Your 3 main reasons

[Violet]

I think you were misunderstanding my point, which I might not have communicated effectively. Perhaps I should have said that beyond the real terror for my own family members, there was an empathetic human reaction to other human suffering that I get regardless of body count. I thought this was a natural human sympathetic emotion.

Oh, I have it... but I choose what I receive empathetically. Fear? Rarely. Sadness? Often.

Btw, one priest molesting a handful of children is only of "little" concern in comparison. I'm sure to the handful of children he diddled, it was a major fucking concern.

Two people die because of a murderer. Two thousand die because of terrorists. Two hundred thousand to two million because of a selfish dictator. It's all a tragedy. That's all I'm saying.

It's not a concern to society at large though... I think a lot of people make more out of things with little impact and less out of great impact than they should.

Life is a tragedy? Agreed. But I certainly don't desire a peaceful end to it anytime soon (death is peace)

I didn't say I wouldn't rather my dad alive, I just stated I cared that he didn't die in a fucking explosion rather than comfortably as possible. The dead don't care after the fact, no, but that doesn't change that I'd rather them not suffer. Again with that empathy thing.

Suffering is unrelated to death. The dead do not suffer at all, so it seems silly to connect the two. Charge those who kill people with killing, and those who torture with torturing, and should the tw be combined charge them with both at once. It still doesn't matter how a person dies: they are dead. It matters that a person suffers, but that is unrelated to that person being dead.

I'm not quite sure what the hell you're talking about here. I don't blame my dad for being at the Pentagon - he's a military/government lawyer and that's his job. I fully blame Osama and the terrorists, not my dad for being where he was supposed to be that day. As I said above - if he dies in a fireball or in a hospital bed, I still have to divy up his possessions. It doesn't change that I'd rather he go out with comfort than pain. Where are you getting this?

My point was only that where a person is has as much effect on their current state (dead/alive/whatever) as a bullet which could kill them. There are an infinite number of problems with charging the effect and cause together, and no reason to do so. He who murders is a murderer... to connect him and the dead in the same sentence of judgement is to disservice the value of both.

My point is that you'd rather the living not suffer, not that the living didn't suffer before they died. Your father has already suffered, as have you, as have I, as all of the living do. Your father will die, as will you, as will I, as will all that is alive. Connecting suffering with death is pointless. Connecting suffering with the living is rational

1) Emotions aren't bad things. Sorry you have decided to think otherwise.

It isn't that emotions are bad things, it is that they have their place. And that place is outside of leadership. Poop isn't a bad thing either, but it has its place. That place is not on a library table.

2) We didn't have an "emotional" leader. We had a religious right wing fuck nut who was fighting the rest of his daddy's war.

He was an emotional leader, or he wouldn't be a religious right wing fucknut that cares about his father's wars

3) I never condoned the war in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Didn't say you did. But America on the whole was thirsty for blood and vengeance. And now a lot of them that wanted in in the first place say to pull out. It's amazing how many of the people on local talk radio I recall supporting attacking those places a few years ago. Now the tune has changed, and the fickle populace is only starting to understand war and what it causes... I'm almost entirely convinced that this entire charade was set up by gas companies with the goal of leeching more money. I wish the american masses were not so fickle about things that should not be treated lightly.

4) if they thought destroying a military headquarters and a center of commerce was striking the "heart" of American, they were deluded. Obviously.

Those aren't the heart of america... take a good few churches out and you'd have a response of religious nationalism. Easier to pull off too. Cheaper even. Wow, maybe their idea wasn't actually to strike at the heart of america but to wage a more effective war?

I mean, i can't think of any other reason to hit the pentagon. Unless the pope was visiting on that day?

[opening mouth and shutting it]

I can't. I really just can't respond. Wow.

Failure in design of the buildings, failure in fire department putting out fires, failure in evacuation, failure in security, failure in response to infiltrated security and the helpless passengers on three planes (a few men with knives, for heaven's sake overpower them! A fourth plane's people at least weren't filled with helpless ninnies, although they failed to not crash a plane), failure in defense (a successful attack on the pentagon is pretty impressive i think), failure in the muslims flying the planes where they should have to cause the most damage, failure in predictions regarding the stability of the buildings, failure of triage, failure failure failure failure, and even today we're still failing.

What positive is to say about the whole ordeal? That an attacker got luckier than they should have expected and someone made a successful attack on the pentagon?