(no subject)
Sep. 11th, 2001 11:33 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
nfotxnWTC - Trade Centre
Pentagon - Government Centre
Pittsburgh - Industrial Centre
This isn't terrorism, this looks more like war to me.
Pentagon - Government Centre
Pittsburgh - Industrial Centre
This isn't terrorism, this looks more like war to me.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2001-09-11 09:45 am (UTC)Terrorism attacks civilians, to instill fear into the population. This is an attempt to cripple the US. (or at least to cripple them enough so that they have to concentrate on domestic issues, instead of excersising their power internationally.)
Furthermore, this is extremely well-planned. And the sheer magnitude of it exceeds any terrorist event I've heard of.
Now I just have to find out who did it, so I can know how much I agree with them.
no subject
Date: 2001-09-11 11:21 am (UTC)And this didn't?
Now I just have to find out who did it, so I can know how much I agree with them.
This statement makes me want to vomit.
Disgusting.
no subject
Date: 2001-09-11 11:26 am (UTC)You know what?
The more I think about that statement, the more I realize how much you disgust me.
How could WHO DID IT possible affect whether or not you agree? What possible cause could be worth killing thousands of INNOCENT people?
You make me sick.
no subject
Date: 2001-09-11 12:17 pm (UTC)Oh, I don't know. Retaliation for the tens of thousands of INNOCENT people killed (or starved to death) by the US?
Anyway, I didn't say I'd agree with them a lot, or even agree with them at all. I'd just like to hear an explanation.
I'm trying to remain level-headed and rational. There's going to be enough people out there baying for blood.
no subject
Date: 2001-09-11 12:50 pm (UTC)Really? All those thousands of people in the World Trade Centre were involved in killing and starving people?
Implicit in your response that "two wrongs make a right," that somehow something the US has done could justify killing people who were innocent.
Anyway, I didn't say I'd agree with them a lot, or even agree with them at all. I'd just like to hear an explanation.
The attack on the World Trade Centre was an attack on a CIVILIAN target, not a MILITARY target. That's terrorism, and terrorism is not justified. Those people in the World Trade Centre were innocent.
Anyway, I didn't say I'd agree with them a lot, or even agree with them at all. I'd just like to hear an explanation.
What insight would this explanation give you? It could be Palestinians, it could be right wing kooks in the USA, it could be Osama Bin Laden, it could be some other country or some other group. Regardless of who it is or why they did it, attacks on innocent civilian targets are WRONG. Why do you need to hear their explanation to know that killing innocent bystanders is wrong?
no subject
Date: 2001-09-11 01:29 pm (UTC)I wouldn't say they make a right, but it might perhaps be a last resort if other options have failed and you don't want to stand there doing nothing while your people are being killed.
Anyway, I refuse to discuss abstract hypotheticals at a time like this.
I'm still waiting to hear some facts.
no subject
Date: 2001-09-11 02:30 pm (UTC)It's good to see that you support a US retaliation against whoever was responsible for these attacks. The US wouldn't want to stand there doing nothing while their people are being killed!
Anyway, I refuse to discuss abstract hypotheticals at a time like this.
This person who asked me whether I would die to protect my atheism is now refusing to discuss abstract hypotheticals?
That's the catch-cry of a people who have never had to resort to terrorism.
What an obtuse and faux intellectual comment.
You know what, though? You're right. Canada became a free nation without having to hijack planes and ram them into office towers full of innocent people. I'm proud that in my country disputes are resovled with talk rather than with bombs, guns, and terrorist attacks.
no subject
Date: 2001-09-11 02:44 pm (UTC)Here's the link.
http://www.livejournal.com/talkread.bml?itemid=9979223&thread=12150075#t12150075
no subject
Date: 2001-09-11 04:05 pm (UTC)I said "if other options have failed". And is the US in continuing danger? (And even then I said "perhaps". I'd judge it with consideration of the circumstances.)
This person who asked me whether I would die to protect my atheism is now refusing to discuss abstract hypotheticals?
Yes. That was a different. That was a relatively inconsequential topic. Right now we're talking about something which may upset people.
What an obtuse and faux intellectual comment.
You can think what you want, but this isn't just an intellectual abstraction for me. I actually do care.
You know what, though? You're right. Canada became a free nation without having to hijack planes and ram them into office towers full of innocent people. I'm proud that in my country disputes are resovled with talk rather than with bombs, guns, and terrorist attacks.
God, now who's being trite.
First of all, Canada's independence came as a result of growing anti-British sentiment as a result of World War I. (Hardly the most peaceful of circumstances.) And Canada's history before that is full of war, starting right from the British Conquest of the French-controlled lands.
But yes, the actual granting of independence was quite peaceful, and Canada's growth since then has been more-or-less peaceful, and Canada's citizens honestly do value peace. I'm proud of that too.
But I'm also aware that my Vietnamese ancestors had to resort to guns in order to drive out the French colonialists. I guess they just weren't very good at "talking" about their problems. (*sarcasm*)
Anyway, I don't want to clutter Brodie's journal, so if you want to continue this, email me at dirge75@home.com. Even then I've got half a mind to ignore you.
no subject
Date: 2001-09-12 07:57 am (UTC)That's simplistic. Depending on how you look at it, Canada's independence was granted either in 1867, 1931, or 1982. I'm sure most historians would agree that, although Canadian independence can most reasonably said to have been granted in 1931 with the Statue of Westminster, the process started as early as 1837 with the drive to Responsible Government. Canadian independence was granted in stages, not all at once.
God, now who's being trite.
Yes, it was a little trite. I was a little annoyed.
But I'm also aware that my Vietnamese ancestors had to resort to guns in order to drive out the French colonialists. I guess they just weren't very good at "talking" about their problems. (*sarcasm*)
I sure hope you're not drawing a parallel between colonial opression by an undemocratic government, and a terrorist bombing against the World Trade Centre in a free, democratic country!
Anyway, I don't want to clutter Brodie's journal, so if you want to continue this, email me at dirge75@home.com. Even then I've got half a mind to ignore you.
No, I'd rather continue here so that everyone can see -- if Brodie doesn't object, of course.
Even then I've got half a mind to ignore you.
Hmmm.
Read this as well
Date: 2001-09-12 10:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2001-09-11 01:39 pm (UTC)That's the catch-cry of a people who have never had to resort to terrorism.
Anyway, I said I'm not discussing this. For all we know, it could have just been some psychopath.
no subject
Date: 2001-09-11 02:46 pm (UTC)Here's an interesting non-hypothetical question:
Was the FLQ justified in their acts of terrorism?
no subject
Date: 2001-09-12 02:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2001-09-12 06:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2001-09-12 07:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2001-09-12 07:40 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2001-09-12 09:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2001-09-13 12:43 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2001-09-13 07:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2001-09-13 07:43 pm (UTC)I, for one, don't want to see this. Please take it private.
All I meant was that if you didn't want to see it, then don't read any further and don't reload the page, rather than telling us not to continue the discussion in public.