Quote:
Originally posted by Schroeder:
Listen to your stats, victim: 1.65 million Cambodians, 800,000 Rwandans: These people could have rose up against their opression. They could see the people dying all around them. They had a chance to make a difference, but they didn't. I don't believe the Khmer Rouge killed all 1.65 million at the same time. I don't think all 800,000 Rwandans died within minutes of each other. These people had a chance. They could have worked together.
|
Yeah, and the passengers of the planes that crashed into the WTC and the Pentagon could have stopped the terrorists
in theory. The government could have kept a better pulse on all the warning signs, and there were plenty of them
in theory. They didn't though, did they? Do you really think that the most advanced, powerful nation to ever exist could simply get kicked in the balls like that? Do you really think we were completely powerless to what happened? No way. You can't blame those masses of people any more than you can blame the passengers or our government, and if anything, you can only blame them less.
You have to remember that these people were, and still are incredibly poor. They had no food, they had no water, and they certainly didn't have any weapons. What are they going to do? If they wanted to rise up, how the hell do you coordinate that many people in their status. You can't rely on radio, television, or a newspaper. You sure as fuck can't make a phone tree for a million oppressed people either. These people can't even eat, not to mention organize a massive rebellion.
In addition to this, the majority of those dead are women, children, and the elderly. How were they supposed to do something? Survival against starvation and malnutrition is one thing, but the forces of militarism and terrorism? They never stood a chance.
Quote:
Originally posted by Schroeder:
I know there is terrorism everywhere. I know more people have died than in 9/11. Unfortunately, third-world countries don't exactly have the best situation. That is why they are third world countries. Cambodia and Rwanda both lose more people to starvation than terrorists. If the terrorists wouldn't have got them, starvation or disease probably would have. I know that is a terrible outlook but sometimes you just have to accept the facts. That doesn't mean that they deserved to die, but it wasn't as major a loss.
|
So, you're saying that some people's lives are more valuable than others? Not only this, you're saying that the value of a human life should be determined by it's sociopolitical environment? Are you stating that an American death is worse than the death of a foreigner? It sure sounds like it. It's this notion that gets our country into trouble overseas in the first place. We're not any better, any more valuable, than anybody else. In fact, I find it more tragic when somebody who had a horrible shot in life faces an untimely death rather than some ungrateful person who had it pretty good.
By the way, by your logic... all the people in the WTC would have just died of old age, disease, car accidents, and ignorance anyway, so why cry? That's bullshit, your whole point was bullshit, and I hope you see it now.