That makes sense, but as a 10th grade student, and I suppose most all eyes in 1962, it seemed possible that the President’s family would fall victim to the disaster.
Did you read the book and recall some details that I have forgotten? Like how many were privy of the event failure, because the fewer the number, the less likely a chance that the secret service would be alerted to the dropping of the bomb.
I’m just saying that the event seemed possible when I read the book. (10th grade mind)
I get that it’s fiction which is trying to explore certain themes, such as the idea of proportional response, so it doesn’t need to be something that would follow reality. The plot may have issues but it’s how the characters react given the circumstances that needs to be believable. I don’t believe a president would let his family die but maybe I’m judging by today’s examples.
I remember seeing the movie, I think we read the book in school but I don’t recall.
I can see that but I don’t think that was the point as much as the themes of the fear of nuclear war, the folly of war in general, and putting too much faith in and giving too much power to computers. From what I know, the premise of the book, the fail-safe system it describes, the way communications worked between bombers and command, and other technical details, were wrong. The actual fail-safe protocols in place would not have allowed the events to unfold as they did in the novel.
It reminds me of the 1951 movie, “The Day the Earth Stood Still” which I saw on TV in black & white during the '50’s or '60’s. As a kid I was riveted to the screen, not realizing the message/propaganda that was meant. One of my favorite sci-fi movies.
BTW, I didn’t care for the 2008 remake.
Sci-fi movies is a nice “bunny trail.”
But back to the hell of war and taking sides. BTW I am Team Israel.
You think more of them than I do, then.
Maybe I think less.
This plan has been several years in the making.
There was nothing surprise about this attack.
And that’s all you’ll ever see if you continue on insisting to make my intentions your business.
Nope.
You do know you’re posting on a public forum. I don’t think you get the concept.
You’re either a moron or a liar.
At the very best I find your “nope” comment extremely disappointing coming from someone who claims to value logic.
If the premises cannot be agreed upon, the logical conclusion is meaningless. PERIOD!
A person who valued logic as a core value, would, at the bare minimum ask what “from the river to the sea” meant from the person who used it. But a person who truly held “logic” in high esteem would write all the definitions that he thought “from the river to the sea” meant to him.
Of course you de realize that if a phrase has multiple meanings to different people or groups of people, it is your responsibility to define how you are interpreting the meaning in your comment.
This is not difficult, it just requires you to value in the truth more than your bias.
Why don’t you try learning and understanding something instead of flipping off into what ever drug crazed fantasy you happen to be beating your dick to at the moment?
I, too, would like to know what your point was. Are you suggesting that Israel knew the attack was coming and let it happen? The fact that it was planned for two years doesn’t make it not a surprise. Something can be planned for a very long time, but still be a surprise if proper secrecy is maintained.
Well, it was pretty well publicized through various media.
I don’t know that it was a total surprise as far as the existence of the plan to do it, but the exact date and granular details were probably kept under wraps.
Kinda like 9-11. After multiple other attacks around the globe and on New York in particular, it was known that Bin Laden was going to do something. What & When exactly? Not quite as well known.
That’s pretty close to what I was trying to say.
This sounds like something that zecarlo should read, and I believe you’ve addressed it to the wrong person. He has said that we all know what it means, all the time, every time, without any exception, nor any description, except maybe one *. I simply disagree as it obviously means different things to different people - in other words, it is controversial.
Not necessarily, there’s a few assumptions baked into that. I would have probably given him two or three if I hadn’t been losing a bunch of respect for him lately. “all the definitions” would have been overkill, confusing to some, and possibly word salad.
Of course it’s meaningless, and it would be a logical fallacy anyways as we had been working backwards from his conclusion which is red herring and ad hominem combined against any and all Palestinian sympathizers, in the first place.
He bases his heavy conclusion on the shakiest foundation. So you think “nope” wasn’t enough to knock it down. Darn. Maybe you’ll do the honors and knock it over with your pinky. All it takes is agreeing that there’s more than one meaning of the phrase.
Right back at you, no disrespect intended. You’ve let your being on team Israel to lead you to taking the wrong side of this sub branch of argument.
Thank you. I take that as a compliment since you’d have had to have thought well of me in order to have felt let down.
Also thank you for going so far as to let me know.
And also thank you for explaining why, in detail.
All of those words and not one answer.
Yeah me posting doesn’t make my intentions your business, it allows you to try to do so.
I can see it reflects a decision you’ve already made and are no longer conscious of, you may be capable of noticing downsides and reconsidering, maybe you aren’t.
Why not both?
What question are you referring to?
All of them.
Then why post here?
This is the best starting place to get you to better understand me.
I am extremely objective in my approach to all discussions (example see my responses to "Your View on the 1980 Mr. Olympia). I can suspend my biases and present a logical response to all situations. I am aware that very few people suspend their biases in a discussion. You appear to be one of them who cannot, merely by your accusation.
Did you ever read the post where I stated my axioms? There were two:
Being logical I can only be on Team Israel. To not be so, makes no logical sense.
What are the different meanings of “from the river to the sea” as you see it? It is a very simple question. How can we “logically” see one another’s point if you cannot agree on the premises? I have no earthly idea what the phrase means to you.
I abhor me assuming one meaning and then you stating that is not the meaning to you! A logical discussion is impossible. Sort of a whac-a-mole approach, that results in nothing.