[Split] (Ed) 9/11 in perspective

[brumsen]

I'm astounded that you can compare completely banning someone from a forum for disagreeing with accepted opinion with asking someone to post their comments in a different thread because they did not relate to the subject at hand.

But they did. You attempted to show that they didn't by referring to your first post in that thread, and I showed you that what you wrote there implied no such irrelevance.
I was banned from that thread for saying things that people did not like. I agree it's not quite the same, but not so unlike it either.

On another note: gumboot, could you please answer my question about which UNSC resolution authorized the use of force in Afghanistan?

 

[Brainache]

But they did. You attempted to show that they didn't by referring to your first post in that thread, and I showed you that what you wrote there implied no such irrelevance.
I was banned from that thread for saying things that people did not like. I agree it's not quite the same, but not so unlike it either.

On another note: gumboot, could you please answer my question about which UNSC resolution authorized the use of force in Afghanistan?

Why not start a thread in the politics forum for this Mr Brumsen sir please if you would be so kind sir please?.
This is the Conspiracy Theory sub forum.


Or in other words give it a rest you strange person. Take it outside.

 

[brumsen]

We do? in what way? i just thought we disagreed whether or not you acted like him.. and you did.

You find his behaviour objectionable because he says things at inappropriate occasions. I find his behaviour objectionable because the views that he states are objectionable. Or, shall we say, just plain wrong.
Of course this disagreement leads to a different assessment about whether I acted like him. Hint: I do not believe that the views that I have been stating are wrong.

We told you EXPLICITLY to take it to another thread.

We said EXPLICITLY that you were allowed to say everything you said, just not in that thread, but in any other thread

Yes, YOU did that. But YOU gave me no reason, other than the vague ad-hoc reason that it was distasteful.

Your usage of WE and YOU implies that everybody else agrees with you. Which I do not believe to be the case.

 

[TobiasTheViking]

You find his behaviour objectionable because he says things at inappropriate occasions. I find his behaviour objectionable because the views that he states are objectionable. Or, shall we say, just plain wrong.

So, you disagree with what he says, but not how and where he say it?

Good to know.

Of course this disagreement leads to a different assessment about whether I acted like him. Hint: I do not believe that the views that I have been stating are wrong.

I think you acted like him not because of what you said, but how or where you said it.

I still think that.

Yes, YOU did that. But YOU gave me no reason, other than the vague ad-hoc reason that it was distasteful.

many people told you to take it to another thread. but YOU didn't do it. Hence why i say we. and now i say WE because YOU still don't get it.

It wasn't ad-hoc reasoning.. you were invading a conversation with something that wasn't relevant at all.

Your usage of WE and YOU implies that everybody else agrees with you. Which I do not believe to be the case.

I would never claim that everybody agrees with me. But many people told you to take it elsewhere, and you didn't.

I'm going to repeat that because it sounds mildly important.

YOU were told MANY times by MANY people to take it elsewhere.. YOU didn't. Hence YOU behave like Fred Phelps.

Clear?

 

[brumsen]

YOU were told MANY times by MANY people to take it elsewhere.. YOU didn't. Hence YOU behave like Fred Phelps.

Clear?

My behaviour is like that of Phelps, but only in unobjectionable respects. Like yours is, too, but again in different ways no doubt.
Anyway, I don't care a hoot about Phelps, so if you want to annoy me, better try something else.

many people told you to take it to another thread. but YOU didn't do it. Hence why i say we. and now i say WE because YOU still don't get it.

It wasn't ad-hoc reasoning.. you were invading a conversation with something that wasn't relevant at all.

To which, again, I ask the question: who gets to decide what's relevant? What are the criteria here, other than that many agree with you?

 

[gumboot]

Discussion for Brumsen from the Conspiracy Theory Forum

I thought it better to move the thread here. If you wish to discuss this stuff, go for it.

I will briefly address the questions directed towards me:

That depends on the objectives of that war.

Not at all, what constitutes "significant civilian casualties" is a matter of the nature of the warfare, not if it is justified or not.

In a full scale invasion, 3,000 civilians killed from a nation with a population just under 30 million is a very low civilian casualty rate. Extremely low, even. Whether the war itself is justified or not is irrelevant.

I cannot find any resolution authorizing the use of force. To which resolution are you referring?

My mistake, there was no specific resolution. The invasion was executed under Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations. This does not require a resolution.

(This was a stupid mistake on my part)

?! Sounds like semantics. But I'll confess to ignorance; educate me.

It's very simple. War, in International Law, is the given sovereign right of every nation. Laws govern HOW wars are waged, to limit their destructive nature. However this does not negate a nation's inherent right to use military force when it feels it is appropriate.

But they did. You attempted to show that they didn't by referring to your first post in that thread, and I showed you that what you wrote there implied no such irrelevance.
I was banned from that thread for saying things that people did not like. I agree it's not quite the same, but not so unlike it either.

You were not (and still are not) banned from the thread. You were asked to create a separate thread for those specific topics. You were (and still are) most welcome to contribute to the thread by offering your experiences on 9/11.

-Andrew

 

[gumboot]

On another note: gumboot, could you please answer my question about which UNSC resolution authorized the use of force in Afghanistan?

I have created a thread in the Politics forum for you.

-Andrew

 

[Dora]

No, not malicious. It's a way of getting attention for these points. Validity is not the only thing that counts.
Moreover, as I've tried to explain, just as the likes of Andrew are annoyed that I appear to be hi-jacking 'their' 9/11, by making comments that they consider inappropriate, I am equally annoyed that 9/11 is supposed to be exclusively for patriotic commemoration of those who died on GZ.
9/11 is no-one's property. Who gets to decide what is appropriately said on that day?


Ah but you must be Flemish, then.

Well, Brumsen, the validy of the thing is not the only thing that counts, i agree. and that is what the first part of the discussion has been about.

Do you know this fight men and women often have where the woman goes : it's not what you say, it's how you say it?
this is exactly the same thing.
The tread was started to contemplate 9/11 and the victims and their families , not what happened before, after or anywhere else on the planet/in the universe.
People did not ask you to move to another forum, they asked you to post those opions somewhere else and give that particular post and if you would be so nice to find it in your heart that day some serenity.
Which you didn't, since you kept hitting your points home like a spoiled little brat that just wants someone to acknowledge that he hurt is finger during the carcrash that killed his little brother. (Ok, harsh comparison, a bit over the top, but you seem to be a fan of those things )

Have you also noticed that after splitting your posts away, people were more than happy to discuss these points with you, albeit in a somewhat more heated manner since you had done your best to push their buttons yesterday.

No, No, No, not Flemish, Belgian, and also only since I'm 11 and my stepdad adopted me

 

[TobiasTheViking]

My behaviour is like that of Phelps, but only in unobjectionable respects. Like yours is, too, but again in different ways no doubt.
Anyway, I don't care a hoot about Phelps, so if you want to annoy me, better try something else.

Ehm, my intention is not now, nor have it ever been, to annoy you.

To which, again, I ask the question: who gets to decide what's relevant? What are the criteria here, other than that many agree with you?

Ok, how is "what the american government have done after 9/11" relevant to "telling our stories about 9/11 and remembering the people who have died?"

But ok, i'll just go and hijack all your threads and start talking about something totally irrelevant everytime. And no, i won't do that. Beceause it is bad manners. As was your behaviour.

We asked you nicely to take it elsewhere.. you didn't. Then I force the issue by reporting it.

 

[Flo]

Those who are US citizens do have such responsibility. Hence....

I see. The "in a democracy, all citizens are responsible for all and any decision their government makes" argument. Last used by the likes of Ben Laden to justify the deliberate murder of civilians. I wasn't expecting to find it in a skeptics forum, of all places ...

 

[brumsen]

My mistake, there was no specific resolution. The invasion was executed under Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations. This does not require a resolution.

OK - so, this reads:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Was the invasion of Afghanistan justified by this?
Well - did Afghanistan attack the US?

Does anybody know of anything that was said in the UNSC about this?

 

[brumsen]

Ok, how is "what the american government have done after 9/11" relevant to "telling our stories about 9/11 and remembering the people who have died?"

Where was it said that this was the exclusive focus of that thread?

 

[rikzilla]

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

Here's some perspective; people that use memorials as a podium to promote their political positions; be they CTers, Neocons, or Leftists all have one thing in common. They're ********.

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.

And what would those numbers look like if UBL had decided against his attack? Would the Taliban still be in Afghanistan chopping the heads from uppity women, blowing up priceless works of art, and stealing kites from little kids? Sure they would.

Would Saddam still be handing out cash prizes to the families of suicide bombers, getting rich off the UN "Oil For (scam)", filling mass graves with his political foes, and watching his nation suffer under forever sanctions? Sure he would.

...and so how many people are actually alive now because of the fallout from 9/11? Impossible to quantify, true, but it's a very signifigant number just the same. Thousands in Iraq alone died every year just from the adverse effect of the UN sanctions.

Brumsen, all human history echoes with the cries of the innocent dead. Every such death is a tragedy. But to suggest that humanity can change and suddenly realize every long-held dream of peaceful and respectful coexistence amongst the peoples of this world is simply the wet dream of the hopeless näif. I wish wholeheartedly that it were not so...but it is.

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.

Then no argument is likely to impress you. You are simply acting as an apologist for terrorism. 9/11 was an unprovoked terrorist attack designed to maximize death and destruction...as are all terrorist attacks. Instead of a truck bomb, this time they had airplanes. If they had wanted something from us they'd have taken the planes and negotiated. They did not...the planes were always meant to be weapons. The people inside them were not sufficient sacrifices, like vampires they wanted more blood.

Now Brumsen, you may be willing to plead with UBL. You may be willing to trust his good intentions in not using a "dirty bomb" and going so easy on us on 9/11/01. The rest of us are not nearly so näive.

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.

So now Madrid and London are Bush's fault? To my mind they are the perpetrators fault. What about the Tanzania-Kenya embassy bombings? Who's fault were they? What about the USS Cole? The bombing of the WTC? What did Bush do to cause these things? Face it; terrorists do their thing. They do their thing untilk they get what they want. It's no one's fault but their own.

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.

1) A: Sure they could have. The Taliban could have put on uniforms instead of melting into civilian centers.

2)A: I agree with you on this. However there were also many other very good operational reasons to take on Saddam. The Bush admin should have sold the Iraq invasion in other ways or should have stayed out.

In conclusion; I for one find this conflict to be a cultural clash that is far wider than 9/11 Afghanistan or Iraq. The world has suddenly grown very small and we must either find a way to coexist in peace or we fight for the world we want to live in. Sadly the past is indeed prologue...and so we fight. Hopefully better days are ahead.

-z

 

[brumsen]

I see. The "in a democracy, all citizens are responsible for all and any decision their government makes" argument. Last used by the likes of Ben Laden to justify the deliberate murder of civilians. I wasn't expecting to find it in a skeptics forum, of all places ...

Well, nice try Flo. But no matter how many 's you insert...
are you suggesting that the argument is flawed just because OBL used it? That doesn't really do it though, does it?

 

[Flo]

Well, nice try Flo. But no matter how many 's you insert...
are you suggesting that the argument is flawed just because OBL used it? That doesn't really di it though, does it?

No, it is flawed because it implies guilt by association and is used by people who need to justify their unsavory behavior.

 

[TobiasTheViking]

Where was it said that this was the exclusive focus of that thread?

Ok, there is this thing called observation.

There is also another thing called common sence.

If you take those two and combine them you will have observed:
That people made posts on what happened to them on 9/11.
That people made posts on what what feeling they had on 9/11.
That people made posts on sharing the experience on 9/11.
That people made posts in remembrance of 9/11.
That people made posts for remembering the people who died on 9/11

And from that one can conclude, via common sence:
That the thread is about what happened to individuals on 9/11.
That the thread is about what those individuals felt about what happened on 9/11
That the thread is about people sharing and offering comfort in regard to what happened on 9/11
That the thread is about coming together in memory of 9/11
That the thread is about honouring the people who died on 9/11.

From that one can conclude:
That the thread is about individual stores feelings and experiences on what happened on 9/11 and how their story is different or similar to other peoples stories, so everyone together can honour the people who lost their lives on 9/11.

That was obvious from the content of the thread. It was not said that the thread was exculsively about that, and slight deviation would have been aok.

But what you did was way out of proportion. That is like me coming in here and talking about why some person i know is going to an examn on the subject of "having discussions" next week.

While we are having a discussion (and thus talking about my friend going to have an examn on that subject, so it is vague relevant), it is NOT relevant to the spirit of this thread.

By word alone i could go from this subject to my friends examn. But by spirit and observation and common sence i would see that it isn't really relevant.

If you don't grasp those concepts, i suggest you read up on them.

 

[gambling_cruiser]

Brumsen is just the pain in the ass he has always been, I have read his posts on BAUT for months and he was always like this.

 

[brumsen]

No, it is flawed because it implies guilt by association and is used by people who need to justify their unsavory behavior.

That's no explanation.

I agree that it implies guilt by association. So? That was just my point.

I disagree that it is flawed because on occasion it is used by people to attempt justify unsavory behaviour. But I already said that.

 

[brumsen]

Ok, there is this thing called observation.

There is also another thing called common sence.
[..]
From that one can conclude:
That the thread is about individual stores feelings and experiences on what happened on 9/11 and how their story is different or similar to other peoples stories, so everyone together can honour the people who lost their lives on 9/11.

That was obvious from the content of the thread. It was not said that the thread was exculsively about that, and slight deviation would have been aok.
[..]
By word alone i could go from this subject to my friends examn. But by spirit and observation and common sence i would see that it isn't really relevant.

As far as I can see you use many many words, only to blur the distinction between "conversation" and "discussion".

If what you say is right, and applicable, one would in a discussion never be able to bring up something that does not "go with the flow". Surely that's ridiculous.

Well... maybe I - or you? - were confused about whether what we were engaged in was a discussion or a conversation.

If you don't grasp those concepts, i suggest you read up on them.

 

[gumboot]

As far as I can see you use many many words, only to blur the distinction between "conversation" and "discussion".

If what you say is right, and applicable, one would in a discussion never be able to bring up something that does not "go with the flow". Surely that's ridiculous.

Not really. You could have shared an account of 9/11 as follows:

I had just finished on the shooting range when Omar - may Allah bless him always - revealed to us the joyous news of the victorious brothers and their successful mission against the infidels.

We wept for joy that Allah - he above all others - would bless us so well with a great and mighty victory. Tears streamed over my face and a leader - may Allah bless him - clapped and applauded. It was a great day for us all, the mighty and righteous follows of the true path of Jihad. I watched the cursed towers of the infidel non-believers crash to the ground, and my heart soared, as if touched by The Prophet - he who dwells in paradise forever.

You certainly couldn't call this "going with the flow".

-Andrew