[quote]orion wrote:
If you define “threat” as “as likely as being hit by a meteor”, well then terrorism is a terrible threat.
[/quote]
I wouldn’t be too quick to discount all of the anti terror systems that we’ve put into place. We’ve done a lot to prevent another 9-11 (thank God).
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
You’ll also note the strawman he used – I never said there is “no threat”, I said there is “no significant threat”.[/quote]
the “significant” threat has been nullified by a very aware government and citizen presence. Without that no doubt there would have been more attacks on our soil.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Its worth bothering when the word “terrorist” has the ability to scare everyone into magically agreeing with everything you say.
Been waiting years for people to catch on to this.[/quote]
I think that names should be accurate and I can’t think of a better name than “Terrorist” when it comes to someone taking over a plane and ramming it into one of our buildings. But if you can come up with something that is more accurate then please let’s see it.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
If you define “threat” as “as likely as being hit by a meteor”, well then terrorism is a terrible threat.
[/quote]
I wouldn’t be too quick to discount all of the anti terror systems that we’ve put into place. We’ve done a lot to prevent another 9-11 (thank God).[/quote]
For example?
And does it offset the two wars that will supply “terrorists” for the next few decades?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
If you define “threat” as “as likely as being hit by a meteor”, well then terrorism is a terrible threat.
[/quote]
I wouldn’t be too quick to discount all of the anti terror systems that we’ve put into place. We’ve done a lot to prevent another 9-11 (thank God).[/quote]
Also, what does that mean exactly, the lowered the risk from meteor strike to the risk being equivalent to being hit by a lightning bolt?
If they had paid for a rubber matt in each American bathtub America would be much safer by now.
Would have been cheaper too, I guess if you buy 100 million of these things you are bound to get a discount.
To the people who think we should “just leave”, what do you think would happen in Afghanistan if that were to happen right now? Even if you are “ok” with the horrors that the Taliban would impose on society from a human rights perspective, what makes you think that Al Qaeda would not roar back into power there.
I agree that the capacity of terrorists worldwide has been greatly diminished, but that is because of a very active campaign against them. Are they “significant?” With our boot on their necks right now, not anywhere near what they had been; but they ARE still dangerous. To deny this is silly.
Some argue that our footprint in Afghanistan is too large given the other threats around the world. In this view, we should greatly scale back in Afghanistan because we need additional resources in place in other parts of the world. This argument makes some sense from a security perspective. And this is why I think that, after considering events on the ground, we should begin scaling back (NOT leaving completely) from Afghanistan soon. I don:t think anyone thinks an Iraqi style COIN strategy will work as it did in Iraq. That being said, I am glad it is being tried now and I am gland it is married to a counter-terrorism strategy. Long-term I would love to see COIN being effective, but I think a “small footprint” and counter terrorism is the best we can do.
As an aside, I am constantly taken aback by how crazy Karzai acts. The most recent news that prompted this bump would be astounding if it were not for how little I trust Karzai and his regime. Another bad thing is that I would not even be surprised if Pakistan were actually involved and it was not just a conspiracy theory.
Anyway, I am off to finish my coffee…I hope this post isn:t too rambling
Bath Safety - Preventing Slip and Fall Accidents in the Bathroom
About 70% of home accidents occur in the bathroom. Learn about the four things you can do that can help prevent an accident in your bathroom.
Statistics show bathrooms can be the most dangerous room in your house. 70% of home accidents occur in the bathroom. The combination of water and smooth surfaces makes taking a bath or shower a risky proposition. Slip and falls account for over 20,000 fatalities per year in North America. It is the second leading cause of accidental death and disability after automobile accidents. Over 75% of slip-fall deaths occur to people 65 years of age or older. Given those statistics, what can you do to keep your bathroom safe?
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/bath-safety-preventing-slip-and-fall-accidents-in-the-bathroom.html
Lets declare a war on bathrooms.
For the children!
[quote]orion wrote:
For example?[/quote]
I’m going to google “close call terror threats” you do it. There are plenty of examples.
That is not our choice but theirs. Unfortunately we were thrust into this horrible nonsense by a mad man named Osama Bin Laden.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
As an aside, I am constantly taken aback by how crazy Karzai acts. [/quote]
He’s playing all sides…the US, Taliban, Pakistan and Iran.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TQB wrote:
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
You cannot negotiate with Taliban as they’re not organized like a regular army.
Sure, they have certain frontmen like bin Laden, the occasional training camp, even a think-tank (or cave;).
But that’s about it.
You can negotiate with a few clans or warlords, not with the “Taliban”, a construct that today stands for international and radically islamist terrorism.
[/quote]
Not really. 1)They ran Afghanistan and the country was more stable than anytime since the early seventies. 2)They probably have around 20% of the population as supporters. 3) Once the international force goes home, they will still be there.
At best, that Afghanistan will not support al Qaida, not be linked to extremist movements elsewhere and acheive a certain degree of tolerance for other points of views among its population. The two first are acheivable, the latter will require more effort. Massive funding/bribes will play a major role.
Afghanistan will not be a liberal democracy where rights of women and minorities will be fully respected. It is more a question at what level we can halt the slide.[/quote]
You do not ever negotiate with terrorists, period.[/quote]
The call the Taliban terrorists is quite a bit of a stretch.
Plus, you do plenty of negotiating with terrorist.
Every now and then you even finace them when they terrorize peopel you dont like.
So puullllleeeeaaaaze…
[/quote]
Hmmm taliban not terrorists??? Hmm, suicide bombingson innocent civilians, check; homicide bombings on innocent civilians, check; beheadings and public executions, check…Not sure what your definition of “terrorist” is, but they qualify in most places…[/quote]
Well they use terror yes, but so does every other government or proto government.
I would invite you to define terrorist in a way that does not include the US government and its puppet regime in Kabul and that is not prima facie ridiculous.
Bonus points for explaining how public beheadings are “terrorism” in Afghanistan yet not in Saudi Arabia.
[/quote]
Terrorists specifically target innocent civilians with the intent to kill them. The U.S. kills civilians all the time, but they do not target civilians specifically. Collateral damage is much different than purposefully targeting innocents. Sure, the U.S. knows that civilians will inevitably be killed by us in warfare, but our soldiers are trained specifically to avoid civilian casualties at all costs. Terrorists take no such measures whatsoever.
The difference between the two stems from intent. The results may be the same, but the intent is not. If I murder someone and my neighbor accidentally kills someone in a car accident, the results are the same. But there is no intent on my neighbor’s part whereas there is on mine. No one would call my neighbor a murderer despite the fact that his actions resulted in the death of another.
Who leads the total in civilian casualties dbcooper; the guys aiming for them or the the ones that aren’t?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
This whole idea of “we dont negotiate with terrorists” is pointless when you a) do it all the time and b) define everyone as a terrorist defending his country against a US invasion.
[/quote]
Finally, somebody fucking gets it.[/quote]
Common sense tells me that when we try to kill our enemy we are in essence attempting to stop them. I wonder how horrible it would be to speak directly to them to get them to stop? Call it negotiating, or anything else you like. The point is to stop the killing. We can kill more of them as they kill more of us, or we can talk them out of continuing to take this path.
[/quote]
What are the odds the Taliban will stop being what they are?[/quote]
First of all I don’t think we need to stop them from being what they are. We only need to stop them from trying to kill us. Secondly, even if the odds of trying to stop them are 100-1 it’s still worth a try as we can kill them anyway if that doesn’t work.
And to Cap - Tell the 3000 who died in the TERRORIST ATTACK that there is no threat of terrorism in America.
[/quote]
Yawn.
Was waiting for the 9/11 card again.
One terrorist attack nearly a fucking decade ago does not mean there is a significant terrorist threat today.
Get over it.[/quote]
Why don’t you tell a family member who lost a loved one to the most horrific attack ever to take place on mainland America to “Get over it”.
I guess it’s easy to be insensitive when no one you know lost their life.[/quote]
Quick question: How many people have died as a result of terroist attacks outside of America, before 9/11?
Why did you suddenly get all soft and fuzzy for the families of victims of terrorism when it happened to white folk in America?
I guess it’s easy to be insensitive when you’re nationalist and racist and no one who is white or american loses their lives.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Who leads the total in civilian casualties dbcooper; the guys aiming for them or the the ones that aren’t?[/quote]
The total numbers are immateral to the argument here. The U.S. ostensibly has more civilian kills under its belt due in large part to its superior weaponry. Also, any statistic that shows total civilian deaths is a bit dubious. It’s extremely hard to quantify innocent civilian deaths when a) we aren’t fighting a symmetrical, traditional army and b) our enemies purposefully use civilians as shields. Do we attribute the deaths of a half dozen schoolchildren to the U.S. military or to the pieces of shit who use them as shields?
The more pertinent questions are: how many innocent civilians has the U.S. directly targeted and what is the percentage of civilian deaths to overall deaths at the hands of the U.S. compared to those at the hands of the Taliban?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
This whole idea of “we dont negotiate with terrorists” is pointless when you a) do it all the time and b) define everyone as a terrorist defending his country against a US invasion.
[/quote]
Finally, somebody fucking gets it.[/quote]
Common sense tells me that when we try to kill our enemy we are in essence attempting to stop them. I wonder how horrible it would be to speak directly to them to get them to stop? Call it negotiating, or anything else you like. The point is to stop the killing. We can kill more of them as they kill more of us, or we can talk them out of continuing to take this path.
[/quote]
What are the odds the Taliban will stop being what they are?[/quote]
First of all I don’t think we need to stop them from being what they are. We only need to stop them from trying to kill us. Secondly, even if the odds of trying to stop them are 100-1 it’s still worth a try as we can kill them anyway if that doesn’t work.
And to Cap - Tell the 3000 who died in the TERRORIST ATTACK that there is no threat of terrorism in America.
[/quote]
Yawn.
Was waiting for the 9/11 card again.
One terrorist attack nearly a fucking decade ago does not mean there is a significant terrorist threat today.
Get over it.[/quote]
Why don’t you tell a family member who lost a loved one to the most horrific attack ever to take place on mainland America to “Get over it”.
I guess it’s easy to be insensitive when no one you know lost their life.[/quote]
Quick question: How many people have died as a result of terroist attacks outside of America, before 9/11?
Why did you suddenly get all soft and fuzzy for the families of victims of terrorism when it happened to white folk in America?
I guess it’s easy to be insensitive when you’re nationalist and racist and no one who is white or american loses their lives.[/quote]
This is the stupidest fucking argument I’ve heard on here in several hours. It’s human nature to feel more sorrow for the loss of your own than for the loss of someone who you don’t identify with. On top of that, it isn’t like Americans don’t feel sorrow for the loss of lives outside of our country. When your neighbor dies, do you feel as much sorrow as when a close relative dies? Of course not.
That isn’t to say that you don’t value that person’s life as much as your relative. It’s just that the loss of someone close to you has a much more direct negative impact that you can feel as opposed to the death of someone you don’t know as well.
Here’s a quick question for you: when there are terrorist attacks in other countries, or any other type of tragedy for that matter, and there is an international outpouring of monetary support, who invariably contributes more money? What country gave the most money to aid the tsunami victims in Southeast Asia? What country gave the most aid to India after the terrorist attacks there last year? What country sends more soldiers than the U.S. to places like Haiti or Indonesia to help in the relief effort and maintain law and order?
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TQB wrote:
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
You cannot negotiate with Taliban as they’re not organized like a regular army.
Sure, they have certain frontmen like bin Laden, the occasional training camp, even a think-tank (or cave;).
But that’s about it.
You can negotiate with a few clans or warlords, not with the “Taliban”, a construct that today stands for international and radically islamist terrorism.
[/quote]
Not really. 1)They ran Afghanistan and the country was more stable than anytime since the early seventies. 2)They probably have around 20% of the population as supporters. 3) Once the international force goes home, they will still be there.
At best, that Afghanistan will not support al Qaida, not be linked to extremist movements elsewhere and acheive a certain degree of tolerance for other points of views among its population. The two first are acheivable, the latter will require more effort. Massive funding/bribes will play a major role.
Afghanistan will not be a liberal democracy where rights of women and minorities will be fully respected. It is more a question at what level we can halt the slide.[/quote]
You do not ever negotiate with terrorists, period.[/quote]
The call the Taliban terrorists is quite a bit of a stretch.
Plus, you do plenty of negotiating with terrorist.
Every now and then you even finace them when they terrorize peopel you dont like.
So puullllleeeeaaaaze…
[/quote]
Hmmm taliban not terrorists??? Hmm, suicide bombingson innocent civilians, check; homicide bombings on innocent civilians, check; beheadings and public executions, check…Not sure what your definition of “terrorist” is, but they qualify in most places…[/quote]
Well they use terror yes, but so does every other government or proto government.
I would invite you to define terrorist in a way that does not include the US government and its puppet regime in Kabul and that is not prima facie ridiculous.
Bonus points for explaining how public beheadings are “terrorism” in Afghanistan yet not in Saudi Arabia.
[/quote]
Terrorists specifically target innocent civilians with the intent to kill them. The U.S. kills civilians all the time, but they do not target civilians specifically. Collateral damage is much different than purposefully targeting innocents. Sure, the U.S. knows that civilians will inevitably be killed by us in warfare, but our soldiers are trained specifically to avoid civilian casualties at all costs. Terrorists take no such measures whatsoever.
The difference between the two stems from intent. The results may be the same, but the intent is not. If I murder someone and my neighbor accidentally kills someone in a car accident, the results are the same. But there is no intent on my neighbor’s part whereas there is on mine. No one would call my neighbor a murderer despite the fact that his actions resulted in the death of another.[/quote]
I dunno, did your neighbor get all liquored up, put on his hi-fi, searchend for the next highway and floored his gas pedal?
Also, there is such a thing as dolus eventualis :
In Canada, Professors Fortin and Viau have understood the concept of recklessness by writing “[translation] Recklessness is an active state of mind as it requires consciousness and acceptance of the risk”.7 The important words are “consciousness” and “acceptance”. “Acceptance” is an act of the will. One of the great Canadian criminal law jurist, Mr. Justice Dickson, went farther in making clear this inner posture by writing that recklessness is “foresight or realization on the part of the person that his conduct will probably cause or may cause the actus reus, together with assumption of or indifference to a risk, which in all circumstances is substantial or unjustifiable”.8 The important words are “foresight”, “realization”, “assumption” (i.e. acceptance) and “indifference”. Mr. Justice Dickson goes further than Fortin and Viau by adding the concept of “indifference” as another inner posture. “Indifference” is also another position of the will. Thus, in recklessness, the aim of the agent is not to cause the forbidden result, nor is there a virtual or practical certainty of causing this unlawful result. For example, on a charge of reckless homicide, the aim of the accused is not to cause death or kill; the agent views the substantial (i.e., the serious and real) and unjustifiable risk of death as a side-effect that could possibly result from his conduct that is aimed at another result (e.g., blowing a safe during a bank robbery). However, the reckless agent accepts or is indifferent to the eventuality that the explosion may kill a guard who, he or she knows, is in the bank.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
What country sends more soldiers than the U.S. to places like Haiti…? [/quote]
What country invaded Haiti in 1915 and rewrote the Haitian constitution to allow foreign land ownership?
What country has crippled Haiti’s economy through numerous embargoes?
What country refused to recognize Haiti’s independence for decades?
What country funded the murderous regimes of the Duvaliers?
The fact that you bring up Haiti as an example of American benevolence shows you have no clue about Americas relationship with the rest of the world.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
What country sends more soldiers than the U.S. to places like Haiti…? [/quote]
What country invaded Haiti in 1915 and rewrote the Haitian constitution to allow foreign land ownership?
What country has crippled Haiti’s economy through numerous embargoes?
What country refused to recognize Haiti’s independence for decades?
What country funded the murderous regimes of the Duvaliers?
The fact that you bring up Haiti as an example of American benevolence shows you have no clue about Americas relationship with the rest of the world.[/quote]
I’ve never been one to deny the inherently backwards nature of the country’s “benevolence”. But I’ve also never been one to deny the legitimate “benevolence” of the country either. The people of America deserve credit, but you seem to disregard this.
Do not equate the foreign policies of the United States govt from 1915 or 1956-1971 with the PEOPLE of the United States. Your argument stemmed from an inappropriate condemnation of the the American PEOPLE’s attitudes after 9/11, not the foreign policy that resulted from it. So don’t try to turn this into a condemnation of U.S. foreign policy. The people of the United States are perfectly justified in feeling “soft and fuzzy”, to quote you, after more than 3,000 of our fellow Americans were murdered.
It’s beyond ridiculous to expect Americans to feel as much sorrow for other countries as our own, just as it’s beyond ridiculous for me to expect you to feel the same sorrow for the death of your neighbor as you do for your mother or father or any other close relative or friend.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TQB wrote:
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
You cannot negotiate with Taliban as they’re not organized like a regular army.
Sure, they have certain frontmen like bin Laden, the occasional training camp, even a think-tank (or cave;).
But that’s about it.
You can negotiate with a few clans or warlords, not with the “Taliban”, a construct that today stands for international and radically islamist terrorism.
[/quote]
Not really. 1)They ran Afghanistan and the country was more stable than anytime since the early seventies. 2)They probably have around 20% of the population as supporters. 3) Once the international force goes home, they will still be there.
At best, that Afghanistan will not support al Qaida, not be linked to extremist movements elsewhere and acheive a certain degree of tolerance for other points of views among its population. The two first are acheivable, the latter will require more effort. Massive funding/bribes will play a major role.
Afghanistan will not be a liberal democracy where rights of women and minorities will be fully respected. It is more a question at what level we can halt the slide.[/quote]
You do not ever negotiate with terrorists, period.[/quote]
The call the Taliban terrorists is quite a bit of a stretch.
Plus, you do plenty of negotiating with terrorist.
Every now and then you even finace them when they terrorize peopel you dont like.
So puullllleeeeaaaaze…
[/quote]
Hmmm taliban not terrorists??? Hmm, suicide bombingson innocent civilians, check; homicide bombings on innocent civilians, check; beheadings and public executions, check…Not sure what your definition of “terrorist” is, but they qualify in most places…[/quote]
Well they use terror yes, but so does every other government or proto government.
I would invite you to define terrorist in a way that does not include the US government and its puppet regime in Kabul and that is not prima facie ridiculous.
Bonus points for explaining how public beheadings are “terrorism” in Afghanistan yet not in Saudi Arabia.
[/quote]
Terrorists specifically target innocent civilians with the intent to kill them. The U.S. kills civilians all the time, but they do not target civilians specifically. Collateral damage is much different than purposefully targeting innocents. Sure, the U.S. knows that civilians will inevitably be killed by us in warfare, but our soldiers are trained specifically to avoid civilian casualties at all costs. Terrorists take no such measures whatsoever.
The difference between the two stems from intent. The results may be the same, but the intent is not. If I murder someone and my neighbor accidentally kills someone in a car accident, the results are the same. But there is no intent on my neighbor’s part whereas there is on mine. No one would call my neighbor a murderer despite the fact that his actions resulted in the death of another.[/quote]
I dunno, did your neighbor get all liquored up, put on his hi-fi, searchend for the next highway and floored his gas pedal?
Also, there is such a thing as dolus eventualis :
In Canada, Professors Fortin and Viau have understood the concept of recklessness by writing “[translation] Recklessness is an active state of mind as it requires consciousness and acceptance of the risk”.7 The important words are “consciousness” and “acceptance”. “Acceptance” is an act of the will. One of the great Canadian criminal law jurist, Mr. Justice Dickson, went farther in making clear this inner posture by writing that recklessness is “foresight or realization on the part of the person that his conduct will probably cause or may cause the actus reus, together with assumption of or indifference to a risk, which in all circumstances is substantial or unjustifiable”.8 The important words are “foresight”, “realization”, “assumption” (i.e. acceptance) and “indifference”. Mr. Justice Dickson goes further than Fortin and Viau by adding the concept of “indifference” as another inner posture. “Indifference” is also another position of the will. Thus, in recklessness, the aim of the agent is not to cause the forbidden result, nor is there a virtual or practical certainty of causing this unlawful result. For example, on a charge of reckless homicide, the aim of the accused is not to cause death or kill; the agent views the substantial (i.e., the serious and real) and unjustifiable risk of death as a side-effect that could possibly result from his conduct that is aimed at another result (e.g., blowing a safe during a bank robbery). However, the reckless agent accepts or is indifferent to the eventuality that the explosion may kill a guard who, he or she knows, is in the bank.
http://www.lareau-law.ca/article-consciousnegligence.html
[/quote]
To carry this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion would be to say that any behavior that carries the implicit possibility of death is akin to terrorism. If I do something that may result in death, regardless of the intent behind that action, then I am a terrorist.
If I drive drunk and kill someone, I am a terrorist. If I sell drugs to someone and he/she overdoses, I am a terrorist.
Also, I find this jurist’s definition of recklessness to be insufficient and not applicable to the training of soldiers with the explicit intention of preventing civilian death. There is nothing reckless about specifically designing the training of soldiers, amongst other things, to eliminate civilian deaths at all costs possible. U.S. soldiers in combat zones, along with those who have trained them, are not indifferent to the deaths of civilians at all. And to accept that the action which carries the inherent risk of civilian death is unjustifiable is to argue that the reason we are fighting in Afghanistan in the first place is unjustified. It is not an unjust war; perhaps it’s being carried out in an improper fashion, but it is not unjustified.
Beyond that, there is no reason why I should accept the legal opinion of a couple of people as fact. You have simply posted an opinion, nothing more. It carries no more weight than mine or yours. It may be more well-informed, but in this case it is not applicable nor does it explain why such action should be labeled as “terrorism”.
Well, it would help to not negotiate with–and give lots of money to–imposters.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
This whole idea of “we dont negotiate with terrorists” is pointless when you a) do it all the time and b) define everyone as a terrorist defending his country against a US invasion.
[/quote]
Finally, somebody fucking gets it.[/quote]
Common sense tells me that when we try to kill our enemy we are in essence attempting to stop them. I wonder how horrible it would be to speak directly to them to get them to stop? Call it negotiating, or anything else you like. The point is to stop the killing. We can kill more of them as they kill more of us, or we can talk them out of continuing to take this path.
[/quote]
What are the odds the Taliban will stop being what they are?[/quote]
First of all I don’t think we need to stop them from being what they are. We only need to stop them from trying to kill us. Secondly, even if the odds of trying to stop them are 100-1 it’s still worth a try as we can kill them anyway if that doesn’t work.
And to Cap - Tell the 3000 who died in the TERRORIST ATTACK that there is no threat of terrorism in America.
[/quote]
Yawn.
Was waiting for the 9/11 card again.
One terrorist attack nearly a fucking decade ago does not mean there is a significant terrorist threat today.
Get over it.[/quote]
Why don’t you tell a family member who lost a loved one to the most horrific attack ever to take place on mainland America to “Get over it”.
I guess it’s easy to be insensitive when no one you know lost their life.[/quote]
Quick question: How many people have died as a result of terroist attacks outside of America, before 9/11?
Why did you suddenly get all soft and fuzzy for the families of victims of terrorism when it happened to white folk in America?
I guess it’s easy to be insensitive when you’re nationalist and racist and no one who is white or american loses their lives.[/quote]
This is the stupidest fucking argument I’ve heard on here in several hours. It’s human nature to feel more sorrow for the loss of your own than for the loss of someone who you don’t identify with. On top of that, it isn’t like Americans don’t feel sorrow for the loss of lives outside of our country. When your neighbor dies, do you feel as much sorrow as when a close relative dies? Of course not.
That isn’t to say that you don’t value that person’s life as much as your relative. It’s just that the loss of someone close to you has a much more direct negative impact that you can feel as opposed to the death of someone you don’t know as well.
[/quote]
So, wait.
If I don’t get all mushy and teary eyed over 9/11 because nobody I knew died, I’m “insensitive”.
However, according to you, its only natural that I’m not impacted by the deaths of people I “don’t know so well”, or “dont identify with”.
I guess, since I didn’t know and dont “identify with” the victims of 9/11 its only right and natural that I’m unaffected by their deaths, according to you.
Thanks for defending me from the “insensitive” charge, I appreciate it. 