You wanna talk irony? How about having access to more than $250 million, and deciding that instead of spending it to help the people in the country you’ve decided to make your home, you’ll spend it to train people to kill others in suicide plots.
You’re surrounded, in your country, by millions of people who are starving to death, and yet you decide to use your money to wage war.
Now THAT’S ironic.
I would like to direct everyone back to my reply to the OP (I believe I was the first to respond).
The war on stupidity has evolved.
It now encludes all of us.
Stop, take a deep breath, remove hands from keyboard and mouse. Then bitchslap yourself. I feel better, do you?
Days like today I wish I had been aborted.
It is not a hypothetical senario. The problem truly did arise on September 11. Note that nowhere did I say the airliner was shot down - because it wasn’t. What actually did happen is now history and can’t be changed. I challenged you to come up with an alternate solution that would have had some possiblity of actually working (even if it was remote). Instead, you came up with, essentially, “we should stop being nasty to everyone”. That may be an answer to may of the world’s problems, but it was not an answer to the problem at hand.
Actually, I applaud your effort to not limit solutions to my A and B. Thinking outside the box is what’s most likely to solve thorny problems. However… your “solution” would not solve the immediate dilemna
Let me assist you in walking through this exercise. By my reckoning, there are only four possible outcomes to the Flight 93 problem. They are, in order from least desirable to most desirable –
Do nothing or attempt to negotiate with suicide hijackers. The airliner crashes into a target of either importance to national security or causing massive loss of life or both. Hundreds, if not thousands, are dead, scores injured, much damage to buildings.
Scramble attack planes and shoot down Flight 93. This will most certainly kill 44 people, potentially more on the ground depending on where it hits. The only two bonus points are that you will likely prevent more death than you cause by this action, and you will frustrate the enemy. As a matter of fact, this is the action chosen by President Bush, who authorized the air force to shoot down Flight 93 if that’s what it took to protect Washington DC. Jets were scrambled and about two minutes from the Flight 93 when scenario #3 occured, so the jets never had a chance to shoot at the airliner.
The passengers and crew (those left alive and unfettered - we know these guys M.O. included killing a few folks then tying up some of the rest) rise up against the hijackers and overpower them. This will most likely result in the deaths of all aboard, and that is, in fact, what happened. You still have 44 dead people. To me, there is a moral distinction of some importance - the deaths here are not intended but a byproduct of attempting to resolve the situation. This is in contrast to #1 and #2, where the killing is delibrate (even if justified in #2). Another interesting point is that #3 must occur if we are to have outcome #4, the most desirable of resolutions to the problem.
The passengers overpower the hijackers successfully and remain alive, in control of the airplane. There remains at least one pilot on board (a good guy) capable of landing the jet safely. You’ll probably have a couple dead people in this outcome - whoever the hijackers decided to slice up, plus possibly the hijackers themselves - but the majority of the 44 on board will survive the experience. It’s a remote possibility. It was, however, a possible outcome. At least one passenger aboard Flight 93 was also a pilot, in addition to the crew and the hijackers. He did not, however, have any training on a jet like that involved. How likely would it be that he could land the plane? Not very, to be honest. Controlling a jumbo jet in cruise flight is one thing - that probably is within the capability of virtually anyone with a pilot’s license - but landing one is quite a different story. But if he had gained control of the plane they had a full load of fuel on board. That means they have time. Time for our pilot to call for help, get instructions from air traffic control, practice control of the plane, time to find a suitable airport in which to land that will present minimal difficulties. And he will be highly motivated to get it right the first time. Unfortuately, this did not occur.
Uh, yeah, I do. Really. At the very least the 5000 dead, their families, and their friends are the victims.
You are, of course, free to disagree with me. As you apparently do.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by obidiah *
OK, let’s sit back and clarify here. In the US civil war did one side commit heinous acts on the civilians of the other side? Yes, they did. Is that terrorism? Well, I suppose you could define it as such but to me it looks more like the typical civilian casualites of war. Maybe you consider any civilian casualty to be “terrorism”. I don’t. Terrorism, to my mind, is why you target only civilians and kill in a very public manner that is perceived as truly horrible in order not only to kill but to inspire fear and terror. Hence, terrorism. Intent counts here.
Now, this sort of thing does go on. But, until recently, terrorism is usually between the populations of two warring parties and restricted in geographic scope. Northern Ireland vs. Britain, for example - crimes perpetrated for decades against the civilians of each side. However, neither Britain nor the Ulster Protestants decided to send terror squads to Chicago because of the large Irish community there, or their support for their Irish relatives back home (and Chicago was a source of funds for the IRA for decades). Nor did the IRA send car bombs to Washington because our government was an ally of the British.
Likewise, the Palestinians and Isrealis have been commiting heinous acts upon each other for, oh, 80 years now? But Palestians are not walking into New York City discos and blowing themselves up - they restrict that to Isreali territory.
This idea of getting ALL the Muslims EVERYWHERE to fight EVERYBODY ELSE EVERYWHERE - that’s a new one. OK, they’re annoyed at us being in the Middle East? Old way of doing things would be to attack us in the Middle East (which they did, numerous times). Also, the urge to attack other, uninvolved countries - not because of any wrongs to Muslims but merely because they are not enemies of the US is also new. These people - all the many individuals and the several groups of them - want to start World War III. They look forward to it. They want either all of us dead or everybody dead.
It’s not a mind set I really understand.
Um… Germany has launched terrorist attacks against us? When? Italy? Huh?
The only prior terrorist attack of foreign origin on US soil I am aware of is a car bomb in downtown Chicago in the 70’s, curtesy of disgruntled Puerto Ricans seeking independence. Even at that, the fact Puerto Rico is a US protectorate makes them considerably less foreign than most.
Well, come up with some more ideas and suggestions. Who knows, you just might save the world.
If I honestly thought “backing down” would solve the problem of people wanting to kill us on our home soil I would cheerfully grovel. It won’t help, though.
Let me remind you that bin Laden IS responsible for bombing our soldiers in Saudi Arabia - although we were there at the request and with the approval of the Saudi government. We did not attack anyone but left it to the Saudis to find and punish those responsible. (In case anyone was wondering - there were trials, convictions, and executions) Bin Laden IS responsible for bombing our embassies in two separate countries in Africa - and bombing an embassy is normally considered an act of war. We did not, however, attack anyone in retalliation but attempted to track down those responsible and bring them to justice. Bin Laden IS responsible for the attack on the USS Cole, resulting in 17 deaths of American sailors. Attacking a foreign vessel is, may I remind you, normally considered an act of war. Yet we did not launch an immediate attack. There is quite a bit of evidence to suggest that bin Laden was also involved in the 1993 WTC bombing - in which case certain parties were captured and tried in US courts as criminals.
If you ask me, the US has shown remarkable restraint here and has attempted to resolve this by means other than open warfare. Just how much “backing down” are we expected to do? How many dead Americans are acceptable to YOU? The count is pushing towards 6000, if not already above. Being attacked overseas - that’s a risk you take when you travel aboard. It’s not acceptable, but it is there. Being attacked at home? That can not be tolerated by any country.
Broomstick,
I really think we are trying to debate over two related but very different subjects and what is happening is a lot of heads banging together.
I don’t have an answer to your Airliner question that will satisfy the parameters you have laid out. I’m not even trying to debate this aspect! I have been talking about pointless and useless ideas and nothing more. You are trying to bring this kicking and screaming into an event that already happened to try to prove that I would admit to killing people. I’m not the president nor a member of the house, senate, joint chiefs, etc. If I was then I would make that call. I’m not. I cannot put myself there.
Let me answer your question so we can move on. I would blow up the plane. Thanks for teaching me a lesson.
Now, hypothetically, lets look 50, 100, 200 years to the future. What would happen if we had not taken a retalitory position in this crisis? What if we had started to say, “no more”. “Violence is NOT acceptable”. “We WILL NOT retaliate”. “Your hatered is NOT our hatred”. “We will work to break this cycle”.
I know it is easy to dismiss this as wishful thinking (at best), but we have to start somewhere. Building smart bombs isn’t really a step in a positive direction…it is more like not moving backwards. I just think at some point we are going to have to come to the realization that violence isn’t a solution. Look at American now.
Reports of Americans beating, shooting and abusing other Americans. Reports of schoolchildren beating other children based on their appearance. Reports of widespread violence against Arab and Muslim-Americans. Our President says of the terrorists, “We will hunt these folks down”, “I will lead the world toward victory”, “We will wage a global war on terrorism” and “this will be a sustained war”. Thousands more innocent lives will be lost, and towards what end? What purpose does our own fanaticism serve in resolving the horrific tragedy that happened on Sept. 11?
America trains foreigners to torture and kill civilians and overthrow governments. Perhaps we should examine our own system before killing other innocent people. The seemingly never-ending cycle of violence has come round again. We stand now at a crossroads. We can continue on the path that leads towards death, hate, fear and tragic loss or we can finally change direction. How many times must we, as humans, stand here? I have seen war first-hand. I have seen what horrors we, as humans, as Americans, are capable of. It is time for our self-proclaimed “compassionate” leaders to show us how truly compassionate they are. It is time to realize that violence has never been and will never be a solution. We have been torn and beaten by our fellow humans for far too long. It is time to come together and heal our wounds. I would hope that after 9/11 we might finally learn that lesson.
Give it a rest folks. What we have here is a typical flower child who saw a few charred bodies in the gulf and was scarred for life, who admits to not having the answers, nor the alternatives to war, only that there shouldn’t be war. What we have here is another bleeding heart that thinks that only ONE MAN was responsible behind this and that if we just get him alone, everything is solved. News flash dipshit, it doesn’t end with him. But of course it wouldn’t matter if we dropped ONLY food for the poor folks over there right? Hmmmmm… billionaires who can finance terrorist operations while the entire civilian population is starving, lacking decent medicine, etc and so on and so forth… but it’s our fault. I am so sick of you fucking people. “war never solved anything”… Go read some fucking history books. War never created a perfect world, but it damn sure helped prevent it from getting worse. Gulf War as an example. Since you talk about your experience in the gulf, then you are aware of the treatment that Saddam gives to his people. What did the Gulf war do? It helped prevent more people from having to deal with his sensitivities. Argue that point… please.
If you don’t have a solution to the problem, don’t comment on the problem. They bomb us, so we do what… send them money and food and hope they don’t do it again? Poor innocent people are getting killed? Gee whiz, perhaps their government should do something about that since they care for their people so much. Oh right… they are all dirt poor, have no resources, need the worlds help… Except the “government” there, but that’s beside the point. I’m guessing that you are a dope smoking Berkely student who voted on banning American flags on firetrucks because they might offend someone. If you are not, then print this entire thread because you have yourself wonderful grounds for acceptance. (Of course, I’m sure you are highly educated, don’t know where Berkely is, and have all credentials to provide the best solution… oh that’s right, you don’t have one).
By the way, what exactly did you do in the Gulf war? Lie and tell us that you were a warrior. You know what, don’t even bother answering. I started reading this thread, against my better judgement, thinking it might be some amusing idiocy. I was only partially correct in that I found idiocy. And normally I don’t post to such nonsense, but you win… your trolling worked. Say what you want, ask what you want, but nothing you can say will get another reply out of me, regardless of what thread/forum/topic it is in. You’ve proven your level of intelligence to me.
Turbo Dog,
Cool. See ya.
Yes, victory is mine, and oh how sweet a fruit it is!
No, no, just kididng, Mr. GoodHumorMan.
Actually, I would like to say that at least what we are talking about made you respond. I think that is a good thing. Thanks again, TD.
I can tell you what I did, but I am not going to lie. I hope that is ok with you, Sgt. Dog.
I was FEBA as a 11D scout. What did you do? I would say, hmm, REMF perhaps?