Terrorist attack; at least 36 dead, 40 hurt

[Patroklos]

That is because you won against them when they attacked you, when they were strong, and you purged your lands if their influence when you had the chance.

I said effects on Western civilization, of which India is most definetly not a part.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by aneeshm
When you see that an apple tree in an orchard is a bad one, do you wait for the fungus to spread until it has spoiled enough to be accounted "non-trivial" in your opinion? Or you you promptly take out that infection, destroy it, and spray fungicide on the rest so as prevent further contamination?

When there are several different strains of fungi, I wouldn't make one of teh less prevalent ones a priority, even if it is more colourful and attention-grabbing.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Yeah you're right, it would cause a major headache paperwork wise.

I remember when 9/11 happened a lot of people around me were horrified (besided the loss of life) that the took out the WORLD TRADE CENTER. O. M. F. G. What are we going to do without world trade? We were obviously doomed.

I remember the looks of disgust I got when I pointed out "world trade" was not a golden statue they kept locked in a safe, and that all the WTC was was a depsitory for paperwork, all recreatable.

And then when I pointed out that the "World Trade Center" was just a name to help lease office space I think they wanted to hit me.

I wasnt aware at the time of anyone thinking 'world trade was knocked out" 9/11 was highly disruptive however, and caused billions of dollars in losses, esp to the airline industry, but also impacts on lower Manhattan, etc.

Were some of those disruptions unnecessary? yeah, with 20-20 hindsight.

Theres got to be a middle ground between "the sky is falling" and minizing the real impacts of terror incidents.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Yeah you're right, it would cause a major headache paperwork wise.

I remember when 9/11 happened a lot of people around me were horrified (besided the loss of life) that the took out the WORLD TRADE CENTER. O. M. F. G. What are we going to do without world trade? We were obviously doomed.

I remember the looks of disgust I got when I pointed out "world trade" was not a golden statue they kept locked in a safe, and that all the WTC was was a depsitory for paperwork, all recreatable.

And then when I pointed out that the "World Trade Center" was just a name to help lease office space I think they wanted to hit me.

People are stupid. Wow.

Anyway, the destruction of a major western city would not be trivial. That's my point, for what it's worth.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Originally posted by aneeshm
When you see that an apple tree in an orchard is a bad one, do you wait for the fungus to spread until it has spoiled enough to be accounted "non-trivial" in your opinion? Or you you promptly take out that infection, destroy it, and spray fungicide on the rest so as prevent further contamination?

So,

India = apple tree
Islam = fungus

Solution = "fungicide"

...

This is really ugly, aneeshm.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Heil Godwin!

For us, this is not a problem you can turn a blind eye to-one to be solved by small concessions. For us, it is a problem of whether our nation can ever recover its health, whether the Jewish spirit can ever really be eradicated. Don't be misled into thinking you can fight a disease without killing the carrier, without destroying the bacillus. Don't think you can fight racial tuberculosis without taking care to rid the nation of the carrier of that racial tuberculosis. This Jewish contamination will not subside, this poisoning of the nation will not end, until the carrier himself, the Jew, has been banished from our midst.

-Arrian

[Barnabas]

What if they attack a more vulnerable place? like the terrorists from Team America who attacked Panamá

It is a more vulnerable city than London or New York, and islamic terrorists have already attacked twice jewish buildings in Buenos Aires.

[Patroklos]

We have different levels of scale when we think that the effect “matters.� Understandable.

The point is that there is no city or building or structure that the economy of the West is dependant on. There are over a billion people in the "west" no matter how you define it. Killing 2-3 million of them would have no impact as far as strict numbers are concerned (unless we make it matter as far as irrational reactions/fear is concerned). New York physically is just a collection of buildings and paperwork, very little of which is unique in an economic sense. The stock market is not a physical thing located in New York, the data that makes up the exchange is available in multiple places though since we are used to accessing it in a certain way there would be adjustment.

All I am saying is that the West is too big for any city to be the center. If an attack has a huge economic effect it is because we made it that way. Did the loss of two planes really matter in the big picture to the airlines when they have a fleet of thousands? No, our reaction did which though understandable, was irrational.

[Arrian]

One might also consider that a major city such as NYC or London will contain lots of people who are experts and leaders in their various fields, so the damage to "the West" as a whole isn't as simple as saying X million out of a billion dead.

Don't get me wrong - I agree that the loss of one city won't bring us to our proverbial knees. I just think you may be underestimating it a bit is all.

Man, this is morbid stuff.

-Arrian

[Patroklos]

Don't get me wrong - I agree that the loss of one city won't bring us to our proverbial knees. I just think you may be underestimating it a bit is all.

Eh, I will leave well enough alone and agree to agree that we agree for the most part.

I think it is just a perfect example of our time, the age of exaggeration, that the loss of some office space that happened to be in some cool looking buildings and loss of .0002 percent of our population (as individually tragic as those lost lives were) had such an effect on our economy.

Now imagine what we would turn a city lost to a stray nuke into.

[Arrian]

It is interesting to me that you recognize the hysteria-induced economic reaction as irrational.

What about other reactions we had?

-Arrian

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Arrian
What about other reactions we had?

I agree with you, Arrian. Going into Afghanistan was an irrational act and a waste of resources.

[Patroklos]

It is interesting to me that you recognize the hysteria-induced economic reaction as irrational.

What about other reactions we had?

Equally irrational, at least in the justifications they added on to it. Did we really need to start a crusade, was not the simple act of a state attacking us via proxy good enough?

[Pekka]

Right, I don't see even a major city giving major problems as far as western survival goes. It would be a big upset naturally, a big upset.

But it would trigger such a massive hatred, that we would boil and trash PC and every other term and go for the extermination mode. If a real city would go, the whole city, say London or NYC, I think the response would be overwhelming and the only standing armies that could take it are the ones who wouldn't launch an attack like that and then stop and wait for the response. And terrorists or countries with a big problem of these pests do not have the capability to strike continuously so that the response time would be too short for the west to strike back. Few major attacks, sure, but continued strong attacks? Not really, not in the 'cities gone!'-level anyway.

And fortunately potential challengers as far as resources goes are not against the west militarily.

[Patroklos]

Yeah I think if we lost a major city there would be a recolonization of a certain portion of the globe.