On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>wrote:
> John Berry <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> It was not that horrific. Not like a war, or a thermonuclear bomb. Have >>> a sense of proportion! >>> >> >> In many ways it is worse. >> No question the loss of life is less, but even a pacifist could see a war >> or a thermonuclear bomb detonation to be ultimately in the interest of >> peace. >> > > I was thinking more of an accidental explosion of a modern bomb, or a > terrorist attack with one. This would be worse than the WWII bombs, because > they are so much more powerful now. People don't realize that. Actually, > thanks to the U.S. and Russia arms negotiations, the megaton bombs have > been scrapped, but the ones remaining are still in the hundreds of kilotons > I believe. > > Anyway, I disagree. Even granting that it contributed to peace (an issue > beyond the scope of the discussion), a bomb is incomparably more horrific > and inhuman than the worst human experimentation even conducted by the U.S. > Just measured by cold-blooded standards of the number of people hurt and > killed and the immensity of the damage and pain, it was far worse. Books > such as J. Hersey's "Hiroshima" and the museum at Hiroshima can only give a > slight impression of what happened. The totality was beyond human > comprehension. > This is an interesting conundrum. A natural disaster could be more horrific than a thermonuclear warhead, but by default would not be anyones fault, no malice. Where are a single person could be killed by a most insidiously evil mindset. So which is worse? Obviously it depends on where we throw our attention, if we are trying to understand just the human suffering, that would be the natural disaster. But the latter could even be an unsuccessful attempt but has a strongly malicious angle. I think we were addressing the plausibility of malicious acts by government and organizations and as such that is significant. There have been speeches given proposing killing the majority of humankind that has had applause (a standing ovation IIRC) with certain audiences. And are these people applauding evil, or misguided? It does not really matter, the fact is that people can support notions that are incredibly repugnant such as massive depopulation (90%) and genocide. My or your view of right and wrong, logical and illogical does not make sense of actions of people who have a differing belief system. That there can be traction to build a submarine with funnels in the top or killing 90% of everyone (everyone applauding were certain they were in the 10% no doubt) or Tuskeegee or enough support of operation northwood to even get it as far as the president shows that if we assume that reason and decency from organizations we will often be sorely mistaken. > There is a lot of evidence for 9/11 being a false flag event. >> > > Ed and I disagree, for the reasons already stated. Let's agree to > disagree, and drop the subject. > I will agree to that wrt 9/11, but I will have to disagree to agreeing to disagree on the subject of dropping it. Of course it takes 2 to tango. John
