NYC community board OKs ground zero mosque plans

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

. . .while this basically says "RACISM".

How do you figure? If the sole reason of thinking that 9/11 was worse than the Murrah bombing is because arabs did it, then yes.... but who really thinks like that? I'm in no way trying to diminish the tragedy in Oklahoma but it's doesn't quite stack up to the level of death and destruction we saw on 9/11 or even the aftermath. 9/11 changed this country on so many different levels. How many wars were started because of Oklahoma City?

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

How do you figure? If the sole reason of thinking that 9/11 was worse than the Murrah bombing is because arabs did it, then yes.... but who really thinks like that? I'm in no way trying to diminish the tragedy in Oklahoma but it's doesn't quite stack up to the level of death and destruction we saw on 9/11 or even the aftermath. 9/11 changed this country on so many different levels. How many wars were started because of Oklahoma City?

Well, one possibility is, when the bombings first occured, the FBI did think it was possibly the same terrorists that bombed the WTC a few years before that happened. But the big part had to do with the fact that McVeigh was arrested almost 2hrs after the bombing and once the Feds were sure it was him..well. War averted until 9/11.

Also I think that the act itself, how it was carried out and the lack of safety measures we had at that point, regardless of how many who died was also what changed America.

Remember this, what's always been said is because of the time of day it happened, just think of how many more could have been killed had this been carried out later on in the day.

[Nanners52674]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

How do you figure? If the sole reason of thinking that 9/11 was worse than the Murrah bombing is because arabs did it, then yes.... but who really thinks like that? I'm in no way trying to diminish the tragedy in Oklahoma but it's doesn't quite stack up to the level of death and destruction we saw on 9/11 or even the aftermath. 9/11 changed this country on so many different levels. How many wars were started because of Oklahoma City?

Why do you need to compare the two tragedies? They are both horrible events in the history of our country and can stand on their own.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by Nanners52674

Why do you need to compare the two tragedies? They are both horrible events in the history of our country and can stand on their own.

I don't NEED to compare anything and I wasn't the one who even brought up OK in the first place

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

How many wars were started because of Oklahoma City?

We captured the guys involved and killed one of them. The two incidents are vastly incomparable.

What were we going to do, bomb Waco for good measure or something?

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

What were we going to do, bomb Waco for good measure or something?

Wait, we had already done that.

Just to play Devil's advocate for PiKa, I would think that the comparisons made is due to how much change Americans went through after 9/11 and how much we all had been inudated with the face of Islam in some ways being associated (incorrectly) with terrorism.

the OK city bombings didn't change much except maybe how much more information that a car rental place needed to have on file, but 9/11 drastically changed so much more.

I think that is the point he was trying to make.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Wait, we had already done that.

Just to play Devil's advocate for PiKa, I would think that the comparisons made is due to how much change Americans went through after 9/11 and how much we all had been inudated with the face of Islam in some ways being associated (incorrectly) with terrorism.

the OK city bombings didn't change much except maybe how much more information that a car rental place needed to have on file, but 9/11 drastically changed so much more.

I think that is the point he was trying to make.

That's why McVeigh and Nichols were upset. Also they were crazy.

But see, it's different because it's foreign based terrorism vs domestic, and we hadn't seen anything like the attacks on September 11th here before, though other countries had.

Thing is, making it a great national wound in our side is the purpose of terroism. Rebuilding, moving on, and not living in fear or attacking each American Muslims is really the best way to "win."

Instead we still have Ground Zero instead of WTC+1 (which is what I would have liked to see, rebuilt albeit with better structural support and add one floor to each tower.), we're making American Muslims the target of our fear and anger, and we have to buy new shampoo wherever we travel because of the stupid TSA regulations.

In short, we didn't have to "change" nearly as much as we did.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

That's why McVeigh and Nichols were upset. Also they were crazy.

But see, it's different because it's foreign based terrorism vs domestic, and we hadn't seen anything like the attacks on September 11th here before, though other countries had.

Thing is, making it a great national wound in our side is the purpose of terroism. Rebuilding, moving on, and not living in fear or attacking each American Muslims is really the best way to "win."

Instead we still have Ground Zero instead of WTC+1 (which is what I would have liked to see, rebuilt albeit with better structural support and add one floor to each tower.), we're making American Muslims the target of our fear and anger, and we have to buy new shampoo wherever we travel because of the stupid TSA regulations.

In short, we didn't have to "change" nearly as much as we did.

Small correction, you forgot about Pearl harbor and how we set up 'camps' for Japanese Americans.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Small correction, you forgot about Pearl harbor and how we set up 'camps' for Japanese Americans.

Are you talking about the racism issue?

That was 70 years ago. I'd hope we'd made a little progress since then.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Are you talking about the racism issue?

That was 70 years ago. I'd hope we'd made a little progress since then.

It's still within memory but the ideology is still the same. Because of what Japan did at Pearl Harbor, made it bad for ALL Japanese people especially any Japanese Americans who were loyal citizen whose only crime was to have Japanese ancestry.

What is going on now isn't that much different.

What a handful did on 9/11 has Americans fearful of anything relating to Islam and Muslim culture.

We just haven't started locking Muslims up in camps yet.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Just to play Devil's advocate for PiKa, I would think that the comparisons made is due to how much change Americans went through after 9/11 and how much we all had been inudated with the face of Islam in some ways being associated (incorrectly) with terrorism.

the OK city bombings didn't change much except maybe how much more information that a car rental place needed to have on file, but 9/11 drastically changed so much more.

I think that is the point he was trying to make.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

How do you figure? If the sole reason of thinking that 9/11 was worse than the Murrah bombing is because arabs did it, then yes.... but who really thinks like that? I'm in no way trying to diminish the tragedy in Oklahoma but it's doesn't quite stack up to the level of death and destruction we saw on 9/11 or even the aftermath. 9/11 changed this country on so many different levels.

I don't disagree with parts of this, but remember that there was (and still is) a large amount of "us versus them" involved in 9/11 - OKC wasn't done by "outsiders" while 9/11 was. OKC isn't viewed as an attack on our government (even though it was, both literally and figuratively), while 9/11 often is.

While "racism" isn't exactly the right word, there's no doubt that part of the reason why 9/11 carries so much weight (and the dreaded "TERRORISM" label, while OKC doesn't to the same extent at all) is because it was performed by Muslims. While correlation doesn't equal causation, of course, it's clear that there is prejudice involved.

The "changes" caused by 9/11 were knee-jerk and likely cosmetic - and often for the negative when not cosmetic. I mean, airline travel changes are pretty fine, but the Patriot Act? Really? Those kinds of changes aren't persuasive for me.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I don't disagree with parts of this, but remember that there was (and still is) a large amount of "us versus them" involved in 9/11 - OKC wasn't done by "outsiders" while 9/11 was. OKC isn't viewed as an attack on our government (even though it was, both literally and figuratively), while 9/11 often is.

While "racism" isn't exactly the right word, there's no doubt that part of the reason why 9/11 carries so much weight (and the dreaded "TERRORISM" label, while OKC doesn't to the same extent at all) is because it was performed by Muslims. While correlation doesn't equal causation, of course, it's clear that there is prejudice involved.

The "changes" caused by 9/11 were knee-jerk and likely cosmetic - and often for the negative when not cosmetic. I mean, airline travel changes are pretty fine, but the Patriot Act? Really? Those kinds of changes aren't persuasive for me.

Interestingly enough, while both of you bring up great points, look at some of the last few events and let's remember who were the primary suspects:

OKC was initally thought to be Muslim terrorists (again until McVeigh was caught)

The Beltway Sniper was originally thought to be an Al - Quaeda agent (oddly enough John Muhammed was an NOI Muslim but some people wouldn't care all the need to see is that he was "Muslim")

The anthrax attacks (RIGHT after 9/11) was thought to be by Al-Quaeda

heck...people were still trying to figure out if Maj. Nidal Hassan had Al-Queada ties after the Ft Hood shootings.

@Ksig...and don't forget the fun part of the Patriot Act...wiretapping!!!

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Interestingly enough, while both of you bring up great points, look at some of the last few events and let's remember who were the primary suspects:

OKC was initally thought to be Muslim terrorists (again until McVeigh was caught)

The Beltway Sniper was originally thought to be an Al - Quaeda agent (oddly enough John Muhammed was an NOI Muslim but some people wouldn't care all the need to see is that he was "Muslim")

The anthrax attacks (RIGHT after 9/11) was thought to be by Al-Quaeda

heck...people were still trying to figure out if Maj. Nidal Hassan had Al-Queada ties after the Ft Hood shootings.

@Ksig...and don't forget the fun part of the Patriot Act...wiretapping!!!

But don't forget the Ft Dix, shoe bomber, soda bottle, and panty bomber incidents.....

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I don't disagree with parts of this, but remember that there was (and still is) a large amount of "us versus them" involved in 9/11 - OKC wasn't done by "outsiders" while 9/11 was. OKC isn't viewed as an attack on our government (even though it was, both literally and figuratively), while 9/11 often is.

While "racism" isn't exactly the right word, there's no doubt that part of the reason why 9/11 carries so much weight (and the dreaded "TERRORISM" label, while OKC doesn't to the same extent at all) is because it was performed by Muslims. While correlation doesn't equal causation, of course, it's clear that there is prejudice involved.

The "changes" caused by 9/11 were knee-jerk and likely cosmetic - and often for the negative when not cosmetic. I mean, airline travel changes are pretty fine, but the Patriot Act? Really? Those kinds of changes aren't persuasive for me.

While you do have some good points I'm still going to have to disagree with you. I think that if we had two similar incidents to compare ( similar in methods, damage, deaths) with one being committed by a foreign muslim, the other being committed by a white christian citizen and the muslim ends up being "feared" more than I'd agree with you. DS made some good examples of when suspected Muslims go nuts, our knee-jerk reaction is terrorist. When non-muslims go nuts, well they are just considered nuts.

I believe that if 9/11 was carried out by domestic white christian terrorists we would have still seen the creation of DHS and the passing of the Patriot Act. No war in Afghanistan of course.