Your country's faith is determined by an organisation (UN) greatly influenced (if not controlled) by supporters of the same people who invaded your country and it's decided you lose your country will be split in halve. You fight several wars and you're being humiliated over and over again. Imagine being born and still living in the same refugee camp. How's that for oppression, injustice, poverty and complete and utter despair?

Wouldn't you think of terrorism? I definitely would.

Another example. We absolutely can't allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon, because they might be a threat. Iran is threat to us? Lets try to see things from their perspective. Europe and the US just invaded their neighbour for still unclear reasons. Europe and the US are responsible for a gigantic percentage of the crises in the world. Ever.

Europe and the US have a bazillion nuclear weapons, Iran has none and they stand absolutely NO chance if Europe and the US also attack them. Is it really that strange for them to want to feel, at least feel, they have a little security as well?

Enough with the ranting, it basically just comes down to this.

Fighting terrorism with more oppression, more injustice and creating more poverty is absolutely stupid, and I very seriously question what I would do if the tables were turned

THANK YOU. that is the most well written other-side-of-the-fence description ive seen. this is something that the US as a country just isnt getting.

R G

09-13-2006, 10:11 PM

YES NO. Note the difference.

So why would you even think that the terrorist had more justification to attack innocent civilians in the Twin Towers than the Japanese attacking a Naval Facility that was in the middle of the Pacific...:confused:

But there's one small thing - I used exagurated opinion (but opinion nonethless) in the EXACT same manner you did for the express purposes of showing you how absolutely ridiculous such blah blah blah

Why not call it what it is? Your first post in this thread was your opinion...You are entitled to it no matter how assine it may be. Surely you recognize that fact?

Opinions are like assholes everyone has got one...just some stink worse than other and some are more full of shit...kind of like yours...lol

See here's how this worked: I made a statement on security and military intelligence. blah blah blah

You talked about Intellegence in general...I was just pointing out the fact that alot of people get their intelligence(should have used the word knowledge) from books and movies on a subject.

Case in point...Airlines and travelers were always taught not to put up a fight during a hi-jacking of an airliner before 9/11. Terrorist used that to their advantage on that fateful day and with the exception of the plane that crashed in PA went unchallenged.

No one will answer you because it's irrelevant. No one has claimed a single life was meaningless in their own regard, but people in this thread have stated how our loss wasn't too large in the grand scheme of things. There are no cutoffs. That's like asking "what height is too tall?" The daily mortality rate went up 1%. That was 5 years ago. While there is no clearcut boundary, I think it's safe to say 1%, on 1 day, 5 years ago, is pretty small. Despite this, every life lost was significant - but the combined total was not placed in perspective.

When you try to trivialize the loss of life on 9/11 with random irrelevant numbers of death.
And when you compare 2800 deaths to a pin prick in the finger...

Then yea you are saying that the loss of life was meaningless on that day.

As soon as you need to distinguish between terrorist or anyone else, you are saying there is a difference between the two groups. So tell me: what is the difference besides your personal bias? Heck replace the "terrorist" with any other term and you'll see how clear my point is:
"I like white people, or any other individual for that matter"
"I hate gay men, or any other individual that's not straight"....blah blah blah...yada yada yada

Why don't you quit trying to read into something that is not there? We are talking about 9/11 and yea that entire event had terrorist involved, so for the purpose of this conversation the term terrorist is and will be used by many....really easy concept really.

So you thought it wasn't bias, and gave the following reason:No, we weren't. Again, if you go back to the quote which you were directly responding to, you will see we weren't talking about Darfur at all. In fact, you didn't even so much as type the word "Darfur" until pages after that point - try a better excuse.

No I just threw Darfur in there for good measure...as you threw it out there a few posts back for some irrelevant reason.

See I try to put it in actual perspective, if you only see it as small within that larger perspective, IT'S BECAUSE IT IS. Any trivialization is what you give it though. I didn't compare smokers to terror victims (tho it's all your blinded emotion will allow you to see), I compared a daily problem (uneeded death) this country can actually DO SOMETHING ABOUT with a similar problem which this country can't do anything about.

What about the "pin prick in the finger" comment?....if that is not trivializing the loss of life I don't know what is. Quit using bits and pieces of your own argument to try and save face...use it all in context.

Show me a single fact I have stated that is exagurated. Show me a single time when I have abnormally or incorrectly increased my facts to create a false argument in my favor. You say the exploitation was not different then other significant events? Do you think telemarkets called people's houses in 1945 to tell them about Holocaust credit card deals? How many blockbuster movies were made about it? 2 (perhaps that is exaguration), and over a time period of 60 years? You think they sold "Auschwitz - never forget" T-shirts in malls? Yes, it IS much different that other significant events.

Well being that telemarketing was not really invented before 1970......http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telemarketing
and credit card did not become really popular until around the 1960's it would be hard for telemarketers to call people's homes in 1945. Oh and by the way that comment was speculation or an idea based on "IF"...something you seem to not like others to do for their basis for their arguments but you seem to like to do yourself....:dry:

Whereas my comment about you exaggerating the facts is incorrect...you do nonetheless use facts to trivialize the loss of life on 9/11...you should be so proud!

People understood that pretty well within the first few days of the aftermath. The point was hit home upon the making of the first movie. The second movie was kicking a dead horse. There's understanding, and then there's overkill. We've hit the overkill mark.

Then there are different perspectives too. Take two people who may see a robbery...both may tell the story differently as they both had differnet perspectives.

Oh so you decide when the overkill mark is? Are you the "overkill police" or is that your opinion?

And if your family member was someone who just went to work that day and was killed unexpectantly, you would hate to have movies remind you of that. Are you saying the praise and honor of the heros should outweigh the concurrent harm these things do to the loved ones of everyone else? That's America for you - even more arrogant then me. I think a LITTLE modesty is in order.

You know I have thought about that...If my family member would have died that day. I would want people too see what happened that day over and over again...so that no one would forget what happened and to hopefully prevent something like that again.

Yes, but it's the act of sharing that is therapeutic. You think a widow who sees footage of the buildings collapse (because let's face it, it's shoved in our face at this point - hard to miss) actually likes it? Why don't we start sending home footage of soldiers who were tortured and killed to their widows? I'm sure they'll love that! It will help them "cope with their loss". :dry: No, no one forces them to see the movies - they are just struck with the knowledge that someone else is profiting off their dead loved ones (and I'm not talking about the heros). Again, something I'm sure people love.

Some of the books and movie have contributed to those that have lost loved ones that day, I don't have the exact figures, but I have heard of one of the movies who did contribute for sure and I know the author of "Let;s Roll" did very well for herself too.

Yeah and what actions did we take to achieve that goal? To go cause terror in someone else's country? Ensure they aren't socially free? Because some nutjob, our president, wants to kill them so he can satisfy... "God bless America". :dry:

Oh you think there were free before? Women wearing burka, not allowed to go to school, clitectomy(w/e it is called), dictators who gased their own people, do I need to continue?

erm, no. I've made rather strong points you can only fend off with semantics, avoidance, undersimplification, or attacking the most insignifcant detail of the greater point.

Oh please don't try to patronize yourself...You think you have made strong points. I have just used different techniques for blowing holes in your weak opinions.

The political actions of our president falls into the exploitation that I'm upset with, but it's only a small part of all my points. I'm making valid claims with backed evidence. You are not. Don't brush it off with "you don't like the president", it seems like you're just grasping at straws now.

Not really your diatribe is more of your opinion...I know you hate me using the word opinion that but it's true.

Oh I didn't know that George W. Bush got into the T-Shirt business...I know that is not what you are talking about, but you got to admit that was funny.

So for someone to exploit something it is usually out to gain something usually money, power or sexual gratification? What does he have to win? Can't win another election as he is has won the limit of 2 already. Kind of kills the power theory too huh? So do you think it is to continue the war in Iraq as you seem to be hung up on that? What does he personally have to gain out of continuing the war? You think he gets his rocks off sending brave young soldiers who may come back in a body bag?

Or do you feel that he should prevent people from selling trinkets of commemorating 9/11? Freemarket will take care of that eventually...when people stop buying commerration items then no one will make them to sell.

WaCk-HeAd

09-14-2006, 05:09 AM

Good video yes yes?

http://www.videosift.com/story.php?id=10557&where=index

Yes, very good video. Painful last few words though.

russian

09-14-2006, 09:11 AM

Idiots arguing with idiots arguing with idiots.

The Archon

09-14-2006, 09:36 AM

Medias always use everything to make money.
I remember when Pope died; every italian TV had his own talk-show about pope's death...

uniquinous

09-14-2006, 04:17 PM

So why would you even think that the terrorist had more justification to attack innocent civilians in the Twin Towers than the Japanese attacking a Naval Facility that was in the middle of the Pacific...Ah finally asking a question when you can't figure something out instead of resulting to childish name calling. Good! You seem to stress that the people who died on 9/11 were *more* innocent then the random PEACE TIME innocents, which included civilian women, children, etc as well. The fact being, the origin of an attack is justified much moreso in 9/11 where we block their social movement (see Wack-Head's post for specific details). WE HURT THEM. Pearl Harbor wasn't the same: we were only trying to aid, just as the UN does. We were attacked without NEARLY as much (arguably if any) provocation to the enemy compared to 9/11.

Why not call it what it is? Your first post in this thread was your opinion...You are entitled to it no matter how assine it may be. Surely you recognize that fact?

Opinions are like assholes everyone has got one...just some stink worse than other and some are more full of shit...kind of like yoursOh nevermind seems you're back to childish name calling again. Notify me when you're ready to enter an intellectual debate as an adult. Everything on these boards are opinion - try BACKING yours, for once, with relevant and credible evidence.

You talked about Intellegence in general...I was just pointing out the fact that alot of people get their intelligence(should have used the word knowledge) from books and movies on a subject.Please, don't try to backpedal your way out of your mistake with 'i meant to use a different word' and 'you talked about intelligence in general'. My exact quote was: "Do scams and movies improve our security? Or does intelligence? Is this information best served in the hands of military personel, or civilians?" I very clearly outline two different things: movies in the hands of the public, and intelligence in the hands of the military. No, I was not talking about intelligence in general - it was pretty specific.

When you try to trivialize the loss of life on 9/11 with random irrelevant numbers of death.
And when you compare 2800 deaths to a pin prick in the finger... Then yea you are saying that the loss of life was meaningless on that day.They aren't random, and they were very relevant. Just because you don't like them doesn't make them any less real. The damage to the mortality rate was 1%. Put in TAO terms, that would be a knight at 49.5 HP health. Does this make the numbers more clear? 1%. Not random. Not irrelevant. Heck you can't even claim that as opinion. FACT. 1%. Meanwhile, you are the only person who has even mentioned that the loss of life is meaningless. Stop putting words in other people's mouths.

No I just threw Darfur in there for good measure...as you threw it out there a few posts back for some irrelevant reason.You incorrectly threw it in there and now you're just backpedaling with poor excuses. It's ok to say "hmm I guess that had nothing to do with the convo at the time" and just move on.

Whereas my comment about you exaggerating the facts is incorrect...you do nonetheless use facts to trivialize the loss of life on 9/11See this is what I'm talking about. :) Good, you can admit a mistake from time to time. I used facts to back my "opinion", you should try it sometime.

Then there are different perspectives too. Take two people who may see a robbery...both may tell the story differently as they both had differnet perspectives.Do you honestly think the last movie presented a single new perspective to the story? Honestly? :huh:

Oh so you decide when the overkill mark is? Are you the "overkill police" or is that your opinion?Retreating to the "opinion" stance again, eh? I don't decide what is the cutoff for who is TALL, yet I can tell you for sure that a 7 foot person is TALL. Similarly, I HAVE NOT decided upon an overkill mark, but I can assure you we've passed it.

You know I have thought about that...If my family member would have died that day. I would want people too see what happened that day over and over again...so that no one would forget what happened and to hopefully prevent something like that again.That wasn't the question. The question was, if one of your loved ones died that day, would YOU want to see and be constantly reminded of it, whether you wanted to or not? (and yes, with the coverage being everywhere, Americans would need to bury their head in a hole to avoid it)

Some of the books and movie have contributed to those that have lost loved ones that day, I don't have the exact figures, but I have heard...Why don't you get some FACTS, then, and get back to me. As much as I love your hearsay, I'd rather do with credible evidence.

Oh you think there were free before? Women wearing burka, not allowed to go to school, clitectomy(w/e it is called), dictators who gased their own people, do I need to continue?Lemme ask you a few things:
1) are they free now?
2) Do women not wear the same dress now that we've "freed" them?
3) Are you actually sure that the entire extent of the people we attacked had dictators who gassed their people? Or are you making an incorrect generalization based on some smaller incident you once heard?

Bottom line: WE CAUSED TERROR.

Oh please don't try to patronize yourself...You think you have made strong points. I have just used different techniques for blowing holes in your weak opinions.

Not really your diatribe is more of your opinion...Still more hot air - still absolutely nothing to back it. But wait... that's your OPINION, so by your logic it doesn't mean anything anyway, right? :dry: I can support and back my opinion, you can't - that'd the difference. Some opinions are better then others. Debates are based off of eloquently backing opinions, not just shoving your fingers in your ears and screaming "that doesn't count it's only an opinion!". Again, such childish means of countering my points.

What does he have to win? Can't win another election as he is has won the limit of 2 already. Kind of kills the power theory too huh? So do you think it is to continue the war in Iraq as you seem to be hung up on that? What does he personally have to gain out of continuing the war? You think he gets his rocks off sending brave young soldiers who may come back in a body bag?By that logic he might as well not do anything at all during his second term because, by the standards of R G, he has nothing to gain. :dry: He might as well just sit on his fat ass and not care by that logic. What nonsense.

Realist

09-14-2006, 06:41 PM

Derisive -- not really, I'd call it more "deflating" but we don't need to quibble over semantics. Sarcasm -- yeah, you got me there. Pointless -- not exactly. My point (see!) was that we collectively delude ourselves that we are doing something so IMPORTANT here that it justifies us in being crappy to each other in defense of our positions.

I didn't really get that from your last post, but--

I haven't really seen very much "crappy" in this thread actually. We're passionate about our beliefs, sure; and its hard not to "denigrate" something about people who think differently than you; after all, if they are your equal in everything why should you trust your own beliefs/reasoning over theirs? But it's not like it's gotten really personal. We're disagreeing over real issues and trying to use facts and logic to discuss these issues, we're not just using an arbitrary debate as a platform for levying insults.

Well, I do agree that invasion by aliens would probably help us pull together as humans. Short of that, however, I think that our "tribes" have gotten larger and larger over the years. The advantages of mass media is such that it enables us to cross larger boundaries and connect more people. Where previously people thought of themselves as primarily "southerners" or "northerners," (until some time after the Civil War) now most think of themselves as Americans. Where previously Europe was splintered into various warring factions, we how have the European Union. I think it is reasonable to assume that this will continue to happen as media becomes even more accessible to all and we become more intertwined financially. It becomes easier and easier to identify with people with whom we are familiar and on whom we are mutually financially dependent.

Well, the question is whether similar tribes are uniting to make it easier to battle against other somewhat less similar tribes, or uniting simply because the world is becoming more connected and people actually feel more connected. Are the European nations allying because they are beginning to feel less "French" or "German" and more "European", culturally, or are they allying because of a "yeah we French hate you Germans, but we hate the Americans even more, and we hate the Chinese worse than either" kind of feeling?

Mass media is excellent at spreading American culture to the Middle East--but it is far more excellent at uniting the entire Middle East against a hated America--an increasing in tribal size, but also in tribal effectiveness and danger. The Nazis also used mass media to great tribalist effectiveness, as did even the Hutus in the Rwandan genocide. Meanwhile I still see no mass movement in which a human tribalism, or any kind of united humanity, is effectively proposed.

In any case, 9/11 in American eyes is definitely all about America being attacked. It has very clearly increased American tribalism, and I don't see how it can be converted to any sort of humanism (since a rational humanism wouldn't view it as particularly tragic compared to what goes on every day elsewhere in the world).

That said, I do believe that a human tribalism can be accomplished, by means of spreading a superior human culture accross the globe and either erasing or emasculating all other cultures. There's absolutely no way to do this by being nice to everyone though. Lies have to be shown for what they are. The truth can't be spoken quietly and politely.

Also, I don't really want to go into it right now, but your apparent fear of feelings is both short-sighted and small-minded (which is surprising coming from you).

I never said I feared fealings, I said that feelings are dangerous. This is in counter to the oft-repeated remark that we shouldn't worry about what other people feel/think, we should mind our own business until they start doing something that harms us. Problem is, by that time it is already too late.

I believe very strongly in feelings, and I think they should be used correctly, just like anything else. Feelings are an important front in the cultural wars.

That said--feelings are a very bad means of analyzing what ideas you should believe in.

We should examine our feelings and try to determine why we feel them. If it is for stupid reasons, perhaps we still can't stop the feeling, but at least we know how to act against it when determining what to actually believe.

Serge

09-14-2006, 07:19 PM

Wow this thread got big. :/

Swartzstrom

09-14-2006, 07:23 PM

It is extremely amazing that how when one person dies, it is publicized in America as a "tragedy". When one person dies in another country, it's a "statistic". When many people die in America, it's a "tragedy". When many more people die in another country, it's a "statistic".

While it's amazing.
It's also infuriating.

uniquinous

09-14-2006, 08:31 PM

In any case, 9/11 in American eyes is definitely all about America being attacked. It has very clearly increased American tribalism, and I don't see how it can be converted to any sort of humanism (since a rational humanism wouldn't view it as particularly tragic compared to what goes on every day elsewhere in the world).Yes, precisely. Humanistically, this doesn't really compare too much to any other "tragedy" in the world, but as Scwhartz (:huh:) pointed out, external to American deaths, there are only statistics.

I believe very strongly in feelings, and I think they should be used correctly, just like anything else. Feelings are an important front in the cultural wars.

That said--feelings are a very bad means of analyzing what ideas you should believe in.Yes it's the difference between objective decisions based on facts at hands, and the possibility of wreckless decision making based on subjective emotions.

I agree - feelings are wonderful, when used appropriately.

R G

09-14-2006, 09:33 PM

Ah finally asking a question when you can't figure something out instead of resulting to childish name calling. Good! You seem to stress that the people who died on 9/11 were *more* innocent then the random PEACE TIME innocents, which included civilian women, children, etc as well. The fact being, the origin of an attack is justified much moreso in 9/11 where we block their social movement (see Wack-Head's post for specific details). WE HURT THEM.

Well for that statement to be true those people that worked in the World Trade Center would have to do something to block their social movement...The military not only provided help to the enemies of Japan, but also cut off the supplies of Japan....someone with very limited intelligence can deduct that the Japanese were more justified to attack Pearl Harbor than some sucididal terrorists on 9/11 on some unarmed civilians working in an office tower.

So how did the people that were working in the World Trade Center have something to do with blocking their social movement?

You said it...now back it up.:dry:

Oh nevermind seems you're back to childish name calling again. Notify me when you're ready to enter an intellectual debate as an adult. Everything on these boards are opinion - try BACKING yours, for once, with relevant and credible evidence.

Never called you a name...I might have insulted your opinions....but since you seem transfixed on the fact that I called you a name I will....BOOBIEHEAD...:p

They aren't random, and they were very relevant. Just because you don't like them doesn't make them any less real.

Only relevant in an attempt to trivialize a tragic event...

Do you honestly think the last movie presented a single new perspective to the story? Honestly? :huh:

Didn't watch it....It would be really ironic if you did...thus contributing to what you are bitchin about in the first place.

I am sure the movie told the story in some perspective, but not seeing it I could not tell you for sure.

That wasn't the question. The question was, if one of your loved ones died that day, would YOU want to see and be constantly reminded of it, whether you wanted to or not? (and yes, with the coverage being everywhere, Americans would need to bury their head in a hole to avoid it)

Well I didn't know there was a new 9/11 Network Channel on TV much like Cartoon Network or the Food Channel....let me check my local listings...opps don't see it....

Ironic how I have not heard a damn thing about 9/11 all day today yet you want to act like it is on every channel every day.....oh and by the way I listened to talk radio while driving today(probally in the car for about 4 hours total) and watched the news today too

Lemme ask you a few things:
1) are they free now?
2) Do women not wear the same dress now that we've "freed" them?
3) Are you actually sure that the entire extent of the people we attacked had dictators who gassed their people? Or are you making an incorrect generalization based on some smaller incident you once heard?

1-More free than they were.
2-Some don't now and now they are not punished for it or sentenced to die as they once were
3-Never heard of the Kurds?
http://www.institutkurde.org/en/afp/archives/?src=news/060512035746.vbsr68kt.xml

http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical_weapons/chemiraqgas2.html

Still more hot air - still absolutely nothing to back it. But wait... that's your OPINION, so by your logic it doesn't mean anything anyway, right? :dry: I can support and back my opinion, you can't - that'd the difference. Some opinions are better then others. Debates are based off of eloquently backing opinions, not just shoving your fingers in your ears and screaming "that doesn't count it's only an opinion!".

We can go back to comparing opinions to asses here...You may think that Tom Cruise has a nice ass and I on the other hand may think that Jennifer Lopez has a nice ass. Both of us are right in our own minds. You may take some measurements to define Tom's ass and try to justify your opinion of it. But I might just like the asethetic appeal of Jennifer Lopez's...not really knowing the measurements I can size up a good ass just with common sense and the background of scoping out some nice asses in the past.

Basically common sense often can trump a bunch of facts grabbed out of the air to support some argument that you feel that is right.

By that logic he might as well not do anything at all during his second term because, by the standards of R G, he has nothing to gain. :dry: He might as well just sit on his fat ass and not care by that logic. What nonsense.

You avoided every question I asked? You insinuated that he had something to gain...What?

It's not helping his poll numbers or popularity? It's not helping his wallet? It's not helping get his rocks off? It is not helping his presidential legacy? What does he have to gain? You said it...back it up.

Why don't you get some FACTS, then, and get back to me. As much as I love your hearsay, I'd rather do with credible evidence.

You wanted some evidence that 9/11 victims families and charities got some of the profits of the books and movies...

Last Movie
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/5219494.stm

Flight 93
http://jennifer.prblogs.org/2006/08/30/911-movies-donate-combined-20-percent-of-opening-profits-to-charity-is-it-enough/

Lisa Beamer did quite well for herself too - Author of Let's Roll

http://www.amazon.com/Lets-Roll-Ordinary-Extraordinary-Courage/dp/0842373195

Do I need to continue? :rolleyes:

meat.eater

09-14-2006, 09:54 PM

Do I need to continue?

No.

R G

09-14-2006, 10:05 PM

and triggering civilian caualties with the aim of finding all these terrorists is different from civilian casualties in 9/11 with the aim to bring down 'american terrorists' is different how exactly?

Well what would you do if someone started shooting at your your mom hidding behind someone else? Later in your post you said you would fight and die for her...What if it meant killing an innocent victim to kill someone who was gonna kill your mom? Tough question huh? I only used it as I have no idea how much you value your own life.

The point being if you really value your life and are being shot at you will most likely return fire....and yes unfortunatly other may be hit by the return fire.

Northwind was sarcastic. you were on the deepnub level.

Oh now you gonna call me a name...:crybaby:

no. i would fight and die for them.

So much for this quote "people like me try not to give into fear and never accept violence as a solution."

Glad to hear that you will stand up and fight like a man despite your first quote. Guess we can only assume that you value some lifes more than others...you just have to know them personally.

do i need to say anything about comparing the entire length and breadth of human interaction with a game of chance?

Your original point was that what are the chances of being killed by a terrorist...not very good chance of that happening but neither is getting shot by the gun with the first pull of the trigger either...albeit it is better chance of being killed by the bullet. ;)

uniquinous

09-14-2006, 10:23 PM

Well for that statement to be true those people that worked in the World Trade Center would have to do something to block their social movement...The military not only provided help to the enemies of Japan, but also cut off the supplies of Japan....someone with very limited intelligence can deduct that the Japanese were more justified to attack Pearl Harbor than some sucididal terrorists on 9/11 on some unarmed civilians working in an office tower.

So how did the people that were working in the World Trade Center have something to do with blocking their social movement?

You said it...now back it up.:dry: Erm, no. You can't take what I said, create a completely new and otherwise useless conclusion about it, and then tell ME to back your statement. MY statement, on the other hand, was that the US blocked social movement, and in return they attacked the US. What part of that do you want me to back up?

Only relevant in an attempt to trivialize a tragic event...Remember how I said that one of your methods of dealing with my claims is by avoiding them? 1%. Everytime I bring it up, you completely ignore that FACT. 1%. Don't you have an OPINION on the matter? :rolleyes:

Didn't watch it....It would be really ironic if you did...thus contributing to what you are bitchin about in the first place.

I am sure the movie told the story in some perspective, but not seeing it I could not tell you for sure.Take a guess. Come on. You've been so good at spouting claims without background up till this point. Try and take a random guess as to whether the last movie had a unique perspective compared to every other movie/documentary/newspecial.

Well I didn't know there was a new 9/11 Network Channel on TV much like Cartoon Network or the Food Channel....let me check my local listings...opps don't see it....You're telling me, in the days leading up to 9/11 and the day of, you didn't once see or hear anything about it? No one said anything about this over-the-top exploitation happening every day - that's you twisting someone else's claim again. I tried to avoid the crap, and STILL was faced with numerous pictures and videos of it, even in passing.

1-More free than they were.
2-Some don't now and now they are not punished for it or sentenced to die as they once were
3-Never heard of the Kurds?
So, some are free, and some aren't... So, are you saying we have brought no terror to the middle east? Can you honestly claim that? As for the Kurds - you seemed to have missed my question: Are you making an incorrect generalization on a specific incident you heard of? It seems the answer is a resounding YES, since you seem to assume that ALL of the middle east had dictators that gassed their own people simply because it happened in one place. Well, by your logic, since the Kurds did it, we might as well invade all of the middle east - why not hit half of africa while we're in the general viscinity, since they are also closeby...

We can go back to comparing opinions to asses here...Yes, that is possible. Here's another opinion: You think playing with fire while covered with gasoline is a smart idea. I do not. No, these "opinions" I'm presenting are not as trivial as ass-comparisons. Not all opinions are made equally.

You insinuated that he had something to gain...What? First off: ratings. He was walking into an election year. He didn't get too popular in the long run, but that was a goal nonetheless. Second, and perhaps more important: OIL. Think about it. Heck even the democrats wanted to get into Afghanistan, but Bush was obsessed with Iraq.

You wanted some evidence that 9/11 victims families and charities got some of the profits of the books and movies...

Do I need to continue?No. that's very good! See this is the kind of decent and argument-responsible proof I was looking for. Now if only you can back your other claims like this. :rolleyes: So now the question stands: was the making of this movie more or less beneficial for those who lost a loved one working in that building? I would say less - but THAT HAPPENS TO ACTUALLY BE a baseless opinion that neither one of us can back.

Your original point was that what are the chances of being killed by a terrorist...not very good chance of that happening but neither is getting shot by the gun with the first pull of the trigger either...albeit it is better chance of being killed by the bulletWait did you actually just compare the chance you will die in a terrorist attack with actively wanting to play Russian Roulette? :huh: What next? Change of winning the lotto = chance of getting heads on a coin toss? Do you not understand the concept of Russian Roulette? Someone ALWAYS dies. It's a 100% guaruntee, if you play to the end. Getting killed in a terrorist attack in america? Not a 100% guaruntee. At most 99% :rolleyes:

R G

09-15-2006, 07:39 AM

Erm, no. You can't take what I said, create a completely new and otherwise useless conclusion about it, and then tell ME to back your statement. MY statement, on the other hand, was that the US blocked social movement, and in return they attacked the US. What part of that do you want me to back up?

Back up the part where the innocent people in the World Trade center actually had something to do with, in your eyes, blocking their social movement.

I explained how the people that worked on a military base acually contributed to aiding Japan's enemy as well as pointing out that their supplies were cut off. The people in those Towers and planes did absolutely nothing to contributing in what you consider a just cause.

Remember how I said that one of your methods of dealing with my claims is by avoiding them? 1%. Everytime I bring it up, you completely ignore that FACT. 1%. Don't you have an OPINION on the matter? :rolleyes:

One percent is One percent

One Percent of 100 is one person...Is that irrelevant in your eyes? If it were your loved one would it be more relevant?

Take a guess. Come on. You've been so good at spouting claims without background up till this point. Try and take a random guess as to whether the last movie had a unique perspective compared to every other movie/documentary/newspecial.

I need to see it for myself...but it probally did show more of an individual perspective than just showing footage of the towers being destroyed and the planes crashing....that would make for quite a boring movie.

I did see Pearl Harbor and it did have a differerent persective...probally all fiction.

You're telling me, in the days leading up to 9/11 and the day of, you didn't once see or hear anything about it? No one said anything about this over-the-top exploitation happening every day - that's you twisting someone else's claim again. I tried to avoid the crap, and STILL was faced with numerous pictures and videos of it, even in passing.

Did I say that? I still hear about Pearl Harbor in the days leading up to it and that happened several decades ago.

So, some are free, and some aren't... So, are you saying we have brought no terror to the middle east? Can you honestly claim that? As for the Kurds - you seemed to have missed my question: Are you making an incorrect generalization on a specific incident you heard of? It seems the answer is a resounding YES, since you seem to assume that ALL of the middle east had dictators that gassed their own people simply because it happened in one place. Well, by your logic, since the Kurds did it, we might as well invade all of the middle east - why not hit half of africa while we're in the general viscinity, since they are also closeby...

We are talking about Iraq...not the entire Middle East. And terror has been prevalant in the Middle East long before there ever was a United States of America....If I need to back that claim up I will.;)

Yes, that is possible. Here's another opinion: You think playing with fire while covered with gasoline is a smart idea. I do not. No, these "opinions" I'm presenting are not as trivial as ass-comparisons. Not all opinions are made equally.

If I tried to compare the death of some idiot who shot their brains in a suicide to some poor soul who was shot by the hand of a phycopath....then yes my comparision would be to trivialize the death of the poor soul by the hand of another.

You did much the same in by trying to compare smokers to random victims in pointing out, in your mind, that it was not a big deal even going to the length of comparing it to a pin prick in a finger.

First off: ratings. He was walking into an election year. He didn't get too popular in the long run, but that was a goal nonetheless. Second, and perhaps more important: OIL. Think about it. Heck even the democrats wanted to get into Afghanistan, but Bush was obsessed with Iraq.

He had to react to the events of 9/11...the people of America would not have it any other way. The fact that he included Iraq was just a misguided decision based upon the information of the CIA and other ally intellegence agencies.

His poll ratings did infact go up but only as a result of the American people coming together....his ratings were up before we ever officially invaded Afganistan or Iraq.

Truthfully though Iraq should have been attacked during the Clinton administration for breaking the rules of their surrender in the first Gulf War....but there again that is my opinion.

OIL...You got proof that George W. Bush is getting OIL out of Iraq for his own gain? Oh this is news breaking you should call CNN!!! :rolleyes:

Again What did he have to gain?

No. that's very good! See this is the kind of decent and argument-responsible proof I was looking for. Now if only you can back your other claims like this. :rolleyes: So now the question stands: was the making of this movie more or less beneficial for those who lost a loved one working in that building? I would say less - but THAT HAPPENS TO ACTUALLY BE a baseless opinion that neither one of us can back.

And maybe you could do the same rather than try to constantly try to use pointless analogies to justify your arguments.

Wait did you actually just compare the chance you will die in a terrorist attack with actively wanting to play Russian Roulette? :huh: What next? Change of winning the lotto = chance of getting heads on a coin toss? Do you not understand the concept of Russian Roulette? Someone ALWAYS dies. It's a 100% guaruntee, if you play to the end. Getting killed in a terrorist attack in america? Not a 100% guaruntee. At most 99% :rolleyes:

And you don't seem to understand that someone almost ALWAYS dies in a terrorist attack. The difference is the Russian Roulette player dies by his own hand...big difference there...unless of course you want to trivialize the death of the suicide victim.;)

uniquinous

09-15-2006, 09:52 AM

Back up the part where the innocent people in the World Trade center actually had something to do with, in your eyes, blocking their social movement.

I explained how the people that worked on a military base acually contributed to aiding Japan's enemy as well as pointing out that their supplies were cut off. The people in those Towers and planes did absolutely nothing to contributing in what you consider a just cause.Again, I'm not going to back a stance YOU want me to make - sorry. Pearl Harbor was not the source of the aid. The WTC was not the source of the blocked social movement. Politicians were in both cases. So by your logic the only justified atack would have been the direct assasination of every American politician involved in these things. No, that's not how this works. The US (regardless of what part of the US) did damage (or offered aid), and the US (regardless of what part of the US) was attacked. It's not unusual for dogs, after being hit by a person, to bite their attacker in the leg. I'm not calling these people dogs, I'm just saying the counterattacks were animalistic and strategic. Stop asking me to back anything other then that claim.

One Percent of 100 is one person...Is that irrelevant in your eyes? If it were your loved one would it be more relevant?Actually it would be like saying that 100 people are scheduled for death and it turns out to be 101. It wasn't 1% of the population that died, as your poor example suggests, it's a 1% increase to the already established mortality rate. If you want to claim my TAO knight example was wrong, that's fine, but I think the point is just as strong if I say a knight's total health was moved to 50.5 instead. 1% increase - very small. I don't say this because I'm exagurating the facts, I'm saying it because THERE IS NO WHOLE NUMBER SMALLER THAN ONE. I put it in perspective, and you don't like actually seeing how small it is. Sorry.

Did I say that? I still hear about Pearl Harbor in the days leading up to it and that happened several decades ago.No, you just insinuated that you hear nothing now, when it was very clear I have always been alluding to 9/11 each year and the few days that lead up to it. Furthermore, what you hear and see of PH is no where near the same extent as 9/11.

We are talking about Iraq...not the entire Middle East. And terror has been prevalant in the Middle East long before there ever was a United States of America....If I need to back that claim up I will.;) No, WE were talking about the middle east. In fact, you didn't even mention the word Iraq until page 9. Regardless of that pointless sidetrack, my point still holds: there were countries in the middle east that we absolutely instilled terror upon that did NOT have these (legitimate claims, but) horrid things happen to them.

You did much the same in by trying to compare smokers to random victims in pointing out, in your mind, that it was not a big deal even going to the length of comparing it to a pin prick in a finger. Oh you're still hung up on that smoking thing? Would it have been better if I used deaths from heart disease or cancer? I AM NOT comparing smokers to victims. I've stated that three times now with explanation. Would you like the links to these times? REPEAT: I compared one death rate of an incident we can't do anything about to another daily death rate of something we CAN do something about. I am not comparing the types of people, how they die, the justification of death, or any other silly notion you may have. But the current situation is that we are continually sinking money into a situation we can no longer help, when we could be putting those same funds into treating those who could be directly helped.

He had to react to the events of 9/11...the people of America would not have it any other way. The fact that he included Iraq was just a misguided decision based upon the information of the CIA and other ally intellegence agencies.No, the president did not have to act at the demands of a pissed off country. In fact, we elect our president and create our laws with the sole purpose of creating just and beneficial decision-making abilities within the country which is best for everyone, not just the majority. If we only followed majority rules this country would have been able to vote out all non-white-Christians a long while ago. The president, at the head of the government, should be following what is BEST for the country, not what we want - it just so happens that the two generally coincide.

Again What did he have to gain?

...

His poll ratings did infact go up...Well, you didn't even need my help answering your own question there, did you? :)

And you don't seem to understand that someone almost ALWAYS dies in a terrorist attack. The difference is the Russian Roulette player dies by his own hand...big difference there...unless of course you want to trivialize the death of the suicide victim.;)erm, yes, people die in a succesful attack nearly 100% of the time (this pretty much defines a successful attack). However, attacks 1) aren't ALWAYS guarunteed to happen, and 2) aren't successful. Thus, there is NOT a 100% chance of dying in a terrorist attack when living in America. In fact, you have a much greater chance of hitting the lotto then dying in a terrorist attack. HOWEVER, your little gun-game, if played to completion, ALWAYS results in death. Now, do the phrases "ALWAYS" and "BETTER CHANCE AT WINNING THE LOTTO" seem the same to you? Note the difference. Instead of just complaining you make poor analogies and examples, I actually point out WHY. You try now. :)

Northwind

09-15-2006, 10:42 AM

I didn't really get that from your last post, but--

I haven't really seen very much "crappy" in this thread actually. We're passionate about our beliefs, sure; and its hard not to "denigrate" something about people who think differently than you; after all, if they are your equal in everything why should you trust your own beliefs/reasoning over theirs? But it's not like it's gotten really personal. We're disagreeing over real issues and trying to use facts and logic to discuss these issues, we're not just using an arbitrary debate as a platform for levying insults.
Yeah, I guess my response was to the forums in general and not just this thread. I think it's actually been pretty decent in this thread over the last few pages.

Well, the question is whether similar tribes are uniting to make it easier to battle against other somewhat less similar tribes, or uniting simply because the world is becoming more connected and people actually feel more connected. Are the European nations allying because they are beginning to feel less "French" or "German" and more "European", culturally, or are they allying because of a "yeah we French hate you Germans, but we hate the Americans even more, and we hate the Chinese worse than either" kind of feeling?
Well, I would say that as the EU continues, they might be feeling more "European," but it would be interesting to hear from some Europeans about their sense of this.
That said, I do believe that a human tribalism can be accomplished, by means of spreading a superior human culture accross the globe and either erasing or emasculating all other cultures. There's absolutely no way to do this by being nice to everyone though. Lies have to be shown for what they are. The truth can't be spoken quietly and politely.
This is interesting, but I think that "erasing or emasculating all other cultures" is so abhorent to those within a particular target culture that they are likely to react violently against this. I think this is kind of what we are seeing with extreme Muslims reacting against American hegemony (which they regard as an attempt to erase their culture). How do you think that this realistically could be accomplished?

Personally, I feel that if we move toward emphasizing the shared components of our cultures (and most cultures and religions share MANY similar values) we are more likely to be able to move toward a more unified view of humanity. This obviously doesn't work for the real differences that cannot be reconciled, but it generally seems to me to be a move in the right direction. As long as certain cultures feel like they are targeted for "emasculation," I think that they are likely to band together and strongly resist any such intervention. I'm really not sure how to get around this, but facilitating respect for each other as fellow humans seems like a necessary start.

I never said I feared fealings, I said that feelings are dangerous. This is in counter to the oft-repeated remark that we shouldn't worry about what other people feel/think, we should mind our own business until they start doing something that harms us. Problem is, by that time it is already too late.

I believe very strongly in feelings, and I think they should be used correctly, just like anything else. Feelings are an important front in the cultural wars.

That said--feelings are a very bad means of analyzing what ideas you should believe in.

We should examine our feelings and try to determine why we feel them. If it is for stupid reasons, perhaps we still can't stop the feeling, but at least we know how to act against it when determining what to actually believe.
Ok. It looks like I misunderstood you. Thanks for clarifying.

sayter

09-15-2006, 10:46 AM

9/11 was a tragedy. However, it was also the fuel that the US government needed to excuse whatever actions they felt like taking to prove their penis was larger than that of other nations...especially since their huge dual penises in new york got knocked down.

Since then, personal freedoms have been torn from the people, pointless wars have been launched..the man responsible STILL hasn't been caught and the president has stated publically he doesn't really CARE that he hasn't been caught....the list goes on and on. Not only was 9/11 a tragedy for the loss of human life, it was also a tragedy to the american people on a long-term scale. Thankfully Bush only gets 2 more years, but that certainly doesn't mean the president that follows will be any better.

But lets hope that said president isn't any WORSE.

MY heart goes out to those who lost loved ones on that day. It also goes out to the families of the killers responsible for their loss. Had it not been for the foreign policies and actions of the states in the first place, this would not have been a problem. It is one vicious cycle after another, that fuels an endless fire that, im sorry, will never be extinguished.

uniquinous

09-15-2006, 10:46 AM

Actually I just finished reading Orson Scott Card's Enderverse series, where (long stories short) a series of horrid wars results in a world-united hegemony. The way Card established this system was through an organization called the Free People of Earth, whereas any country that joined had to do so democratically, and upon joining had to willingly give up command of their army to the Hegemony. Thus when *any* country within the FPE was attacked, armies from all over the world put a fast stop to it with little beaurocracy. Erm, reading the books might explain it better, but I found it interesting and relevant.

9/11 was a tragedy. However, it was also the fuel that the US government needed to excuse whatever actions they felt like taking to prove their penis was larger than that of other nations...especially since their huge dual penises in new york got knocked down.IYou are so wonderful!

sayter

09-15-2006, 10:52 AM

I am very, very familiar with the "ednderverse" as they are probably my favorite books ever written, uni.

It is also fiction :) And bear in mind that it would take exactly that to unite the people of our world: an event from OFF world, or something catastrophic that messed with us all. Like a Catagory 50 tropical storm, etc. I'd love to see the world united. Unfortunately, the chances are very, VERY low.

Ender Wiggin FTW!

hmm...and maybe Bean too..... not huge on Peter, though that boy has brains...I'll give him that.

You are so wonderful!
I try ...it's hard being me *smirk*

uniquinous

09-15-2006, 10:56 AM

yeah i need an Enderverse thread. ANYWAY - you're right about the fiction part. The thing I found most interesting, that clearly would never happen at the hands of the UN or any other similar organization, is that for the countries to become a member of the FPE, they had to willingly give up their own army. That was the sacrifice and trust - one which no one would dare risk today.

sayter

09-15-2006, 11:09 AM

much like this whole nuclear arms race thing.

The US and other "major" nations cn have nukes to "defend" themselves and at as an intimidator. But god forbid another nation does the same. Once again on the "our penis is bigger" thing.

uniquinous

09-15-2006, 11:19 AM

yeah - I completely agree - and yes, much of that sentiment feels all too testosterone "penis jealousy" driven.

You sound just like my old sex and gender prof :)

sayter

09-15-2006, 11:24 AM

i sound liek a prof eh? I will certainly take that as a compliment!

uniquinous

09-15-2006, 11:28 AM

oh this guy was the best - flamboyantly gay in all the right ways. For his bondage lecture, he started by chaining himself to the podium and throwing the key into the audience. Then at the end of class he got down on his knees and begged to be released :p

sayter

09-15-2006, 11:31 AM

hah awesome! I like him already! psst...wheres he live? I could use a good slave.....

R G

09-15-2006, 01:28 PM

Again, I'm not going to back a stance YOU want me to make - sorry. Pearl Harbor was not the source of the aid. The WTC was not the source of the blocked social movement. Politicians were in both cases. So by your logic the only justified atack would have been the direct assasination of every American politician involved in these things. No, that's not how this works. The US (regardless of what part of the US) did damage (or offered aid), and the US (regardless of what part of the US) was attacked. It's not unusual for dogs, after being hit by a person, to bite their attacker in the leg. I'm not calling these people dogs, I'm just saying the counterattacks were animalistic and strategic. Stop asking me to back anything other then that claim.

Of course you are not going to back a stance you can't back up....But if you want to...here is the question that I posed to you yet again...HOW DID THE PEOPLE IN THE 9/11 ATTACK THE ATTACKERS? HOW DID THEY DESERVE TO DIE MORE SO THAN THE ATTACKERS ON PEARL HARBOR? (Your thoughts not mine)

Still with the stupid analogies....now you have gone to dogs...:rolleyes:

That is fine...I will continue to use it...Whereas it is true that dogs might attack their attacker. It is also true that they don't just run out in the street running after cars looking to kill people at random, ending in their demise as well, simply because some other human hit them before.

Actually it would be like saying that 100 people are scheduled for death and it turns out to be 101. It wasn't 1% of the population that died, as your poor example suggests, it's a 1% increase to the already established mortality rate. If you want to claim my TAO knight example was wrong, that's fine, but I think the point is just as strong if I say a knight's total health was moved to 50.5 instead. 1% increase - very small. I don't say this because I'm exagurating the facts, I'm saying it because THERE IS NO WHOLE NUMBER SMALLER THAN ONE. I put it in perspective, and you don't like actually seeing how small it is. Sorry.

Small does not mean it's not significant. In your eyes you don't consider it significant because you didn't know anyone or anyone effected by it.

In some of the post you seem to actually care about the widows and father or motherless children but your original post was as heartless and uncaring as they get....nothing else to really say.

No, you just insinuated that you hear nothing now, when it was very clear I have always been alluding to 9/11 each year and the few days that lead up to it. Furthermore, what you hear and see of PH is no where near the same extent as 9/11.

No you said "constantly blinded"...insinuating that it's all we hear everyday.

No, WE were talking about the middle east. In fact, you didn't even mention the word Iraq until page 9. Regardless of that pointless sidetrack, my point still holds: there were countries in the middle east that we absolutely instilled terror upon that did NOT have these (legitimate claims, but) horrid things happen to them.

What terror did the US do to the middle east? We placed sanctions on Iraq(maybe another country) but I don't recall terrorist acts as you put it. Explain what you are talking about a little further...better yet back it up with some facts rather than your opinion.

Oh you're still hung up on that smoking thing? Would it have been better if I used deaths from heart disease or cancer? I AM NOT comparing smokers to victims. I've stated that three times now with explanation.

NO you are not comparing smokers to victims. You are comparing their deaths to each other though.

I compared one death rate of an incident we can't do anything about to another daily death rate of something we CAN do something about.

Wrong!...We can try to do something about terrorism attacks in the future. And attacks have been adverted...(if you want links I will get them for ya)... but if a person wants to live a life style that ends in their demise then really what can you do?

Take your stupid smoking fact to the extreme. 1200 smokers die a year and we can do something about that by what?? banning smoking.

More people than that die from obesity issues of which heart disease and cancer can be linked in some cases...why don't we ban food too while we are at it? :rolleyes:

It's ridiculously silly!

I am not comparing the types of people, how they die, the justification of death, or any other silly notion you may have.

Yes you are! Why can't you see that? What other reason would you bring mention of the two unrelated statistics? It's to make a comparison...to show in your view why one of them is insignificant in your eyes.

No, the president did not have to act at the demands of a pissed off country. In fact, we elect our president and create our laws with the sole purpose of creating just and beneficial decision-making abilities within the country which is best for everyone, not just the majority. If we only followed majority rules this country would have been able to vote out all non-white-Christians a long while ago. The president, at the head of the government, should be following what is BEST for the country, not what we want - it just so happens that the two generally coincide.

I believe he thinks he is doing what he thinks is BEST for the country. He took the oath of office:

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/pihtml/pioaths.html

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_preamble.html

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

For him to do nothing would be breaking the oath of office...;)

Or sitting back and watching your mom or sister get violently raped and killed while just sitting back and watching....(that refernce was for shatterstar)

On the other hand taking the troops out of Iraq because his approval ratings are down is actually breaking the oath of office in his eyes....of course that is my opinion of which is backed up by some facts.;)

erm, yes, people die in a succesful attack nearly 100% of the time (this pretty much defines a successful attack). However, attacks 1) aren't ALWAYS guarunteed to happen, and 2) aren't successful. blah blah blah

That's all I need to hear...."people die in a succesful attack nearly 100% of the time"

Realist

09-15-2006, 05:21 PM

This is interesting, but I think that "erasing or emasculating all other cultures" is so abhorent to those within a particular target culture that they are likely to react violently against this. I think this is kind of what we are seeing with extreme Muslims reacting against American hegemony (which they regard as an attempt to erase their culture). How do you think that this realistically could be accomplished?

I don't know. Culture seems to be a really complex subject. Sometimes it can change really fast, and we can locate reasons for these changes--i.e, contact with a new culture, economic upheaval--and yet at other times when similar changes occur there seems to be little long term cultural changes. I'll look into it.

Personally, I feel that if we move toward emphasizing the shared components of our cultures (and most cultures and religions share MANY similar values) we are more likely to be able to move toward a more unified view of humanity.

This isn't necessarily a bad way of going about it. I'm not sure how similar different cultures actually are, though. The Westernization of the globe has changed pretty much all cultures so that they are all more similar than they were before anyways; it's possible that a lot of the similarity you see is due to mass Westernization rather than to something intrinsically human. Problem is, I don't think all aspects of Western culture are very good. Say, I think a lot of ancient societies had much healthier views on sex than anything we see today. But I guess that's sort of a topic for another thread.

Forest_Archer

09-15-2006, 05:30 PM

The media manipulates American minds, that's for sure. However, if you are ignorant, you're easily spotted. I'd call you a Republican.

inked

09-15-2006, 05:42 PM

The media manipulates American minds, that's for sure. However, if you are ignorant, you're easily spotted. I'd call you a Republican.

The media is always manipulating American minds to be as anti republican as you seem to be.

Northwind

09-15-2006, 11:05 PM

Culture discussion yada yada yada.
Yeah, interesting stuff. I'd like to hear more of your ideas.
Problem is, I don't think all aspects of Western culture are very good. Say, I think a lot of ancient societies had much healthier views on sex than anything we see today. But I guess that's sort of a topic for another thread.
Well, at least on that thread, we'll be advocating for similar positions. :)

WaCk-HeAd

09-16-2006, 02:35 PM

Sssh, you battyboys!

uniquinous

09-16-2006, 06:51 PM

Of course you are not going to back a stance you can't back up....But if you want to...here is the question that I posed to you yet again...HOW DID THE PEOPLE IN THE 9/11 ATTACK THE ATTACKERS? HOW DID THEY DESERVE TO DIE MORE SO THAN THE ATTACKERS ON PEARL HARBOR? (Your thoughts not mine) No, I won't back a stance YOU made. If you want me to back a specific point, QUOTE me and point it out. Stop rewording it into something twisted and generally not my original point and then tell me to back THAT. I'll back MY claims, not your twisted versions of them. Regardless, I'll answer your quesetion.
Q: Which country directly hurt the group of people that attacked us on 9/11?
A: America.
Q: Which country did the abovementioned group then attack?
A: America.
If you don't see how they attacked the same the same people who hurt them, you're blind. If you don't see how these answers are DRASTICALLY different for the Pearl Harbor case, you're also very very blind.

That is fine...I will continue to use it...Whereas it is true that dogs might attack their attacker. It is also true that they don't just run out in the street running after cars looking to kill people at random, ending in their demise as well, simply because some other human hit them before.Perhaps you didn't quite see the analogy too well. 1 Person = 1 Country. Biting the ankle of a country is normal despite some other part causing the damage. These terrorists did not attack random other countries who didn't screw them over somehow. You don't see Osama blowing up Quebec for a reason.

Small does not mean it's not significant. In your eyes you don't consider it significant because you didn't know anyone or anyone effected by it.

In some of the post you seem to actually care about the widows and father or motherless children but your original post was as heartless and uncaring as they get....nothing else to really say. No, small means it's SMALL. Not LARGE. The OPPOSITE of "a lot". I care about the people who lost loved ones. I find it silly at this point that everyone else is still flippant. We spend more efforts in media then rebuilding. More efforts in war then familial compensation. Don't confuse my stance on the individual who lost someone with mass media exploitation.

No you said "constantly blinded"...insinuating that it's all we hear everyday.Clearly you are unable to pick up on basic colloqual meaning and instead attack semantics. Clearly you assume that, within a thread made on and about 9/11, I'm talking about every day of the year. I'll try to correct my wording so that everything is spelled out for you next time.

What terror did the US do to the middle east? We placed sanctions on Iraq(maybe another country) but I don't recall terrorist acts as you put it. Explain what you are talking about a little further...better yet back it up with some facts rather than your opinion.We did this:
http://www.mondodisotto.it/imageiraq/U.S.%20bombing%20on%20April%204%20in%20the%20Alef% 20Dar%20section%20of%20Baghdad%20-.jpg http://www.thewe.cc/thewei/images2/iraq_war_photos/bombing_iraq1_mar2003l.jpe http://www.faireal.net/Afghanistan/kubota/af_2001_injured_boy_tn.jpg (http://www.faireal.net/Afghanistan/)
Perhaps you need a picture book to help, but we CAUSED TERROR. As many in this very thread have stated, we attacked reckless agression with reckless agression.

NO you are not comparing smokers to victims. You are comparing their deaths to each other though.Precisely. I'm comparing 1200 people that die every day, to 2800 that died one day 5 years ago. Since 9/11/01, over 2 million people have died from smoking, when we can be doing more to prevent that. A little funding goes a long way. But heck, why do that when we as a society can just make another movie? :dry:

Wrong!...We can try to do something about terrorism attacks in the future. And attacks have been adverted...(if you want links I will get them for ya)... but if a person wants to live a life style that ends in their demise then really what can you do?Educate the population - provide alternatives - provide treatment and easily accessible medical care for early problems. Yes we can try to avoid terrorism - but WE DO NOT DO THAT WITH MOVIE DEALS AND EXCESSIVE MEDIA COVERAGE. That has been the largest ongoing point of this thread. If your stance is that we should battle terrorism, I agree, but ask how you think the things I've indicated in my first post have acomplished that goal.

But really, it could be any statistic, not just smoking. We could put money into heart disease or cancer research. But heck, why try to work towards a better standard of healthcare when movies are so much more entertaining!

Yes you are! Why can't you see that? What other reason would you bring mention of the two unrelated statistics? It's to make a comparison...to show in your view why one of them is insignificant in your eyes.Clearly you know what I'm thinking better then I am. The ONLY comparison I made was from one static mortality rate, to one dynamic mortality rate. That's it. I had to use SOME example, but the one I chose was trivial. It could have been anything. Trust me, I see what I'm comparing ;)

On the other hand taking the troops out of Iraq because his approval ratings are down is actually breaking the oath of office in his eyes....of course that is my opinion of which is backed up by some facts.Oh you think it's impossible for a president to never bend that oath just a little bit? Oh that's just precious! You actually believe that presidents exclusively work under the orders of that oath regardless of whether their own motives correspond or not? Are you actually telling me you believe every president who has ever murmered that oath, including Bush, has never done a single thing for self-benefit, ratings, political power, etc that doesn't... "fudge" that oath just a little bit? :huh: heheheheh ok now you got me laughing.

That's all I need to hear...."people die in a succesful attack nearly 100% of the time"Oh going back to sticking your fingers in your ears again and ignoring the point, eh? Clearly you failed math class, or at the least never learned statistics. Let's break this down for the simple-minded:
Chance a successful terrorist attack will create death: 100%
Chance there will be a terrorist attack on any given day: (let's say) 0.1%
Chance the terrorist attack is successful: (let's say) 50%
Chance the attack will occur in your neighborhood: ~0.0000001%
------------------------------------------------
Chance a given person will be killed in a terrorist attack (in this scenario): about 1 in 10 trillion (10000000000000)

Now for your example! People play Russian Roulette (assume 6 chambers)
Chance that pulling the trigger will fire a bullet: 16.6%
Number of times the trigger is pulled: infinite (until death)
-----------------------------------------------
Chance someone will die when playing Russian Roulette: 100%

Note the difference between 100% and 1/10trillion. Oh, but you heard what you wanted to hear out of context already and are too childish to see anything else. Oops!

R G

09-24-2006, 05:26 PM

No, I won't back a stance YOU made. If you want me to back a specific point, QUOTE me and point it out. Stop rewording it into something twisted and generally not my original point and then tell me to back THAT. I'll back MY claims, not your twisted versions of them. Regardless, I'll answer your quesetion.
Q: Which country directly hurt the group of people that attacked us on 9/11?
A: America.
Q: Which country did the abovementioned group then attack?
A: America.
If you don't see how they attacked the same the same people who hurt them, you're blind. If you don't see how these answers are DRASTICALLY different for the Pearl Harbor case, you're also very very blind.

You didn't answer any of my questions...still avioding it huh???...You stated that you felt that the attackers of 9/11 were more justified than the Japanese...back it up. Why do you feel that way? Or I guess you can continue to twist and avoid what you said with more dumb analogies.

These terrorists did not attack random other countries who didn't screw them over somehow. You don't see Osama blowing up Quebec for a reason.

And how did they get screwed over by the US??? Once again your words not mine.

On Quebec and Canada...Give them time....It's a big world!

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/TerroristAttacksAlQaeda.png

Moazzam Begg, while held in extrajudicial detention in the Guantanamo Bay detainment camps, requested a definition of al-Qaeda, when he was presented with a "Summary of Evidence" against him, in preparation for his Combatant Status Review Tribunal, which accused him of being a member of al-Qaeda, or the Taliban, or associated forces.[12] The unclassified definition offered to Begg by the US Department of Defense was:

"Al Qaeda is a radical Sunni Muslim umbrella organization established to recruit young Muslims into the Afghani Mujahideen and is aimed to establish Islamist states throughout the world, overthrow ‘un-Islamic regimes’, expel US soldiers and Western influence from the Gulf, and capture Jerusalem as a Muslim city."
Begg also asked for, and was not provided with, a definition of al-Qaeda's "associated forces".

No, small means it's SMALL. Not LARGE. The OPPOSITE of "a lot". I care about the people who lost loved ones. I find it silly at this point that everyone else is still flippant. We spend more efforts in media then rebuilding. More efforts in war then familial compensation. Don't confuse my stance on the individual who lost someone with mass media exploitation.

In that conversation you were discussing small in relation to some stupid analogy of a knights health...you were not comparing size as much as using small to denote that it was insignificant....and yes one of the definitions of small is insignificant...http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/small

And that is how you used it.

We did this:
Perhaps you need a picture book to help, but we CAUSED TERROR. As many in this very thread have stated, we attacked reckless agression with reckless agression.

Yea it's a shame that in the process of trying to bring terrorists to justice there are casualities of innocents involved. As terrible as they are though compare it to the fire bombings of Tokyo or the Atomic weapons used on Hiroshima and Nagaski though and they really do pale in comparrison....

One of the many reasons our cost of going to war now is so high is to keep injuries to innocents to a minimum.

It's also a shame that many of those that are injured are being used as a human shield of sort too.

Precisely. I'm comparing 1200 people that die every day, to 2800 that died one day 5 years ago. Since 9/11/01, over 2 million people have died from smoking, when we can be doing more to prevent that. A little funding goes a long way. But heck, why do that when we as a society can just make another movie? :dry:

Educate the population - provide alternatives - provide treatment and easily accessible medical care for early problems. Yes we can try to avoid terrorism - but WE DO NOT DO THAT WITH MOVIE DEALS AND EXCESSIVE MEDIA COVERAGE. That has been the largest ongoing point of this thread. If your stance is that we should battle terrorism, I agree, but ask how you think the things I've indicated in my first post have acomplished that goal.

But really, it could be any statistic, not just smoking. We could put money into heart disease or cancer research. But heck, why try to work towards a better standard of healthcare when movies are so much more entertaining!

And where do you suppose that money might come from? The National Money Tree?

The movie industry provides billions into the US economy and it often trickles down to the Health Care Industry as the Health Care Industry is much larger industry than the
Entertainment Industry.

What do you suppose would happen if everyone was told not to go to the movies or have any entertainment and donate their money for the national good of whatever cause UNIQ decided? How many people would be out of work? How many people would not have healthcare coverage? How many people would go hungry for lack of food? Oh I am sure you could say that everyone in that industry could be retrained in the health care industry, but would you really want some numb skull like Alec Baldwin, Tom Cruise or Jennifer Lopez trying to come up with a cure for cancer or heart disease?

I have no idea why you even compare the two. The premise is ridiculously silly really....

Oh you think it's impossible for a president to never bend that oath just a little bit? Oh that's just precious! You actually believe that presidents exclusively work under the orders of that oath regardless of whether their own motives correspond or not? Are you actually telling me you believe every president who has ever murmered that oath, including Bush, has never done a single thing for self-benefit, ratings, political power, etc that doesn't... "fudge" that oath just a little bit? :huh: heheheheh ok now you got me laughing.

Of course not...But I do believe that there are some Presidents that are more upstanding and honest than others....after all they are just people too...just alot more power.

Chance a successful terrorist attack will create death: 100%

YUP No disagreement there....But one could say that to create terror you only have to mame and injure too.

Chance there will be a terrorist attack on any given day: (let's say) 0.1%

So once every three years is acceptable to you? If you add in the attempts that have been tried your number would be much higher!

Chance the terrorist attack is successful: (let's say) 50%

Probally more like 25% now but only due to more attention paid towards it.

Chance the attack will occur in your neighborhood: ~0.0000001%

What now you have a random number generator?

------------------------------------------------
Chance a given person will be killed in a terrorist attack (in this scenario): about 1 in 10 trillion (10000000000000)

Considering that there are only around 280-300 million people in the US the chance on that particular day was much higher than the 1 in 10 trillion number that you have pulled out of your ass...or else you are going to wear that random number generator out.

uniquinous

09-25-2006, 12:13 AM

You didn't answer any of my questions...still avioding it huh???...You stated that you felt that the attackers of 9/11 were more justified than the Japanese...back it up. Why do you feel that way? Or I guess you can continue to twist and avoid what you said with more dumb analogies.Actually I answered it several times. Your inability to see it might be the hindrance here. Here's a list of posts I specifically outlined the answer to this question:
http://www.tacticsarena.com/forum/showpost.php?p=969200&postcount=65
http://www.tacticsarena.com/forum/showpost.php?p=969270&postcount=79
http://www.tacticsarena.com/forum/showpost.php?p=969489&postcount=108
http://www.tacticsarena.com/forum/showpost.php?p=970024&postcount=136
http://www.tacticsarena.com/forum/showthread.php?p=971587&highlight=aid#post971587
AND seeing as you were clearly unable to read the answer the first FIVE times, let me spell it out yet again.
PH: we aided people and got bombed for it.
WTC: we blocked social mobility, directly harming these people, and got bombed for it.
Us causing direct harm means our enemy is MORE JUSTIFIED (I pray you finally figured out the difference between "justified" and "more justified") then our enemy trying to criple us for wartime relief.

And how did they get screwed over by the US??? Once again your words not mine.You're serious? Let me see... hmmm who is this guy?
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/shared-blogs/palmbeach/cerabino/media/Osama_Bin_laden.jpg
Perhaps you didn't see the transcripts of some of the things he said (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm). Let me refresh your memory:
"No, we fight because we are free men who don't sleep under oppression. We want to restore freedom to our nation, just as you lay waste to our nation. So shall we lay waste to yours."
"No one except a dumb thief plays with the security of others and then makes himself believe he will be secure."
"The events that affected my soul in a direct way started in 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the American Sixth Fleet helped them in that. This bombardment began and many were killed and injured and others were terrorised and displaced."
"gave birth to a strong resolve to punish the oppressors."
"And that day, it was confirmed to me that oppression and the intentional killing of innocent women and children is a deliberate American policy."

Seriously, go read the rest - it will answer the rest of your ignorant questions.

On Quebec and Canada...Give them time....It's a big world!If you think random countries will just be attacked for the hell of it you have no clue what the reasons for the attack actually were.

In that conversation you were discussing small in relation to some stupid analogy of a knights health...you were not comparing size as much as using small to denote that it was insignificant....and yes one of the definitions of small is insignificant...http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/small

And that is how you used it.Actually, that's just how YOU interpretted it. Fact is it's only one of many definitions. An apple is one of many fruits, but when I say "fruit" I don't mean apple. Just as when I say "small" I don't mean insignificant. When I want to say something is insignificant, I will use that word. Your own interpretation shows through. I put it in its proper place - no more, no less. The number is small. The individual lives are significant. If you interpret it any other way, it's from your own doing.

And where do you suppose that money might come from? The National Money Tree? Try to follow me on this one: less money for bombs, more money to the NIH or FDA.

What do you suppose would happen if everyone was told not to go to the movies or have any entertainment and donate their money for the national good of whatever cause UNIQ decided? How many people would be out of work? How many people would not have healthcare coverage? How many people would go hungry for lack of food? Oh I am sure you could say that everyone in that industry could be retrained in the health care industry, but would you really want some numb skull like Alec Baldwin, Tom Cruise or Jennifer Lopez trying to come up with a cure for cancer or heart disease?Yet another example of an extreme egaguration on your part. I suggest America not make the 7 movies on 9/11, max, and you completely blow this out of proportion by incorrectly suggesting I stated all of America boycott cinema as a whole. Wow. No, if America boycotted just these movies, no one would lose their jobs, no one would go starving at night, and Tom Cruise would not be curing cancer. I don't think you could have possibly constructed a more ridiculous exaguration. HOWEVER, if instead of making those movies the money, along with any box office sales were put into healthcare or even a charitable fund, this country would have been MUCH better served.

Of course not...But I do believe that there are some Presidents that are more upstanding and honest than others....after all they are just people too...just alot more power.And some presidents are much dumber then others. For example, not everyone can pronounce the word "NUCLEAR". And yet, these morons "are just people too...just alot more power." :dry:

So once every three years is acceptable to you? If you add in the attempts that have been tried your number would be much higher!
Probally more like 25% now but only due to more attention paid towards it.
What now you have a random number generator?
Considering that there are only around 280-300 million people in the US the chance on that particular day was much higher than the 1 in 10 trillion number that you have pulled out of your ass...or else you are going to wear that random number generator out.
I was being generous, but I'll use your numbers instead:
Chance a successful terrorist attack will create death: 100%
Chance there will be a terrorist attack on any given day: (let's say) 0.5%
Chance the terrorist attack is successful: (let's say) 25%
Chance the attack will occur in your county: 1/3077
------------------------------------------------
Chance a given person will be killed in a terrorist attack (in your county): 1 in 10000000
Imagine if we made that "per town", it would be one in a hundred million easily.

OR, we can just use this method: 2819 died / 281500000 people in america / 1825 days since 9/11 = 5 / 1000000000
Honestly, how many days need to go buy with the lesson already learned before we realize that we don't need to live in fear?

Odds of being killed in a terrorist attack are INCREDIBLY low - lower then dying in a car crash. If you feel otherwise, support your claim. As of yet all you can do is barely struggle on to ATTEMPT to refute mine, but you can't actually present one of your own.

R G

09-25-2006, 07:28 PM

Actually I answered it several times. Your inability to see it might be the hindrance here. Here's a list of posts I specifically outlined the answer to this question:
AND seeing as you were clearly unable to read the answer the first FIVE times, let me spell it out yet again.
PH: we aided people and got bombed for it.
WTC: we blocked social mobility, directly harming these people, and got bombed for it.
Us causing direct harm means our enemy is MORE JUSTIFIED (I pray you finally figured out the difference between "justified" and "more justified") then our enemy trying to criple us for wartime relief.

Again the question remains unanswered(I guess I need to be more specific)...HOW DID THE US BLOCK SOCIAL MOBILITY? Which brings up another question...EVEN IF THE US DID BLOCK SOCIAL MOBILITY AS YOU STATE IS IT REASON TO KILL CLOSE TO 3000 PEOPLE?

Perhaps you didn't see the transcripts of some of the things he said (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm). Let me refresh your memory:
"No, we fight because we are free men who don't sleep under oppression. We want to restore freedom to our nation, just as you lay waste to our nation. So shall we lay waste to yours."
"No one except a dumb thief plays with the security of others and then makes himself believe he will be secure."
"The events that affected my soul in a direct way started in 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the American Sixth Fleet helped them in that. This bombardment began and many were killed and injured and others were terrorised and displaced."
"gave birth to a strong resolve to punish the oppressors."
"And that day, it was confirmed to me that oppression and the intentional killing of innocent women and children is a deliberate American policy."

First of all Bin Laden is from Saudi Arabia not Lebanon and to my knowledge never lived in Lebanon...So when he speaks of freeing his country what country is he talking about? Afganistan? Heck in the 80's we we sending the Taliban missles and monetary assistance so that Afganistan would be free from the USSR.

He also mentioned that the 6th Fleet helping Israel...Not knowing anything regarding the subject I searched and found nothing regarding that.

Next He speaks of the US allowing Israel to attack...Interesting phrase considering that both of these countries are part of the United Nations and are only 2 members of what is a 192(I believe that is correct) members strong.

You also completely left out the part where he mentions the other 19...Don't you think Canada is one of the 19? Alqada already has been known to have set up shop there in the past...albeit at this time only to attack the US.

"If so, then let him explain to us why we don't strike for example - Sweden? And we know that freedom-haters don't possess defiant spirits like those of the 19 - may Allah have mercy on them."

Seriously, go read the rest - it will answer the rest of your ignorant questions.

I have read the rest and have concluded that only a sociopath would read that and consider it "justicfication" or "that attack more jusified than PH".

Actually, that's just how YOU interpretted it. Fact is it's only one of many definitions. An apple is one of many fruits, but when I say "fruit" I don't mean apple. Just as when I say "small" I don't mean insignificant. When I want to say something is insignificant, I will use that word. Your own interpretation shows through. I put it in its proper place - no more, no less. The number is small. The individual lives are significant. If you interpret it any other way, it's from your own doing.

If it looked like an apple, smelled like an apple and tasted like an apple I would call it an apple.;) You can call it whatever you want but its still an apple. You and I both know what your intention was and for you to further deny that is....well...silly.

Try to follow me on this one: less money for bombs, more money to the NIH or FDA.

Well bombs are a necessary evil...so would you say less intellegent bombs are needed for the sake of the NIH or FDA? Not me...I would prefer to see bombs(IE laser guided-GPS guided) used that try to prevent as much innocent loss of life as possible....but that is just me.

Yet another example of an extreme egaguration on your part. I suggest America not make the 7 movies on 9/11, max, and you completely blow this out of proportion by incorrectly suggesting I stated all of America boycott cinema as a whole. Wow. No, if America boycotted just these movies, no one would lose their jobs, no one would go starving at night, and Tom Cruise would not be curing cancer. I don't think you could have possibly constructed a more ridiculous exaguration. HOWEVER, if instead of making those movies the money, along with any box office sales were put into healthcare or even a charitable fund, this country would have been MUCH better served.

I carried your example to the extreme...much the same as you have done in your refrutiating arguments.

Over 3 billion dollars were raised for the families and charities of the victims of 9/11(you may not remember the telethon)...not counting the insurance payoffs to the families in general. You insunuation that these families were not properly commpensated is a little absurd at this point.

The heathcare idea is also ridiculous. What do you propose some tax on people in lieu of movies? There is nothing that prevents someone making charitable donations to a whole wide range of healthcare institutions or charities. I myself like St. Jude's Children Hospital, Red Cross, and a local Childrens Cancer Hospital....but that is my choice that I make....note I have never seen any of the following movies at a movie theather.

If people want to go to the movies to watch whatever then why is that a problem? The movies of 9/11 are less of a threat to our society than say porn or a movie of a bunch of killing or movies that portray a rape. I still don't know why you are so hung up on a few movies.

And some presidents are much dumber then others. For example, not everyone can pronounce the word "NUCLEAR". And yet, these morons "are just people too...just alot more power." :dry:

Goes to show you that they too are people too...capable of making a few mistakes from time to time. Guess you have never misspoke or made a mistake huh?

I was being generous, but I'll use your numbers instead:
Chance a successful terrorist attack will create death: 100%
Chance there will be a terrorist attack on any given day: (let's say) 0.5%
Chance the terrorist attack is successful: (let's say) 25%
Chance the attack will occur in your county: 1/3077
------------------------------------------------
Chance a given person will be killed in a terrorist attack (in your county): 1 in 10000000
Imagine if we made that "per town", it would be one in a hundred million easily.

OR, we can just use this method: 2819 died / 281500000 people in america / 1825 days since 9/11 = 5 / 1000000000
Honestly, how many days need to go buy with the lesson already learned before we realize that we don't need to live in fear?

Odds of being killed in a terrorist attack are INCREDIBLY low - lower then dying in a car crash.

Surely you realize that a car crash is an accident and a terrorist attack is murder. That is the only thing they have in common is that they cause death. Whereas both are forms of death to try to compare the two is really absurd.

uniquinous

09-25-2006, 09:45 PM

Again the question remains unanswered(I guess I need to be more specific)...HOW DID THE US BLOCK SOCIAL MOBILITY? Which brings up another question...EVEN IF THE US DID BLOCK SOCIAL MOBILITY AS YOU STATE IS IT REASON TO KILL CLOSE TO 3000 PEOPLE?Can you show me where I've stated "blocked social mobility is a reason to kill 3000 people"? Can you? Lemme just answer this: NO We were chipping away at the foundation of their social hierarchy. Now let's face it - it sucked, but the steps we took to change it were in the WRONG direction. You don't wanna suggest that a beehive change location by destroying their old hive.

First of all Bin Laden is from Saudi Arabia not Lebanon and to my knowledge never lived in Lebanon...So when he speaks of freeing his country what country is he talking about? Afganistan? His country is the Muslim world. Similarly, the KKK thinks it's doing all Christians a favor with its teachings. It's just a radical religious organization.

He also mentioned that the 6th Fleet helping Israel...Not knowing anything regarding the subject I searched and found nothing regarding that.

Next He speaks of the US allowing Israel to attack...Interesting phrase considering that both of these countries are part of the United Nations and are only 2 members of what is a 192(I believe that is correct) members strong. If you want to go argue with Osama, be my guest. The fact still remains, those are his stated reasons.

"If so, then let him explain to us why we don't strike for example - Sweden? And we know that freedom-haters don't possess defiant spirits like those of the 19 - may Allah have mercy on them."

I have read the rest and have concluded that only a sociopath would read that and consider it "justicfication" or "that attack more jusified than PH".See this is one of MY points. Do you not see the reasoning behind attacking American and not, say, Sweden? We were antagonizing his "nation", quite a bit. Now let's compare - if you had to choose one nation to lash out which would it be: one that is constantly being directly harmed by US intervention, or one that doesn't like that we're offering aid to wartime victims and refugees? One situation is HARMFUL, the other is HELPFUL. And yet, you seem to think only a crazy person sees the response to HARMFUL actions as more justified. :rolleyes:

If it looked like an apple, smelled like an apple and tasted like an apple I would call it an apple.;) You can call it whatever you want but its still an apple. You and I both know what your intention was and for you to further deny that is....well...silly.Ah but I'm not giving you apple, nor "insignificant". I'm giving you "fruit" and "small". Your mind fills in the gaps, and you see what you want to see. Trust me when I say, I know what my meaning is a lot better then you. ;)

Well bombs are a necessary evil...so would you say less intellegent bombs are needed for the sake of the NIH or FDA? Not me...I would prefer to see bombs(IE laser guided-GPS guided) used that try to prevent as much innocent loss of life as possible....but that is just me.Can you show me where I stated we should give up the development of bomb technology for the NIH? Let me just answer: NO. You astound me in how many misreads and twists you can add to my text. What I stated was that we should lower the NUMBER of bombs and place that money into research instead. How on earth did you get from that to "stop developing intelligent weaponry"? I say we need more research and you think I say "stop military research". You're amazing.

I carried your example to the extreme...much the same as you have done in your refrutiating arguments. OK I normally don't point out spelling/grammar but I just have no clue what you were going for with "retrutiating" :p

Over 3 billion dollars were raised for the families and charities of the victims of 9/11(you may not remember the telethon)...not counting the insurance payoffs to the families in general. You insunuation that these families were not properly commpensated is a little absurd at this point. Can you show me where I've stated "families weren't properly compensated"? Can you? Lemme just answer this: NO What did I say? We're spending way too much money on superficial and otherwise uneeded crap. How bout this: instead of the lower and middle class of America supporting the majority of the financial burden of these donations, the hard working people of America sit back and let CORPORATE and upper class america foot the charity. Movies cost a TON of money (much more then they donated) to make. Put that money towards, I dunno, PUTTING UP NEW TOWERS. Five years later and we still have people whining about a lack of construction. Well, why go on with life when we can just make a movie and complain about it more? We're like a pathetic emo teenager, as a country!

The heathcare idea is also ridiculous. What do you propose some tax on people in lieu of movies? There is nothing that prevents someone making charitable donations to a whole wide range of healthcare institutions or charities. I myself like St. Jude's Children Hospital, Red Cross, and a local Childrens Cancer Hospital....but that is my choice that I make....note I have never seen any of the following movies at a movie theather. Oh you're getting good at this - here we go again: Can you show me where I've stated "we should tax people instead of making a movie"? Can you? Lemme just answer this: NO Movie takes money to make. We don't make a movie, and instead use the money for 9/11 compensation/reconstruction/etc. Wow, and it doesn't even involve taxing Americans.

If people want to go to the movies to watch whatever then why is that a problem? The movies of 9/11 are less of a threat to our society than say porn or a movie of a bunch of killing or movies that portray a rape. I still don't know why you are so hung up on a few movies.I'm "hungup" on all media exploitation, including but not limited to news reports, movies, and scams. I'm also hung up on the fact that we as a country choose these exploitations instead of repair.

Goes to show you that they too are people too...capable of making a few mistakes from time to time. Guess you have never misspoke or made a mistake huh?Difference: I try to correct my mistakes. I don't continue to say "nukul4r" time and time again. No, the president should NOT have the intelligence of your average American. The president OUGHT to be better then the average american in everything that will aid him in running this country, which includes but is not limited to general intelligence, problem solving, political muscle, etc.

Surely you realize that a car crash is an accident and a terrorist attack is murder. That is the only thing they have in common is that they cause death. Whereas both are forms of death to try to compare the two is really absurd.And surely YOU realize that an act of terrorism, which is completely intentional, is LESS LIKELY to directly harm any given person then a car accident (unwanted by all parties involved). THAT is the comparison, which you missed - something that is planned and plotted has a less likely chance of directly damaging any given person. Yet, we spend money whining about that rarer event that happened 5 years ago then battling an event which is preventable, more common, and less wanted by the different groups involved.

R G

09-26-2006, 08:31 AM

Can you show me where I've stated "blocked social mobility is a reason to kill 3000 people"? Can you?

No but you did state that they were "more justified" than the Japanese attack of Pearl Harbor with your reasoning being that the US some how blocked their social mobility as your reasoning that it was more justified.

His country is the Muslim world. Similarly, the KKK thinks it's doing all Christians a favor with its teachings. It's just a radical religious organization.

If you want to go argue with Osama, be my guest. The fact still remains, those are his stated reasons.

Why don't you set me up a meeting with him since you seem to know what he is thinking and what his implications are. I am available this Sunday at around noon. :p

Ah but I'm not giving you apple, nor "insignificant". I'm giving you "fruit" and "small". Your mind fills in the gaps, and you see what you want to see. Trust me when I say, I know what my meaning is a lot better then you. ;)

Quit lying to yourself...If you want me to post the text on where you used the phrase again I will.

[b][color=red]Can you show me where I stated we should give up the development of bomb technology for the NIH? Let me just answer: NO. You astound me in how many misreads and twists you can add to my text. What I stated was that we should lower the NUMBER of bombs and place that money into research instead. How on earth did you get from that to "stop developing intelligent weaponry"? I say we need more research and you think I say "stop military research".

I don't have military experience like you seem to have...being that you know the correct number of bombs a country should have at any given time. :rolleyes:

You're amazing.

Yea I know! :p

OK I normally don't point out spelling/grammar but I just have no clue what you were going for with "retrutiating" :p

Was suppose to be refuting...Got keyboard happy...

Can you show me where I've stated "families weren't properly compensated"? Can you? Lemme just answer this: NO What did I say? We're spending way too much money on superficial and otherwise uneeded crap. How bout this: instead of the lower and middle class of America supporting the majority of the financial burden of these donations, the hard working people of America sit back and let CORPORATE and upper class america foot the charity. Movies cost a TON of money (much more then they donated) to make. Put that money towards, I dunno, PUTTING UP NEW TOWERS. Five years later and we still have people whining about a lack of construction. Well, why go on with life when we can just make a movie and complain about it more? We're like a pathetic emo teenager, as a country!Obviously with our lack luster results in Iraq at the moment you could conclude that more bombs are needed not less.

You have implied over and over that you feel that the money spent on movies could be better spent on other things...and I do remember once you did infact mention compensation for families.

Your comments on CORPORATE AMERICA not helping out really does show you ignorance. First of all what makes you think that CORPORATE AMERICA or the upper class is not helping out? Second if CORPORATE AMERICA did "foot the bill" who do you think would "foot the bill" in the end anyway? Let me help you out...the people on the bottom...as the price to rebuild would just be added to the cost of the products or services of the Corporations.

Why should any one class of people sit back and just watch? I would prefer to see everyone help out so that one class or institution does not claim total responsibility for helping out and rebuilding the towers. I don't consider myself a Lower Incom Class, Middle Income Class American or an Upper Income Class American or an Upper Income Class American or w/e...I am an American.

Oh you're getting good at this - here we go again: Can you show me where I've stated "we should tax people instead of making a movie"? Can you? Lemme just answer this: NO Movie takes money to make. We don't make a movie, and instead use the money for 9/11 compensation/reconstruction/etc. Wow, and it doesn't even involve taxing Americans.

It was a suggestion on how to force people to spend money on other charities or foundations other than spending it on movies. You got a better idea of how to make what you are suggesting happen? I guess we could just send out a mass email and tell them that you said to do it...I am sure that would work too :p

I'm "hungup" on all media exploitation, including but not limited to news reports, movies, and scams. I'm also hung up on the fact that we as a country choose these exploitations instead of repair.

If the towers were already errected the explotation, as you call it, of the event would still have occured. Media is Media. Construction and Rebuilding is way more complicated with many more enties involved....but that being said they are two separate entities. The actions of one will not effect the other.

You need to direct you attention to people in general...again it might be a reason that you feel for fellow sociopaths such as Bin Laden. j/k

And surely YOU realize that an act of terrorism, which is completely intentional, is LESS LIKELY to directly harm any given person then a car accident (unwanted by all parties involved). THAT is the comparison, which you missed - something that is planned and plotted has a less likely chance of directly damaging any given person.

Gee thanks for pointing out the obvious! Again they are irrelevant to each other.

uniquinous

09-26-2006, 08:57 AM

No but you did state that they were "more justified" than the Japanese attack of Pearl Harbor with your reasoning being that the US some how blocked their social mobility as your reasoning that it was more justified.Ah good. Now stop twisting my words or misquoting me. kthx.

Why don't you set me up a meeting with him since you seem to know what he is thinking and what his implications are. I am available this Sunday at around noon. If by "know what he is thinking" you mean "you can read the english translation of what he wanted Americans to know", then, sure. Literacy runs in my family. You should try it sometime.

I don't have military experience like you seem to have...being that you know the correct number of bombs a country should have at any given time. :rolleyes: click here for an explanation (http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/end.php) Do we really need that many nukes? Did we really need to carpet bomb like we did? Did we really need as LARGE of a war campaign with no escape route planned out (thus strething the length and COST of the war)? No.

It was a suggestion on how to force people to spend money on other charities or foundations other than spending it on movies. You got a better idea of how to make what you are suggesting happen? I guess we could just send out a mass email and tell them that you said to do it...I am sure that would work too :p See your mistake is that you feel all of my suggestions need to come at some price of forcing it upon Americans either by tax, some "mass e-mail" scam, or other coercian. What you FAIL to see is that I'm suggesting what naturally ought to happen. I'm saying this world would be a better place if we gave up capitalism just for 2 seconds in order to heal. Not give it up altogether, just stop exploiting every media means we have and instead work more directly towards restoration.

This isn't about how to force Americans into doing uniquin's will. This is uniquin talking about a better society we clearly don't live in.

Gee thanks for pointing out the obvious! Again they are irrelevant to each other.I can't help it if you are too blind to see how they are quite relevant - that something WANTED happens less frequently by something UNWANTED. How a better society would put effort into preventing such daily injuries and would NOT continue whining about some rare splinter from 5 years ago.

You still don't address these points. You aknowledge the fact that there is media exploitation, but can't show how THIS is the best method of helping our society. 9/11 credit cards don't help this society. 7 movies don't help this society (and before you even mention the word "economically", know that it is INSIGNIFICANT). Sitting around on our butts as the WTC space goes unused does NOT HELP THIS SOCIETY.

It's time to stop whining and time to start DOING. Less media exploitation, less talk, less money-making schemes, less complaining about the past; more action, more progress, more building of our future.

R G

09-26-2006, 11:03 AM

From my Previous post: No but you did state that they were "more justified" than the Japanese attack of Pearl Harbor with your reasoning being that the US some how blocked their social mobility as your reasoning that it was more justified.

Your Response:
Ah good. Now stop twisting my words or misquoting me. kthx.

Great you are finally grasping this....Now back up why you believe that the terrorists are more justified to kill over 2800 people.

If by "know what he is thinking" you mean "you can read the english translation of what he wanted Americans to know", then, sure. Literacy runs in my family. You should try it sometime..

Well I have a brother named John and he jogs from time to time maybe Literacy and John can get together sometime and go for a run...:p

Really do we need to keep up the insults?

click here for an explanation[/url] Do we really need that many nukes? Did we really need to carpet bomb like we did? Did we really need as LARGE of a war campaign with no escape route planned out (thus strething the length and COST of the war)? No.

One of my favorite phrases is "The Best Defense is a Strong Offense". Does the US need as many nukes as it has? Answer is NO. Most of the Nukes that you mention are left over from the Cold War. I honestly don't think that new ones are being produced.

Did we really need to carpet bomb like we did? If you have alot of military targets in one place then the most effective means would be carpet bombing....Answer is depends on the circumstances.

Did we really need as LARGE of a war campaign with no escape route planned out (thus strething the length and COST of the war)? If you are talking about the war in both battle fronts of Afganistan and Iraq...then the answer is we really should have sent in more resources to end the war faster. My feeling is that Iraq should have been taken care of when they renigged on their first agreement of surrender, but Clinton had too many problems of his own to take care of important issues.

See your mistake is that you feel all of my suggestions need to come at some price of forcing it upon Americans either by tax, some "mass e-mail" scam, or other coercian. What you FAIL to see is that I'm suggesting what naturally ought to happen. I'm saying this world would be a better place if we gave up capitalism just for 2 seconds in order to heal. Not give it up altogether, just stop exploiting every media means we have and instead work more directly towards restoration.

This isn't about how to force Americans into doing uniquin's will. This is uniquin talking about a better society we clearly don't live in.

Well I live in a world of reality. Whereas you have ideas and dreams I am trying to find or offer solutions to some of your ideas...We are really quite different in that respect....and there is nothing wrong with that. I can respect you ideas, but to make them reality is another thing altogether.

I can't help it if you are too blind to see how they are quite relevant - that something WANTED happens less frequently by something UNWANTED. How a better society would put effort into preventing such daily injuries and would NOT continue whining about some rare splinter from 5 years ago.

Let's hear some of your solutions on how to solve these problems you seemed so concerned with. I will be waiting with anticipation.

Remember though you have to come up with a solution that would also not have any negative ramifications either.

You still don't address these points. You aknowledge the fact that there is media exploitation, but can't show how THIS is the best method of helping our society. 9/11 credit cards don't help this society. 7 movies don't help this society (and before you even mention the word "economically", know that it is INSIGNIFICANT). Sitting around on our butts as the WTC space goes unused does NOT HELP THIS SOCIETY.

Whatever made you think that "THIS is the best method of helping our society"? Society is made up of individuals and individuals have a choice on what they want to see at the movies or what they view on TV.

It's time to stop whining and time to start DOING. Less media exploitation, less talk, less money-making schemes, less complaining about the past; more action, more progress, more building of our future.

Considering this whole thread...that is really an ironic statement...:rolleyes:

uniquinous

09-26-2006, 11:42 AM

From my Previous post: No but you did state that they were "more justified" than the Japanese attack of Pearl Harbor with your reasoning being that the US some how blocked their social mobility as your reasoning that it was more justified.

Great you are finally grasping this....Now back up why you believe that the terrorists are more justified to kill over 2800 people. Later you ask why I insult your illeteracy. Here is the reason why (all the posts I already answered this question on several times):
http://www.tacticsarena.com/forum/showpost.php?p=969200&postcount=65
http://www.tacticsarena.com/forum/showpost.php?p=969270&postcount=79
http://www.tacticsarena.com/forum/showpost.php?p=969489&postcount=108
http://www.tacticsarena.com/forum/showpost.php?p=970024&postcount=136
http://www.tacticsarena.com/forum/showthread.php?p=971587&highlight=aid#post971587
http://www.tacticsarena.com/forum/showpost.php?p=978967&postcount=185
Click. Read. Stop asking the same question. If you need clarification in a particular area, please let me know.

One of my favorite phrases is "The Best Defense is a Strong Offense". Does the US need as many nukes as it has? Answer is NO. Most of the Nukes that you mention are left over from the Cold War. I honestly don't think that new ones are being produced. Oh you like phrases, eh? how bout "an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind"?

Did we really need to carpet bomb like we did? If you have alot of military targets in one place then the most effective means would be carpet bombing....Answer is depends on the circumstances.

Did we really need as LARGE of a war campaign with no escape route planned out (thus strething the length and COST of the war)? If you are talking about the war in both battle fronts of Afganistan and Iraq...then the answer is we really should have sent in more resources to end the war faster.Here's another phrase, since oyu like them: "The lazy man works twice as hard." It's funny, the radio at this very moment is talking about how Bush screwed up this war. We went over into the middle east with a mission of capturing Osama, and yet we went off and attacked Saddam, and THIS is what gets us a "mission accomplished"?! Yeah, we get attacked from person A, and go and attack person B because he was looking menacing, completely missing person A altogether. You're right, we went about this all wrong, and it wound up costing us a lot more in the end. Further, quite a LARGE number of people all forsaw this happening very clearly.

Let's hear some of your solutions on how to solve these problems you seemed so concerned with. I will be waiting with anticipation.You're asking me how I feel I can change capatilism? :huh: Just because I have a complaint against something that is doing harm doesn't mean I have a solution. It doesn't take a doctor to point out that a pickax in the stomach is painful.

Considering this whole thread...that is really an ironic statement...:rolleyes:What? that I'm talking about not talking? You can't just take it as a blanket statement and must examine the things I'm actually addressing. I'm saying we should stop exploiting the situation via mass media. You need to address that, via communication. Good communication to stop bad communication. It's foolish of you to find that statement ironic, and i can't help but notice that you STILL can't address the validity of it.

R G

09-26-2006, 08:10 PM

Later you ask why I insult your illeteracy. Here is the reason why (all the posts I already answered this question on several times):
http://www.tacticsarena.com/forum/showpost.php?p=969200&postcount=65
http://www.tacticsarena.com/forum/showpost.php?p=969270&postcount=79
http://www.tacticsarena.com/forum/showpost.php?p=969489&postcount=108
http://www.tacticsarena.com/forum/showpost.php?p=970024&postcount=136
http://www.tacticsarena.com/forum/showthread.php?p=971587&highlight=aid#post971587
http://www.tacticsarena.com/forum/showpost.php?p=978967&postcount=185
Click. Read. Stop asking the same question. If you need clarification in a particular area, please let me know.

WOW...You really don't get it after all do you? In each of these posts you have stated claims ranging from implying that the US harmed them to stating rhetoric that they attacked due to social mobility...Your only evidence is a quote from Osama himself that says that he attacked due to Israel attacking Lebanon...and the US helped by utilizing the sixth fleet....Did Israel attack Lebanon? Yes Did the US help them by utilizing the sixth fleet?...I have yet to find any evidence stating that is true.....Like I said he a sociopath.

Over the past several pages all I have asked you to do is back it up. You state one thing and use assinine analogies and a transcripts from a sociopath to support your arguements.

Oh you like phrases, eh? how bout "an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind"?

Well I am not a Cyclops so if I lose one eye I still have another.:p

Here's another phrase, since oyu like them: "The lazy man works twice as hard."
It's funny, the radio at this very moment is talking about how Bush screwed up this war. We went over into the middle east with a mission of capturing Osama, and yet we went off and attacked Saddam, and THIS is what gets us a "mission accomplished"?! Yeah, we get attacked from person A, and go and attack person B because he was looking menacing, completely missing person A altogether. You're right, we went about this all wrong, and it wound up costing us a lot more in the end. Further, quite a LARGE number of people all forsaw this happening very clearly.

What you got a book of Stupid Phrases book at the "Everything is a Dollar Store" or Did you eat Chinese tonight and ate and then read your fortune cookie?

Interesting Phrase none the less and I too do like it..."The lazy man works twice as hard." It basically means that if you don't do it right the first time you will end up having to do it right the next time. Guess you could say that is why there is a Gulf War 1 and a Gulf War 2. It was not done right the first time because we did not hold Saddam to the truce he originally signed in the first Gulf War.

Now what was your point :rolleyes:

You're asking me how I feel I can change capatilism? :huh: Just because I have a complaint against something that is doing harm doesn't mean I have a solution. It doesn't take a doctor to point out that a pickax in the stomach is painful.

You are right no need to bitch and moan about it if its blatantly obvious, I am sure the doctor realizes something needs to be done immediately...and bitching and moaning about it is not going to help the doctor one bit. Let the doctor take care of it I say.

Goes back to why I think your last comment was ironic...Remember the one...
"It's time to stop whining and time to start DOING. Less media exploitation, less talk, less money-making schemes, less complaining about the past; more action, more progress, more building of our future."

uniquinous

09-26-2006, 08:37 PM

WOW...You really don't get it after all do you? In each of these posts you have stated claims ranging from implying that the US harmed them to stating rhetoric that they attacked due to social mobility...Your only evidence is a quote from Osama himself that says that he attacked due to Israel attacking Lebanon...and the US helped by utilizing the sixth fleet....Did Israel attack Lebanon? Yes Did the US help them by utilizing the sixth fleet?...I have yet to find any evidence stating that is true.....Like I said he a sociopath.Wait wait wait you were looking for the individual actions that I and many others in this thread stated the US did to harm them? :huh: really? OK you seem to be focusing on Israel attacking Lebanon and use your inability to utilize google as your stance to claim that the US clearly didn't help in any way - that Osama just... made this up. OK, let's start there:
The lebanon war of 1982 - Israel uses U.S.-provided military equipment in the attack on Lebanon
What's this? You couldn't find any information on the sixth fleet? That's interesting, cuz I found this, on the same war: "The US Sixth Fleet was offshore, providing naval gunfire support where necessary both to the marines and eventually to the Lebanese armed forces. In mid-September the USS New Jersey was sent to the area, to bring its sixteen inch guns to bear." (http://www.britains-smallwars.com/RRGP/Lebanon.html) But hey, if R G hasn't heard of it, clearly it doesn't exist.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/conf_proceedings/CF129/CF-129.chapter6.html
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AMH/XX/MidEast/Lebanon-1982-1984/USMC-Lebanon82/USMC-Lebanon82-A.html
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0899-3718(198907)53%3A3%3C344%3AUSMIL1%3E2.0.CO%3B2-B
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1:28037728/U~R~S~R~+Marines+in+Lebanon+(1982-1984)~C~+Chapter+4+Beirut+III+An+Expanded+Experien ce.html?refid=ency_botnm
http://hqinet001.hqmc.usmc.mil/HD/Historical/Chronologies/Campaign/Lebanon_1982-1984.htm

etc. etc. etc. It continues on even now:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/14/1358255
Let me know if you'd like me to cite any other harm the US has done to the muslim world.

Well I am not a Cyclops so if I lose one eye I still have another.:p no, but avoiding my points makes you appear blind nonetheless.

What you got a book of Stupid Phrases book at the "Everything is a Dollar Store" or Did you eat Chinese tonight and ate and then read your fortune cookie?Hey you're the one who brought phrases into this. "If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen."

Now what was your point :rolleyes: Point: we get attacked by one guy, and go attack another. The entire war was to take down the guy who hurt us, yet we failed to do that. Your only remark about this is to yet again avoid the point and instead talk about the Gulf War. We were not attacked by sadam. That war was not started for/because of sadam. Point: we screwed up bigtime in planning and executing that war. Half of america was confused as to who we were/are actually fighting.

Goes back to why I think your last comment was ironic...Remember the one...
"It's time to stop whining and time to start DOING. Less media exploitation, less talk, less money-making schemes, less complaining about the past; more action, more progress, more building of our future."And once again you manage to avoid my point. Talking about 9/11 is not doing something about it. Talking about media exploitation IS fighting media exploitation. But hey, you keep on seeing what you want to see, taking everything out of context :rolleyes:

R G

09-26-2006, 09:36 PM

Wait wait wait you were looking for the individual actions that I and many others in this thread stated the US did to harm them? :huh: really? OK you seem to be focusing on Israel attacking Lebanon and use your inability to utilize google as your stance to claim that the US clearly didn't help in any way - that Osama just... made this up. OK, let's start there:
The lebanon war of 1982 - Israel uses U.S.-provided military equipment in the attack on Lebanon
What's this? You couldn't find any information on the sixth fleet? That's interesting, cuz I found this, on the same war: "The US Sixth Fleet was offshore, providing naval gunfire support where necessary both to the marines and eventually to the Lebanese armed forces. In mid-September the USS New Jersey was sent to the area, to bring its sixteen inch guns to bear." (http://www.britains-smallwars.com/RRGP/Lebanon.html) But hey, if R G hasn't heard of it, clearly it doesn't exist.

Nice try.;) "The US Sixth Fleet was offshore, providing naval gunfire support where necessary both to the marines and eventually to the Lebanese armed forces. In mid-September the USS New Jersey was sent to the area, to bring its sixteen inch guns to bear

Ummm Do you know what support means? If not I suggest you call your sister Literacy after she gets in from her run to sit down and explain it to you.

Osama said in his statement that the 6th fleet helped Israel not Lebanon. Also the US was there together in a multinational force not to support Israel... you might find that out if you read the entire article.

In regards to the most recent attack from Israel you do know that Hesbola rebels have been shelling Israel for quite sometime now don't you? Lebanon has made several pledges to take care of the situation but nothing has ever been done. Israel has asked for help from the UN to help protect their people, but again nothing has been done. I think they were well within their right to take matters into their own hands.

In regards to your statement that Israel having US arms to attack...BIG DAMN DEAL! US has sold arms to many countries including Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the Afghanistan Taliban...Russia and China have also sold arms to many of the exact same countries or entities. Right or Wrong those are the cold hard facts.

Point: we get attacked by one guy, and go attack another. The entire war was to take down the guy who hurt us, yet we failed to do that. Your only remark about this is to yet again avoid the point and instead talk about the Gulf War. We were not attacked by sadam. That war was not started for/because of sadam. Point: we screwed up bigtime in planning and executing that war. Half of america was confused as to who we were/are actually fighting.

Surely you remember the whole invasion of Iraq could have been avoided if Weapons Inspectors would have been allowed to return. Or did you forget that?

You need to quit listening to the radio and mass media that you seem to despise so bad and try to remember the events that lead up to the invasion of Iraq. Quit being brainwashed!

And once again you manage to avoid my point. Talking about 9/11 is not doing something about it. Talking about media exploitation IS fighting media exploitation. But hey, you keep on seeing what you want to see, taking everything out of context :rolleyes:

NO talking about Media Exploitation is just talking about it...Do you think by talking about it is going to change the way things have been done since there was even a media to begin with? Do you? If so you need to pull your cranium out of your rectal cavity.

Besides the way you went about it was more directed to downplay 9/11 as a tragic event by trying to trivialize it....Yea I know you are going to say different, but even a one eyed person can see that you did.

Coffin Fedder

09-26-2006, 10:45 PM

uniquinous

09-26-2006, 10:56 PM

I know 9/11 was a big tradgey in all. I mean sure we lost two of the BIGGEST BUILDINGS in the world. But honestly, don't you think that we over mourn the basic thing. It isin't that big to have that happen, I mean sure I believe all of those who lost family or friends during the incident deeply believe that those bastards should die that they caught who was involved in the whole skeem. I think we should just leave it in the pastyep! some people can't understand or accept this though.

Right or Wrong those are the cold hard facts.Right or wrong those cold hard facts PISS PEOPLE OFF by directly hurting them. I'm not asking you to agree with Osama's justification - you can go argue with him about that. HOWEVER, I am asking you to LOOK at the REASONS why he said he attacked. I don't care if you agree with them. I don't care if you complain about them. All I care about is that you acknowledge them, because regardless of what YOU think, THAT was the reason, in their mind, that they attacked. Cold. Hard. Fact.

Surely you remember the whole invasion of Iraq could have been avoided if Weapons Inspectors would have been allowed to return. Or did you forget that?Surely you're not avoiding yet another point, are you? You're not refuting the claim "the war was planned horribly" by pointing out something that could have impeded the war, right? Because, clearly we both know, regardless of the "what ifs" you are so fond of, what DID happen was poorly planned. You can't deny that, regardless of all the things you mention that could have avoided that poor planning.

You need to quit listening to the radio and mass media that you seem to despise so bad and try to remember the events that lead up to the invasion of Iraq. Quit being brainwashed!Ah but you only prove my point on several grounds:
1) I was at work and had no control of the radio, once again supporting my claim that media exploitation is shoved down the throats of the american people, and
2) That the media is in no way aiding this country, leading to "brainwashing", apparently.
Once again, you can't deny these claims of mine. You can avoid them, you can provide "what ifs", you can stick your fingers in your ears, but you have NO grounds to refute these claims.

NO talking about Media Exploitation is just talking about it...Do you think by talking about it is going to change the way things have been done since there was even a media to begin with? Do you? Change starts with talk. Whining about 9/11 5 years later does not accomplish change. It doesn't accomplish anything. In fact, it only serves to deteriorate this society. Talking on this subject in hopes of changing mindsets only serves to help challenge the way people think. But, as you so clearly demonstrate, you can't seem to differentiate between two completely opposite things as they both involve something in common :rolleyes:

Besides the way you went about it was more directed to downplay 9/11 as a tragic event by trying to trivialize it....Yea I know you are going to say different, but even a one eyed person can see that you did.0.001% - You tell me. Is that number Small, medium, or large? I dunno about you, but i'd say 50% is a medium sized number. 99% is a pretty large percentage of something. Come on, you can do it (assuming you passed 4th grade math). Is 0.001% of a whole LARGE or SMALL?!

What does this number represent? It stands for both the percentage of Americans that died on that exact day, and it also happens to correspond to the percentage of people that died since 9/11/01. You claim I downplay it? Hardly, the numbers are rather accurate and descriptive. If you percieve it as small, IT'S BECAUSE IT IS.

0.001%

10^-5 (ten raised to the negative 5th power)

0.00001

R G

09-27-2006, 08:07 AM

Right or wrong those cold hard facts PISS PEOPLE OFF by directly hurting them. I'm not asking you to agree with Osama's justification - you can go argue with him about that.

Still waiting for you to set up my appointment with him...

HOWEVER, I am asking you to LOOK at the REASONS why he said he attacked. I don't care if you agree with them. I don't care if you complain about them. All I care about is that you acknowledge them, because regardless of what YOU think, THAT was the reason, in their mind, that they attacked. Cold. Hard. Fact.

I have read his reasons. He states things that are factually incorrect and you nor I have found proof otherwise. He cames up with a bunch of crap in an attempt to justify his actions in the name of allah....he's a sociopath.

Surely you're not avoiding yet another point, are you? You're not refuting the claim "the war was planned horribly" by pointing out something that could have impeded the war, right? Because, clearly we both know, regardless of the "what ifs" you are so fond of, what DID happen was poorly planned. You can't deny that, regardless of all the things you mention that could have avoided that poor planning.

NO I am pointing out that the second Gulf War could have been avoided before it became to a second war....try reading what I wrote it was pretty clear.

War Plans hardly ever go according to plan....they change as often as the battlefield does... There are set backs in every war. Battles are won battles are lost yet the whole while you must compensate for the setbacks with changes in your original plan....but you probally knew that already since you know how many bombs a country the size of the US needs anyway.:rolleyes:

The loss of life is always a tragic thing, but there are somethings worth fighting for.

Change starts with talk. Whining about 9/11 5 years later does not accomplish change. It doesn't accomplish anything.

Nor does the attempt of someone trying to trivialize a tragic event...

Talking on this subject in hopes of changing mindsets only serves to help challenge the way people think. But, as you so clearly demonstrate, you can't seem to differentiate between two completely opposite things as they both involve something in common :rolleyes:

0.001% - You tell me. Is that number Small, medium, or large? I dunno about you, but i'd say 50% is a medium sized number. 99% is a pretty large percentage of something. Come on, you can do it (assuming you passed 4th grade math). Is 0.001% of a whole LARGE or SMALL?!

You nor I have not changed anyones mindset on this subject...nor were you or I ever going to...if you believe different well keep trying to pull your cranium out of rectal cavity because you have not finished the job yet.

What does this number represent?

IT REPRESENTS OVER 2800 PEOPLE DYING BY THE HANDS OF TERRORISTS...

It stands for both the percentage of Americans that died on that exact day, and it also happens to correspond to the percentage of people that died since 9/11/01. You claim I downplay it? Hardly, the numbers are rather accurate and descriptive. If you percieve it as small, IT'S BECAUSE IT IS.

0.001%

10^-5 (ten raised to the negative 5th power)

0.00001

SO WOULD YOU SAY THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE A MEDIUM SIZED NUMBER OF DEATHS BEFORE YOU CONSIDER THAT ACTION NEEDS TO TAKE PLACE....50% OF THE POPULATION IS THAT SIGNIGFICANT ENOUGH? OR WHAT ABOUT 75%? HOW BIG OF A PERCENTAGE DO YOU NEED TO WAKE THE FUCK UP?

DON'T REALLY CARE IF THE FIGURE IS .000000000000000000001% IT'S OVER 2800 DEAD PEOPLE. PEOPLE WHO WERE EITHER FATHERS, MOTHERS, CHILDREN, GRANDMOTHERS, GRANDFATHERS, SPOUSES OR JUST GOOD FRIENDS TO OTHER PEOPLE.

DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT BIN LADEN AND HIS ORGANIZATION OF TERROR ARE FINISHED? DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT IF WE WOULD HAVE SAT BACK AND DONE NOTHING THAT THEY WOULD BE FINISHED?

uniquinous

09-27-2006, 09:00 AM

I have read his reasons. He states things that are factually incorrect and you nor I have found proof otherwise. He cames up with a bunch of crap in an attempt to justify his actions in the name of allah....he's a sociopath.I don't think anyone has denied that he's a bit off his rocker. If you see me claim otherwise, please point it out. However, we offered their enemies weaponry. We positioned troops in their holy land. Whether you acknowledge their pain or not, we directly hurt them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks#Motive) by:
-supporting Israel.
-military occupation of the Arabian Peninsula.
-aggression against the Iraqi people.
-Plundering the resources of the Arabian Peninsula.
-Dictating policy to the rulers of those countries.
-Supporting abusive regimes and monarchies in the Middle East, thereby oppressing their people.
-Installing military bases upon the Arabian Peninsula, which violates the Muslim holy land, in order to threaten neighboring Muslim countries.
-creating disunion between Muslim states, thus weakening them as a political force.
-wishing to divert international attention from (and tacitly maintain) the occupation of Palestine

Again, whether you see them as overreacting to our actions or not is irrelevant. We hurt them. They said we were hurting them. We ignored their pain. They attacked. They did not attack Sweden. They did NOT attack Finland. So you tell me - if you don't believe all these reasons I and Osama have stated, why did they attack us? You still haven't answered this question.

NO I am pointing out that the second Gulf War could have been avoided before it became to a second war....try reading what I wrote it was pretty clear.And what does that have to do with my point regarding the fact that this war was planned poorly? :huh: Regardless of what COULD HAVE happened IF something else happened, what DID happen was planned poorly.

War Plans hardly ever go according to plan....they change as often as the battlefield does... There are set backs in every war. Battles are won battles are lost yet the whole while you must compensate for the setbacks with changes in your original plan....But I'm not talking about how things went - I'm talking about the original plan. It was poorly constructed. There was never an escape route. Ever. There was no adaptation to create an escape plan after "changes were made". I'm saying it was poor improvisation based off poor original planning. No amount of setbacks would change how crappy the original plan was. We went in like a child throwing a temper trantrum, fists swinging wildly. There was nothing surgical about those opperations, in execution OR planning.

The loss of life is always a tragic thing, but there are somethings worth fighting for.True. And there are apparently also some things worth holding 5 year long media exploitations over :rolleyes:

You nor I have not changed anyones mindset on this subject...nor were you or I ever going to...if you believe different well keep trying to pull your cranium out of rectal cavity because you have not finished the job yet.Actually this is strengthening people's viewpoints and getting them to look at this topic which would otherwise have gone unnoticed. I'd say my goal is materializing quite nicely. I recieve reps such as "I totally agree with you." and "one of the more intellegent posts I've seen while being on these forums" about this thread. Meanwhile, there is only one person who continues to be so upset over a very valid point. So, yes, I'd say it IS important to talk about these issues.

SO WOULD YOU SAY THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE A MEDIUM SIZED NUMBER OF DEATHS BEFORE YOU CONSIDER THAT ACTION NEEDS TO TAKE PLACE....50% OF THE POPULATION IS THAT SIGNIGFICANT ENOUGH? OR WHAT ABOUT 75%? HOW BIG OF A PERCENTAGE DO YOU NEED TO WAKE THE FUCK UP?Wow it's abundantly clear that your blind rage prevents you from actually tackling my points. Blind prideful rage. That's what created the poor battle plan from this war. That's why you're throwing a tantrum over things I've never stated. Where, in this entire thread, has anyone stated that no action should have been taken by the US after 9/11? Do I need to start bolding red text to point out how many times you bring up things no one said again? You still didn't answer the question: Is 0.00001 a big number, or a small number? I'm not asking for "what point do people wake up". I'm asking you whether it's big or small. Here we can do it this way: on a scale of 1 to 1000, how large is this number?

DON'T REALLY CARE IF THE FIGURE IS .000000000000000000001% IT'S OVER 2800 DEAD PEOPLE. PEOPLE WHO WERE EITHER FATHERS, MOTHERS, CHILDREN, GRANDMOTHERS, GRANDFATHERS, SPOUSES OR JUST GOOD FRIENDS TO OTHER PEOPLE.All you care about is that people died? Heck over 50 times that amount of people die every day! No, you don't care that people died, that happens all the time, unexpectantly, unwanted, every single day, in much higher proportion. You care that the bully talked smack bout your momma. You got shoved on the playground and now you're throwing a tantrum with caps letters and nonsense about how you care about people dying. That's not the reason, it's just the only thing you can say at the time.

DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT BIN LADEN AND HIS ORGANIZATION OF TERROR ARE FINISHED? DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT IF WE WOULD HAVE SAT BACK AND DONE NOTHING THAT THEY WOULD BE FINISHED?Calm down, take a breath, and show me anywhere in this thread where I've mentioned we shouldn't have taken any action to secure this country. I've stated the the plans we took sucked. I've stated that media exploitation needs to stop. But where oh where did you see me state we should have done nothing? Really do I need to treat you like a kindegardener and highlight all the different times you misquote me so you can visibly see how much garbage you make up?

0.00001

I'm in the medical profession. I give due sorrow and grief ANYTIME life is lost. But really, let's put this number in proportion, 5 years after the fact.

0.00001

big? or small? (simple question)

R G

09-27-2006, 07:34 PM

I don't think anyone has denied that he's a bit off his rocker. If you see me claim otherwise, please point it out. However, we offered their enemies weaponry. We positioned troops in their holy land. Whether you acknowledge their pain or not, we directly hurt them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks#Motive) by:
-supporting Israel.

You forgot to mention all of the other nations that we have supported from time to time...Saudi Arabia, Iran, Quatar, Egypt, UAE (just in Middle East - and I am sure there are more)...How terrible it is that the US helps people from other countries from time to time? For shame...

-military occupation of the Arabian Peninsula.

Along with other countries from around the world in a multinational force

-aggression against the Iraqi people.

Yea they showed their displeasure by showing up to vote in support of democracy and voting....OVER 80% registered voters showed up....I sure wish that Americans would show up in those numbers.

-Plundering the resources of the Arabian Peninsula.

I can only assume you are talking about Oil at what $60-$75 a barrel...If you wanna call it plundering I guess you can.

Do you really think that the US is the only nation that gets its oil from that region? If anyone has plundered the resources of that Peninsula more than any other it is the dictators such as Saddam who have used it for their OWN pleasure and comfort rather than helping their own people. How many palaces did Saddam have? How extravagant were they? They made the White House look like a shanty shack down by the river.

-Supporting abusive regimes and monarchies in the Middle East, thereby oppressing their people.

Who do you think the oppressed people were opposing when they showed up to vote at the polls, many risking their own lives, with an election turnout of over 80%? Those people were oppressed only by their own dictator.

-creating disunion between Muslim states, thus weakening them as a political force.

They have never been in unison on anything for thousands of years...The history of the Middle East is filled with conflicts...WAY before the good ole' USA was around.

Again, whether you see them as overreacting to our actions or not is irrelevant. We hurt them. They said we were hurting them. We ignored their pain. They attacked. They did not attack Sweden. They did NOT attack Finland. So you tell me - if you don't believe all these reasons I and Osama have stated, why did they attack us? You still haven't answered this question.

I believe they attack us because they feel that we don't live "right" in the eyes of allah and mohommad....remember they are religious zealots.

Before you attack that comment let me state that is my opinion based upon my observations of the events....

And what does that have to do with my point regarding the fact that this war was planned poorly? :huh: Regardless of what COULD HAVE happened IF something else happened, what DID happen was planned poorly.

It's very relevant. I am talking about mistakes that occured before we actually had to go to war. If we would have had made the right choices during the Clinton administration then we would not be in Iraq right now.

But I'm not talking about how things went - I'm talking about the original plan. It was poorly constructed. There was never an escape route. Ever. There was no adaptation to create an escape plan after "changes were made". I'm saying it was poor improvisation based off poor original planning.

You don't go to war with an "escape plan" you go to win and when the job is done you leave. Now if you are getting your ass handed to you on a platter then you get the hell out of there. If by "escape plan" you meant "exit plan" well then you leave when the damn job is completed and done right...goes back to one of your other phrases you used...remember the one...The Lazy Man Works the Hardest?

Oh so we can take it you have seen the original war plan and are speaking from your knowledge of military experience to form a educated opinion...If not shut the fuck up, because your opinion is just that your opinion or perception....Wait Wait Wait...Oh wait you are in the medical profession...What in your experience of being in the medical field qualifies you to make opinions of a war plan that you most likely haven't even seen?

Actually this is strengthening people's viewpoints and getting them to look at this topic which would otherwise have gone unnoticed. I'd say my goal is materializing quite nicely. I recieve reps such as "I totally agree with you." and "one of the more intellegent posts I've seen while being on these forums" about this thread. Meanwhile, there is only one person who continues to be so upset over a very valid point. So, yes, I'd say it IS important to talk about these issues.

You didn't change their minds...they agreed with you and liked what you said and how you said it. If you think you have changed any minds it would only be if you were a brain surgeon and you did it on the operating table...quit trying to flatter yourself.

Where, in this entire thread, has anyone stated that no action should have been taken by the US after 9/11?

An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind...Remember when you broke from the analogy crap to the phrase crap.:rolleyes:

Do I need to start bolding red text to point out how many times you bring up things no one said again? You still didn't answer the question: Is 0.00001 a big number, or a small number?

In and of itself its a small number but what it represents is big, surely you understand that.

All you care about is that people died? Heck over 50 times that amount of people die every day!

Yea I care that people died...you got me there. Darn I lost that point...

No, you don't care that people died, that happens all the time, unexpectantly, unwanted, every single day, in much higher proportion.

Show me I said that I don't care that other people die. If you want I can show you in this thread where I said exactly the opposite....Just let me know.;)

Calm down, take a breath, and show me anywhere in this thread where I've mentioned we shouldn't have taken any action to secure this country.

AN EYE FOR AN EYE LEAVES EVERYONE BLIND...You have been all over the map lately state your position and keep it...;)

I've stated the the plans we took sucked. I've stated that media exploitation needs to stop. But where oh where did you see me state we should have done nothing? Really do I need to treat you like a kindegardener and highlight all the different times you misquote me so you can visibly see how much garbage you make up?

AGAIN What else could you have meant by the phrase?...An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.

But really, let's put this number in proportion, 5 years after the fact.

0.00001

big? or small? (simple question)

In and of itself it is small. It's really irrelevant to the discussion though.

Let me illustrate for you. Let's suppose I were in the Environmental Protection Agency or some other entity that measured air or water quality.

Now suppose I perform a test that measured mercury or arsenic in the water levels. My measurements come back a few parts per million. Is it relative? Should I be alarmed? Or do I try to trivialize it by saying its a small number...heck only a few parts per million.

Do I take water samples of other resevoirs from other water systems to lower the readings so that the readings look less significant? In doing so now my readings are with in limits of being acceptable....much the same as you have done all throughout this thread.

The size of the number is only relevant to the situation and scope at which you look at it. Over 2000 people died out of 40,000(approx.) possible people in the Twin Towers....1 out of 20. Is that number big or small?

Consider that it has been said that there were only 25000 people in those buildings when this occurred. 2 out of 25...Is that number big or small to you?

I'm in the medical profession.

If you are in the medical profession it really helps to explain why you are so callous about the loss of life. You probally see death alot more than the average person.

Thanks for revealing that fact as it explains alot. ;)

uniquinous

09-27-2006, 10:18 PM

You forgot to mention all of the other nations that we have supported from time to time...Saudi Arabia, Iran, Quatar, Egypt, UAE (just in Middle East - and I am sure there are more)...How terrible it is that the US helps people from other countries from time to time? For shame...So you are saying, by doing the same harm elsewhere (that is, supplying weapons), we are completely innocent in indirectly harming these people? :huh: Your only defense for the points I made is to point at other instances and say "see we did it here so it wasn't bad!" Well, that's just not true. In fact, the biggest argument I get from cybers in game is "but other people do it!". Sorry, doesn't make it any less harmful. Let's take a look at the other places you use this same poor strategy (I will mark them with this symbol: X

]Along with other countries from around the world in a multinational force X

Yea they showed their displeasure by showing up to vote in support of democracy and voting....OVER 80% registered voters showed up....I sure wish that Americans would show up in those numbers.Actually, that was after the fact. You're comparing the voting turnout in 2005 with the actions we took against these people for the last century before that. I will mark places where you compare voting turnout in 2005 to actions taken against these people long before that point with this symbol: O

I can only assume you are talking about Oil at what $60-$75 a barrel...If you wanna call it plundering I guess you can.Nope, not what I'm talking about at all, but by all means continue jumping to poor assumptions - it's rather amusing.

Do you really think that the US is the only nation that gets its oil from that region? If anyone has plundered the resources of that Peninsula more than any other it is the dictators such as Saddam who have used it for their OWN pleasure and comfort rather than helping their own people. How many palaces did Saddam have? How extravagant were they? They made the White House look like a shanty shack down by the river.X
.. .. XXXXXXX

Who do you think the oppressed people were opposing when they showed up to vote at the polls, many risking their own lives, with an election turnout of over 80%? Those people were oppressed only by their own dictator. O

I believe they attack us because they feel that we don't live "right" in the eyes of allah and mohommad....remember they are religious zealots. And what is this "right" way that ONLY our country possesses? A TON of other countries very closely mimic our way of life, but Osama went out of his way to state that he will never attack those countries because they do not threaten his security. According to your logic, we should see many terrorist acts in any country that follows our way of life. But that's not the case, at all. Free capitolistic nations go unbombed. So again I'll ask: why us?

FURTHERMORE, you still seem to be arguing the entirety of these points. I can only support them so far, but I do highly recomend you either 1) argue with Muslim fanatics as to why in the world of R G they aren't being harmed, and 2) go change the wikipedia article I very clearly referenced in my last post, which quoted every single one of those points I made, line by line. These were the reasons we were attacked. No, it isn't from "the observations of R G at the time". At the time America was so blinded by their rage and pride that's all they saw. You were too blind - and you still are. You show your ignorance, time and time again on this point. Clearly you don't believe me. You don't believe documentation on the events. AND you don't even believe the leader of this plot who specifically stated, multiple times, why he did it. Does god need to descend from the heavens and tell you you're wrong before you catch on? How many other sources do you really need before your ignorance and pride allow you to accept these very clear facts?

LASTLY (on this point): I just copied and pasted the NINE reasons that were stated on wikipedia (all cited - you can go there for more references if you wish) that we were attacked. NINE. Pearl Harbor had only ONE of those NINE for the reasons they attacked us (aid). Do you see how NINE is GREATER THEN ONE? NINE is MORE THAN ONE. Similarly, 9/11 attack, due to the reasons stated, was MORE justified, then PH.

It's very relevant. I am talking about mistakes that occured before we actually had to go to war. If we would have had made the right choices during the Clinton administration then we would not be in Iraq right now. That's fine, and dandy, and I'm not even here to argue it. Let's just say you're right (i'll let you get *something*). Now, given the situation that ACTUALLY happened, the war was planned poorly. You can't refute that. Aside from FOX, you can't find any source that can refute that either. You can give all the "what ifs" you want, but you can't refute the claim: given what actually occured, it was planned poorly.

You don't go to war with an "escape plan" you go to win and when the job is done you leave. Now if you are getting your ass handed to you on a platter then you get the hell out of there. If by "escape plan" you meant "exit plan" well then you leave when the damn job is completed and done right...Actually, you DO go to war with an escape plan. If the US should have learned ANY lessons from Vietnam, it would be not to make the exact same mistake again. We lost Vietnam, because of that dumbass mentality you just stated: go in and keep fighting till the mission is accomplished. Well, we didn't get our asses handed to us in Vietnam, but we weren't able to get the job done either. We left, eventually, with our tails between our legs - and we're doing the same thing now. We just keep fighting. and fighting. and fighting. We made great changes and brought democracy... and where is bin laden? We got Sadam, someone we weren't originally going after... but we can't actually acomplish our mission. Heck, I think it's pretty clear by now that when Bush said "Mission Accomplished" he was a lying sack of crap! NO, your mentality of going in guns blazing till the "job is done" is barbaric. It's called military INTELLIGENCE for a reason. Heck even this game is called TACTICS arena. The noob who sends all their units in blindly is the one who loses.

Oh so we can take it you have seen the original war plan and are speaking from your knowledge of military experience to form a educated opinion...Erm, yeah. It was kinda broadcast... everywhere. And I'm forming my "educated opinion" based on the fact that we HAVE NOT ACCOMPLISHED OUR MISSION. Plan failed. That's pretty clear at this point. Note how our troops are still there. The war is far extended beyond originally intended. We still don't have Osama. We still haven't broken all terrorist cells. We still live in fear everytime some dumbass changes the security level from chartreuse to mauve. I don't really think it takes military genius at this point to tell whether things worked according to plan.

You didn't change their minds...they agreed with you and liked what you said and how you said it. If you think you have changed any minds it would only be if you were a brain surgeon and you did it on the operating table...quit trying to flatter yourself.Clearly you are a psychic now and could tell! Cuz, ya know, it's impossible to use facts and supported points as I've been doing to change someone's mind. Heck even now you are beggining to realize how wrong you've been on the reasons we were attacked. But yeah, it's impossible, in your world, to change someone's mind. :rolleyes:

Where, in this entire thread, has anyone stated that no action should have been taken by the US after 9/11?An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind...Remember when you broke from the analogy crap to the phrase crap.And you feel that's me stating that no action should have been taken? Let me give you a little history lesson. The book of Exodus as well as the Code of Hammurabi (1780 BC) both reference "an eye for an eye" as retributive justice. This is where my little phrase came from. HOWEVER, in modern day America, we still have this thing called justice, and it doesn't require "mirror punishments". In fact, our current form of justice can irrefutably be seen as a much more civilized and humane method of dealing with law. This is why, in America, we don't cut off the hands of thieves on the streets. Yet, as I've mentioned, we still have JUSTICE (amazing, no?). So when I say "an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind", I directly reference the large pitfalls of retributive justice.

(continued on next post)

uniquinous

09-27-2006, 10:18 PM

Part 2 (continued)

Why? Well, because we got hit with a terrorist attack. In return, we produced a terrorist attack. RETRIBUTIVE JUSTICE. (This is what "leaves everyone blind"). As I mentioned previously, there was nothing surgical about our plans nor execution. It created a strengthening of support for the radical fanatics, it meant we needed to stay in the middle east much longer. "The crane waits still as stone before striking its prey." We decided to catch a fish by running headfirst into the lake and then try to shoot anything that moved. So when I say "an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind", it doesn't mean we should have done NOTHING - it means we shouldn't have let pride and rage blind us into doing something stupid - the exact same action that was done to us. It means we shouldn't have allowed the fear to take hold. It means there were many better ways to assure our security, many of which we did take.

In and of itself its a small number but what it represents is big, surely you understand that.

Yea I care that people died...you got me there. Darn I lost that point...Oh good! You finally answered! Now I'ma go on to shoot down all your points about playing around with the numbers... However, it seems you've gone back to taking things out of context and sticking your fingers in your ears. Gonna graduate 2nd grade anytime soon?

Show me I said that I don't care that other people die. If you want I can show you in this thread where I said exactly the opposite....Just let me know.If you cared about people dying, you'd be mourning over a lot more then these 2800. No, you care about THESE people dying. I don't care when goldfish die. I care a LOT when *my* goldfish die. It's the same for you: you don't care about people dying - you just care about this small subset of people that died. Why? Because some noob in a turban did it and talked smack bout yo momma, and that pisses you off.

Now suppose I perform a test that measured mercury or arsenic in the water levels. My measurements come back a few parts per million. Is it relative? Should I be alarmed? Or do I try to trivialize it by saying its a small number...heck only a few parts per million.Ah and the difference? I'm giving you a percent change. You're giving me an absolute number. You wouldn't know what to make of the phrase "300000 stars just disappeared out of the sky". But "5% of all stars disappeared" is something you can wrap your head around. Similarly, it doesn't matter how many parts per million were found - what matters is the percent increase, the percent of people that will be affected, etc. If parts per million went up 0.00001, then no one would be affected.

Do I take water samples of other resevoirs from other water systems to lower the readings so that the readings look less significant? In doing so now my readings are with in limits of being acceptable....much the same as you have done all throughout this thread.Ah but in this example, "other resevoirs" would equal other countries. This was an attack on America. Not Canada. Not Mexico. America. America is your resevoir. It didn't matter whether a Californian died in these terrorist attacks or a Floridian for the purposes of this talk. We've *always* been talking about America. If it was about Switzerland, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all. So no, you don't take readings from other resevoirs, just as I haven't taken numbers from other countries. They attacked America, I used American numbers.

The size of the number is only relevant to the situation and scope at which you look at it. Over 2000 people died out of 40,000(approx.) possible people in the Twin Towers....1 out of 20. Is that number big or small? Again, the goal wasn't to cause fear for the people in the Twin Towers, now was it? You actually gonna use this foolish argument? The intent was to cause fear in Americans. They attacked America, I used American numbers.

Do you understand how that works? I'm not pulling numbers that happen to be convenient for me else I would have said "compared to the population of the world...". I'm pulling out the most logical target audience here. They wanted 299,848,492 Americans to be hurt, and did so by killing 2819 of them, or 0.0000094 (i was being generous before and just rounded up the extra tens place). So I will ask again: Did they kill a LARGE or a SMALL part of their intended target? Did America lose a LARGE or a REALLY SMALL percentage of its total population, 5 years ago?

No, you don't care about the thousands that die every day - you don't. You care about this 0.0000094 that died 5 years ago because pride and rage blind you and tell you to do so.

If you are in the medical profession it really helps to explain why you are so callous about the loss of life. You probally see death alot more than the average person.

Thanks for revealing that fact as it explains alot. ;)
Actually I work in the Dept of OB/GYN. I see pregnant women all day long. This is why I said I value life - not because I see death all the time (although that was yet again a very entertaining and completely baseless assumption you made), but because my job is based around LIFE.

Trust me when I say, the American population (just the number) did not feel the effects of those 2819 lives lost. Not when over 11,000 new lives are brought into this country daily. Not when 21,500,000 babies have been born since 9/11/2006. The American population didn't feel a thing, regardless of the fact that those lives were precious.

Northwind

09-27-2006, 10:31 PM

I think this discussion would be a hell of a lot more interesting if you would pull back from the minutia of each other's points and instead focus on the larger issues that they represent - you're both getting bogged down by the tiny bits.

For example:

Is terrorism a continuing threat to America?

Is the war in Iraq an effective strategy toward combatting terrorism?

If not, what would be an effective strategy to deal with terrorism?

Should the media commemorate the lives lost on 9/11 and, if so, how?

I don't mean to tell you guys how to do your jobs, but GOOD GOD, if I read another "I already covered that, why don't you read my posts you idiot" response, I'M gonna become a terrorist. An anti-R G and uniquinous terrorist. Then you'll have something in common. You'll be on the run from ME. :dry:

meat.eater

09-27-2006, 11:02 PM

I failed my terrorist test today. They took a drug test and found out I drank a vile of terrorist, so my application was NA.

Dont do drugs.

R G

09-28-2006, 07:38 AM

So you are saying, by doing the same harm elsewhere (that is, supplying weapons), we are completely innocent in indirectly harming these people? :huh: Your only defense for the points I made is to point at other instances and say "see we did it here so it wasn't bad!" Well, that's just not true. In fact, the biggest argument I get from cybers in game is "but other people do it!". Sorry, doesn't make it any less harmful. Let's take a look at the other places you use this same poor strategy (I will mark them with this symbol: X

Like I have mentioned the United States of America is not the only country to sell weapons to other countries. If I sell you a gun am I responsible if you go kill your family or some random stranger?

Actually, that was after the fact. You're comparing the voting turnout in 2005 with the actions we took against these people for the last century before that. I will mark places where you compare voting turnout in 2005 to actions taken against these people long before that point with this symbol: O

You stated that these people were oppressed...Oppressed people don't vote.

Nope, not what I'm talking about at all, but by all means continue jumping to poor assumptions - it's rather amusing.

Plunder their resources is what you said...What resources are you referring to then if it's not Oil? Sand?

And what is this "right" way that ONLY our country possesses? A TON of other countries very closely mimic our way of life, but Osama went out of his way to state that he will never attack those countries because they do not threaten his security. According to your logic, we should see many terrorist acts in any country that follows our way of life. But that's not the case, at all.

Try reading my comments again...I said " I believe they attack us because they feel that we don't live "right" in the eyes of allah and mohommad....remember they are religious zealots. DON'T is the key word there...:rolleyes:

Get Literacy, after she finishes her run, to explain it to ya..;)

Free capitolistic nations go unbombed. So again I'll ask: why us?

Opps you forgot about Spain and Great Britian...try again..

That's fine, and dandy, and I'm not even here to argue it. Let's just say you're right (i'll let you get *something*). Now, given the situation that ACTUALLY happened, the war was planned poorly. You can't refute that. Aside from FOX, you can't find any source that can refute that either. You can give all the "what ifs" you want, but you can't refute the claim: given what actually occured, it was planned poorly.

Sure it probaly could have been planned out better. What plan ever made could not be better after hindsight? Not sure why this is a point of discussion when we the original topic was "Commericialization of 9/11" though.

Actually, you DO go to war with an escape plan. If the US should have learned ANY lessons from Vietnam, it would be not to make the exact same mistake again. We lost Vietnam, because of that dumbass mentality you just stated: go in and keep fighting till the mission is accomplished. Well, we didn't get our asses handed to us in Vietnam, but we weren't able to get the job done either. We left, eventually, with our tails between our legs - and we're doing the same thing now. We just keep fighting. and fighting. and fighting. We made great changes and brought democracy... and where is bin laden?

I have talked to many Vietnam veterans over my life. I have one uncle who was shot and had to return to the US. I have another uncle who piloted helicopters and was shot down 3 times - walked away from all three. In fact I was actually born while my father was serving in Vietnam. You trying to tell me out Vietnam is really quite funny.

The reason we lost that was was because we didn't commit enough to winning it in all phases of the war, but particularly the beginning phase. If you would like me to expand I will...but there again it is purposely irrelevant to the topic of the post... "Commerialization of 9/11".

Erm, yeah. It was kinda broadcast... everywhere. And I'm forming my "educated opinion" based on the fact that we HAVE NOT ACCOMPLISHED OUR MISSION. Plan failed. That's pretty clear at this point. Note how our troops are still there. The war is far extended beyond originally intended. We still don't have Osama. We still haven't broken all terrorist cells. We still live in fear everytime some dumbass changes the security level from chartreuse to mauve. I don't really think it takes military genius at this point to tell whether things worked according to plan.

The entire battle plan was not revealed to my knowledge...and that is what we are talking about.

We haven't found Osama - you are right about that - but others have been found.

We haven't broken all terrorist cells - you are right about that - but we have broke some.

You are right our troops are still there...still work to be done.....If we don't well then I have to go back to referring to that phrase...A lazy man works twice as hard....damn I like that phrase.

Clearly you are a psychic now and could tell! Cuz, ya know, it's impossible to use facts and supported points as I've been doing to change someone's mind. Heck even now you are beggining to realize how wrong you've been on the reasons we were attacked. But yeah, it's impossible, in your world, to change someone's mind. :rolleyes:

LOL You should take your act on the road. You have used analogies, phrases and irrelevant points twisted to fit your arguments....guess you can believe what you want though.

And you feel that's me stating that no action should have been taken? Let me give you a little history lesson. The book of Exodus as well as the Code of Hammurabi (1780 BC) both reference "an eye for an eye" as retributive justice. This is where my little phrase came from. HOWEVER, in modern day America, we still have this thing called justice, and it doesn't require "mirror punishments". In fact, our current form of justice can irrefutably be seen as a much more civilized and humane method of dealing with law. This is why, in America, we don't cut off the hands of thieves on the streets. Yet, as I've mentioned, we still have JUSTICE (amazing, no?). So when I say "an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind", I directly reference the large pitfalls of retributive justice.

RRRRRRRRRRRRRRight Go back and read your own posts.
Wait Wait better yet...Why don't you answer a few questions related to this argument? This will help to fully understand where you do stand rather than your constant bobbing and weaving tactics you keep using.

-Should we have gone to Afghanistan in the first place?
-Several intellegency agencies(including other nations) at the time suspected Saddam of being involved to some degree. We continued having problems getting him to comply with his original declaration of surrender. What would you have done?

I will respond to part II(which is quite comical) later...got to work ya know.

uniquinous

09-28-2006, 09:15 AM

Like I have mentioned the United States of America is not the only country to sell weapons to other countries. If I sell you a gun am I responsible if you go kill your family or some random stranger? Again, where have I stated that? However, if I know Northwind wants to go kill your mom, and I hand him a gun, does that mean you have a right to be pissed off at me as well? Sure, despite the fact that I committed no murder.

You stated that these people were oppressed...Oppressed people don't vote.When did they vote? 2005. When were they reportedly being repressed: before 2001. So, let's say I agree with your point - how does that apply to non-voting people in years leading up to 2001?

As for the NINE points I've mentioned (which you seem to only be able to scratch at ONE), I recomend *you* actually do some research, for once. I present valid sources, you argue them. A locked wikipedia thread with full citation and the words from Osama himself don't seem to be enough. Here - you read, you tell me what's wrong with them based on the primary source - I'm tired of being the middle man in information - you're a big boy and can look it up yourself:
http://www.representativepress.org/Motivesfor911.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks#Motive

Try reading my comments again...I said " I believe they attack us because they feel that we don't live "right" in the eyes of allah and mohommad....remember they are religious zealots. DON'T is the key word there...:rolleyes:

Opps you forgot about Spain and Great Britian...try again..Except... Spain and GB weren't attacked by the same organization that attacked US. It was Islamic, and I know how easily similar looking things confuse you, but they were a completely different group - a mimicry, at best. You can't judge one groups actions on another that haphazardly stands in its shadow.

Now let's look at Great Britain. Don't you find it slightly coincidental that Great Britain, a country that directly aided us in attacking the middle east, ALSO had "retributive" actions taken against them? :huh: I mean, my claim is that they aren't attacking free countries that don't live right, but rather countries that are seen to harm them in some way. America, Israel, and Great Britain attack these people. Amazingly, America, Israel, and Great Britain are bombed by them in return.

But clearly this precise finding along with Osama telling you his reasons and all supporting evidence clearly isn't enough for the world of R G

The reason we lost [vietnam] was was because we didn't commit enough to winning it in all phases of the war, but particularly the beginning phase. If you would like me to expand I will...but there again it is purposely irrelevant to the topic of the post... "Commerialization of 9/11". Yes, please explain why you believe we lost Vietnam, and how that lesson could relate to our current war situation.

The entire battle plan was not revealed to my knowledge...and that is what we are talking about.

We haven't found Osama - you are right about that - but others have been found. It was pretty much directly said, multiple times, that no exit route was planned. At all. No, I'm not saying "they didn't mention one so everyone assumed it didn't exist". I'm saying it didn't exist.

You are right our troops are still there...still work to be done.....If we don't well then I have to go back to referring to that phrase...A lazy man works twice as hard....damn I like that phrase.Except... we're the "lazy man". We're already doing twice the work. We were never intended to still be in the middle east 5 years later. There's still work to be done cuz we botched it up.

LOL You should take your act on the road. You have used analogies, phrases and irrelevant points twisted to fit your arguments....guess you can believe what you want though.See when I make statements as to your invalidity, I am able to mark them, directly, with bold red text, so you can see exactly where you do these things. You, on the other hand, seem to just copy the wording of the poor tactics I claim you do, and present it unbacked. Please, instead of saying those things, as anyone can, point them out. Where have I twisted points? Analogies aren't bad. If you find them irrelvent, point them out - but don't discredit the use of analogies altogether.

RRRRRRRRRRRRRRight Go back and read your own posts.
Wait Wait better yet...Why don't you answer a few questions related to this argument? This will help to fully understand where you do stand rather than your constant bobbing and weaving tactics you keep using.How bout this: you do the research for once - YOU go back, and show me anywhere in my posts where I've said this country should have done nothing to protect our security. I've stated many times that the METHODS we used to accomplish that act were barbaric, retributive justice, terror-causing, etc. Please, point out a single place I've said we should do nothing.

-Should we have gone to Afghanistan in the first place? Yes. Just not with guns blazing attacking anything that moved. We should have gone in surgically, and gotten out. We should have had a planned exit strategy from day 1.

We still should have increased the security measures at home. Regardless of any war started, that's still intelligent in the situation. We should not have had constant color-coded "threat levels" - that added to the media exploitation as well as the fear on a daily basis in America.

They were a disease in our country. And we turned out to cause a plague in theirs. The 9-11 Commission Report has entire chapters dedicated to "Counterterrorism Evolves". This is good action on our part.

But let's read some articles:
Poor Intelligence Misled Troops About Risk of Drawn-Out War (http://www.uslaboragainstwar.org/article.php?id=6827)
Decoding Mr. Bush's Denials (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/15/opinion/15tue1.html?ex=1289710800&en=d341df71c8d7c041&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)

How bout some direct quotes?
"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th." (President Bush, Remarks After Meeting With Members Of The Congressional Conference Committee On Energy Legislation, Washington, D.C., 9/17/03)
"The Bush administration was also alone in making the absurd claim that Iraq was in league with Al Qaeda and somehow connected to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. That was based on two false tales. "
"Richard Kerr, a former deputy director of central intelligence, said in 2003 that there was "significant pressure on the intelligence community to find evidence that supported a connection" between Iraq and Al Qaeda"
"The president and his top advisers may very well have sincerely believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But they did not allow the American people, or even Congress, to have the information necessary to make reasoned judgments of their own."

etc etc etc

uniquinous

09-28-2006, 09:27 AM

oops - i guess i'ma get pwnz3d. Northwind - you should add to this - stear us straight - anything. Let's hear your opinions on these things.

Is terrorism a continuing threat to America?I see it very much like a cancer. We can do some surgery, we can poison it, but in the end there is *always* going to be the chance of even a single unharmed cancer cell to grow and/or metastasize. That chance will always be there. I feel we've greatly lowered the chance we will be a victim by battling these people directly, but also increasing their drive to do us harm (despite their lowered numbers).

Is the war in Iraq an effective strategy toward combatting terrorism?Yes and no. The American public knows now that intelligence was misused at the start of the war. While military action was called for at the time, our attack plan was not that smart. We went over there for Osama. We instead captured a man who was not believed to be involved with 9/11 and this was seen as a victory for some reason. We're converting their way of life to democracy. While this is a good and noble end, it's not battling terrorism.

If not, what would be an effective strategy to deal with terrorism?Well, much counterterrorism intelligence was developed from this lesson. We also more effectively prevent recurrence of the same thing from happening in the future. I think people forget that security can also be seen as defense, not just offense.

Should the media commemorate the lives lost on 9/11 and, if so, how?Yes - at the time. No, not 5 years later. Memorials commemorate lives. For and individual death, this is the equivalent as a headstone in a cemetary somewhere. It is unhealthy in that situation to surround a room with constant reminders of the dead person for up to 5 years. Instead, it's better to "visit" that person's memory when the grieving person chooses willingly. The media should NOT be producing special after special 5 years later; should NOT be producing movie deal after movie deal.

National televised reminders in no way help anyone through grief. If anything, it only serves to stir emotion which some people might not have wanted to face. Let people deal with their pain on their own time and needs. We don't need it in baseball games, nor every commercial break surrounding that time of year.

Northwind

09-28-2006, 09:58 AM

Well, I'm reluctant to weigh in as then I'll get sucked into the awful tit-for-tat that these types of threads seem to encourage. But, since I don't have the sense that God gave a lima bean, I guess I will anyway.

Is terrorism a continuing threat to America?
I think that terrorism is *some* threat. As has been noted, the likelihood of anyone specific dieing is quite small. However, the point is that no one ever knows if it is them - this is why terrorism is an effective strategy - it spreads terror. (Duh.) Thus, the fallout from terrorism is always larger than the actual danger that it represents.

Many countries have been dealing with terrorism for much longer than the U.S. has. The fact that we had been largely able to avoid it until fairly recently was an historical anomaly and not the natural state of things.

I think that the threat has been far overplayed by the current administration for it's own political ends. Fear is an excellent motivator and I feel that the Bush administration has used this to gain power and influence. I think that this will ultimately backfire on them as it isn't possible to indefinately sustain fear and people will be interested in a positive vision of America rather than simply a fear-based one.
Is the war in Iraq an effective strategy toward combatting terrorism?

I don't think so. I think that while some of the goals are noble (increasing democracy, driving Saddam from power), I think they were undertaken under faulty conceptions and incorrect assumptions. While Saddam was clearly a dickhead (that's political science-talk) on many levels, he wasn't actually affecting America's safety. Plus, we didn't seem (despite plenty of evidence to the contrary) to have any understanding of what we might be walking into).

I think the war with Iraq has inflamed anti-US sentiment and spread our resources too thin in dealing with other emerging threats. I find the fact that the war in Iraq has overshadowed the legitimate efforts in Afghanistan (where terrorism really was being exported), sickening. The fact that Bin Laden remains free (or, you know, possibly Bin Laden's corpse) is a symbolic victory for the anti-American forces and shows the stupidity of our focus in the "war on terror."
If not, what would be an effective strategy to deal with terrorism?

I think that a combination of a robust security system and intelligence gathering (that would include some loss of freedoms, though not to the extent that the Patriot Act has caused), focused military use against clearly identified threats, and a benevolent American presence in the world would do far more to ensure our safety than the whole Iraq debacle.

Should the media commemorate the lives lost on 9/11 and, if so, how?
I don't see how 9/11 wouldn't be commemorated five (or 10 or 20) years after the fact. Despite the fact of a relatively small loss of life (compared to the general population), 9/11 represents a watershed moment in American history when it became clear to the American populace that someone was out to get us. We can argue about the actual danger this represents, but the truth is that it represented a cognitive shift in American's perception of terror on its shores. This will not go unnoticed or uncommemorated.

If you'll remember, there was quite a bit of media coverage on the 50th anniversary of Pearl Harbor (another consciousness-shifting moment for America). This is untimately no different - though the media is more pervasive now than it was in the 1940's.

uniquinous

09-28-2006, 10:35 AM

Well, I'm reluctant to weigh in as then I'll get sucked into the awful tit-for-tat that these types of threads seem to encourage.no you wont. >.>

No really, I'll try not to grab your tits or tats.

I actually agree with all of what you said (as I'm sure you know from reading my points).

Now you stated what will happen regarding media coverage of the events. But what I'm wondering is what you feel *ought to* happen. (Unless I misread and you really meant what is happening is what ought to happen).

You're right in saying it's a large turning point. However it seems the reasons you stated *why* it's a large turning point aren't necessarily the things being covered by the media. What I'm saying is - it's the terrorist act that affected us - but the media doesn't cover the information on that so much as "the brave yadda yadda yadda now let's sing the national anthem at this baseball game". It seems a bit disjointed between what we should be stressing, and what we are. Comments?

Realist

09-28-2006, 11:30 AM

No. No. No. No.

speaker4thedead

09-28-2006, 11:38 AM

Any 1 ever heard Heaven by Dj Sammy?
Well I have a remix with 9/11 very touching if any 1 wonts it msn or aim and ill send it.

uniquinous

09-28-2006, 12:32 PM

No. No. No. No.

Insightful as that may be I must ask that you please elaborate just a touch dear :)

R G

09-28-2006, 01:20 PM

Well I see I am already behind as you have already responded to my response to Part 1....funny stuff yet again uniq...really you need to take that show to the road.

Part 2 (continued)
Why? Well, because we got hit with a terrorist attack. In return, we produced a terrorist attack. RETRIBUTIVE JUSTICE. (This is what "leaves everyone blind"). As I mentioned previously, there was nothing surgical about our plans nor execution. It created a strengthening of support for the radical fanatics, it meant we needed to stay in the middle east much longer. "The crane waits still as stone before striking its prey." We decided to catch a fish by running headfirst into the lake and then try to shoot anything that moved. So when I say "an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind", it doesn't mean we should have done NOTHING - it means we shouldn't have let pride and rage blind us into doing something stupid - the exact same action that was done to us. It means we shouldn't have allowed the fear to take hold. It means there were many better ways to assure our security, many of which we did take.

I suspect that if you had your way your way nothing would have ever been done.

If you cared about people dying, you'd be mourning over a lot more then these 2800. No, you care about THESE people dying. I don't care when goldfish die. I care a LOT when *my* goldfish die. It's the same for you: you don't care about people dying - you just care about this small subset of people that died.

Ammm are we are talking about the loss of life in 9/11 are we not? I care about the loss of life in general...That was the third time that I stated that for the record.

Ah and the difference? I'm giving you a percent change. You're giving me an absolute number. You wouldn't know what to make of the phrase "300000 stars just disappeared out of the sky". But "5% of all stars disappeared" is something you can wrap your head around. Similarly, it doesn't matter how many parts per million were found - what matters is the percent increase, the percent of people that will be affected, etc. If parts per million went up 0.00001, then no one would be affected.

Does it really matter if I convert it to a percentage or not? I mean really...If you can't seem to grasp the concept from a percentage to a whole number then I give up...

Ah but in this example, "other resevoirs" would equal other countries. This was an attack on America. Not Canada. Not Mexico. America. America is your resevoir.

Are you a just a complete moron? Have you forgot what this conversation of "large and small" was about? Let me help you out...I need a good deed for the day.:rolleyes:

You were going on about how the loss of life was insignificant in terms of the whole of the life lost in the USA....NOT THE WORLD...remember a prick in the finger yada yada yada....statically irrelevant is basically what you have said to sum it up.

Part of your equation that you used to generate your percentage:rolleyes: that you used, was a number that you pulled out of your random generator or out of your ass, represented neighborhoods.

-The polluted resevoir would represent the Twin Towers, Pentagon, and PA.
-The pollution in that resevoir would represent loss of life
-The other resevoirs that I said I would then sample were other neighborhoods
-The ending sample from all the resevoirs combined was now less significant than the original sample taken from the polluted resevior
-In summation just because we have combined all the samples together does not make the first sample that was polluted any less significant....consider if the pollutant were some type of disease that could spread from resevoir to resevoir? Is it something that should be ignored? or do we just say well the majority of the water in the US is OK?

Try reading the analogy again and keep the parameters in focus....maybe Literacy can explain it to ya.:p

Did they kill a LARGE or a SMALL part of their intended target? Did America lose a LARGE or a REALLY SMALL percentage of its total population, 5 years ago?

I believe we have already went over this...Why you feel a need to keep harping on it in almost every post is beyond me? If you need to go back and read feel free to do so...as I am quite tired of repeating myself at this point.

Don't forget to try to read the previous analogy in the previous post (polluted resevoir) that was completely over your head again either.

No, you don't care about the thousands that die every day - you don't. You care about this 0.0000094 that died 5 years ago because pride and rage blind you and tell you to do so.

Do you know me? Do you think you really know what I care about? Do you?

Actually I work in the Dept of OB/GYN. I see pregnant women all day long. This is why I said I value life - not because I see death all the time (although that was yet again a very entertaining and completely baseless assumption you made), but because my job is based around LIFE.

WOW You never see some of the following in your field... Still born children? Cervical Cancer? Uterine Cancer? Breast Cancer? Ovarian Cancer? Cervic Cancer?

But what do I know I am not in the OB/GYN medical field...:rolleyes:

R G

09-28-2006, 03:01 PM

However, if I know Northwind wants to go kill your mom, and I hand him a gun, does that mean you have a right to be pissed off at me as well? Sure, despite the fact that I committed no murder..

Then yea that would be wrong wouldn't it as you would be an accessory to the murder....but if my mom was threating to kill Northwind and Northwind was looking for a way to protect himself from my mom then there is nothing wrong with it....surely you see the difference...but I doubt if you do.:rolleyes:

When did they vote? 2005. When were they reportedly being repressed: before 2001. So, let's say I agree with your point - how does that apply to non-voting people in years leading up to 2001?.

Ever heard of the Kurds?:rolleyes: I probally could come up with some other examples but really what would be the point to express an idea who still has not abstacted their head out of their arse.

I present valid sources, you argue them. A locked wikipedia thread with full citation and the words from Osama himself don't seem to be enough. Here - you read, you tell me what's wrong with them based on the primary source - I'm tired of being the middle man in information - you're a big boy and can look it up yourself:.

The biggest point that they are mad about is Israel and how we assist them. Surely we can both agree on that.

Let's say we quit assisting Israel...No weapons...No more support..Monetary or Weapons.

Where would that leave Israel? Yea the terrorist might leave us alone....so what? What happens to Israel? Would the terrorist leave them alone? Would they fight until there were no Jewish people ever living on that land? Would it be worse than the Holocaust of WWII?

Except... Spain and GB weren't attacked by the same organization that attacked US. It was Islamic, and I know how easily similar looking things confuse you, but they were a completely different group - a mimicry, at best. You can't judge one groups actions on another that haphazardly stands in its shadow..

Yea so they had a differnet name....just a sub group of a much larger organization with the same objective.

Now let's look at Great Britain. Don't you find it slightly coincidental that Great Britain, a country that directly aided us in attacking the middle east, ALSO had "retributive" actions taken against them? :huh: I mean, my claim is that they aren't attacking free countries that don't live right, but rather countries that are seen to harm them in some way. America, Israel, and Great Britain attack these people. Amazingly, America, Israel, and Great Britain are bombed by them in return..

I don't think you really understand what would happen if anyone did not assist Israel. The Jewish people have been through enough why should country with any morale values not try to assist them? How many millions of Jewish people have to die before we consider it a problem?

Yes, please explain why you believe we lost Vietnam, and how that lesson could relate to our current war situation..

Let's not delve into yet another side argument...

Except... we're the "lazy man". We're already doing twice the work. We were never intended to still be in the middle east 5 years later. There's still work to be done cuz we botched it up..

Yea we could have been there a shorter time if things would have gone better...but it's no reason to high tail it out of there now. Finish the job and then readdress the war flaws so that we can improve next time.

Where have I twisted points? Analogies aren't bad. If you find them irrelvent, point them out - but don't discredit the use of analogies altogether..

Analogies are not bad...your use of them to support only one part of the picture is...Look at the one you used with Northwind and my mom...you tried to prove a point only illustrating how you feel based upon how you view things....There was a much larger picture that you completely avoided that better represents the situtation.

How bout this: you do the research for once - YOU go back, and show me anywhere in my posts where I've said this country should have done nothing to protect our security. I've stated many times that the METHODS we used to accomplish that act were barbaric, retributive justice, terror-causing, etc. Please, point out a single place I've said we should do nothing.

Better yet how about you tell me what you think should have been done different.

-Should we have gone to Afghanistan in the first place? Yes. Just not with guns blazing attacking anything that moved. We should have gone in surgically, and gotten out. We should have had a planned exit strategy from day 1.

We still should have increased the security measures at home. Regardless of any war started, that's still intelligent in the situation. We should not have had constant color-coded "threat levels" - that added to the media exploitation as well as the fear on a daily basis in America.

They did go in surgically to the best of their abilities but with the CIA cuts of Clinton and George Bush(the first Bush) intellegence was not the best it could have been...

It's about like removing all the cancer cells that is spread throughout the body with no PET Scans or CAT Scans...only so much you can do with the information at hand.

Well you answered the first question and avoided the second...that's about par for the course.

R G

09-28-2006, 03:15 PM

Well, I'm reluctant to weigh in as then I'll get sucked into the awful tit-for-tat that these types of threads seem to encourage. But, since I don't have the sense that God gave a lima bean, I guess I will anyway.

I think that terrorism is *some* threat. As has been noted, the likelihood of anyone specific dieing is quite small. However, the point is that no one ever knows if it is them - this is why terrorism is an effective strategy - it spreads terror. (Duh.) Thus, the fallout from terrorism is always larger than the actual danger that it represents.

Many countries have been dealing with terrorism for much longer than the U.S. has. The fact that we had been largely able to avoid it until fairly recently was an historical anomaly and not the natural state of things.

I think that the threat has been far overplayed by the current administration for it's own political ends. Fear is an excellent motivator and I feel that the Bush administration has used this to gain power and influence. I think that this will ultimately backfire on them as it isn't possible to indefinately sustain fear and people will be interested in a positive vision of America rather than simply a fear-based one.

I don't think so. I think that while some of the goals are noble (increasing democracy, driving Saddam from power), I think they were undertaken under faulty conceptions and incorrect assumptions. While Saddam was clearly a dickhead (that's political science-talk) on many levels, he wasn't actually affecting America's safety. Plus, we didn't seem (despite plenty of evidence to the contrary) to have any understanding of what we might be walking into).

I think the war with Iraq has inflamed anti-US sentiment and spread our resources too thin in dealing with other emerging threats. I find the fact that the war in Iraq has overshadowed the legitimate efforts in Afghanistan (where terrorism really was being exported), sickening. The fact that Bin Laden remains free (or, you know, possibly Bin Laden's corpse) is a symbolic victory for the anti-American forces and shows the stupidity of our focus in the "war on terror."

I think that a combination of a robust security system and intelligence gathering (that would include some loss of freedoms, though not to the extent that the Patriot Act has caused), focused military use against clearly identified threats, and a benevolent American presence in the world would do far more to ensure our safety than the whole Iraq debacle.

I don't see how 9/11 wouldn't be commemorated five (or 10 or 20) years after the fact. Despite the fact of a relatively small loss of life (compared to the general population), 9/11 represents a watershed moment in American history when it became clear to the American populace that someone was out to get us. We can argue about the actual danger this represents, but the truth is that it represented a cognitive shift in American's perception of terror on its shores. This will not go unnoticed or uncommemorated.

If you'll remember, there was quite a bit of media coverage on the 50th anniversary of Pearl Harbor (another consciousness-shifting moment for America). This is untimately no different - though the media is more pervasive now than it was in the 1940's.

Not much I disagree with you there:) ....I too think we went to Iraq for the wrong reason. That being said though I think we should have been there before 9/11. Saddam broke a truce of surrender so that right there is enough to justify kicking his arse.

uniquinous

09-28-2006, 08:04 PM

I suspect that if you had your way your way nothing would have ever been done.Again, point out a single place I've said nothing should be done? I'm use this symbol from now on to continue pointing out things you make up: MU

Ammm are we are talking about the loss of life in 9/11 are we not? I care about the loss of life in general...That was the third time that I stated that for the record.Yeah you keep saying it but you don't show it. Perhaps I should rephrase: you care about all life, just *these* 3000 more then any other death. Cuz if you cared about the other 153,000 deaths per day, you'd have a much different argument.

Does it really matter if I convert it to a percentage or not? I mean really...If you can't seem to grasp the concept from a percentage to a whole number then I give up...Actually it does - this pretty clearly shows your inability to grasp the math here. Furthermore, it gets at a deeper recurring problem of yours: you can't differentiate between absolutes and relative attributes. It took me 5 pages to show you the difference between "justified" and "more justified". Hopefully it won't take me another 5 pages to get across the importance in "a 30% increase in arsenic levels" vs "there are 5 parts per million". No, I'm not looking for a percentage from parts per million, I'm looking for percent CHANGE - change in levels, change in people affected etc. Similarly, I gave you the percent change of deaths that day: 0.0001%. It doesn't matter if my skin cells acquire 2000 mutations every second on a square inch of skin exposed to the sun. What matters is that number is a 0% increase from everyone else - it's normal.

-The pollution in that resevoir would represent loss of lifeI find it funny that, as you grasp for straws, you accuse me of rearranging information to suit my needs, and then do that very thing. Polution is the loss of life?! No no, the polution in this country was the FEAR. The SOURCE of the polution was the loss of life - but if your goal is to pollute a resevoir or produce terror across a country, the noxious agents are pollution and fear, respectively. What CAUSED the pollution, for example, a chemical spill somewhere, is the equivalent of those deaths.

-The other resevoirs that I said I would then sample were other neighborhoodsWell by your example, over 99.9% of America (our resovoirs) were completely unaffected by your pollution. Do you think America was unaffected? NO! This very clearly proves why your analogy is misleading (see how I point out and disprove your analogies instead of just whine about them? take note please).

WOW You never see some of the following in your field... Still born children? Cervical Cancer? Uterine Cancer? Breast Cancer? Ovarian Cancer? Cervic Cancer? MU Really the assumptions are just... hilarious. Instead of asking questions, you just decide to go to the worst possible thing you can think of. OK lemme briefly explain healthcare in this country: you got a primary care physician, who refers you to a secondary care specialist, who may refer you to a tertiary or quarternary care specialist. Now despite the popular mindset of R G, not all medical fields are specialized to treat illness. Some are specialized to care for perfectly healthy individuals. For example: the nurse that takes your blood pressure: not dealing with death or cancer. The MRI tech who takes pictures and passes them onto another specialist: doesn't see death and destruction. Me? I see patients after they've cleared a clean bill of health with the sonographers and lead OB/GYN. Listen, don't try to grasp this, if all you can do is immediately go towards death. Medicine is about health. Keep that in mind.

But what do I know I am not in the OB/GYN medical field...:rolleyes:clearly not much...

Then yea that would be wrong wouldn't it as you would be an accessory to the murder....but if my mom was threating to kill Northwind and Northwind was looking for a way to protect himself from my mom then there is nothing wrong with it....surely you see the difference...but I doubt if you do.:rolleyes: Whoa let's get one thing straight - it's one thing to claim self defense. It's another to claim us providing weaponry for invasions is still self-defense. The US in the middle east is offense at this point. Israel coming to us and saying "hey we're gonna go bomb the crap outa those muslims, wanna help us?" is not just "self-defense". REGARDLESS of whether you agree on this or not (and I admit it isn't the strongest of claims), the fact is, we were still our enemy's friend. Dice it how you want, in their minds they had justification to attack the people supplying their aggresors with weapons.

The biggest point that they are mad about is Israel and how we assist them. Surely we can both agree on that.We can!? :huh: I was arguing this point for PAGES with you, quoting Osama and US sources, and you refused to listen. You're agreeing now? Lemme guess, the other 7 or so points, despite coming from the exact same sources, still aren't correct in your mind. :rolleyes:

Yea so they had a differnet name....just a sub group of a much larger organization with the same objective.Erm, no, not a sub group. Again I know how you get so easily confused when different things share minute things in common, but just because they were both Muslim radicals does NOT make them the same group. That's like saying Protistants worship the pope because they and Catholics are both Christians. Sorry, don't work that way. It was a different group altogether in Spain. It was the same group in Great Britain (sorry I mistyped last post for 1 of the 2 references).

I don't think you really understand what would happen if anyone did not assist Israel. The Jewish people have been through enough why should country with any morale values not try to assist them? How many millions of Jewish people have to die before we consider it a problem? You completely ignored the point with a sob story. Let me restate then.
POINT: This organization of Muslim radicals specifically bomb countries, NOT for being free of living "wrong", but rather for attacking or hurting their people.
SUPPORT: Israel, the US, and Great Britain are the three largest countries that attack and harm these people. Not coincidentally, Israel, the US, and Great Britain are the countries that get terrorized.
REJECTION OF COUNTERPOINT: In order to prove that they only attack countries who "live wrong" (you have yet to define this term) you would need to show some country of the MANY that live just like the US, have not attacked Muslims, and were bombed. You are unable to do this.

Yea we could have been there a shorter time if things would have gone better...but it's no reason to high tail it out of there now. Finish the job and then readdress the war flaws so that we can improve next time.MU Who said we should leave now? We can't. That's my point. NO EXIT STRATEGY. Let me restate:
POINT: Poor Intelligence Misled Troops About Risk of Drawn-Out War (http://www.uslaboragainstwar.org/article.php?id=6827) - This is pretty well documented now. It's not that things didn't go according to plans. It's that we went in rageful and blind. We didn't use the intelligence given properly. This isn't my opinion. This is very clear. There were trials on this very subject. Now, since you can't seem to do any research on your own, I'll cite these if you want, but it doesn't seem like you're actually reading or taking in any of the previous evidence I've shown you.

uniquinous

09-28-2006, 08:12 PM

Not much I disagree with you there:) ....Are... you kidding me? Half of what he said I've been battling with you for the last 10 pages over! Let me point out what you've strongly disagreed with thusfar:

I think that the threat has been far overplayed by the current administration for it's own political ends. Fear is an excellent motivator and I feel that the Bush administration has used this to gain power and influence. I think that this will ultimately backfire on them as it isn't possible to indefinately sustain fear and people will be interested in a positive vision of America rather than simply a fear-based one.This entire thread has been about this country going too far. OVERPLAYED. I've stated several times how we let fear control us and how the president is using that. You've tried to refute that claim of mine everytime. Do you suddenly agree with it here and now that Northwind said it?

Is the war in Iraq an effective strategy toward combatting terrorism?
I don't think so. I think that while some of the goals are noble (increasing democracy, driving Saddam from power), I think they were undertaken under faulty conceptions and incorrect assumptions. While Saddam was clearly a dickhead (that's political science-talk) on many levels, he wasn't actually affecting America's safety. Plus, we didn't seem (despite plenty of evidence to the contrary) to have any understanding of what we might be walking into).

I think the war with Iraq has inflamed anti-US sentiment and spread our resources too thin in dealing with other emerging threats. I find the fact that the war in Iraq has overshadowed the legitimate efforts in Afghanistan (where terrorism really was being exported), sickening. The fact that Bin Laden remains free (or, you know, possibly Bin Laden's corpse) is a symbolic victory for the anti-American forces and shows the stupidity of our focus in the "war on terror."You agree with this? You've been doing nothing but saying how amazing it's been that we went in guns blazing and keep doing it till we "get the job done". I stated we spend too much money on the war and not enough resources here rebuilding or bulking up security here and you again tried to refute that. Everytime I brought up the fact that Sadam was not and should not have been our target in the middle east you brushed it aside and stated many times that he was really threatening our security. Do you suddenly agree with it here and now that Northwind said it?

If not, what would be an effective strategy to deal with terrorism?

I think that a combination of a robust security system and intelligence gathering (that would include some loss of freedoms, though not to the extent that the Patriot Act has caused), focused military use against clearly identified threats, and a benevolent American presence in the world would do far more to ensure our safety than the whole Iraq debacle.You asked me what I thought we should do and I stated a better security and dealing of intelligence. And you argued with me on this point furiously. Do you suddenly agree with it here and now that Northwind said it?

The ONLY thing you might possibly agree with NW on is how 9/11 will be commented upon years later - but he hasn't even stated whether that *ought* to happen or not. So when you say "Not much I disagree with you there" and yet you dispute for pages the very points he made, what exactly did you mean? :huh:

Northwind

09-28-2006, 10:02 PM

sayter

09-28-2006, 10:14 PM

Northwind, there are numerous strategic reasons. Oil, for one. Two, a central staging ground in teh middle east if furhter expansion of the military assault was needed into neighboring countries. Sadly, it was poorly planned and rather naieve to think that it was even an acceptable plan to begin with.

If they didnt see this causing immediate problems, they were deluding themselves. The day the war started, those with brains said "this is an idiotic idea"...and sure enough, the predictions they made have almost all come true.

However, it is a game of cat and mouse, except that the mouse has a rocket launcher and a bunch of friends willing to strap bombs on their chests and blow up the cats friends just to make him mad. No one will win the struggle...its pointless.

Oh, and Uni FTW!

meat.eater

09-28-2006, 10:31 PM

So, is this argument going to continue until next 9/11?

R G

09-28-2006, 11:01 PM

I am going to quit arguing with you on the rest of the thread...like Northy said we are arguing small little points and to futher discuss it is fruitless at this point....

Quote: Originally Posted by R G
Not much I disagree with you there ....

Are... you kidding me? Half of what he said I've been battling with you for the last 10 pages over! Let me point out what you've strongly disagreed with thusfar:

Read it again...

Not much I disagree with you there

It's not a blanket statement of agreement...There are somethings that I don't completely agree with. I only mentioned one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northwind
I think that the threat has been far overplayed by the current administration for it's own political ends. Fear is an excellent motivator and I feel that the Bush administration has used this to gain power and influence. I think that this will ultimately backfire on them as it isn't possible to indefinately sustain fear and people will be interested in a positive vision of America rather than simply a fear-based one.

This entire thread has been about this country going too far. OVERPLAYED. I've stated several times how we let fear control us and how the president is using that. You've tried to refute that claim of mine everytime. Do you suddenly agree with it here and now that Northwind said it?

Fear is an excellent motivator and that is why each party uses it...Democrats do it by telling Senior Citizens that they will lose their Social Security for example....

To tell you honestly I am sick of both of the political parties that we have in the US...They spend too much time trying to undermine the other one for their own political gain....and forget what the purpose of their office is all together....little of topic...but thought I would vent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northwind
Is the war in Iraq an effective strategy toward combatting terrorism?
I don't think so. I think that while some of the goals are noble (increasing democracy, driving Saddam from power), I think they were undertaken under faulty conceptions and incorrect assumptions. While Saddam was clearly a dickhead (that's political science-talk) on many levels, he wasn't actually affecting America's safety. Plus, we didn't seem (despite plenty of evidence to the contrary) to have any understanding of what we might be walking into).

I think the war with Iraq has inflamed anti-US sentiment and spread our resources too thin in dealing with other emerging threats. I find the fact that the war in Iraq has overshadowed the legitimate efforts in Afghanistan (where terrorism really was being exported), sickening. The fact that Bin Laden remains free (or, you know, possibly Bin Laden's corpse) is a symbolic victory for the anti-American forces and shows the stupidity of our focus in the "war on terror."

You agree with this? You've been doing nothing but saying how amazing it's been that we went in guns blazing and keep doing it till we "get the job done". I stated we spend too much money on the war and not enough resources here rebuilding or bulking up security here and you again tried to refute that. Everytime I brought up the fact that Sadam was not and should not have been our target in the middle east you brushed it aside and stated many times that he was really threatening our security. Do you suddenly agree with it here and now that Northwind said it?

Like I have pointed out in previous posts if the previous administrations of George Bush (father of current Bush) and Bill Clinton would not have cut the CIA so drastically we certainly could have done a better job.

That and this comment was actually in response to some of that comment..."I too think we went to Iraq for the wrong reason. That being said though I think we should have been there before 9/11. Saddam broke a truce of surrender so that right there is enough to justify kicking his arse."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northwind
If not, what would be an effective strategy to deal with terrorism?

I think that a combination of a robust security system and intelligence gathering (that would include some loss of freedoms, though not to the extent that the Patriot Act has caused), focused military use against clearly identified threats, and a benevolent American presence in the world would do far more to ensure our safety than the whole Iraq debacle.

You asked me what I thought we should do and I stated a better security and dealing of intelligence. And you argued with me on this point furiously. Do you suddenly agree with it here and now that Northwind said it?

The ONLY thing you might possibly agree with NW on is how 9/11 will be commented upon years later - but he hasn't even stated whether that *ought* to happen or not. So when you say "Not much I disagree with you there" and yet you dispute for pages the very points he made, what exactly did you mean?

No I argued with the points you made. My originial problem I had with this thread that you created was how you tried to trivialize or make light of the loss of life on 9/11....

R G

09-28-2006, 11:18 PM

Part of the problem was that you guys got so bogged down in the minutia that it wasn't clear WHAT anyone was arguing over any more. Big picture . . . big picture . . . big picture . . . dirty picture. (oops, how did that get in there?) :huh:

Yep you are correct...

Though R G, regarding the Iraq invasion, I can't imagine what possible strategic reason we would have ever had to invade Iraq. I think it's important to distinguish between someone who is "asking for it" (as Saddam might have been) and someone with whom we have a compelling strategic reason to commit young Americans to go into a foreign country and kill and be killed. I think there are a number of countries that people might consider as "asking for it" and very, very few that it would be a good idea.

I disagree. Saddam signed a truce to save his arse the first time...We should have held him to it. The main part of that truce was having weapons inspectors to see that he was not manufacturing WMD...He didn't allow that to happen...and since we had intellegence(I use that term loosely) from more than one country that said he did infact have WMD...then yea he needs to be dealt with...Oh and WMD was found in Iraq by the way...just not in the quantity that was originally suspected.

Here's a list....

-500 tons...that's right...TONS...make that 1million pounds of yellow cake uranium. It was found at Saddam's nuclear weapons facility (yup...he had one of those too.)
-1.8 tons of partially enriched uranium found at the same place. You know, the stuff you need to make nukes.
-Hidden centrifuge parts and blueprints.
-Two dozen artillery shells loaded with Sarin and mustard gas.

It's no wonder he didn't want weapons inspectors there.

R G

09-28-2006, 11:21 PM

Part of the problem was that you guys got so bogged down in the minutia that it wasn't clear WHAT anyone was arguing over any more. Big picture . . . big picture . . . big picture . . . dirty picture. (oops, how did that get in there?) :huh:

Yep you are correct...

Though R G, regarding the Iraq invasion, I can't imagine what possible strategic reason we would have ever had to invade Iraq. I think it's important to distinguish between someone who is "asking for it" (as Saddam might have been) and someone with whom we have a compelling strategic reason to commit young Americans to go into a foreign country and kill and be killed. I think there are a number of countries that people might consider as "asking for it" and very, very few that it would be a good idea.

I disagree. Saddam signed a truce to save his arse the first time...We should have held him to it. The main part of that truce was having weapons inspectors to see that he was not manufacturing WMD...He didn't allow that to happen...and since we had intellegence(I use that term loosely) from more than one country that said he did infact have WMD...then yea he needs to be dealt with...Oh and WMD was found in Iraq by the way...just not in the quantity that was originally suspected.

Here's a list....

-500 tons...that's right...TONS...make that 1million pounds of yellow cake uranium. It was found at Saddam's nuclear weapons facility (yup...he had one of those too.)
-Hidden centrifuge parts and blueprints. ARTICLE_ID=38213
-1.8 tons of partially enriched uranium found at the same place. You know, the stuff you need to make nukes.
-Two dozen artillery shells loaded with Sarin and mustard gas.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33082-2004May17.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?

It's no wonder he didn't want weapons inspectors there.

uniquinous

09-29-2006, 09:35 AM

OK I'll go Northwind's way to focus on the larger points

1) Media exploitation is ridiculous considering the very small (0.001%) change in the population. Furthermore, focus on 9/11 would be better served highlighting security reasons and educating the masses rather then making more movies, documentaries, and news specials on the same death stories.

2) We need to move on and rebuild. If this country focused on rebuilding the damage with even HALF the effort we are putting into doing damage to other countries or media exploitation, we would be much better off.

3) We CAN NOT allow the goals of the terrorist to succeed: putting terror in the lives of the people. The fact is, the average American can't do anything about the chance of a terrorist attack in their daily lives. The color threat level system really fostered the fear and stopped people from going on with life. Even now, remembrance ceremonies tend to bring out much terror in this society.

4) The president should not have used the abovementioned threat levels, nor the attack in general, as a means of fostering fear and politically promoting his own agenda. Said best here:I think that the threat has been far overplayed by the current administration for it's own political ends. Fear is an excellent motivator and I feel that the Bush administration has used this to gain power and influence. I think that this will ultimately backfire on them as it isn't possible to indefinately sustain fear and people will be interested in a positive vision of America rather than simply a fear-based one.

5) The president should have used military intelligence he had at the time instead of going in guns blazing. An attack AND exit strategy should have been much more strongly developed. Our continued presence in the middle east is NOT JUST about an inability for our original plans to change, it's about poor planning from the start. As Northwind mentioned, people pointed these things out right away and all of their predictions materialized. It should be no surprise that we're STILL in the middle east.

6) Our actions, wreckless as they were at times, served to strengthen anti-American sentiment in the middle east. We were hit with terror and retaliated with terror. These two nations (America, Muslim) will continue pissing each other off, and no sign of actual peace is in site, despite democratic elections.

7) The president is using misleading information to sway the American people into believing everything is going according to plan. Mission NOT Accomplished. We were never there for Sadam. We had no reason to take any oil. And yet we did these things, regardless of whether it was justified or not at the time, because that's what was needed to ease the American people. Bush had to give us something, and so he gave us a runner up terrorist that had no involvement with the reason we were there in the first place. This was said best as:I think that while some of the goals are noble (increasing democracy, driving Saddam from power), I think they were undertaken under faulty conceptions and incorrect assumptions. While Saddam was clearly a dickhead (that's political science-talk) on many levels, he wasn't actually affecting America's safety.

________________________________________________

Due to ALL of the abovementioned points, I feel the average American's perception of 9/11 is strongly mislead and skewed. It's clear that many people have no clue why we were attacked in the first place. I believe fear was fostered by our own government to subdue the people of the United States into thinking all of their actions were not only justified, but completely necessary. This is not the case. Media exploitation of the events don't focus on the facts, politics, nor military actions of the 9/11 attack and events that transpired because of it, but rather are only out for sob stories and ratings.

Northwind

09-29-2006, 09:51 AM

Northwind

09-29-2006, 10:05 AM

uniq,

Regarding what the media "ought" to do regarding 9/11. I may be a bit out of the loop as I don't really watch much TV and therefore didn't see much of the coverage leading up to or on the anniversary of 9/11 (in part because I didn't want to see more footage of the planes crashing into the twin towers).
Having said that, I certainly don't want my ignorance to get in the way of my opinions. :dry:

It's no huge surprise to me that the media might take the easy way out or push things too far. I guess it goes without saying that I don't think they should take the easy way out or push things too far. ;) My biggest concern about all of this would be that it would artificially boost the amount of "terror" that people feel and thus play into the terrorists' hands.

As for the mythologizing of the firefighters and plane passengers, etc. I don't really have a problem with this. We all need heroes and I think that firefighters who did their duty and passengers who sacrificed themselves rather than having their plane used to cause more death and destruction are a damn-sight better than most "heroes" of American society - sports and movie stars, etc.

In addition to the actual people killed in the attacks, what really died on 9/11 was America's sense of invulnerability. Rather than simply rail against media coverage of 9/11, I think it is more useful to consider how we might acknowledged our vulnerability but make sure that we don't act out of fear to become oppressors of others.

P.S. Oh, I almost forgot. You're a stupidhead! :rolleyes:

sayter

09-29-2006, 11:29 AM

This whole argument is now just flogging a dead horse. It has gone to logical discourse to arguments regarding each others' points without any hope of an outcome. Arguing for arguments' sake seems a little daft to me. Methinks this thread should be put to rest...clearly the current participants will simply stick to their own viewpoints.

Truth be told, all of us are right, and all of us are wrong. This is not an issue with an easy solution, and no single solution to this situation will ever be satisfactory to everyone. Besides, the media acts only on what the masses will most respond to. Fear is a commodity in ample supply these days, and until that changes we will continue to see the glorification of tragedy as a common thing.

R G

09-29-2006, 11:48 AM

R G,

To me, there are at least three questions that need to be answered before deciding to invide Iraq (or any country).

1) Do they possess weapons of mass destruction?

We (the US) were informed that the original information regarding the yellow cake uranium from Nigeria was based on faulty information. If you've seen evidence to suggest that "more than one country" had confirmed that Saddam had WMD's, I would be interested in seeing this. This contradicts information that I've come across (and I try to pay attention) regarding Saddam's capabilities.

I haven't seen any news reports suggesting that Saddam had either "50 tons of yellow cake uranium" or "nuclear weapons facilities." Could you please provide a link where you found this, as I would be very interested in seeing it.

As for the sarin, the link you posted (the second one didn't work for me) suggests that while US troops did encounter some sarin, this predated the first U.S./Iraq war and it hadn't been linked to any larger stockpiles. Do you have any other information to suggest that Saddam had significant stores of sarin? Two dozen shells with old (and thus not particularly effective) sarin doesn't seem like much evidence of WMDs.

Sure I will provide you some links...You forget how nice a guy I am and all....even if I am a stupidhead..:p

British http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3009082.stm

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1514595/posts
Good article...Regarding Nukes

Basically the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) knew about it and if I am correct they are some part of the UN.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html

As far as I know Sarin gas does have a shelf life...but there are things that can be done to increase it's lifespan.

Heck in the state of Alabama an incenerator was built to destroy the left over chemical weapons the the US still had left over from WWI and WWII...the stuff is still deadly no matter how old it is.

2) Are they a threat to US security?

While (as I previously stated), Saddam was certainly a dickhead, where is the evidence that he was a threat to the US? There are plenty of countries that have WMDs that we don't invade. I would think there needs to be some "clear and present danger" before gambling on the lives of US troops (and the civilians they will necessarily encounter). Other than the fact that Saddam was an ass, I haven't seen ANY evidence to suggest that he was actually a threat to the US. I think this is a necessary prerequisite to establish before invading another country. Have you seen any evidence to suggest that he was a threat to us? Again, I would be very interested in seeing a link if you find one.

How about a quote from one and a link to reference!

October 9th, 1999 Letter to President Clinton Signed by Senators Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry -- all Democrats

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

John Kerry, January 23rd, 2003

"Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he's miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction."

Sandy Berger February 18th, 1998

"He''ll use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has 10 times since 1983."

Senator Carl Levin September 19th, 2002

"We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."

Senator Hillary Clinton, October 10th of 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Madeleine Albright November 10th, 1999

"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

Robert Byrd October 3rd, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of '98. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons."

Al Gore, September 23rd, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

Bill Clinton, February 17th, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

Madeleine Albright, February 1st, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."

Nancy Pelosi December 16th, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Al Gore September 23rd, 2002

"We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

John Kerry October 9th, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the US the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

Ted Kennedy September 27th, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

Jay Rockefeller October 10th, 2002

"There was unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

Senator Bob Graham December 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has and has had for a number of years a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
From: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1518040/posts

Seems that alot of people who are gripping about it now for their own political gain once felt that Saddam was a threat...:rolleyes:

Like you and I have both said politicians do whatever they can to get elected....sad when everyone wants to critize just President Bush...considering when there is plenty of blame to go around.

Did we do the right thing? Only time will tell.

3) Will invasion make the US safer?

This is harder to quantify as no one can know the future. However, it certainly could be argued that a stable country with a leader who wants to maintain power is less of a threat to US security than is a country that is in civil war with a variety of factions with interests in showing that they are capable of harming the US. While Saddam may have been a horrible person (that's "dickhead" in scientific terms) he would have to know that anything linking him to attacks on the US would have brought about a clear response from us resulting in a removal of office for him. Saddam, for all his faults, seemed to be someone interested in maintaining the power of his position - which he couldn't do if he were linked to attacks on the US. (Or apparently even if he had nothing to do with them.) :dry:

Additionally, attacking a Muslim country is likely to rile up anti-American sentiment among other Muslim's (again, making us less safe).

To answer your question...ONLY IF THE JOB IS FINISHED! We are too far into the "mud hole" now to try and go back the other way.