[Split] (Ed) 9/11 in perspective

[TobiasTheViking]

let me guess. the arse

 

[Oliver]

Split from: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63556

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

And now, the 9/11 tragedy in perspective...

* about 3000 civilians died in the bombing raids on Afghanistan in 2001
* about 45.000 Iraqi civilians have died since the start of the war
* almost 3000 coalition military have died in the war in Iraq
* about 3.000 children die of malaria each day
* about 24.000 people die of hunger or hunger-related causes each day

In terms of loss of human life, 9/11 was tragic, but what has since been done in the name of 9/11 is worse.

Plus Guantanamos illegal prisoned people against all laws,
the depleted uranium scandal...

 

[chracatoa]

I don't see it as a simple attack on the US. Just check what the terrorists stand for and what the US/Western culture stands for. Start with their views on women, for instance. You get the picture. We are their enemies as well. Check their latest video. They say we should all convert to their interpretation of Islam.

Other than that should we look for the most horrible genocide caused by man and mourn that, and nothing else?

ETA: "they say we..."

 

[Oliver]

I don't see it as a simple attack on the US. Just check what the terrorists stand for and what the US/Western culture stands for. Start with their views on women, for instance. You get the picture. We are their enemies as well. Check their latest video. We should all convert to their interpretation of Islam.

Other than that should we look for the most horrible genocide caused by man and mourn that, and nothing else?

Glad to see that you know nothing about muslims but spread it in here anyway.
Sorry, i did´nt get your second point. Wich genocide?

 

[chracatoa]

Glad to see that you know nothing about muslims but spread it in here anyway.

I'm not talking about muslims. Did you read what I said? I am talking about those crazy fanatics. I have nothing against Islam, and I have some friends who are muslims. I am talking about their *interpretation* of Islam. There are crazy Christian fanatics as well, by the way.

And by the way, it wasn't me, it was CNN
"American al Qaeda: U.S. should convert to Islam"
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/09/02/zawahiri.tape/index.html

 

[Oliver]

I'm not talking about muslims. Did you read what I said? I am talking about those crazy fanatics. I have nothing against Islam, and I have some friends who are muslims. I am talking about their *interpretation* of Islam. There are crazy Christian fanatics as well, by the way.

And by the way, it wasn't me, it was CNN
"American al Qaeda: U.S. should convert to Islam"
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/09/02/zawahiri.tape/index.html

Sorry, a missinterpretation-/translation of me - i thought you spoke
for yourself stating: "We should all convert to their interpretation
of Islam."

 

[chracatoa]

Sorry, a missinterpretation-/translation of me - i thought you spoke
for yourself stating: "We should all convert to their interpretation
of Islam."

Sorry about the misunderstanding. I have edited the post.

 

[brumsen]

you can continue here if you like.. The other thread was just not the proper place.

You are acting like Fred Phelps at a funeral.

Comparing me with Fred Phelps is rather distasteful.
Firstly, 9/11 is not a funeral. I take it to be a day of reflection on what happened on 9/11/01 and afterwards. Which is what I did, and now people tell me that I was off-topic in a thread named "september 11, 2006". Hmmm.
Secondly, Phelps uses these funerals to give voice to his brand of outrageous religious fanaticism. Did you want to imply that I am a religious fanatic?

Approximately 1700 servicemen and civillian personnel died in the Japanese raid at pearl harbor. America incurred another 290,000 dead from the resultant war against the axis.

No enemy soldier or bomb ever touched Canadian soil in World War 2, yet this nation gave up 42,000 of it's dearest blood.

Brumsen is right, we should have never gone after Hitler and Tojo.
[/sarcasm]

Sarcasm aside, I do not see how this follows from my remarks. I was comparing the numbers of civilian casualties in 9/11 and in the wars started afterwards in Afghanistan and Iraq, and simple mathematics shows you that this "retaliation" has claimed, to date, almost 20 times more innocent civilians' lives. Explain, if you'd like, how the numbers given by you affect that point.

On the other hand, there were almost no revenge attacks on Muslims in the US, despite the attacks being perpetrated by people claiming to act on their behalf.

Really? where do they claim this?

The US had a lot to be patriotic about.

Perhaps your lack of understanding is a cultural thing? Does anything make Belgiums feel patriotic as Belgians or is the country to divided between the two languages? This is a genuine question, not a dig at Belgium.

It sure is a cultural thing. But I wouldn't call it a 'lack of understanding'. I guess in this part of the world we're just not so hot about patriotism, having seen, in the first half of the 20th century, what that leads to.
And in the case of 9/11 - just as I appear to have made people feel sick with my comments, they have made me feel sick with their patriotism.

Its seem's that "truth"seeker1234 and Brumsen have given us a little reminder of why we "waste" our time conspiracy bashing. I mean, damn, this couldn't wait until tomorrow? What sort of person could make it a point to marginalize the worst attack on our countrys soil, perhaps ever, on the 5 year anniversary of the event?

I did not marginalize the attacks; I placed them in the perspective of what has been done since in the name of retaliation. No, that could not wait until today.
By the way, I do not see what this has to do with conspiracy bashing. I am not pushing any conspiracist line here. So it is a bit mysterious to me, quite frankly, why Darat moved this to another thread in the conspiracy forum; "Politics, current events and social issues" would perhaps have been a better place.

 

[gumboot]

Comparing me with Fred Phelps is rather distasteful.
Firstly, 9/11 is not a funeral. I take it to be a day of reflection on what happened on 9/11/01 and afterwards. Which is what I did, and now people tell me that I was off-topic in a thread named "september 11, 2006". Hmmm.
Secondly, Phelps uses these funerals to give voice to his brand of outrageous religious fanaticism. Did you want to imply that I am a religious fanatic?

As the person who started that thread, yes your comments were grossly off topic and completely inappropriate for my thread. I am grateful to Darat that your comments were moved elsewhere.

-Andrew

 

[boooeee]

Brumsen - If a friend tells you that he's getting divorced, do you tell him "At least you aren't dying of hunger?". It was an inappropriate thread for your points. I think everyone here knows that September 11 was not the worst tragedy ever to befall humankind. Sadly, there is no shortage of misery in this world.

To your point about the civilian deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq: It is true that the civilian deaths in those countries far outnumber those that perished on 9/11. However, this does not, in and of itself, illegitimatize the United States' actions in response to 9/11.

What if Mohammed Atta was able to pilot the plane into the 60th floor of the WTC on that day? Surely, the great majority of those above the impact floor would have died, and the tower would probably have collapsed much sooner. What if the second plane hit the second tower only a minute after the first, before the majority of the south tower occupants had a chance to evacuate? Now we're talking 10,000 potential deaths. Would that then legitimaize the United States' actions? All because the terrorists caught a lucky break?

9/11 revealed a terrorist organization whose apparent aim was to maximize civilian casualties. If they were willing to carry out what they did on 9/11, surely they would not have balked at using a nuclear weapon if one was available to them.

My point above was that the US went to war not necessarily to avenge the 3,000 dead, but to prevent a much higher death toll in the future.

That being said, it is a tragedy what has happened in Iraq and Afghanistan. Whether things should have been done differently cannot be solved by mere arithmetic.

 

[brumsen]

As the person who started that thread, yes your comments were grossly off topic and completely inappropriate for my thread.

Still it has not been explained to me why my comments were off-topic and inappropriate, whereas I have given reasons for thinking that not to be the case.

 

[brumsen]

Brumsen - If a friend tells you that he's getting divorced, do you tell him "At least you aren't dying of hunger?".

Perhaps not that particular point. But I find that placing things in perspective helps.

To your point about the civilian deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq: It is true that the civilian deaths in those countries far outnumber those that perished on 9/11. However, this does not, in and of itself, illegitimatize the United States' actions in response to 9/11.

I agree; not in and of itself. Anyway, I did not make this point. What I implied was that those numbers are worthy of reflection.

9/11 revealed a terrorist organization whose apparent aim was to maximize civilian casualties. If they were willing to carry out what they did on 9/11, surely they would not have balked at using a nuclear weapon if one was available to them.

How is this apparent? I believe it could be argued equally well that the Twin Towers were chosen for their symbolic function. The fact that the Pentagon was another target would certainly point in that direction - that attack was hardly chosen for taking out the maximal number of civilians, and neither could it credibly have been chosen to disable the whole military. That aside - a 'dirty' nuclear bomb would probably, in the long run, have taken out more civilians and was most likely within al-Qaeda's organisational reach. So this argument does not impress me much.

My point above was that the US went to war not necessarily to avenge the 3,000 dead, but to prevent a much higher death toll in the future.

Point taken - although Bush's belligerent rhetoric may sometimes make it seem otherwise. And this aim, by the way, is not really being achieved - quite the contrary - , since the wars that were started have only served to increase religious extremism in different places, resulting (among others) in terrorist attacks in London and Madrid.

That being said, it is a tragedy what has happened in Iraq and Afghanistan. Whether things should have been done differently cannot be solved by mere arithmetic.

Let me say again that I never intended to say that.
However, I think it could quite easily be argued that:
1) the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq could have been fought in a way that would have caused many fewer civilian casualties;
2) there is no connection between Iraq and 9/11, so it is rather questionable that a war should have been started there at all, as a response to 9/11.

But I would be getting too political, I guess.

 

[gumboot]

Still it has not been explained to me why my comments were off-topic and inappropriate, whereas I have given reasons for thinking that not to be the case.

Did you read my first post in the thread?

-Andrew

 

[Flo]

Still it has not been explained to me why my comments were off-topic and inappropriate, whereas I have given reasons for thinking that not to be the case.

As a non American who is not too fond of patriotism herself, I'll try to explain it to you with an analogy:

Suppose you're talking to the parents of a murdered kid on the anniversary of his death, when they are full of the memories of being told of his death, going to the morgue, etc. Do you really think it is the correct time to remind them of their son misbehavior that led to him being killed by some gang ?

 

[brumsen]

Did you read my first post in the thread?

I did.

I just want to take a moment to reflect on the fundamental importance of this day. Nearly 3,000 people died, in a matter of a few hours. At 8am, they were all going about their daily lives. By 1003 their lives had been extinguished.

I wanted to join in the reflection on that fundamental importance. However, I wanted to point out that that stretches further than what you mentioned.
How does that make it off-topic?

The truth is there, hidden amongst the detrius of conspiracy theories and bad journalism. Your mission, JREF Ninjas, is to continue to assemble the evidence and the facts, and to spread this knowledge.

Why?

1) The victims of this day deserve to have their story told truthfully, for all time.
2) The perpetrators of these crimes, and their supporters, must never be allowed to asway or deny guilt for what they did based on myth and false truth.

Couldn't agree more. How is what I did contrary to it?

 

[brumsen]

As a non American who is not too fond of patriotism herself, I'll try to explain it to you with an analogy:

Suppose you're talking to the parents of a murdered kid on the anniversary of his death, when they are full of the memories of being told of his death, going to the morgue, etc. Do you really think it is the correct time to remind them of their son misbehavior that led to him being killed by some gang ?

Except that this is not the right analogy.

Now, if after the event these parent bought themselves shotguns and had taken out 20 kids of the rival gang (ETA: and other gangs) since the event, under the pretext that that would prevent more gang killing.... then I would quite likely remind them of this on such an anniversary.

Provided those shotguns were well out of reach, of course

 

[gumboot]

I did.

I wanted to join in the reflection on that fundamental importance. However, I wanted to point out that that stretches further than what you mentioned.
How does that make it off-topic?

My post was about the importance of continuing to spread the truth about what happened on 9/11, for the sake of the memories of the nearly 3,000 victims.

None of your political comments about subsequent wars and malaria have any relevance to what happened ON 9/11, at all.

There are 364 OTHER days in the year, brumsen, in which to push your anti-US Government agenda. You will find a lot of other people here at JREF are fairly anti the current administration also.

Can't you just drop it for 24 hours?

-Andrew

 

[brumsen]

My post was about the importance of continuing to spread the truth about what happened on 9/11, for the sake of the memories of the nearly 3,000 victims.

None of your political comments about subsequent wars and malaria have any relevance to what happened ON 9/11, at all.

In that sense, your post was as political as mine; focusing on the deaths at GZ while not wanting to hear about the deaths in the wars afterwards is political.
I agree, though, that the relevance is the other way around: what happened on 9/11 is relevant to the other events mentioned by me. Such is the flow of time. However, this does not make it any less relevant to mention on the 9/11 anniversary. Reflection, and all that.

There are 364 OTHER days in the year, brumsen, in which to push your anti-US Government agenda. You will find a lot of other people here at JREF are fairly anti the current administration also.

Can't you just drop it for 24 hours?

I shouldn't be surprised at your annoyance with me.
But neither should you, at my annoyance with you(r focus on GZ events).

9/11 is, par excellence, the day on which to mention such things. I'm afraid that your (and others') annoyance just doesn't give me a very strong reason to keep quiet.

 

[gumboot]

In that sense, your post was as political as mine; focusing on the deaths at GZ while not wanting to hear about the deaths in the wars afterwards is political.

How does that work? Remembering the dead is not political. You are playing a sick game of twisting things to try justify your actions.

It is plain and simple. I posted a message in the conspiracy theory subforum, about how it was 9/11, and a time to reflect on the dead, and how important it was to ensure lies about the days events are not spread; to sully the memory of the victims and to alleviate blame from those responsible.

There is nothing, whatsoever, political about that.

You decided to start posting about things that happened outside that days events, that in no way related to the topic at hand - the quest to spread truth about what really happened that day.

One of the moderators chose to move your comments to another thread, and I support their actions.

Deal with it. You have your own thread to discuss the significance of what happened "as a result of 9/11". Go for it. (Frankly I think it's in the wrong subforum - it's about politics, or possibly economics, not conspiracy theories).

I shouldn't be surprised at your annoyance with me.
But neither should you, at my annoyance with you(r focus on GZ events).

I am not "focused on GZ events". My post didn't even MENTION events at ground zero this day. In fact, when I made my post IT WASN'T EVEN SEPTEMBER 11 IN THE UNITED STATES!

-Andrew

 

[valis]

Split from: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63556

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

And now, the 9/11 tragedy in perspective...

* about 3000 civilians died in the bombing raids on Afghanistan in 2001
* about 45.000 Iraqi civilians have died since the start of the war
* almost 3000 coalition military have died in the war in Iraq
* about 3.000 children die of malaria each day
* about 24.000 people die of hunger or hunger-related causes each day

In terms of loss of human life, 9/11 was tragic, but what has since been done in the name of 9/11 is worse.

I actually agree with this. You know what else I have noticed? Look at the statistics for people who are killed in car accidents and those who are murdered. It is obvious to me that the police should stop wasting resources investigating murders; they should put all their resources into enforcing traffic laws.

Or here is a better question, seeing as you are in Belgium. Should the US have felt that way in 1941? Should we have looked at the potential number of casulties if we liberated Europe? By your logic we should have stayed the he** home. What do you think your life would be like today if we had done that?