1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

This must be almost as bad as Gitmo...

Discussion in 'The OT' started by Richard King, Jun 18, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jun 21, 2005 #61 of 115
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Richard, that was my point. We live in a land where leaders can criticize each other and they aren't going to be killed or imprisoned. That isn't the case in many other parts of the world. I think this is a GOOD example for other countries, not the horror some of you think it is.
     
  2. Jun 21, 2005 #62 of 115
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    What is missing from the story is what he read from the FBI email. Without that I have no way of knowing if the actions compare to any of the atrocities listed or not. This seems to have been conveniently left out.
     
  3. Jun 21, 2005 #63 of 115
    Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    1
    Mar 25, 2002
    Do you really think that the FBI email is going to claim that we have killed upwards of 9 million people?
     
  4. Jun 21, 2005 #64 of 115
    jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,001
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Yes, how utterly selfish of me not to recognize "terrorism" did not exist before 3000 Americans were killed.

    Refresh my memory. Exactly how many Americans need to suffer before we take an issue seriously? Several dozen? A couple hundred?

    Frankly, I'm not sure if we're taking it seriously now. Porter Goss says of Osama bin Laden "I have an excellent idea of where he is."
    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1074112,00.html
    He prefaces that with the problem of "dealing with sanctuaries in sovereign states, you're dealing with a problem of our sense of international obligation, fair play. We have to find a way to work in a conventional world in unconventional ways that are acceptable to the international community."

    :confused::scratch::scratchin

    Really? We've never let any such minor considerations stop us before. It certainly didn't slow us down in Afganistan and Iraq.:shrug:

    He's probably talking about Pakistan. I guess we need to be careful and courteous because that's where our latest favorite unelected military dictator reigns supreme. You remember Pakistan, don't you? Pakistan's the country that kept the Taliban afloat, about the only country that had diplomatic relations with them. If that don't ring a bell, perhaps you recall their atomic bazaar offering do-it-yourself a-bomb kits to the highest bidders(notice "bidders" is plural)!

    9/11 was certainly a terrible event. And we should do everything we can to prevent similar future events. But be honest. The only reason it "changed the world" is because it happened to US. If it had happened in London or Paris or Berlin, or Bombay or Bejing, we'd shake our heads and wring our hands, but we probably wouldn't be willing to do much about it.

    And as I see it, the only thing that's "changed" is we got the green light to do things(unrelated things) we'd been desparately wanting to do for a long time. It would've been so much simpler if Osama had been holed up in Iraq, so we had to make that detour through Afganistan, even though our heart wasn't really in it. But ah, now we've got our real goal, Iraq. And so we can forget about Osama. And face it, we can't really go after him the way we should anyway. The bulk of our forces are occupied(double entendre intended) elsewhere. You know, "elsewhere" where all the oil is! Besides, we wouldn't want to mess with Pakistan's sovereignty!:nono:
     
  5. Jun 21, 2005 #65 of 115
    SAEMike

    SAEMike Banned User

    2,596
    0
    May 29, 2004
    "terrorism" how we define it today, did not exist before 3000 Americans were killed. If you were to do studies on what terrorism was to people around the world on September 10, 2001 and again on September 10, 2002, the definition of terrorism would be dramatically different.
     
  6. Jun 22, 2005 #66 of 115
    jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,001
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    "If you were to do studies"???

    Your theory is based on what you perceive the results would be IF someone WERE to do studies?

    WOW! That's scientific!:sure:

    What "changed" on 9/11, for those who previously bothered to think about it at all, was a new understanding of the scale "terrorism" was capable of. And for Americans, the realization "terror" could be applied against them.

    Other then that, what about the "definition of terrorism" is "dramatically different"?
     
  7. Jun 22, 2005 #67 of 115
    SAEMike

    SAEMike Banned User

    2,596
    0
    May 29, 2004
    The emotions of people, and the definitions of words are not "scientific". Unlike people like you, who think everything has to be explained by science, my thoughts are more complex.
     
  8. Jun 22, 2005 #68 of 115
    Timco

    Timco Woof! DBSTalk Gold Club

    963
    0
    Jun 7, 2002
    You were the one who brought up "studies". Are you backing away from your original statement? Would you like to amend your original statement to: " Based on what I feel about what terrorism was to people around the world on September 10, 2001 and again on September 10, 2002, the definition of terrorism would be dramatically different."
     
  9. Jun 22, 2005 #69 of 115
    SAEMike

    SAEMike Banned User

    2,596
    0
    May 29, 2004
    Do you disagree that the vast majority of the country would define terrorism differently now than they did before 9/11?
     
  10. Jun 22, 2005 #70 of 115
    Timco

    Timco Woof! DBSTalk Gold Club

    963
    0
    Jun 7, 2002
    Yes, I do disagree with you. I think that the majority of Americans would define terrorism the same way the did before. I think that most Americans view on how safe they are from terrorism has changed. Not the definition.
     
  11. Jun 22, 2005 #71 of 115
    jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,001
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Are people, especially in the USA, more likely to pay attention, be aware and react emotionally to acts of terrorism? Sure. But how does that change the "definition of terrorism"?

    I should hope not too many people condoned or viewed terrorism positively prior to 9/11. And for any who did, it's likely their attitudes were not changed by 9/11.

    Perhaps it would help to know what your definition of terrorism is and how you think that changed after 9/11.
     
  12. Jun 22, 2005 #72 of 115
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    No, but are you saying that what was in the email doesn't matter at all? We have no idea what events the FBI agent is describing.
     
  13. Jun 22, 2005 #73 of 115
    SAEMike

    SAEMike Banned User

    2,596
    0
    May 29, 2004
    Arguing terrorism with a man who quotes Hitler in his signiture is definitely pointless. That being said the definition of terrorism has changed countless times in the minds of the American public. The mind of Americans isn't formed by scientific studies and experiments, its formed by emotion. It is formed by how the different events make them feel, and changes the perception of what those concepts are, by how they effect them.

    After the capture of the Unabomber, and the OK City bombing introduced the American mind to domestic terroism, which changed the perception of what terrorism was to the American people, just as hijackings, car bombs, suicide bombings, ect, changed the perception of what terroism was since the Siccari introduced terrorism to the world.

    To the direct question, I think if you asked people to define terrorism pre 9/11 they likely would have given you a vague answer that included very few deaths and a hijacking or suicide bombing type action in a third world or war torn country. Today, I believe that people would define it in much more drastic terms. Far more deaths, more high tech means, more financial means, and most of all, they know that it can happen in grand scale in the United States.
     
  14. Jun 22, 2005 #74 of 115
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    So which is it, the world or the country? I don't think the definition of terrorism has changed around the world. It MAY have changed for some people in our country, but only in that it was driven home that it could happen here. For the rest of the world which was already dealing with terrorism, nothing changed. Just as the terrorist bombing in Oklahoma City is much more real to people living in Oklahoma than to people living in New York, the events of 9/11 are much more real to people living in New York than those living in Iowa. Its not that people in Iowa don't care, it just didn't happen to them in the same way, and the people living in a small rural town don't see it happening to them.

    Nothing really changed. Give it a few more years and most people will hardly remember it. How often do you remember Oklahoma City? It isn't like we have really done what it would take to make the country safe.
     
  15. Jun 22, 2005 #75 of 115
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    You finally get to the crux of the answer, that it can happen in America. That is what has changed, if that.

    High tech? More finance? Box cutters and plane tickets. Real high tech. Real high finance. The high tech and finance part of this is part of the sales job given to the American people to convince them to let the administration do whatever they want. We have still not seen terrorism use high tech, expensive means. Why should they, when they can be so devastating with simple, cheap means? We build star wars, and they arm themselves with box cutters.
     
  16. Jun 22, 2005 #76 of 115
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Definitely a red herring. The quotes are appropriate and meaningful. Just because the source of a quote is evil does not mean there is nothing to learn. Know your enemy.
     
  17. Jun 22, 2005 #77 of 115
    SAEMike

    SAEMike Banned User

    2,596
    0
    May 29, 2004
    You're right, it couldn't possibly have cost that much to fund terrorist camps all across the middle east. Flight classes and apartments, visas, funding the lives of the terrorists when they were in America. You could probably pay for it out of your pocket, no problem.
     
  18. Jun 22, 2005 #78 of 115
    Timco

    Timco Woof! DBSTalk Gold Club

    963
    0
    Jun 7, 2002
    I bet it cost less then $200 billion ....
     
  19. Jun 22, 2005 #79 of 115
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    For Saud family members, you are right. Pocket change. From the little pocket.
     
  20. Jun 22, 2005 #80 of 115
    Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    1
    Mar 25, 2002
    Actually we do. The email desrcibed one thug tied to a floor who complained about the temperature being too hot and then too cold. The email also mentioned loud rap music being played (now THAT IS torture). That was what the scum is comparing to Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page