Woman Profiled on 9/11

[Munjibunga]

Yes, however, I doubt that makes it alright in the minds of the many innocent Japanese people who were affected by the bombing.

War was a completely different animal in those days. Bombing civilian populations pressured governments to surrender. That was before the politically correct wars of today, in which civilian collateral damage is unacceptable. How do you suppose the innocent victims at Pearl Harbor felt about being bombed by the Japanese?

 

[jmattbassplaya]

War was a completely different animal in those days. Bombing civilian populations pressured governments to surrender. That was before the politically correct wars of today, in which civilian collateral damage is unacceptable. How do you suppose the innocent victims at Pearl Harbor felt about being bombed by the Japanese?

So what was 9/11 again? War still effects everyone, including civilians.

 

[Munjibunga]

Well, let's see.

Muslim terrorist attacks:
9/11
DC sniper

Let's count the white terrorist attacks:

Oklahoma City Alfred P. Murrah Building
Unabomber
"Smiley face" bomber
Branch Davidian compound (not technically an attack, but they were terrorists in the making)
Dozens of abortion clinic bombings by Pro-Lifers
Olympic Park bombing @ Atlanta Olympics
Columbine High School

Can't think of any more ATM and i'm too lazy to google. So far I think the white Christians are "winning".

LOL. There have been more bombings than that in the Middle East and Pakistan this year alone. You are very selective in your statistics.

 

[Angus]

Since we're on the subject of Google, Google the word "malinformed" and see what you get. One iteration of it was used in a recent article published in Newsweek. Call Newsweek and let them know.

Or, perhaps, the traditional source for words- the dictionary- where it cannot be found.

Argue as you will. "Atrociously media-fed" = anti-muslim? Are you kidding? The media dare say anything negative for fear of retaliation. But of course, "Christians" as a whole are regularly lambasted and made fun of, you know, under the guise of free speech, especially on television. Funny how Christians don't uprise and attack as a result - except according to Mikey up there.

Oh come on. This is the same thing as white males complaining about being treated like a minority or discriminated against (and I'm a white male). The association of muslims with terrorists in opinion/editorial news is rampant- you don't see anything like this in association with Christianity. There is just no basis for saying that media portrays Christians in a more harmful light than Islam. They say negative things all the time, and much more rarely so about Christianity (because it would get them tons of hell from Christian viewers).

But it's all about perspective, right? It's clear you are Christian and so are going to be much more on the defensive and are going to remember something that slights your beliefs. I'm neither here nor there, so it's easier to "keep score" when I don't particularly care what they say (personally).

 

[Tegzsa]

LOL. There have been more bombings than that in the Middle East and Pakistan this year alone.

That's very true. Lots of bombs have been dropped on the Middle East and Pakistan this year, and have resulted in many civilian casualties.

 

[Chebass88]

Misuse of the word "terrorism" also applies to military in different ways.

The bombing of the USS Cole - NOT a terrorist act. It was an act against an armed US warship, which makes it a military action. IEDs or suicide bombers at checkpoints are also MIL actions, as they are intended against armed forces. It does, however, enable them to be included as justifications in the GWOT.

 

[i_got_a_mohawk]

LOL. There have been more bombings than that in the Middle East and Pakistan this year alone. You are very selective in your statistics.

One key difference here, last time I read the papers, the USA wasn't a warzone and wasn't currently under occupation.

 

[Deleted member 92857]

One key difference here, last time I read the papers, the USA wasn't a warzone and wasn't currently under occupation.

If Edinburgh & Dundee had a ground zero (God forbid) maybe you wouldn't need to read newspapers to understand.


There's a bigger consideration here, it's what is right and what is wrong. I know that line can get blurry, but in the case of terriorisim against civilians, to me it is quite clear. Performing an act that is almost certain to kill non-combatants, unarmed men, women, old people, children, none of whom have military value, is wrong. I don't care who did it or does it. Striking a millitary target or personnel, in a time of war is part of war. Blowing up a car bomb in a market to instill terror is no different to me than kidnapping and killing your wife and kids to instill terror. Neither can be justified, under any circumstances. And both acts are dispicable. Regardless of history, motivation, or circumstances.

 

[Tegzsa]

If Edinburgh & Dundee had a ground zero (God forbid) maybe you wouldn't need to read newspapers to understand.

Locherbie? Mind you, all Europe has been what could be termed "ground zero". Twice. And when you have foreign troops on your soil (for whatever reason), something rankles in many people and they often react (badly) against it.

There's a bigger consideration here, it's what is right and what is wrong. I know that line can get blurry, but in the case of terriorisim against civilians, to me it is quite clear. Performing an act that is almost certain to kill non-combatants, unarmed men, women, old people, children, none of whom have military value, is wrong. I don't care who did it or does it. Striking a millitary target or personnel, in a time of war is part of war. Blowing up a car bomb in a market to instill terror is no different to me than kidnapping and killing your wife and kids to instill terror. Neither can be justified, under any circumstances. And both acts are dispicable. Regardless of history, motivation, or circumstances.

Can't argue with that. But all sides in every conflict have done this, and it doesn't look like it'll stop anytime soon.

 

[Lonesomedave]

ok....so the USA is no longer the land of the free because we want to stop another 9/11... i get that

but all you criticizers have failed to offer any sensible alternatives to doing it the way we do it now.

it is very easy to armchair quarterback and say "boy, you got that one wrong".... but, let's hear your rational alternative.

strip search everybody; tell them to arrive at the airport 6 hours before any flight and have basically as many security operatives as passengers? i don't know what that would cost, but i bet it would bring travel to a screeching halt.

i think what is going on here (both from those who live outside this country & some who live within it) is simply anti-american bias... you don't like us, so whatever we do will be wrong just because it's us doing it.

again, i challenge you....what is your alternative solution.... just don't do anything and then when it happens again wring our hands?

c'mon, let's hear some ideas rather than just the same old "america got it wrong again" crap.

ps- edit:

That's very true. Lots of bombs have been dropped on the Middle East and Pakistan this year, and have resulted in many civilian casualties.

just asking... how many civilians have been killed by american bombs versus how many have been killed by their fellow countrymen (or at least their coreligionists) using explosive devices? gee, and here was me thinking the ratio was something like 1/10,000.... silly me.

 

[aborgman]

Not in any way. We were at war with Japan for their sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. We also gave them several opportunities to give up before we dropped the bombs. Remember?

Yes, but that has nothing at all to do with whether or not it's terrorism.

Uniformed military carrying out orders in a legal war for perfectly noble purposes can use terrorism.

If you're attempting to achieve political or ideological goals through inflicting terror in/on civilians - it's terrorism.

 

[aborgman]

I don't care who did it or does it. Striking a millitary target or personnel, in a time of war is part of war.

So you agree that terrorism was strikingly common by all combatants in WW2?

 

[Byron92]

I thought George W. Bush was responsible for 9/11

 

[Lonesomedave]

Yes, but that has nothing at all to do with whether or not it's terrorism.

Uniformed military carrying out orders in a legal war for perfectly noble purposes can use terrorism.

If you're attempting to achieve political or ideological goals through inflicting terror in/on civilians - it's terrorism.

well, if by "... attempting to achieve political or ideological goals..." you actually mean to win, and therefore end, a war that was started (much like 9/11) by the other side in a sneak attack, ok....i think that is a stretch, but ok.

at times like these, i am reminded of a quote (paraphrased) from the hilarious English writer, Terry Pratchett, in his book, THE FIFTH ELEPHANT:

"... the whole idea of fighting was to stop the other bloke from hitting you as soon as possible..."

i stick by my point. the people on this thread who don't approve, simply don't like us, and so, whatever means we use to defend ourselves will be wrong in their eyes, simply because it is us doing it.

oddly, that's the same bigotry you want to accuse us of.... but maybe that's just me....

 

[MatticusMania]

War was a completely different animal in those days. Bombing civilian populations pressured governments to surrender. That was before the politically correct wars of today, in which civilian collateral damage is unacceptable. How do you suppose the innocent victims at Pearl Harbor felt about being bombed by the Japanese?

Probably much in the same way. Again, Im not arguing against the action taken and its role in ending the war, but I doubt the Japanese who survived/witnessed the bombing felt the same way.

Yes, but that has nothing at all to do with whether or not it's terrorism.

Uniformed military carrying out orders in a legal war for perfectly noble purposes can use terrorism.
If you're attempting to achieve political or ideological goals through inflicting terror in/on civilians - it's terrorism.

Vietnam comes to mind.

 

[Tegzsa]

just asking... how many civilians have been killed by american bombs versus how many have been killed by their fellow countrymen (or at least their coreligionists) using explosive devices? gee, and here was me thinking the ratio was something like 1/10,000.... silly me.

Could be. Doesn't matter. It's not either/or. People will hate whoever is bombing them - If my family were mistakenly blown to bits by the Swiss Guard, I'd be damned if I was going to say "Aw, they meant well" and get on about my business as if nothing had happened.

I'll wager you wouldn't either, so why would anyone else?

i stick by my point. the people on this thread who don't approve, simply don't like us, and so, whatever means we use to defend ourselves will be wrong in their eyes, simply because it is us doing it.

oddly, that's the same bigotry you want to accuse us of.... but maybe that's just me....

Given how careful everyone has been, yes, I think it's just you.

 

[Lonesomedave]

Could be. Doesn't matter. It's not either/or. People will hate whoever is bombing them - If my family were mistakenly blown to bits by the Swiss Guard, I'd be damned if I was going to say "Aw, they meant well" and get on about my business as if nothing had happened.

I'll wager you wouldn't either, so why would anyone else?

and therefore, we equate the collateral damage caused accidentally by those who are actually trying to stop the killing of 10,000 with those who do kill the 10,000.....sounds sensible to me!

Given how careful everyone has been, yes, I think it's just you.

thank goodness... for a minute there i was becoming paranoid... thinking you were equating the aggressors with those who were acting in self-defense....

 

[Tegzsa]

and therefore, we equate the collateral damage caused accidentally by those who are actually trying to stop the killing of 10,000 with those who do kill the 10,000.....sounds sensible to me!

That depends on who "we" are. And the only opinions really worth noting are those who actually are the collateral damage, not those who define them as such.

 

[i_got_a_mohawk]

If Edinburgh & Dundee had a ground zero (God forbid) maybe you wouldn't need to read newspapers to understand.


There's a bigger consideration here, it's what is right and what is wrong. I know that line can get blurry, but in the case of terriorisim against civilians, to me it is quite clear. Performing an act that is almost certain to kill non-combatants, unarmed men, women, old people, children, none of whom have military value, is wrong. I don't care who did it or does it. Striking a millitary target or personnel, in a time of war is part of war. Blowing up a car bomb in a market to instill terror is no different to me than kidnapping and killing your wife and kids to instill terror. Neither can be justified, under any circumstances. And both acts are dispicable. Regardless of history, motivation, or circumstances.

How about Lockerbie? Loads of IRA bombings while I was growing up, granted, they were mainly in England, but that's a heck of a lot closer to me than New York is to Alabama (PS, keep in mind what British ally allowed funding and weapons supplies to those terrorists). What
about 7/7 or the attempt on Glasgow?
And taking your second paragraph. What about the innocent people in Iraq and Afganistan who are terrorised by Western forces? Is that ok too? Right or wrong, none of the governments involved are clean or "in the right".

 

[Lonesomedave]

That depends on who "we" are. And the only opinions really worth noting are those who actually are the collateral damage, not those who define them as such.

"we" are the good people of Talkbass who are debating in a most collegial atmosphere.

yeah....except, we (this time meaning America) were attacked by elements from Afghanistan and Pakistan, and "we" are going to do something about it. have we tried to limit civilian casualties?... well a hell of a lot more than our opponents at any rate.

who those collateral damage people should be mad at is the extremists in their own societies that started this. if not, tough...you attack us, we are going to respond...and that is exactly the same rights claimed by every society on earth.