British/usa

[peterpan]

Iam sick, iam sick cause i read the news paper yesterday and on the front cover it shows the remains of a train in which some heartless coward destroyed. They didnt just destroy that train in which they took hundreds of lives, not to metion all the other lives they destroyed, it makes me sad that people have to do this kind of thing just so (they think) the goverment will listen .......... ive chatted to my friends about this and they say "they have there reasons" they have no reason doing a thing like they have done. So if you feel the same as me when you read this just take a min of silence for every one on that train. Lets not start another war stand togther as one.

[Shiranai_Baka]

Well the government can take some of the blame for this also because when that 9/11 thing happened here the U.S. was given warnings of possible attacks but we just thought it was a joke and didnt even listen.. well you know what happened. As for "they have their reasons" well sometimes people have to kill other people in order to get their point across.. and well, its pretty sad how humans just do this...

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Shiranai_Baka@14 March 2004 - 03:58
Well the government can take some of the blame for this also because when that 9/11 thing happened here the U.S. was given warnings of possible attacks but we just thought it was a joke and didnt even listen.. well you know what happened.

Just remember that retrospective historians are a dime a dozen.

Remember the space shuttle blowing apart on re-entry? Well the retrospective historians went back and showed that concern had been raised about the possible dangers related to damage to the protective tiles.

It was then avered that NASA was well aware of this danger and proceeded anyway, pointlessly endandering lives.

You need to stop and wonder why NASA would do this? To meet a deadline or because of budget restrictions. No, that would be idiotic. The sole criteria for advancing and expanding the space program is assure safety above all else, otherwise people will turn away from such projects and funding will wither.

The point is that I am sure NASA had thousands of warnings and opinions on what they should or should not do. They had to weigh the risk/benefit and procede.

You hear about the warning that proved true and not the 999 others that didn't.


The analogy is similar for 9/11. It is not that there was just 1 threat out there and it was ignored, it was that there were thousands and they had to pick and chose among them all. They fucked up, but this does not constitute the malignant neglect some like to portray.

[J'Pol]

What the feck is a retrospective historian, tautologous surely.

Otherwise, good points. Made in an average way, you rely to mush on analogy, like a minister teaching by relating parables.

[Biggles]

Retrospective history would indeed be tautological, but in fairness to Hobbes he is referring to common or garden 20/20 hindsight. There are numerous experts in this field and are duly wheeled out to say their piece when required.

Short of searching every piece of hand luggage of every rush hour commuter (and bring commerce to its knees) there is little to prevent such attacks. There are 10s of thousands of railway stations, bus stops etc., in every country; it just isn't feasible. Commentators have warned that we are vunerable in such areas for a long time, however, the main defence is to head these people off before they are at the implementation phase - by then it is usually too late.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by J'Pol@14 March 2004 - 15:01
What the feck is a retrospective historian, tautologous surely.

Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

Hope this clears up any confusion.

[tracydani]

LOL, I belive your first post was well said hobbes, but I'll have to take your word for it that the second was too

TD

[J'Pol]

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by J'Pol@14 March 2004 - 06:01
What the feck is a retrospective historian, tautologous surely.

maybe something akin to "revisionist historian"? i think it's a mistake to decry revisionist history, as i hear people often do... because an important thing to keep in mind is that 1) the old saying is more true than not, that history is written by the winners and it often leaves much to be desired in the way of differing/dissenting perspectives (such as those of the losers and powerless people in general) until it's revised. how many sides are there to each story? at least three-- one side, the other side, and somewhere in the gap may be the truth. and 2) a few minutes of hindsight isn't necessarily 20/20, when there's still further research to be done and "lost" evidence & accounts to be dug up. history isn't like math or chemistry-- it's an imprecise, interpretive art, at best, almost like winemaking... and it has to achieve a certain vintage before its true character emerges.

'course, autopsies are best done while the corpse is still warm, and that's prolly relevant to how history is treated. but in any case the interpretive part shouldn't be done in haste, and you still might need to perform subsequent examinations, whether speaking of forensics or history.

[Biggles]

J'Pol

That Jaberwocky looks frighteningly like Mrs T.

:'(