Middle_Man

[quote=PhaseDMA]Contests of who can be the most ruthless?

Ruthless would be to fire a precision missile at the compound and kill the 20-30 (mostly innocent) people there. What we did wasn't ruthless. What we did was explicitly designed to harm the least number of people possible. This was a Navy SEAL operation. If you know anything about Navy SEALs you would know that the only people they fire at are people that are a direct threat. Beyond that there are few (if any) people/groups better trained to ascertain the current threat level from second to second.[/quote]

No, that's not what I meant. I meant that it is ruthless to celebrate the death of anyone, even a terrorist.

Ruthless is a physical act.

I'm pretty sure what you mean is being heartless.

Here is the thing though. Osama masterminded the murder of thousands upon thousands of people both here and abroad. Those types of people don't deserve a ounce of respect. So being heartless? That's fine.

I'm more annoyed by the fact that most of these people celebrating were 10 years old when it happened and will never be able to fully comprehend the emotions of that day as seen through the eyes of a mature adult. It's not because they were ruthless or heartless, or any other negative word you could come up with. It's because they act like they understand something they don't.

[quote=PhaseDMA]A. I'm pretty sure what you mean is being heartless.

B. Here is the thing though. Osama masterminded the murder of thousands upon thousands of people both here and abroad. Those types of people don't deserve a ounce of respect. So being heartless? That's fine.

C. I'm more annoyed by the fact that most of these people celebrating were 10 years old when it happened and will never be able to fully comprehend the emotions of that day as seen through the eyes of a mature adult. It's not because they were ruthless or heartless, or any other negative word you could come up with. It's because they act like they understand something they don't.[/quote]

A. ok, a word choice argument... somehow i knew that's what this would come down to (surprise surprise). my words still stand!

B. Please re-word this if you want to get your point across -- I truly can't tell what your words are trying to convey.

C. I don't accept your notion that anyone who was "young" at the time of the attacks is somehow not eligible to fully comprehend the consequences/emotions involved. If we were to extend your logic to [any disastrous historical event before 1900], we would quickly discover that not a single person alive today would be eligible to comprehend it. This is simply not true, unless you wish to engage in another word-choice argument over "comprehend" (I don't!)

I am aware that you live in Rochester, Phase. I also 100% agree with the notion that the people who were in New York, the people who were in the Pentagon, and the people who were on those planes were all more strongly emotionally battered by the events of September 11. However, the notion you propose in C appears to be a form of elitism ("well you weren't there, were you?"), something that contradicts the concept of Americans being a big family.

tl;dr: Even though I wasn't able to "fully comprehend the emotions" on September 11, 2001, I believe that myself and others my age are certainly capable of fully comprehending the attacks, 10 years later.

additionally: "It's not because they were ruthless or heartless, or any other negative word you could come up with. It's because they act like they understand something they don't."
--> These things are not mutually exclusive. Celebrating the death of anyone is heartless, regardless of whether they actually understand the events or are merely pretending to

Guys! Guys! Guys! Guys!

Why fight? Terrorism is over. Let's all go dancing.

A. There was no argument. If you want to use ruthless then so be it. It doesn't really change our points of view.

B. This concerns me. I know that when I type sometimes I can randomly drop words, or seemingly add random words. This is a result of poor editing on the fly. However this isn't the case here. I reread this several times looking for any mistakes. There are none. Slow down and take your time.

C. I don't much care if you don't accept it. No one can fully comprehend the emotion of the day without having lived it. Especially one that was so gruesome. Emotions were running completely unchecked from people that didn't allow their emotions to go unchecked. *Maybe* if something like September 11th happens in he future you can appreciate it, but I doubt it, because while this did provide a certain level of insight to Pearl Harbor, it really only created more questions. So yes - Certain aspects of our history will never fully be appreciated by anyone alive today. Yes... There probably are exceptions... However unless your a tenured professor with a masters in US History I highly doubt it.

No. I don't think I'm special because I live in Rochester. I suppose Rochester does have a lot of high value targets (like a nuclear plant, and companies with world HQ caliber presences), but other then the nuclear plant I don't think any terrorist would find the damage high enough (most of the fallout would go into our lake causing very few direct kills). The bottom line is living in the state of the attacks doesn't provide me or anyone else with any special rights, or whatever you want to call it.

I'm not sure how needing to experience the day makes Americans that didn't experience it "not part of the family". I suspect that you would argue that because I wasn't around for my mother and father's marriage I'm not part of their family? No? Neither would I.

And no it doesn't make them heartless. It makes them immature.

we are too different, phase. no sense. if you want me to respond I'll do it, but based on the structure by which you are refuting my points, it doesn't appear that you understood my points in the first place. plus, at this point it's basically "you feel this way, i feel that way, let's eat bananas"

Not really.

I don't even think you both could, in one sentence, describe what you're arguing about.

Typically, arguments here go this route:
[quote=Wotcher] based on the structure by which you are refuting my points, it doesn't appear that you understood my points in the first place[/quote]

And then end up here:

[quote=bigcfk]I don't even think you both could, in one sentence, describe what you're arguing about.[/quote]

[quote=bigcfk]I don't even think you both could, in one sentence, describe what you're arguing about.[/quote]

You mean that wotcher feels that terrorists deserve the same level of compassion as any other person, and I strongly disagree?