[Split] (Ed) 9/11 in perspective

[negativ]

How is this apparent? I believe it could be argued equally well that the Twin Towers were chosen for their symbolic function.

Arccording to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the WTC towers were chosen because they were civilian targets that would be easy to hit.

 

[brumsen]

Arccording to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the WTC towers were chosen because they were civilian targets that would be easy to hit.

OK; easy to hit, and symbolic function.

I do not really see how this statement by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed settles the issue one way or another. How does it follow, for example, that they were looking to maximize the number of civilian casualties?

 

[Darth Rotor]

President Bush
1. I think it has something to do with his eyes being so close together, and having pretty average public speaking skills

2. I see no evidence that he's evil, or especially stupid, or a religious nut. He seems genuine to me, if misguided.

3. I find the rampant Bush-bashing a bit tiring. -Andrew

1. Average? You are generous indeed.
2. Frequently wrong but never in doubt.
3. An easy target for the intellectually lazy. That said, he's accountable for what his administration does for better or worse, in sickness and in health, for rich or for poor, till term limits do us part.

DR

 

[TobiasTheViking]

OK; easy to hit, and symbolic function.

I do not really see how this statement by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed settles the issue one way or another. How does it follow, for example, that they were looking to maximize the number of civilian casualties?

Why don't we instead talk about all the animals that are tortured and killed everyday by scientists?
Or the animals that are tortured and killed everyday in shelters.

Animals are todays slaves. We should fight that problem.

 

[Darth Rotor]

OK; easy to hit, and symbolic function.

I do not really see how this statement by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed settles the issue one way or another. How does it follow, for example, that they were looking to maximize the number of civilian casualties?

In what sense are you using the word "maximize?"

Problem Statement A: Given two jet liners to be used as missiles, what successful target strike provides the most dead civilians? No nukes available at this time.

Problem Statement B: Given two full jetliners, what target optimizes outcomes so that the most civilian casualties are caused while providing the best symbolic destruction of a cultural icon?

Those are two different problem statements, and from that follow two different mission profiles and analyses. One focuses only on civilian casualties, the other on both casualty infliction AND symbolic icon destruction.

Not all attacks have a single effect as their desired outcome.

Example: B-52 wave attacks in 1991. Part of the effect desired was to blow things up and kill some soldiers, but another important effect was in demoralizing the surviving soldiers. The mission analysis on how to spread the bomb patterns had to take into account both destructive physical force, and psychological force.

Likewise the intent of the WTC attack. You single variable approach is self limiting, and inherently misses the point of the attacks as explicitly stated by the quote above your question.

DR

 

[brumsen]

In what sense are you using the word "maximize?"

Problem Statement A: Given two jet liners to be used as missiles, what successful target strike provides the most dead civilians? No nukes available at this time.

Problem Statement B: Given two full jetliners, what target optimizes outcomes so that the most civilian casualties are caused while providing the best symbolic destruction of a cultural icon?

I think you'll find it well known that you can only ever maximize one variable at a time.
Problem statement B, or rather the answer to it, is not maximizing civilian casualties.

That said, OBL's problem statement may have been B. (I do not believe it was A.) But he may simply not have cared about the number of civilian casualties. I'd say though that he didn't attempt to minimize them.

 

[peptoabysmal]

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.

(bolding mine)

I've seen this argument so many times now go unchallenged, I'm going to ask if anyone can prove a cause and effect relationship between war and religious extremism.

 

[brumsen]

(bolding mine)

I've seen this argument so many times now go unchallenged, I'm going to ask if anyone can prove a cause and effect relationship between war and religious extremism.

I base my assertion on articles like this (reporting on a UK Home Office and Foreign Office dossier — Young Muslims and Extremism) :

The Iraq war is identified by the dossier as a key cause of young Britons turning to terrorism. The analysis says: “It seems that a particularly strong cause of disillusionment among Muslims, including young Muslims, is a perceived ‘double standard’ in the foreign policy of western governments, in particular Britain and the US.

“The perception is that passive ‘oppression’, as demonstrated in British foreign policy, eg non-action on Kashmir and Chechnya, has given way to ‘active oppression’. The war on terror, and in Iraq and Afghanistan, are all seen by a section of British Muslims as having been acts against Islam.”

However, if you're asking for proof of a cause-effect relationship, that cannot strictly be given.
Can it ever, for phenomena such as these? What would it consist of?

 

[brumsen]

Why don't we instead talk about all the animals that are tortured and killed everyday by scientists?
Or the animals that are tortured and killed everyday in shelters.

Animals are todays slaves. We should fight that problem.

Nice try. Ha Ha .
You're testing to see if I can show it's irrelevance to the current discussion.
How about this: this thread has until now been about the events of 9/11 and the wars started in its wake, trying to place into perspective the number of people killed at GZ and those killed afterwards, trying to assess whether these wars are just.

How does your point fit in? Please explain.

 

[gumboot]

1. Average? You are generous indeed.

I don't agree. I've been directly involved in public speeking of some form or another since I was about 12. Bush sucks. But so do most people. Most people turn into gibbering wrecks in front of more than half a dozen people. Familiar with "stage fright"? It's a real phenomena, and something I have seen many times.

Now, balancing things up a bit, you have no business being a politician unless you're a very good public speaker. It's simply illogical. You're just asking to be trashed, and what happened to Bush? He was trashed.

2. Frequently wrong but never in doubt.

Pretty much sums it up.

3. An easy target for the intellectually lazy. That said, he's accountable for what his administration does for better or worse, in sickness and in health, for rich or for poor, till term limits do us part.

Agree completely.

-Andrew

 

[TobiasTheViking]

Nice try. Ha Ha .
You're testing to see if I can show it's irrelevance to the current discussion.

Not testing, trying to show an example.

You said.

How about this: this thread has until now been about the events of 9/11 and the wars started in its wake, trying to place into perspective the number of people killed at GZ and those killed afterwards, trying to assess whether these wars are just.

And before that you said.

I have asked for criteria of relevance, and you insist on common sense and observation. I'm afraid I don't see how these differentiate between what I said, and mentioning bombings on the London subway. Please explain.

So how (if not by common sence and observation) Do you know that this thread is "about the events of 9/11 and the wars started in its wake, trying to place into perspective the number of people killed at GZ and those killed afterwards, trying to assess whether these wars are just."?

How does your point fit in? Please explain.

I honestly don't see why PETA in this thread would be less relevant than what you did in the other thread. Actually, i think it is easier to jump from this to PETA than from the other thread to this.


And please, explain to me how

How about this: this thread has until now been about the events of 9/11 and the wars started in its wake, trying to place into perspective the number of people killed at GZ and those killed afterwards, trying to assess whether these wars are just.

is different from

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.

I guess i can summerize it to

How about this: this thread has until now been about the personal stories o what happened on 9/11 and how that felt, and sharing the feeling of sorrow of the lives lost, while honouring the people who died

in constrast to your

How about this: this thread has until now been about the events of 9/11 and the wars started in its wake, trying to place into perspective the number of people killed at GZ and those killed afterwards, trying to assess whether these wars are just.

and ask, how is what i said differnet from what you said?

 

[brumsen]

Not testing, trying to show an example.

Sheesh. I just knew I shouldn't have reacted. I'll try one last time.

I guess i can summerize it to

How about this: this thread has until now been about the personal stories o what happened on 9/11 and how that felt, and sharing the feeling of sorrow of the lives lost, while honouring the people who died

in constrast to your

How about this: this thread has until now been about the events of 9/11 and the wars started in its wake, trying to place into perspective the number of people killed at GZ and those killed afterwards, trying to assess whether these wars are just.

and ask, how is what i said differnet from what you said?

As far as I can see, the issue that I raised could fall under what you summarize as the topic of the other thread - it is about what happened on 9/11, how I felt and feel about that, sharing the feeling of sorrow of lives lost [both at GZ and in the wars] while honouring etc..;
Whereas animal testing (is this what you mean by PETA? what does it stand for?) and my summary of this thread's topic don't seem to fit comfortably at all. How is animal testing relevant to the justness of the wars? how is it connected to 9/11? You would have to explain how that fits in here, which you haven't done.

 

[rikzilla]

OK; easy to hit, and symbolic function.

I do not really see how this statement by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed settles the issue one way or another. How does it follow, for example, that they were looking to maximize the number of civilian casualties?

Are you saying that they flew 3 big airplanes full of fuel and people into structures that were similarly full of people (and attempted a 4th) because they weren't seeking to maximize casualty totals?

Terrorists always attempt to maximize casualty totals because that makes their act more terrifying! (duh) This is why suicide bombers blow themselves up in crowded places. It's what they do...after all if they blew themselves up alone in the desert who would they terrorize? Who would care?

Of course they try to maximize casualties! You only make yourself look foolish in arguing against this point.

-z

 

[brumsen]

Are you saying that they flew 3 big airplanes full of fuel and people into structures that were similarly full of people (and attempted a 4th) because they weren't seeking to maximize casualty totals?

I am saying that they weren't necessarily seeking that, yes.

Terrorists always attempt to maximize casualty totals because that makes their act more terrifying! (duh) This is why suicide bombers blow themselves up in crowded places. It's what they do...after all if they blew themselves up alone in the desert who would they terrorize? Who would care?

Of course they try to maximize casualties! You only make yourself look foolish in arguing against this point.

So do you have any real and further argument for your position on this, otherwise than claiming to know that terrorists always aim to do this, and that I make myself supposedly look foolish?

 

[Darth Rotor]

I am saying that they weren't necessarily seeking that, yes.

So do you have any real and further argument for your position on this, otherwise than claiming to know that terrorists always aim to do this, and that I make myself supposedly look foolish?

Where is there illogic in his assertion that an attack by an area of effect weapon, exploding bomb, would necessarily be aimed at causing the most destruction and death possible? The inverse, that an area of effect bomb would be used to cause minimal or discrete casualties is absurd, since with that aim one would choose a tool suited to the task.

Like a carpenter about to put a nail into a panel of wood: you use the correct tool, hammer, not the screwdriver, to get the optimal result.

So, the tool of the terror bomber is suited to his mission. From the tool used, you can deduce the mission. From the modus operandi employed, you can deduce mission scope and scale. Police detectives use this reasoning train all the time to successfully solve crimes.

I can't understand why this line of reasoning seems to escape you.

DR

 

[brumsen]

I can't understand why this line of reasoning seems to escape you.

DR

I suggest you read post #106 again. You're attributing things to me that I have not said.

 

[TobiasTheViking]

Sheesh. I just knew I shouldn't have reacted. I'll try one last time.

Why not? you don't want to explain your position to me?

As far as I can see, the issue that I raised could fall under what you summarize as the topic of the other thread - it is about what happened on 9/11, how I felt and feel about that, sharing the feeling of sorrow of lives lost [both at GZ and in the wars] while honouring etc..;

Wait? so you just saying some numbers is somehow you saying what you feel? Sorry, i didn't see anything about feelings in your post.
So your are saying that what you said was about the sorrows about what happened on 9/11? Sorry i didn't seey ou say anything about what happened on 9/11 at all.
And i didn't see you honour the lost lives.

All you did was say some numbers of people who have died after 9/11.. the only reference to 9/11 was that that is how many have died after (or how many that die each day after 9/11).
And then the accusation that all those deaths are a response to 9/11..

That does NOT parse as "feelings about 9/11" because you didn't talk about 9/11.
Nor does it parse as "sorrows about 9/11" because, again, you didn't talk about 9/11.
Lastly it doesn't parse as "honouring the people who died at 9/11" because, yet again, you didn't talk about 9/11.

Even IF you made the claim that your posts was about the feelings, sorrows and honouring of people who have died after 9/11, all you did was write numbers. Numbers was not what was the discussion. Numbers aren't feelings. Numbers isn't a story.

That topic was about stories, you didn't tell a story, relate to a story, you didn't nothing to do with stories, it was totaly non sequitur.

Whereas animal testing (is this what you mean by PETA? what does it stand for?) and my summary of this thread's topic don't seem to fit comfortably at all. How is animal testing relevant to the justness of the wars? how is it connected to 9/11? You would have to explain how that fits in here, which you haven't done.

PETA = People for Ethical Treatment of Animals(a bad group imo, but i used it because it is the biggest and most well known animals right group).

It fits to THIS discussion more because this discussion is directly about.
1) People dying
And the PETA thing is directly about
2) Animals dying

So since people are animals... I see it as being more relevant to this thread, than what you wrote was to the other thread(that is not to say that i see PETA as being relevant to this thread, just less not relevant than your post to the other).

 

[peptoabysmal]

I base my assertion on articles like this (reporting on a UK Home Office and Foreign Office dossier — Young Muslims and Extremism) :


However, if you're asking for proof of a cause-effect relationship, that cannot strictly be given.
Can it ever, for phenomena such as these? What would it consist of?

The article you linked to says this:

It paints a chilling picture of the scale of the task in tackling terrorism. Drawing on information from MI5, it concludes: “Intelligence indicates that the number of British Muslims actively engaged in terrorist activity, whether at home or abroad or supporting such activity, is extremely small and estimated at less than 1%.”

This equates to fewer than 16,000 potential terrorists and supporters out of a Muslim population of almost 1.6m.

Less than 1%. This is a study restricted to the special conditions of Britain and it seems to be a data set hardly worth considering in the broader scope. I doubt this additional data would have any effect on the slope of linear regression.

The statement to be proven was: "since the wars that were started have only served to increase religious extremism in different places." This implies a single, direct cause and effect. Is it possible that war is attractive to persons already involved in religious extremism? Is it possible that there are other factors invloved? Human behavior is usually due to multiple causation, not single factors. It might be more accurate to say that imams are including the wars as propaganda in their recruiting efforts.

 

[brumsen]

Less than 1%.

That's a lot of people. Anyway, the question was, whether this number was on the rise. That number says nothing about that.

But this (from the same article) does:

The Iraq war is identified by the dossier as a key cause of young Britons turning to terrorism. The analysis says: “It seems that a particularly strong cause of disillusionment among Muslims, including young Muslims, is a perceived ‘double standard’ in the foreign policy of western governments, in particular Britain and the US.

“The perception is that passive ‘oppression’, as demonstrated in British foreign policy, eg non-action on Kashmir and Chechnya, has given way to ‘active oppression’. The war on terror, and in Iraq and Afghanistan, are all seen by a section of British Muslims as having been acts against Islam.”

This is a study restricted to the special conditions of Britain and it seems to be a data set hardly worth considering in the broader scope.

For which reason? Why would things be different in Britain than elsewhere?

The statement to be proven was: "since the wars that were started have only served to increase religious extremism in different places." This implies a single, direct cause and effect. Is it possible that war is attractive to persons already involved in religious extremism? Is it possible that there are other factors invloved? Human behavior is usually due to multiple causation, not single factors. It might be more accurate to say that imams are including the wars as propaganda in their recruiting efforts.

Let's go with that last statement. It fits the article I quoted rather well. Why would it be contrary to my statement? If the imams see the war as a reason to step up their recruiting efforts, and use the war as an argument, and are because of that argument more succesful in recruiting than before... is it then not true, through this chain of cause and effect, that extremism is on the rise?

 

[TobiasTheViking]

I think it is horrible that 5 million dogs and cats are killed each year in shelters. Instead of spending all this money on war and rebuilding GZ we should spend some of that money on helping the dogs and cats so they don't get killed