Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah, right. There is no evidence that they intended to kill a single person, although they recognized, as did George W. Bush, that bystanders are often victims in a military operation.
The buildings fell down. They shouldn't have, and could not have been expected to, but they did. There was nothing "savage" about that operation.
Wow. Just . . . wow.
OK, I'll play along. Let's take your points and look at them logically.
No evidence that they intended to kill anyone -- the 9/11 perpetrators used as their weapons hijacked civilian airliners. Did they not know that these planes would have crew members and passengers aboard? Also, their targets were huge office buildings, which were attacked during a work day. Did they not know that these buildings would be filled with workers at the time of day and day of the week of the attack?
The buildings shouldn't have fallen down -- and what, exactly, was the purpose of ramming them with jet airliners, if not to make them fall down? If your intent is to NOT cause a building to collapse, I can think of few less-effective means than intentionally flying large airplanes into them.
Pretend, for the moment, that the 9/11 people wanted to do nothing more than cause some damage to the World Trade Center (to make a symbolic statement, perhaps?) and not harm anyone, as you claim. Why, then, didn't they simply plant a small bomb that was set to go off at 2:00 a.m. on a Sunday morning, or some other time during which the buildings were likely to be virtually empty? They could have achieved their supposed objective without causing the buildings to collapse and without causing undue casualties.
No, jtur88, there is no nice way to say this, but your willful blindness to the obvious facts of 9/11 makes you nothing less than an apologist for the murderous SAVAGES who intentionally hijacked civilian airliners and rammed them into buildings laden with people, all for the express purposes of killing thousands of people, causing millions of dollars of property damage, and terrorizing an entire nation.
Yes, so completely savage is the United States that people feel completely free and safe to knock it all the time.
OK, so let's just forget about how warmongering our country is. There is no country who is at war with as many other countries as the US is/was. There's GTMO, the Japanese interment camps, the nuclear bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki which killed 129,000 people at least, and the "War on Terror" now which involves yet more wars and occupations of various nations. Am I forgetting anything? I'm sure I am. Don't get me wrong; there are plenty of warmongering civilizations which kill many people, Germany, for example. But the US is hardly an innocent country either.
The one problem with this list is that it is too specific about periods in these civilizations. The question is about barbaric civilizations, not barbaric periods in civilizations. Are we judging Germany or Nazi Germany?? Soviet Russia or Russia? The Mongols or the Mongols under the Khans? Really I think it should be the entire civilization, does it have a long and violent history or not? A ten or twenty year period of bad behavior does not make it a violent civilization. The Nazi period was the most barbaric time in world history, so that counts very heavy against Germany. Combined with the Kaisers wars, the wars of German unification and the countless wars of Prussia Germany comes out looking very warlike. In fact it was the warlike ways of the Germans who brought down the Roman Empire. They have a long history of war and aggression. Japan on the other hand has a violent warlike period in the 30s, and 40s but had lived peacefully as a isolationist nation for centuries. I think they should not even be on the list. As much as I don't want to admit it the United States and Great Britain definitely belong on the list. The British empire was not created by peaceful means, and its former colony grew up to be quite expansionist as well. These two nations have done great things for the world, but also done some terrible things. They are probably the toughest nations to make a judgement about for this reason. Overall I think the Germans have been the most savage, at least in recent centuries. The muslim middle east is working hard to own this centuries most savage civilization. They will own the next world war.
Too much focus in this thread in terms of how much blood was spilled to determine savagery.
The most savage civilization, if it could be determined objectively: would include not only the amount of conquered lives murdered in the name of a king, emperor or state but also the destruction of cultures while maintaining a psuedo moral foundation that it was for their own good, followed by indoctrination and the rewriting of history, thus erasing the savage nature of those who conquered.
OK, so let's just forget about how warmongering our country is. There is no country who is at war with as many other countries as the US is/was. There's GTMO, the Japanese interment camps, the nuclear bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki which killed 129,000 people at least, and the "War on Terror" now which involves yet more wars and occupations of various nations. Am I forgetting anything? I'm sure I am. Don't get me wrong; there are plenty of warmongering civilizations which kill many people, Germany, for example. But the US is hardly an innocent country either.
Never said it was.
But with choices like Nazi Germany and the Mongolian Empire up there? Not even close.
But with choices like Nazi Germany and the Mongolian Empire up there? Not even close.
The difference is that when the Mongols raided, it wasn't unknown for one political/social/cultural entity to take what they wanted from their neighbor, and making sure nobody was left to get revenge. The Mogols raided and destroyed on a greater scale, but if someone invaded, it was one of the possibilities.
When the Nazi regium began their ethnic clensing of whole cultures, genocide was something which was no longer considered a standard part of war. The Mongols can to some degree be considered acting as warlord did in their time. The Nazi's couldn't claim that.
We dropped atomic bombs on two of their cities, and firebombed many others killing countless civilians. We conducted unrestricted submarine warfare against their shipping even thought they didn't. We interned American citizens of Japanese descent who were living in our borders. But yeah, they are the savage ones....
BTW why do we always honor heroes who die for our country but think that people who die for theirs are crazy fanatics? Didn't someone say, "Give me liberty, or give me death!"?
You should tell that to some Chinese people. One of my friends in particular would be "mildly irritated" to say the least considering Japan killed more Chinese in a year than all of the bombings you cited above....and did so for a decade and change.
.....and that's not including their occupation of korea, phillipeans, India etc.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
