|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 6:41 am Post subject: |
 |
|
I'll make it very simple:
From the mind of a terrorist economic and political targets are the best. Human casualties added to the mix is even more tempting. However, if the choice is between a large human cost with no damage to infrastructure compared to a large economic and political target with only a few dozen lives lost, they will choose the latter.
Afterwards, they will claim back home that the people who died were collateral damage. Don't forget that they are supported by someone too. People who send money to terrorists generally choose to believe that they are striking at the heart of an evil empire (and human casualties of course, but whatever) rather than that they are simply funding a group that kills people for the fun of it.
That's the way propaganda works - nobody likes to think of themself as evil, even if they are. They don't have the support they have because most people in the Middle East are evil, but because they have a good method of preying on people's insecurities and feelings of weakness. Lots of other reasons too but basically the two (terrorists and the people who support them) have a weird kind of symbiotic relationship. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 6:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| waggo wrote: |
| mithridates wrote: |
| waggo wrote: |
| mithridates wrote: |
| Less planes to use / harder to fly, perhaps? Also doesn't show on video with quite the same effect as on a sunny morning. |
I wonder if you'd be 'defending' the 9/11 terrorists' goals if they had been Canadian dead.Judging by the way you jumped down my throat the other day i highly doubt it. |
Oh look, it's you again. What I'm saying is that I assume they wanted to have both an economic and human cost, but if they were to choose one they would probably have gone for the economic symbol rather than simple loss of human life. A big Canadian target might be the stock exchange as well, or maybe the head office of a big oil company with lots of presence in the US and the Middle East especially.
Have fun spending the next few hours imagining that I jump for joy every time the US is attacked because I happened to be born where I was. Go to the Canadian election thread and think a little about why I support the most pro-American party in the country. Retard. |
Youre Ego is confusing you and youre calling me names again.If they wanted to have a human cost as you now admit then their target was to kill people and people were not collaterol damage...they were, as has already been pointed out by a previous poster,....the target.
Western people dont like dying.It scares them. |
And it's a fricken adventure for the Pakistani kids?
I was trying to think of how to respond to this and Pligganease and I just can't. I haven't seen such utter disregard of logic or facts since coming onto this board. Igotthisguitar has more plausible ideas than what you guys just posted. Are you trolling? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 7:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| Pligganease wrote: |
| laogaiguk wrote: |
DISCLAIMER (I, in no way, agree with what I am posting about the 9/11 victims)
Every death is horrible, Pakistani, Iraqi and American. But if you ever called the people who died on 9/11 collateral damage, there would be an outcry like no other. But according to these Americans, the innocent people (children) in Pakistan are collateral damage in the War Against Terror. Therefore since the first strike of the War Against Terror was 9/11, all the innocent people who died were also collateral damage and should not be referred to as victims anymore. The world is at war with terrorists, and terrorists are at war with the world. That makes all victims collateral damage according to bucheon bum |
Good point. However, the major difference is that the people killed in the 9/11 attacks were the targets of the attacks. The victims of the Pakistan attack were not the intended targets. |
The specific people weren't the target, and even so, then the janitors were most definitely not the targets. They did it to attack Western culture (more specifically America). |
They weren't??
OBL and company couldn't care less about Western culture. They don't have issues with McDonald's, Coke, Nike, etc. If they did, why has only one mcdonald's ever been a target of a terrorist attack? (in karachi pakistan). I don't believe any other fastfood restaurant has been attacked.
No coke factory has been touched, nor any big american cultural symbols.
As mith said, their targets were our economic and defensive hearts.
The people in those buildings were part of those hearts and WERE the targets, along with the buildings. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
waggo
Joined: 18 May 2003
Location: pusan baby!
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 7:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
No I am not trolling.ill make it simple. Four known terrorist faces are dead.Good.Five children are dead...thats terrible.But they are collaterol damage.Difficult decisions have to be taken and the right decision was taken in this case.The children were not the target.
I understand Miths reasoning but i dont agree with it.Osama Bin Laden has openly stated that Americans themselves are targets...I think he even said it in his manifesto speech!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
waggo
Joined: 18 May 2003
Location: pusan baby!
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 7:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
--Feb. 28, 1998
In a fatwa entitled, "Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders World Islamic Front Statement," bin Laden announces the formation of a coalition of Islamic groups, including Egyptian Islamic Jihad led by Ayman al-Zawahiri, and calls for the killing of Americans worldwide. In the fatwa, bin Laden states: "To kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque [Jerusalem] and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim." Al-Zawahiri becomes No. 2 in al-Qaida and a number of Egyptians prominent in EIJ become al-Qaida leaders |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 7:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
This is a new low for Americans. You will do anything to justify the killing of innocent people, but heaven forbid we ever compare American blood to other blood. Screw being polite for this one. They did not specifically target people, otherwise they would have hit a much more populated area.
| Quote: |
The 9/11 Panel reports that captured al-Qaeda mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed said that Flight 93's target was the U.S. Capitol, which was given the code name "The Faculty of Law".
|
Hitting the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol is not the best way to take out lots of people either and definitely helps to support the next quote...
| Quote: |
| In the video, bin Laden says: "The Twin Towers were legitimate targets, they were supporting US economic power. These events were great by all measurement. What was destroyed were not only the towers, but the towers of morale in that country." |
http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/11/11/wbin11.xml
| Quote: |
| Statements of Al-Qaeda recorded after 9/11 are suggested to add weight to this speculation. In a 2004 video, apparently acknowledging responsibility for the attacks, bin Laden stated that he was motivated to "restore freedom to our nation", to "punish the aggressor in kind", and to inflict economic damage on America. He declared that a continuing objective of his holy war was to "[bleed] America to the point of bankruptcy". |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks
Straight from the devil's mouth himself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 7:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| waggo wrote: |
No I am not trolling.ill make it simple. Four known terrorist faces are dead.Good.Five children are dead...thats terrible.But they are collaterol damage.Difficult decisions have to be taken and the right decision was taken in this case.The children were not the target.
I understand Miths reasoning but i dont agree with it.Osama Bin Laden has openly stated that Americans themselves are targets...I think he even said it in his manifesto speech!! |
That's true about what he said. The only point I am making is that it's *less effective* fighting them when you attempt to simplify their motives. Some would have you believe that everybody who sends money to terrorist organizations do so because they'd just love to see women and children die. Their attitude is more along the line of do whatever it takes, and if women and children die too, oh well. They were in the way / they indirectly supported an evil empire through their complicity and had it coming. Everybody likes to rationalize what they do so they can sleep at night.
If terrorists can paint regular workers like the ones at the WTC as soldiers (economic ones) of an evil empire, that's even more effective. All of the above are just many ways of dehumanizing the target, nothing more. That's what they're good at.
I don't agree with the reasoning either, by the way. Who would? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 7:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
I am wasting too much time debating a small point. American victims weren't collateral damage, and neither are the Pakistani kids. If the people fighting me on this are what our world is coming too, I am starting to worry about raising a kid in it. It is inhuman to treat people that way.
"The worse evil a man can do is not to hate another man, but to ignore him completely."
I forget where that quote is from (and I think I am misquoting it a bit as I can't google it). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
waggo
Joined: 18 May 2003
Location: pusan baby!
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 8:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| laogaiguk wrote: |
This is a new low for Americans. You will do anything to justify the killing of innocent people, but heaven forbid we ever compare American blood to other blood. Screw being polite for this one. They did not specifically target people, otherwise they would have hit a much more populated area.
| Quote: |
The 9/11 Panel reports that captured al-Qaeda mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed said that Flight 93's target was the U.S. Capitol, which was given the code name "The Faculty of Law".
|
Hitting the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol is not the best way to take out lots of people either and definitely helps to support the next quote...
| Quote: |
| In the video, bin Laden says: "The Twin Towers were legitimate targets, they were supporting US economic power. These events were great by all measurement. What was destroyed were not only the towers, but the towers of morale in that country." |
http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/11/11/wbin11.xml
| Quote: |
| Statements of Al-Qaeda recorded after 9/11 are suggested to add weight to this speculation. In a 2004 video, apparently acknowledging responsibility for the attacks, bin Laden stated that he was motivated to "restore freedom to our nation", to "punish the aggressor in kind", and to inflict economic damage on America. He declared that a continuing objective of his holy war was to "[bleed] America to the point of bankruptcy". |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks
Straight from the devil's mouth himself. |
I dont even know why your getting so excited.Americans have never really cared about collaterol damage if it gets the job done.Look how they ended WW2.
I completely agree that Al Quaida will attack economic targets given the chance. BUT they also LIKE to KILL people.
Was the Madrid bombing not aimed at people????
Was the London bombing not aimed at People?????
Just answer that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 8:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| waggo wrote: |
I dont even know why your getting so excited.Americans have never really cared about collaterol damage if it gets the job done.Look how they ended WW2.
I completely agree that Al Quaida will attack economic targets given the chance. BUT they also LIKE to KILL people.
Was the Madrid bombing not aimed at people????
Was the London bombing not aimed at People?????
Just answer that. |
See my last post. (just before this one) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
waggo
Joined: 18 May 2003
Location: pusan baby!
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 8:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I dont think you understand the concept of collateral damage as used in modern warfare. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 8:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| waggo wrote: |
| I dont think you understand the concept of collateral damage as used in modern warfare. |
Oh I do, I studied "a bit" of military history in uni (wonderful electives, I wish I would have had more electives). It is still wrong! It was 1000 years ago and it is now. I just thought we were starting to understand that, but I guess not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
waggo
Joined: 18 May 2003
Location: pusan baby!
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 8:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| waggo wrote: |
| I dont think you understand the concept of collateral damage as used in modern warfare. |
Oh I do, I studied "a bit" of military history in uni (wonderful electives, I wish I would have had more electives). It is still wrong! It was 1000 years ago and it is now. I just thought we were starting to understand that, but I guess not. |
Of course its wrong but what is the alternative given that these people are frustratingly difficult to put a rifle bead on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 8:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| Pligganease wrote: |
| laogaiguk wrote: |
DISCLAIMER (I, in no way, agree with what I am posting about the 9/11 victims)
Every death is horrible, Pakistani, Iraqi and American. But if you ever called the people who died on 9/11 collateral damage, there would be an outcry like no other. But according to these Americans, the innocent people (children) in Pakistan are collateral damage in the War Against Terror. Therefore since the first strike of the War Against Terror was 9/11, all the innocent people who died were also collateral damage and should not be referred to as victims anymore. The world is at war with terrorists, and terrorists are at war with the world. That makes all victims collateral damage according to bucheon bum |
Good point. However, the major difference is that the people killed in the 9/11 attacks were the targets of the attacks. The victims of the Pakistan attack were not the intended targets. |
The specific people weren't the target, and even so, then the janitors were most definitely not the targets. They did it to attack Western culture (more specifically America). |
Al Qaida ' s attacks have always been about killing as many as possible. Besides what they fight for is more or less similar to what the Klan fights for. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 8:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
deleted
Last edited by On the other hand on Fri Jan 20, 2006 8:44 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
