So they're worthless? | Casulties and casulties

2. yes, humanity is fucked in the head.

Thankyou. That's what I wanted to hear.

I merely wanted to point out a thing that made me chuckle at humans once again, and see how people react.

As usual, I'm not going to do jack shit about it. In my current state, people whom I don't know mean nothing to me, unless their existance/end of it bothers me somehow (i.e. if my grandmother dies, I lose a good source of cash).

i mean, what's worse, victims of two seperate disasters getting entirely different attention/aid, or someone who thinks it's terrible, yet does next to nothing about it?

Those who aid and those who don't have probably good reasons for doing what they do, I'm not the judge of others business from other than my own perspective, and that I usually keep to myself, for obvious reasons.

The only problems with the thing are:
1.  I'm fed up with the patriotic mumbo jumbo combined with testosteron-filled threats that come from every single media, so that I can't avoid it.
And 2. The waste of resources used in the coming retaliatory strike, unless it's targeted at the terrorists instead of Afghans in general.

I don't believe the US government has any better knowledge of the whereabouts of the terrorists than it did before the strike, so this "going to war" thing seems like a big joke to me (and to about 4 000 000 others in this country).

And I do understand why they're being treated differently by people, I just don't see how can they think like that, since it seems completely irrational to me. Dead people are dead people. Period.

well, while i don't doubt the "we're going to war" stuff entirely, i think it's mostly just an act to make america, and the rest of the world feel safer.

i mean, i don't doubt that they'll wage war, even in some small capacity, but i don't know how deeply they'll fight this "worldwide network of terrorism" that we keep hearing about.

Hmm, this is a pretty sketchy topic that has a large 'gray' area, like abortion.

However, I can't make a comparison between the earthquake incident and the attack and say we as humans are fucked up because India didn't get enough aid. I think it has a lot to do with the nature of the events. An earthquake is a natural thing, bound to happen when you live in a seismically active area, while a terrorist attack is human against fellow human and should not have happened. Earthquakes happen all the time, so we clean them up, but a terrorist attack of that magnitude is so shocking, so brutal, such a surprise, that it requires much more attention. It's something that shouldn't have happened, so we look to correct it and then try to prevent it from happenning again.

from Robb Force on 1:49 am on Sep. 27, 2001
...I think it has a lot to do with the nature of the events. An earthquake is a natural thing, bound to happen when you live in a seismically active area, while a terrorist attack is human against fellow human and should not have happened...

yep. that pretty much sums up how i feel about this.

i once saw a bit of henry rollins' stand-up act on comedy central, and one of the funnier bits was about people who live on flood planes, and even though their entire life gets washed away every few years or so, they're just too stupid to move.

and that brings me to another point: the reason why maybe so much less money was sunk into the earthquake relief was the simple fact that the best way to deal with a situation like that is to move right the fuck out of there, to a place that's NOT leveled every few years, or decades by a natural disaster. that's probably not something that india would exactly encourage, simply for economic reasons. but if people wanted to move, it'd pretty much involve a singular effor by everyone involved. i'm sure some people are going to help eachother, within the migratory group, but something like a terrorist attack on an entire nation, in this case, one that shocked most of the world, is going to get more solid support.

why? as i see it, the only way to stop world-wide terrorism is through a strong, joint effort by everyone involved. we're going to have to make sure that everyone is on the same page at all times just to stay on top of this.

i mean, there's no "war on earthquakes", to my knowledge. once again, there's little to nothing we can do to stop them. the only courses of action are to either prepare people and structures, or as i said earlier - move them the heck off the fault line.

well, while i don't doubt the "we're going to war" stuff entirely, i think it's mostly just an act to make america, and the rest of the world feel safer.

At least on our part, that has failed. People here seem to be more afraid of USA doing something stupid and causing WW3 than what the terrorists might do. 68% thinks that USA should drop all intentions of immediate retribution, and instead wait until emotions have cooled down. Only 10% are in any way in favour of the strike.

why? as i see it, the only way to stop world-wide terrorism is through a strong, joint effort by everyone involved. we're going to have to make sure that everyone is on the same page at all times just to stay on top of this.

Terrorism has existed as long as humans have, and I don't believe it'll cease before every last one of us lies dead and cold.

and that brings me to another point: the reason why maybe so much less money was sunk into the earthquake relief was the simple fact that the best way to deal with a situation like that is to move right the fuck out of there, to a place that's NOT leveled every few years, or decades by a natural disaster.

It goes down to private economy. Those areas have population for a reason. They're fertile, and in many cases because of the disasters. Ashes the volcanoes spew forth and the new soil the floods bring make the ground fertile.

The resultant downturn in the world economy will kill more people than died in New York that day.


People are divided on this.  It seems to me (based on my perception of general opinion in Britain) that there are two opposing groups of people.

1.  It is the fault of America that these attacks have taken place.  If it was not for American imperialism the hatred responsible for the attack would not exist.  The event was a tragedy, but at least it has taught America and the west that their attitude towards the middle east is wrong.

2.  Terrorism is unacceptable in any circumstance.  Civilians have died.  Innocent people.  America and Nato MUST remove the capacity of terrorists to repeat this sort of incident.

To me, both are wrong.

People are either obsessed with self-righteous revenge, to 'prove' America's resilience and determination, or blinded by Political Correctness, determined to see things from the point of view of the good, honest, poor Arab Countries.

I think:

Pragmatism is what should dictate the American response.  Don't kill anyone.  Find Osama Bin Laden and his fellow conspirators, try them for mass murder and if they are guilty, lock them up for life.

Then you have to give the people of Afghanistan food, clothing, jobs, and a new government.  It's tough, but if America wants to reap the benefits of being the only hyperpower, it has to pay the costs too.

You all know what I mean, you're all intelligent.

Thanks for listening to me (if you have, that is)