Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Zeld2.0 · 06-05-2005, 01:42 PM

I'm not going to get into smokescreens here and there

but I'll address a few points

First, to say that there have been no other attacks on our soil since 9/11 is true, but keep in mind how many occured before and the gaps in between?

How many years elapsed between the WTC bombing and 9/11? Quite a few. How many years hve passed since 9/11? Just 4.

In the scope of history, 4 years is nothing - NOTHING. In fact, its not history - its events that we will look back upon 50 years from now, perhaps more, to finally understand its scope. A lot can change in a few years - 5 years from now, we may have been hit by another big attack, and suddenly this seems insignificant. Of course, 5 years from now, we can be at peace with no attacks, and suddenly the things look different.

And I dont want to get involved in lists, but a few months ago, the CIA did publish a statement that terrorism in the world had increased since our war

Lebell: We may have lost fewer people at Pearl Harbor, but casualty figures mean little. The context is important - it wasnt just simply an attack that killed 2000 military personnel. It was a surprise attack that also sank 8 battleships, destroyed hundreds of planes while the Japanese simultaenously struck Hong Kong, Malysia, Singapore, the Phillipines, soon Wake Island, as well as other places as well. By contrast, 9/11 was small, even if they caused more people to die. Not saying it wasn't a big thing, but comparing it to WW2 is well... apples and oranges

I think one has to keep into mind why Afghanistan and Iraq have gone in two differnet directions since operations began. Afghanistan was mainly a special forces strike early on of a country that had openly supported the terrorist camps, had defied not just us but the entire international community, and its citizens didn't have much sympathy for the terrorists because most were foreign.

Iraq went different because we use our standard forces in a ful invasion of a country to which most citizens in the country saw as having no ties to the terrorists. Indeed, they had fought fundamentalists for 10 years in the 1980's and lived a moderate life, one of the more Western countries in the Middle East. But the citizens did have sympathy for those who fought against the U.S. because to them, those military personnel were Iraqi, and because of the scale of invasion compared to Afghanistan, it gave more people reason to fight.

I think this just shows how you can approach two things using the same idea and reasoning, but not realizing that you cannot apply the same idea on different subjects

06-05-2005, 01:42 PM	#34 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	I'm not going to get into smokescreens here and there but I'll address a few points First, to say that there have been no other attacks on our soil since 9/11 is true, but keep in mind how many occured before and the gaps in between? How many years elapsed between the WTC bombing and 9/11? Quite a few. How many years hve passed since 9/11? Just 4. In the scope of history, 4 years is nothing - NOTHING. In fact, its not history - its events that we will look back upon 50 years from now, perhaps more, to finally understand its scope. A lot can change in a few years - 5 years from now, we may have been hit by another big attack, and suddenly this seems insignificant. Of course, 5 years from now, we can be at peace with no attacks, and suddenly the things look different. And I dont want to get involved in lists, but a few months ago, the CIA did publish a statement that terrorism in the world had increased since our war Lebell: We may have lost fewer people at Pearl Harbor, but casualty figures mean little. The context is important - it wasnt just simply an attack that killed 2000 military personnel. It was a surprise attack that also sank 8 battleships, destroyed hundreds of planes while the Japanese simultaenously struck Hong Kong, Malysia, Singapore, the Phillipines, soon Wake Island, as well as other places as well. By contrast, 9/11 was small, even if they caused more people to die. Not saying it wasn't a big thing, but comparing it to WW2 is well... apples and oranges I think one has to keep into mind why Afghanistan and Iraq have gone in two differnet directions since operations began. Afghanistan was mainly a special forces strike early on of a country that had openly supported the terrorist camps, had defied not just us but the entire international community, and its citizens didn't have much sympathy for the terrorists because most were foreign. Iraq went different because we use our standard forces in a ful invasion of a country to which most citizens in the country saw as having no ties to the terrorists. Indeed, they had fought fundamentalists for 10 years in the 1980's and lived a moderate life, one of the more Western countries in the Middle East. But the citizens did have sympathy for those who fought against the U.S. because to them, those military personnel were Iraqi, and because of the scale of invasion compared to Afghanistan, it gave more people reason to fight. I think this just shows how you can approach two things using the same idea and reasoning, but not realizing that you cannot apply the same idea on different subjects Last edited by Zeld2.0; 06-05-2005 at 01:54 PM..