[Split] (Ed) 9/11 in perspective

[gumboot]

Or here is a better question, seeing as you are in Belgium. Should the US have felt that way in 1941? Should we have looked at the potential number of casulties if we liberated Europe? By your logic we should have stayed the he** home. What do you think your life would be like today if we had done that?

Well let's face it, 50 million people died in World War Two. We could have saved a bucket load of lives by just letting Hitler keep Europe. He didn't seem overly interested in conquering Britain - in fact I believe he tried to get a peace deal with Churchill.

But that rabid British warmonger would have none of it! Dispicible! Peace right there, in his grasp, and he says no.

I'm sure Brumsen wouldn't mind living in Nazi Belgium. It wouldn't be too bad. No Jews of course, but hey.

-Andrew

 

[Dora]

Well let's face it, 50 million people died in World War Two. We could have saved a bucket load of lives by just letting Hitler keep Europe. He didn't seem overly interested in conquering Britain - in fact I believe he tried to get a peace deal with Churchill.

But that rabid British warmonger would have none of it! Dispicible! Peace right there, in his grasp, and he says no.

I'm sure Brumsen wouldn't mind living in Nazi Belgium. It wouldn't be too bad. No Jews of course, but hey.

-Andrew

I'm sorry, eventhough I agree with your sentiments that he could have picked better timing, or at least start his own tread. I was always told that implying someone is a nazi will always make you lose the argument.

BTW, I also seem to remember the Belgians having sent (ok, we're small, not much) help after 9/11, so where this not supporting the victims is coming from I really have no idea.

I also remember the tread where Oliver made some statements about how europeans felt about 9/11 and the US of A in general.
The 'we came to save your asses in WWII so please stop dissing us" attitude is I believe, one of them.

And Brumsen, sorry, but I feel the posting of your info has been done from a malicious point of view.
IT was a sad day yesterday where people were remembering the knife that was put in their collective hearts, it's bad bad form to go into that particular post and twist the knife a little because you feel it needed to be done, a 24h delay would not have made your points less valid

And Belgians not patriotic??? I'm just saying 2 words: Tom Boonen

 

[gumboot]

I'm sorry, eventhough I agree with your sentiments that he could have picked better timing, or at least start his own tread. I was always told that implying someone is a nazi will always make you lose the argument.

Please indicate where I implied Brumsen was a Nazi? I was using irony to make my point. That RELIES on the assumption that Brumsen is NOT a Nazi.

BTW, I also seem to remember the Belgians having sent (ok, we're small, not much) help after 9/11, so where this not supporting the victims is coming from I really have no idea.

I'm not sure what you mean.

I also remember the tread where Oliver made some statements about how europeans felt about 9/11 and the US of A in general.
The 'we came to save your asses in WWII so please stop dissing us" attitude is I believe, one of them.

Brumsen's logic is you should never do something if it costs you more lives than not doing it. By his logic no one should have fought for the liberation of Europe. Obviously such train of logic is ludicrous. If a cause is worth fighting for, it is worth expending every effort - including an entire generation - for.

And Brumsen, sorry, but I feel the posting of your info has been done from a malicious point of view.
IT was a sad day yesterday where people were remembering the knife that was put in their collective hearts, it's bad bad form to go into that particular post and twist the knife a little because you feel it needed to be done, a 24h delay would not have made your points less valid

Or he could of started another thread, which he is more than welcome to do (and which was done for him).

-Andrew

 

[brumsen]

I actually agree with this. You know what else I have noticed? Look at the statistics for people who are killed in car accidents and those who are murdered. It is obvious to me that the police should stop wasting resources investigating murders; they should put all their resources into enforcing traffic laws.

Quite right, although I would make two provisos:
1) Reducing traffic deaths is not only, and perhaps not even most efficiently, achieved by enforcing traffic laws;
2) I have not been advocating simple cost-benefit analysis.

Or here is a better question, seeing as you are in Belgium. Should the US have felt that way in 1941? Should we have looked at the potential number of casulties if we liberated Europe? By your logic we should have stayed the he** home. What do you think your life would be like today if we had done that?

But that rabid British warmonger would have none of it! Dispicible! Peace right there, in his grasp, and he says no.

In WWII, one nation invaded others. That was responded to by the allied forces by fighting the invasion force. Totally different situation, therefore, and one that is and was well-covered by existing international law. Unlike the post-9/11 situation, in which a terrorist group has attacked a country, and countries that are perceived (in one case well-established, in the other not)to have been supporting those terrorists are being attacked in retaliation. With many civilian casualties as a consequence.

Well let's face it, 50 million people died in World War Two. We could have saved a bucket load of lives by just letting Hitler keep Europe.

Between 10 and 25 million were killed in the holocaust. Total of civilian casualties was roughly 34 million. Total allied military casualties, about 17 million.

Was it worth going in, simply judging by these numbers? I'd say it was. Dunno about the calculations made at the time by Churchill and Roosevelt, of course. But I don't really get your comment about the bucketload of lives.

I'm sure Brumsen wouldn't mind living in Nazi Belgium. It wouldn't be too bad. No Jews of course, but hey.

I'm sure others will agree that with this comment you're not toeing the line, but well over it.

 

[The_Fire]

In WWII, one nation invaded others. That was responded to by the allied forces by fighting the invasion force. Totally different situation, therefore, and one that is and was well-covered by existing international law. Unlike the post-9/11 situation, in which a terrorist group has attacked a country, and countries that are perceived (in one case well-established, in the other not)to have been supporting those terrorists are being attacked in retaliation. With many civilian casualties as a consequence.

So Afghanistan were not harbouring the main hub of Al Quaida bases/training camps knowingly? They did not stall in delivering Bin Laden for prosecution? They did not support terrorism with money and shelter? Is that what you are saying?

 

[gumboot]

Quite right, although I would make two provisos:
1) Reducing traffic deaths is not only, and perhaps not even most efficiently, achieved by enforcing traffic laws;
2) I have not been advocating simple cost-benefit analysis.

Well, you have. Hence all your numbers of dead.

In WWII, one nation invaded others. That was responded to by the allied forces by fighting the invasion force.

Neither Japan nor Germany invaded New Zealand. All of the nations that were invaded were BEATEN. Why should the allies fight for ANOTHER country?

Why? Because they felt it was right and just. Because they thought it was worth it. That's why.

Totally different situation, therefore, and one that is and was well-covered by existing international law. Unlike the post-9/11 situation, in which a terrorist group has attacked a country, and countries that are perceived (in one case well-established, in the other not)to have been supporting those terrorists are being attacked in retaliation. With many civilian casualties as a consequence.

The invasion of Afghanistan was executed (and approved) under Article VII of the Charter of the United Nations. You can't get any more "well covered by existing international law" than that.

The main premise for invading Iraq was Weapons of Mass Destruction, not links to Al Qaeda. That aside, Iraq is certainly a very murky issue, with many arguments pro and con. I was personally in support of a UN intervention in Iraq, but thoroughly opposed to a unilateral American operation.

Many JREFers here have actually taken part in protests against the Iraq War, so I am sure you can see where their sentiments stand on the issue.

Was it worth going in, simply judging by these numbers? I'd say it was. Dunno about the calculations made at the time by Churchill and Roosevelt, of course. But I don't really get your comment about the bucketload of lives.

Well, if the allies had signed a peace deal with Germany and let them keep Europe, a lot less people would have died. That's what I mean.

I'm sure others will agree that with this comment you're not toeing the line, but well over it.

I'm not at all sure what you mean.

-Andrew

 

[brumsen]

So Afghanistan were not harbouring the main hub of Al Quaida bases/training camps knowingly? They did not stall in delivering Bin Laden for prosecution? They did not support terrorism with money and shelter? Is that what you are saying?

No. I'm saying that it was not established in the case of Iraq.
Moreover, I am saying that the above do not amount to a justification, under existing international law, to attack a country. And I have been implying that it is morally wrong to do so in such a way that bombings alone caused 3000 civilian casualties.

 

[gumboot]

Moreover, I am saying that the above do not amount to a justification, under existing international law, to attack a country. And I have been implying that it is morally wrong to do so in such a way that bombings alone caused 3000 civilian casualties.

War always causes civilian casualties. 3,000 is a tragedy to those people and their families, of course, but it is incredibly small for a war.

As for the justification, you are plain and simply wrong.

The invasion of Afghanistan was authorised by the United Nations Security Council.

Furthermore, under International Law there is no such thing as an "illegal war". There are simply illegal ways of waging war.

Finally, I'd make a suggestion to the mods that this thread is moved to the politics sub-forum. This does not, IMHO, belong in the conspiracy theory section.

-Andrew

 

[The_Fire]

No. I'm saying that it was not established in the case of Iraq.

Answered by gumboot.

Moreover, I am saying that the above do not amount to a justification, under existing international law, to attack a country. And I have been implying that it is morally wrong to do so in such a way that bombings alone caused 3000 civilian casualties.

And you fail to see that by supporting terrorist whom declared war on America, Afghanistan became allied of those terrorists and thus part of the declaration of war. But then again, you would probably prefer that nothing was done at all and that we should all just have leaned back and enjoyed the sight of our cities exploding to the tune of "Convert or Die".

 

[Dora]

Please indicate where I implied Brumsen was a Nazi? I was using irony to make my point. That RELIES on the assumption that Brumsen is NOT a Nazi.

Ah sorry, irony thoroughly wooshed over my head here, the posts just felt to me like : YOU BELGIANS (enter belittling finger here) etc. and as if all Belgians do not care about what happened on 9/11.
retracting my long toes as we speak

Brumsen's logic is you should never do something if it costs you more lives than not doing it. By his logic no one should have fought for the liberation of Europe. Obviously such train of logic is ludicrous. If a cause is worth fighting for, it is worth expending every effort - including an entire generation - for.

That's not what I get from his posts, he just wanted to say 9/11 made more victims then those dying on 9/11 itself. but like said, BAD timing

Or he could of started another thread, which he is more than welcome to do (and which was done for him).
-Andrew

agree

 

[brumsen]

War always causes civilian casualties. 3,000 is a tragedy to those people and their families, of course, but it is incredibly small for a war.

That depends on the objectives of that war.

As for the justification, you are plain and simply wrong.

The invasion of Afghanistan was authorised by the United Nations Security Council.

I cannot find any resolution authorizing the use of force. To which resolution are you referring?

Furthermore, under International Law there is no such thing as an "illegal war". There are simply illegal ways of waging war.

?! Sounds like semantics. But I'll confess to ignorance; educate me.

Finally, I'd make a suggestion to the mods that this thread is moved to the politics sub-forum. This does not, IMHO, belong in the conspiracy theory section.

I agree.

 

[brumsen]

I have not been advocating simple cost-benefit analysis.

Well, you have. Hence all your numbers of dead.

To cite numbers is to imply that they are relevant, not that they are the only thing that's relevant.

Well, if the allies had signed a peace deal with Germany and let them keep Europe, a lot less people would have died. That's what I mean.

I don't think that this is obvious from the numbers I quoted. Please elaborate on your reasoning.

I'm not at all sure what you mean.

I'm sure that you do. Ironically or not, being accused of Nazi-sympathies is utterly offensive. Disproportionately more so than what I wrote.

 

[brumsen]

And Brumsen, sorry, but I feel the posting of your info has been done from a malicious point of view.
IT was a sad day yesterday where people were remembering the knife that was put in their collective hearts, it's bad bad form to go into that particular post and twist the knife a little because you feel it needed to be done, a 24h delay would not have made your points less valid.

No, not malicious. It's a way of getting attention for these points. Validity is not the only thing that counts.
Moreover, as I've tried to explain, just as the likes of Andrew are annoyed that I appear to be hi-jacking 'their' 9/11, by making comments that they consider inappropriate, I am equally annoyed that 9/11 is supposed to be exclusively for patriotic commemoration of those who died on GZ.
9/11 is no-one's property. Who gets to decide what is appropriately said on that day?

And Belgians not patriotic??? I'm just saying 2 words: Tom Boonen

Ah but you must be Flemish, then.

 

[TobiasTheViking]

Comparing me with Fred Phelps is rather distasteful.

As are your comments in that thread. It was totally deserved, i will do it again.

You are acting like Fred Phelps.. You are acting like Fred Phelps. You are acting like Fred Phelps.

I still mean it.

We told you time and time again that you could say what you wanted in another thread. But no, you had to continue.

Like Fred Phelps(who you remind me off) you wouldn't go and complain and say what you wanted in a proper place, instead you had to do it where people were sharing their deepest feelings and sorrows.

You were acting like Fred Phelps.

When you finally said that you would stop(but at the same time made a strawman about not being alowed to talk about it. WHICH YOU WERE, IN ANOTHER EFFING THREAD) i had already reported the posts and asked a moderator to split your posts(and all posts relating to yours) to another thread.

You sullied the thread, just as bad as Fred Phelps.

I meant it then, i mean it now. And i'll mean it tomorrow as well.

Firstly, 9/11 is not a funeral.

Maybe not, but it is the day that 3000 people died, and you sully them by acting like you did. And sorry, but i have no time for Fred Phelps or people who act like him when it is 9/11 or i am at a funeral.

I take it to be a day of reflection on what happened on 9/11/01 and afterwards.

Which is what I did, and now people tell me that I was off-topic in a thread named "september 11, 2006". Hmmm.[/QUOTE]
Fine you do that, WE took it as a day of reflection on what happened and what was lost. WE took it as a time to share our stories and comfort each other. WE took it as a day to give memory to all the lives that were lost.

WE told you that, and you continued to act like Fred Phelps.

Secondly, Phelps uses these funerals to give voice to his brand of outrageous religious fanaticism. Did you want to imply that I am a religious fanatic?

Maybe not religious. But considering how much you act(ed) like Fred Phelps, i wouldn't rule fanatic out yet.

There is a time and a place for everything.

I would argue that the time wasn't 9/11, but i wouldn't complain about your posting what you did, if the place had been somewhere else.

That was the wrong time and place. If you had done it another time. OR another place( as we told you to do many times) there wouldn't have been a problem, you brought this on yourself Fred Phelps.

 

[brumsen]

You are acting like Fred Phelps.. You are acting like Fred Phelps. You are acting like Fred Phelps.
[...]
We told you time and time again that you could say what you wanted in another thread. But no, you had to continue.

Like Fred Phelps(who you remind me off) you wouldn't go and complain and say what you wanted in a proper place, instead you had to do it where people were sharing their deepest feelings and sorrows.
[...]
When you finally said that you would stop(but at the same time made a strawman about not being alowed to talk about it. WHICH YOU WERE, IN ANOTHER EFFING THREAD) i had already reported the posts and asked a moderator to split your posts(and all posts relating to yours) to another thread.
[...]
Fine you do that, WE took it as a day of reflection on what happened and what was lost. WE took it as a time to share our stories and comfort each other. WE took it as a day to give memory to all the lives that were lost.

WE told you that, and you continued to act like Fred Phelps.
[...]
That was the wrong time and place. If you had done it another time. OR another place( as we told you to do many times) there wouldn't have been a problem, you brought this on yourself Fred Phelps.

Obviously we disagree about why Phelps' behaviour is objectionable.

I can't help thinking, though, that I was sent away simply because I said things you don't like. Statements of facts. How is this different from the mods' behaviour at the LC forum, who silence anyone saying things that are inconvenient to them, and point them towards other forums? (ETA: your usage of WE and YOU certainly reminds me of this.) That approach is continuously being made fun of in other threads here.
True, I've not been banned; but I was told it was 'not the right place and time', without any further explanation that can somehow be acceptable to me. Rather in an ad hoc way, I'd say.

 

[The_Fire]

You are being deliberately dense, aren't you?

 

[gumboot]

Obviously we disagree about why Phelps' behaviour is objectionable.

I can't help thinking, though, that I was sent away simply because I said things you don't like. Statements of facts. How is this different from the mods' behaviour at the LC forum, who silence anyone saying things that are inconvenient to them, and point them towards other forums? (ETA: your usage of WE and YOU certainly reminds me of this.) That approach is continuously being made fun of in other threads here.
True, I've not been banned; but I was told it was 'not the right place and time', without any further explanation that can somehow be acceptable to me. Rather in an ad hoc way, I'd say.

I'm astounded that you can compare completely banning someone from a forum for disagreeing with accepted opinion with asking someone to post their comments in a different thread because they did not relate to the subject at hand.

In case you didn't notice, people were recounting their recollections of 9/11 on that thread. Not discussing the impact of US foreign Policy on malaria victims.

-Andrew

 

[Flo]

Except that this is not the right analogy.

Now, if after the event these parent bought themselves shotguns and had taken out 20 kids of the rival gang (ETA: and other gangs) since the event, under the pretext that that would prevent more gang killing.... then I would quite likely remind them of this on such an anniversary.

Provided those shotguns were well out of reach, of course

As far as I know, none of the people participating in this forum have had any responsibility in the subsequent response to the 9/11 atrocity, hence the relevance of my analogy.

 

[TobiasTheViking]

Obviously we disagree about why Phelps' behaviour is objectionable.

We do? in what way? i just thought we disagreed whether or not you acted like him.. and you did.

I can't help thinking, though, that I was sent away simply because I said things you don't like.

You have been allowed to continue saying it here. And just to let you know, i don't disagree with what you said.

I just disagreed with the place.

Statements of facts.

I haven't verified if they were facts.. so for now i will accept that.. totally irrelevant though.

How is this different from the mods' behaviour at the LC forum, who silence anyone saying things that are inconvenient to them, and point them towards other forums? (ETA: your usage of WE and YOU certainly reminds me of this.)

we didn't silence you, that is how it is different.

It wasn't inconvenient to use, that is how it was different.

It was distastefull, though.

As for the WE and YOU. I did that because YOU didn't get it when people wrote it in a normal way.

I wrote like that to make YOU realize what you were doing.

That approach is continuously being made fun of in other threads here.

So what? you didn't get it when i didn't do that.

True, I've not been banned; but I was told it was 'not the right place and time', without any further explanation that can somehow be acceptable to me. Rather in an ad hoc way, I'd say.

We told you EXPLICITLY to take it to another thread.

We said EXPLICITLY that you were allowed to say everything you said, just not in that thread, but in any other thread

 

[brumsen]

As far as I know, none of the people participating in this forum have had any responsibility in the subsequent response to the 9/11 atrocity, hence the relevance of my analogy.

Those who are US citizens do have such responsibility. Hence....