A non- political 9-11 question

@Emperor:

@Jermofoot:

@Emperor:

@Omega:

I was flying one of the hijacked plane

Not funny, especially posting it on 9/11.  Nearly 3,000 peopled died at the hands of suicidal Islamic fanatactics that those people never knew or did anything to harm.  -1 Karma from now to eternity. :x :x

Yeah, well I seem to remember talking about Iraqi civilians in the same light yet people seem to think that’s different.

Why the hell is it “especially” not funny on the anniversary?  What makes that particular day more serious?

Your callousness is only surpassed by your naiveté…a big fat smite.

Oh, wow.  I’m so hurt.  Please, one more smite just might make me cry. Way to dodge a question - that reminds me of old times!  +1 for you.

Oh, and thanks for employing the fine workers of Georgetown, KY by purchasing a Corolla (I have one myself as well).  I’m sure Obama is proud.  :-D

This is getting too political for something thats not political ( referring to the post a few up from Jermos)

should it be closed?

@Imperious:

This is getting too political for something thats not political ( referring to the post a few up from Jermos)

should it be closed?

Is it up for vote or something?  Thanks for being democratic.

Let me just put a political message in my footer and we’ll call it square.

I think he’s referring to mine.  Is it considered political to call Hitler and the 9/11 attacks dastardly and heinous???

yes i was referring to you. Not Jermo.

It is worse to kill several people than a single person, and it is worse to target civilians, instead of soldiers. The Iraqi civilians are collateral damage, so in this context it is hard to make a fair comparison, imo. It will be very subjective.

Also, I have a problem with discussing many Iraqi or Afghan, collateral civilians w/o discussing the wars themselves, regardless of if we compare to 9-11, and it is political, even if I agree more with Jermofoot, I can’t see it not being political. But I like political discussions, so I vote for not closing the this thread. Or can we call it a military discussion instead of political?

Also Churchill ordered killing of civilians during WW2. But Stalin was worse than all those other mentioned in this thread.

During the Spanish campaigns in South America 500 years ago, there were more South Amercian people killed by infectious disease, than by Spanish guns and swords.

Thanks for providing some relevant context, Subo

@Imperious:

yes i was referring to you. Not Jermo.

And why didn’t you answer my question?  I think I have a right to your answer since you criticized my post as somehow being “political”.

Tone it down or this will be shut guys! This is beyond political this is getting close to being a flame war. We don’t need that.

GG

I think I have a right to your answer since you criticized my post as somehow being “political”.

The post was getting off topic which is typical for how a potential political discussion develops from our experience as moderators. One person starts with a key word and another chains it together and the whole thing mutates from 'selective variation '.

Um, thanks for your reply, but my post was right on topic.  I answered what I remember from the morning of 9/11.  Is it controversial to say Hitler and the terrorists were bad?  Wow.

Bringing in Hitler in a topic on 9-11 is NOT ON TOPIC, either by comparison, analogy, anything.

It does not matter if you said “Hitler was the devil”  Just leave out Hitler and Terrorists in a conversation about “where were you on 9-11”

Thats what this thread is about. Not about Hitler or Terrorists or how bad they are. The thing always mutates latter into “obama is _____” or its Bush’s fault latter.

It may seem crazy but i have been seeing this for over five years on this site. It starts with one thing than leads to another and fights start.

And don’t be defensive. I am just here to make sure problems don’t start. I don’t have as they say “a dog in this fight”

@Imperious:

And don’t be defensive. I am just here to make sure problems don’t start. I don’t have as they say “a dog in this fight”

So now you gotta bring Vick into it? OH, IT’S ON NOW!!!

jk :wink:

I want a political 7-11 question.

The United States Government entered the war intending to use strategic daylight precision bombing, which was used with mixed success in Europe and never officially abandoned as a policy. Over Japan, because of the jetstream, strategic precision bombing proved to be impractical and the United States abandoned the policy in favour of a policy of area bombardment. From March 1945 through the end of the war, many Japanese cities were subjected to area bombing with incendiaries. Tokyo, Osaka, and many other cities were burned out by firestorms that reached over 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. American precision bombing, fire bombing and atomic bombing in Japan killed between 330,000 and 500,000 Japanese civilians.

Just a little history lesson.

@Brain:

The United States Government entered the war intending to use strategic daylight precision bombing, which was used with mixed success in Europe and never officially abandoned as a policy. Over Japan, because of the jetstream, strategic precision bombing proved to be impractical and the United States abandoned the policy in favour of a policy of area bombardment. From March 1945 through the end of the war, many Japanese cities were subjected to area bombing with incendiaries. Tokyo, Osaka, and many other cities were burned out by firestorms that reached over 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. American precision bombing, fire bombing and atomic bombing in Japan killed between 330,000 and 500,000 Japanese civilians.

Just a little history lesson.

I saw an amazing comparison in The Fog of War (Robert McNamara’s story on US approach to war) that showed the equivalent US cities in size to the ones bombed in Japan.  I know this will fall on deaf ears and/or be negated by “they started it”, but this is something to really think about.

http://www.ditext.com/japan/napalm.html

Just some excerpts:

NYC - 51% destroyed
LA - 40%
Chicago - 35.1%
Chattanooga - 99%
San Diego - 37.6%
Baltimore - 55.7%
Miami - 35.8%
Lexingon (my town) - 50.2%
Boston - 69.3%

I saw an amazing comparison in The Fog of War (Robert McNamara’s story on US approach to war) that showed the equivalent US cities in size to the ones bombed in Japan.  I know this will fall on deaf ears and/or be negated by “they started it”, but this is something to really think about.

http://www.ditext.com/japan/napalm.html

Just some excerpts:

NYC - 51% destroyed
LA - 40%
Chicago - 35.1%
Chattanooga - 99%
San Diego - 37.6%
Baltimore - 55.7%
Miami - 35.8%
Lexingon (my town) - 50.2%
Boston - 69.3%

I saw something similar to this when I was at the D-Day Museum in New Orleans just about 2 weeks before Katrina hit. It showed all the cities in Japan that were bombed and the percentage of destruction to each city. It was shocking.

Countries should settle their differences over a game of Axis and Allies.