Do 3000 lives warrant this kind of change?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-02-2011, 08:22 AM
 
RE: Do 3000 lives warrant this kind of change?
(03-02-2011 10:46 PM)BnW Wrote:  
(03-02-2011 01:23 AM)DoE Wrote:  calling 9-11 a major tragedy is quite sensationalist and leads to the sort of mass missinformed failure of understanding that scares so many people off neuclear power because 'what if there was another chernobyl?'

I'm not sure I understand your point or the connection to Chernobyl. Please elaborate.

the connection and point is that an objectively small incident was inflated by huge public attention until the point that actions taken due to public uproar about have cost one or more nations much more than the event itself.

Obviously 9-11 is costing a lot of nations in continued involvemnt in a huge war and rebuilding effort. Cernobyl cost my country and likely others (im not going to research public opinion in other countries just for this thread though) in blocks to objectively much more environmentally friendly and cheaper nuclear power generation.
Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2011, 10:02 AM
RE: Do 3000 lives warrant this kind of change?
Ok, now I understand.

Personally, I don't agree Chernobyl is a fair comparison. And, 9-11 was a major tragedy and it was also an act of war and it warranted a response. I've no issue with the US responding and I've no issue with us having gone after the Taliban and bin Ladin in Afghanistan. But, how it was used as a justification for so many other things, like Iraq, is where I think it breaks down.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2011, 03:29 PM
RE: Do 3000 lives warrant this kind of change?
(04-02-2011 05:44 AM)BnW Wrote:  
(04-02-2011 05:29 AM)The_observer Wrote:  
(03-02-2011 11:42 PM)gamutman Wrote:  Australia is key. Wait, you mean the other Risk.
I don't get it. Sorry... Possibly lack of knowledge.
[Image: risk-game-of-global-domination.jpg]
[Image: File0004205.JPG]
I meant
[Image: 41ffr-oQsVL._SL500_AA300_.jpg]

Observer

Agnostic atheist
Secular humanist
Emotional rationalist
Disclaimer: Don’t mix the personal opinion above with the absolute and objective truth. Remember to think for yourself. Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2011, 05:30 PM
 
RE: Do 3000 lives warrant this kind of change?
(02-02-2011 11:32 PM)gamutman Wrote:  
(02-02-2011 11:15 PM)Green Wrote:  The aftermath of 9/11 was a massive over reaction. It's not that I blame people for being emotional, it was a hell of a day and I totally understand that desire to "strike back" so to speak. However, feeding into it only really validates the terrorists. Of course retrospect is 20/20 and we've kind of gotten ourselves into a situation we can't really back out of easily.

Luckily for me I get to be a told-ya-so on this one. I've been on this page since 9/11 at noon. And I'm not the only one. It's still the one thing that makes me assay my admiration of C. Hitchens. The guys a genius but he's so dogmatic and dead wrong on that one issue and he refuses to acknowledge what everyone else knows.

How so? I never read what his thoughts are on this, and you seem to know them quite well.
(04-02-2011 05:29 AM)The_observer Wrote:  
(03-02-2011 11:42 PM)gamutman Wrote:  Australia is key. Wait, you mean the other Risk.
I don't get it. Sorry... Possibly lack of knowledge.

Not this
[Image: 1264086492.jpg]

Big Grin
Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2011, 11:18 PM
RE: Do 3000 lives warrant this kind of change?
(02-02-2011 11:01 PM)Cetaceaphile Wrote:  Islam invaded and pretty much took over the west.

Sorry , but you lost me here. It's a form of over reaction. Religion globally is on the decline , with only fundamentalists holding tight to their doctrine.
Islam didn't take over anything, but muslims are being ostracized and that sends them straight into the arms of extremists.Add to this extremist religious groups being funded out of Saudi Arabia and you have a complete mess.
Do 3000 lives lost warrant general paranoia - NO . Still , what kind of society is the "enlightened" western world that collapses at a few terrorist attacks ?
Also , is this a joke thread , or a real thread ?

Atheism is a religion like OFF is a TV channel !!!

Proud of my genetic relatives Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2011, 11:58 PM
 
RE: Do 3000 lives warrant this kind of change?
I don't think 9-11 was a good excuse to start a war. Weapons of mass destruction? (need I say more?)

I know that 9-11 is a sensitive topic especially to some people who may have known someone that died-I just want to make that clear-but I am still open to the conspiracy theories behind it (especially with that building 7). I wonder if in 30 or 50yrs from now we will have any more knowledge about those events then we do now, 10 years later.
Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2011, 04:42 AM
RE: Do 3000 lives warrant this kind of change?
So what makes you think WTC 7 was a conspiracy ?

Try the official report :
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june...endixl.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-9index.htm
And this series of videos :
http://www.youtube.com/user/RKOwens4

Military conflict did exist in the past based on fraudulent claims : Gulf of Tonkin incident.
Conspiracy theories rarely provide evidence for their claims and often outright lie just to get their point across.

Atheism is a religion like OFF is a TV channel !!!

Proud of my genetic relatives Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2011, 09:11 AM
RE: Do 3000 lives warrant this kind of change?
(04-02-2011 11:58 PM)Free_Thinker Wrote:  I don't think 9-11 was a good excuse to start a war. Weapons of mass destruction? (need I say more?)

I know that 9-11 is a sensitive topic especially to some people who may have known someone that died-I just want to make that clear-but I am still open to the conspiracy theories behind it (especially with that building 7). I wonder if in 30 or 50yrs from now we will have any more knowledge about those events then we do now, 10 years later.

I think the conspiracy theory people on this are - and no offense to anyone here who may believe them - a bunch of brain dead morons. Airplanes flew into the buildings. That was not staged. This stuff on building #7 was nonsense. I know people who were there and watched this happen live (my brother-in-law for 1. He watched both planes hit from the ferry).

As for it not being the reason to start a war, the US entered WWII after roughly the same number of lives were lost at Pearl Harbor. Should we have just surrendered to the Japanese and Germans (who declared war on the US on December 11) because that was not enough people to fight a war over?

9/11 was a poor reason to do a lot of the things we did, starting with Iraq. But, it was absolutely (in my opinion at least) sufficient reason to go to war in Afghanistan.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2011, 10:38 AM
RE: Do 3000 lives warrant this kind of change?
Still , terrorists aren't a country in their own right , so conventional warfare goes out the window. Experts that are trained for these situations seem a better option - both to ensure the US achieves its goal of removing a foreign threat - terrorism, and to minimize casualties.

The Iraq war to my knowledge was an illegal war.As for going to Afghanistan , no problem with your reasoning in my opinion , the situation was handled much better.

Atheism is a religion like OFF is a TV channel !!!

Proud of my genetic relatives Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2011, 12:35 PM
RE: Do 3000 lives warrant this kind of change?
No, terrorists are not a country in their own right, but in the case of Afghanistan I think Al Queda was almost part of the Taliban's foreign policy, at least at the time. Now I think we are more involved with an Afghan civil war then we are a war to keep out terrorists, but that's another issue.

I think Iraq is a little more complicated then people try to make it to be in terms of its legality and justification, but even if you can convince yourself that it was a legal use of force, it was still handled horribly, criminally in fact.

Kind of interesting that now ordinary people in some of this countries may accomplish what war and terrorism could not.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: