Minneapolis Bridge Collapse (2 Viewers)

[The Pado]

OK, 200,000 cars per day for 40 years. I say it was stress.


Sorry about going back on topic.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Snoop]

Man, you're as bad as all the Americans who think they can isolate the psyche of why "all Muslims become terrorists" blah blah blah. To argue that 9/11 was mere cause-and-effect, pure nutcases aside, is as foolish as arguing that Islam is cause-and-effect to violence and murder, pure nutcases aside. There's a fine line between the explanation of people being fuck*d up criminals and the explanation that there was some much bigger higher order and plan for divine retribution.

You see that backwards thinking all the time when an earthquake hits 40 miles from San Francisco, the Christian religious freaks go into hyper-analysis overdrive, and the next thing you learn that god is punishing gays even when "He's" really screwing over über-Catholic migrant farmworkers from Mexico in the Santa Cruz mountain hills by the epicenter.

Just this week, a famous 33-year-old chef in Chicago who founded a renowned restaurant called Alinea was diagnosed with a form of cancer of the mouth. He was famous for introducing a form of new cuisine perfected by Ferran Adria of El Bulli in Spain called "molecular gastronomy" -- basically chemical decomposition of food and repurposed into weird forms like foams, suspensions, etc. So what do all these educated palates do? They start claiming that the food gave him cancer. "Must have been the tomato foam that gave him cancer of the mouth."

Talk about the brain going back to the dark ages of evolution where we smeared our crap on cave walls for art. When we looked at comets in the sky and associated them to divine retribution and cosmic annihilation.

Sometimes there's isn't this mystical, higher order and rational explanation for why fuck*d up sh*t happens. Sometimes people are just clearly fuck*d in the head. Ask most serial killers -- you're never going to get a logical, cause-and-effect answer for their actions.



But that's a cop-out, snoop. You just took individual decision-making and will and thrown it out the window. As long as people keep believing there's some magic key that will suddenly unlock and stop Muslim terrorists from blowing themselves up and everything around them, people will continue to believe that there's some magic formula that can flip Muslims from being good people or bad people.

This is as much a political fantasy as believing poverty is the cause of terrorism and therefore no Muslim doctors would ever hatch a bad London bombing plot. Blaming America for 9/11 involves as much childish critical thinking as blaming Islam for terrorists.

ermm thanx for comparing my logic with those of back then at stone age people's logic.

Actually I am not giving you these reasons because I watch one side's media, or any of it to be honest. I am not telling you Terrorism born out of USA's policy. No I am telling you If USA didn't go out of it's lands and make some people's life hell in those countries, those "Muslim" Terrorists wouldn't hate your country and make these. Plain and simple. But If you believe that US Politicians are all doing these to give the world a better life, and give them democracy without asking anything in return. Then there is no point of continuing this discussion and taking it any further, cause it will equal exactly like reasoning an earthquake because of punishing the Gays in California..

Arabs are one of the best people in the world in terms of friendship, ethics and all. But If you fuck with them, they are your worst enemies. But still, they don't go out to small countries to steal oil or their bread from their hands. see my point? I am not telling you that they have their rights fully to kill the Americans, but I am telling you the reasons they do like that, wrong or right, your Politicians are guilty and have the responsibility for 9/11 or anything similar to those, because of their greed and actions.

And no you can't stop some Arab terrorists blowing themselves up, but you can stop them doing that in your country, that's my whole point..

 

[swag]

OK, 200,000 cars per day for 40 years. I say it was stress.


Sorry about going back on topic.

Actually, there's a lot of people wondering if metal stress failures may be the cause -- since we have bridges made prior to the 1960s when far fewer cars were on the road and they are particularly hard to diagnose at that minute a level in the joints.

And I believe the last and only time Belgium had 200,000 cars per day driving over their bridges was when the Nazis came to town. :doh:

e
No I am telling you If USA didn't go out of it's lands and make some people's life hell in those countries, those "Muslim" Terrorists wouldn't hate your country and make these. Plain and simple. But If you believe that US Politicians are all doing these to give the world a better life, and give them democracy without asking anything in return.

I think you missed my point, snoop. Like I'm the first person around here to defend U.S. policy towards Israel, the Middle East in general, and to support the invasion of Iraq.

The issue is that the logic you're stepping into cuts both ways. That's the problem. If you are going to assign cause-and-effect that U.S. policy is responsible for some Muslims becoming terrorists, you are prescribing to the notion that those Muslims -- and hence all Muslims in general, really -- are incapable of free will and making their own choices for their own lives. By not holding those terrorists fully responsible for their decisions and actions by insinuating that the U.S government bears some responsibility, you are making them out to be mindless dogs incapable of thinking for themselves -- rather acting like puppets in response to the pulling of strings by the U.S. government.

Not that I wouldn't want to see half of the U.S. government burned at the stake for their obvious failures in Middle East policy. But it does a disservice for Muslims, anti-terrorist forces, and pretty much all free thinkers in the world to debase terrorists to a cause-and-effect model of such crass, pre-programmed behavior like a dog with a bone put in front of its face.

Like all we need in this world is support for the belief that if the U.S. government does X, Y% of all Muslims will instantly become terrorists. That basically justifies all racial profiling.

 

[3pac]

Seven, I've been to Belgium, and I can tell you that the intimidating not-so-much-gentlemen in large orange jackets eating meatball pose a far greater threat to the public's safety than ongoing construction problems in the united states...

 

[Snoop]

I think you missed my point, snoop. Like I'm the first person around here to defend U.S. policy towards Israel, the Middle East in general, and to support the invasion of Iraq.

The issue is that the logic you're stepping into cuts both ways. That's the problem. If you are going to assign cause-and-effect that U.S. policy is responsible for some Muslims becoming terrorists, you are prescribing to the notion that those Muslims -- and hence all Muslims in general, really -- are incapable of free will and making their own choices for their own lives. By not holding those terrorists fully responsible for their decisions and actions by insinuating that the U.S government bears some responsibility, you are making them out to be mindless dogs incapable of thinking for themselves -- rather acting like puppets in response to the pulling of strings by the U.S. government.

I never said anything like that. you are missing my point too, I am trying to tell that like every nation, Arabs have also some "bad" "non-educated" percentage of group in their population. These people can be controlled very easily by some Terrorists (The ones that do their dirty work to make money, or to have a control, and not for the sake of their country.. Say it int the name of nation or religion, when actually it is for money or power.). I never said they became terrorists because of America, no I told you the Terrorists acts in your country is happening because of your government's policy. They are uneducated, and idiots, they didn't became so because of USA, but they moved their work in USA because of US political system against their country. Got my point? I am talking about the reason it happened in USA and not the reason they became Terrorists.. Big difference!

Not that I wouldn't want to see half of the U.S. government burned at the stake for their obvious failures in Middle East policy. But it does a disservice for Muslims, anti-terrorist forces, and pretty much all free thinkers in the world to debase terrorists to a cause-and-effect model of such crass, pre-programmed behavior like a dog with a bone put in front of its face.

My point was not against USA only, any country who take advantage of the weakness of other countries, If these countries get terrorists attacks in return, then they are responsible for that. aren't they? not US's policy only is wrong and failure in Middle east only, but in the whole world when they try to interfere (almost) every country's policy, while at the same time they are making more and more enemies.

 

[swag]

I am trying to tell that like every nation, Arabs have also some "bad" "non-educated" percentage of group in their population. These people can be controlled very easily by some Terrorists (The ones that do their dirty work to make money, or to have a control, and not for the sake of their country.. Say it int the name of nation or religion, when actually it is for money or power.).

I will definitely agree with you there.

I never said they became terrorists because of America, no I told you the Terrorists acts in your country is happening because of your government's policy. They are uneducated, and idiots, they didn't became so because of USA, but they moved their work in USA because of US political system against their country. Got my point? I am talking about the reason it happened in USA and not the reason they became Terrorists.. Big difference!

Not much happens in the USA, really. But that aside, I clearly agree that government policy is pissing others off. But I would hardly call the majority of terrorists uneducated idiots. Maybe a bit demented and blind and lacking rational skills, perhaps, but not idiots. While you could argue that the botched Glasgow bombings were the mark of idiots, they seemed to be pretty competent in real life.

And any person who travels the world, goes through training, leverages international money transfers, and finds a way to do that without being caught isn't an idiot. In fact, I believe the typical terrorist make-up is a college-educated person with a little coin ... and isn't some desperate, impoverished fool begging on the streets.

My point was not against USA only, any country who take advantage of the weakness of other countries, If these countries get terrorists attacks in return, then they are responsible for that. aren't they?

Well, no. If for nothing else, because terrorists typically target Joe Schmuck in the street -- the dolt who pays taxes, tries to put food on the table for his family, and works in a shitty job just trying to pay the bills.

 

[ReBeL]

Not that I wouldn't want to see half of the U.S. government burned at the stake for their obvious failures in Middle East policy. But it does a disservice for Muslims, anti-terrorist forces, and pretty much all free thinkers in the world to debase terrorists to a cause-and-effect model of such crass, pre-programmed behavior like a dog with a bone put in front of its face.

I tried not to interfer in this thread as it was an local American thing that I know nothing about, but this post of yours forced me to tell you to check when you heard the word "Terrorist" the first time in your life. I mean in politics not in movies.

It was created after 11/9 and the American governement made it because they had to try to embody those who were behind their policies anywhere in the world.

It is not as if "Terror" was linked up with Muslims since centuries because Islam wanted Muslims to kill others. Rather, the American media, followed by all the Western media, briefed their enemy with a "terrorists" word instead of saying "Those who were annoyed by our troops since decades and had no free will to do whatever they want to do without us interferring in their personal lives".

It's much brief & attractive to say "Terrorist" in the news, especially when you know that most of your audience love to see your troops fighting "Evil" and not fighting normal people thousands of kilometres far from you without any reason but because your governemnt wants to forbid them from having normal lives.

 

[Snoop]

Not much happens in the USA, really. But that aside, I clearly agree that government policy is pissing others off. But I would hardly call the majority of terrorists uneducated idiots. Maybe a bit demented and blind and lacking rational skills, perhaps, but not idiots. While you could argue that the botched Glasgow bombings were the mark of idiots, they seemed to be pretty competent in real life.

The Majority of "Terrorists"/"Freedom fighters" that are being controlled by the real Terrorists (Who controls them by blinding their minds with religious quotes and blah blah.. The ones who are after power and money, who pretend they are after saving the pride of their country, and they can fool those poor uneducated "freedom fighter" easily)..

Maybe they are competent in real life, but for me they are nothing different than retards. These people commit themselves for wars and Terror. While they could live in peace and find other ways to overcome those who control their country or abuse their rights. Why should I commit myself to these acts, for a piece of land? nation (That you didn't choose)? Religion?? I keep call Racists and Nationalists Idiots for these reasons. Because they defend their leaders blindly while they know they are talking non-sense.

And any person who travels the world, goes through training, leverages international money transfers, and finds a way to do that without being caught isn't an idiot. In fact, I believe the typical terrorist make-up is a college-educated person with a little coin ... and isn't some desperate, impoverished fool begging on the streets.

are you doing this on purpose?

Well, no. If for nothing else, because terrorists typically target Joe Schmuck in the street -- the dolt who pays taxes, tries to put food on the table for his family, and works in a shitty job just trying to pay the bills.

I am not talking about Joe shmuck (love the name you made it ) being responsible, I am talking about Joe's leader's responsibility.

 

[swag]

I tried not to interfer in this thread as it was an local American thing that I know nothing about, but this post of yours forced me to tell you to check when you heard the word "Terrorist" the first time in your life. I mean in politics not in movies.

I first heard it in the early 1970s when there was a rash of airline hijackings, the Munich hostage situation, and a number of bombings in Northern Ireland.

It was created after 11/9 and the American governement made it because they had to try to embody those who were behind their policies anywhere in the world.

Uhhh... try the French Revolution of the 1780s:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

The word "terrorism" was first used in reference to the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution. A 1988 study by the United States Army found that more than one hundred definitions of the word exist and have been used.[3]

It is not as if "Terror" was linked up with Muslims since centuries because Islam wanted Muslims to kill others.

Since when have Muslims tried to lay claim to a monopoly on terrorism? Basque separatists, the IRA, etc. -- none of them are Muslim, and they've been doing a fine job of terrorism on their own for years.

The Majority of "Terrorists"/"Freedom fighters" that are being controlled by the real Terrorists (Who controls them by blinding their minds with religious quotes and blah blah..

There is the role of retards -- I know. We have no shortage of them here. People who blindly follow without questioning or applying rational thought. In fact, we have a whole political party here based on that premise.

But those tend not to be the leaders or folks who really do anything ... other than make nice photo op material, make noise in the streets, and wave placards or burn flags. Not exactly innocuous, but they don't even count as mere cogs in the global terrorism machine.

 

[Vinman]

Seven asked me to post this-

"I never liked that bridge, it wasn't asthetically pleasing...hell, I'm glad its gone"

 

[Rami]

Man, you're as bad as all the Americans who think they can isolate the psyche of why "all Muslims become terrorists" blah blah blah. To argue that 9/11 was mere cause-and-effect, pure nutcases aside, is as foolish as arguing that Islam is cause-and-effect to violence and murder, pure nutcases aside. There's a fine line between the explanation of people being fuck*d up criminals and the explanation that there was some much bigger higher order and plan for divine retribution.

I really don't follow Greg, I mean if we take all the official stories, Bin Laden's "motives" were "to cut the serphent's head" as he put it. Basically an effort to get the American's out of the Gulf and liberate Palestine, hitting America where it hurts most, their financial symbols would achieve that. Or he thought it would.

If that is not cause-and-effect I don't know what is?

 

[Rami]

Actually, there's a lot of people wondering if metal stress failures may be the cause -- since we have bridges made prior to the 1960s when far fewer cars were on the road and they are particularly hard to diagnose at that minute a level in the joints.

And I believe the last and only time Belgium had 200,000 cars per day driving over their bridges was when the Nazis came to town. :doh:



I think you missed my point, snoop. Like I'm the first person around here to defend U.S. policy towards Israel, the Middle East in general, and to support the invasion of Iraq.

The issue is that the logic you're stepping into cuts both ways. That's the problem. If you are going to assign cause-and-effect that U.S. policy is responsible for some Muslims becoming terrorists, you are prescribing to the notion that those Muslims -- and hence all Muslims in general, really -- are incapable of free will and making their own choices for their own lives. By not holding those terrorists fully responsible for their decisions and actions by insinuating that the U.S government bears some responsibility, you are making them out to be mindless dogs incapable of thinking for themselves -- rather acting like puppets in response to the pulling of strings by the U.S. government.

Not that I wouldn't want to see half of the U.S. government burned at the stake for their obvious failures in Middle East policy. But it does a disservice for Muslims, anti-terrorist forces, and pretty much all free thinkers in the world to debase terrorists to a cause-and-effect model of such crass, pre-programmed behavior like a dog with a bone put in front of its face.

Like all we need in this world is support for the belief that if the U.S. government does X, Y% of all Muslims will instantly become terrorists. That basically justifies all racial profiling.

Ahh here is where I understand where you coming from. But I still beg to differ, we live in an intertwined world, any action will have an effect on some. But I really don't see how you can equate it to, as you put it, "strings by the U.S. government". After 911, the US government came up with the "Patriot Act", could we say that the US are pulled by strings from a cave in Afghanistan? No, its just simply a reaction.

The way I see it, is Arab's after multiple lost wars against Israel, "liberation" is becoming more and more as a dream never happening. I bet the Arabs of 48 thought, oh well this issue will be resolved in 6 month or so, the 6 month became 60 years....4 wars with Israel backed up with the US, got the best of a group of these bandits, and in some twisted reasoning they justified taking the war to America's innocent citizens. Trust me the human mind has a huge capability of justifying anything, I heard them all. And in OBL's case, it was "since American citizens are not protesting to their governments policies, they are associated with their crimes, hence their shedding their blood is justified", how twisted is that?

I am probably drifting off, my point is, everything is intertwined together, you can't isolate it as just one combo of cause-and-effect, but a whole chain of C and E combos.

 

[Vinman]

Rami, you're the nicest terrorist that I know !!

 

[Rami]

Rami, you're the nicest terrorist that I know !!

What are you trying to say? That I am a terrorist but nice? or the nicest Arab?

 

[Hambon]

What about me

 

[swag]

Seven asked me to post this-

"I never liked that bridge, it wasn't asthetically pleasing...hell, I'm glad its gone"

Somebody had to.

I really don't follow Greg, I mean if we take all the official stories, Bin Laden's "motives" were "to cut the serphent's head" as he put it. Basically an effort to get the American's out of the Gulf and liberate Palestine, hitting America where it hurts most, their financial symbols would achieve that. Or he thought it would.

If that is not cause-and-effect I don't know what is?

I don't think he was trying to liberate Palestine. Palestine is a ruse, IMO. What Bin Laden wanted was a purified Saudi Arabia, free of the Royal Family baggage and the pro-American influences.

Rami, you're the nicest terrorist that I know !!

Rami has always been my favorite terrorist.

Ahh here is where I understand where you coming from. But I still beg to differ, we live in an intertwined world, any action will have an effect on some. But I really don't see how you can equate it to, as you put it, "strings by the U.S. government". After 911, the US government came up with the "Patriot Act", could we say that the US are pulled by strings from a cave in Afghanistan? No, its just simply a reaction.

The way I see it, is Arab's after multiple lost wars against Israel, "liberation" is becoming more and more as a dream never happening. I bet the Arabs of 48 thought, oh well this issue will be resolved in 6 month or so, the 6 month became 60 years....4 wars with Israel backed up with the US, got the best of a group of these bandits, and in some twisted reasoning they justified taking the war to America's innocent citizens. Trust me the human mind has a huge capability of justifying anything, I heard them all. And in OBL's case, it was "since American citizens are not protesting to their governments policies, they are associated with their crimes, hence their shedding their blood is justified", how twisted is that?

I am probably drifting off, my point is, everything is intertwined together, you can't isolate it as just one combo of cause-and-effect, but a whole chain of C and E combos.

It's not that I don't follow where you're coming from. I just think there's a danger with a mentality that eliminates the ability for choice -- it becomes a "Oh, helpless me. I'm a Muslim and the U.S. has repeatedly fucked over my homeland. I have no choice now but to blow myself up with civilians."

That's just much worse on a lot of levels. And the problem is, there are American policymakers who think that. Particularly if more people lend credibility to this inevitable cause-to-effect attitude. Because then every Muslim is just a hand grenade waiting to go off when the aggravation level is dialed in just right.

I mean, we all have our limits. But let's not stereotype followers of an entire religion and remove their personal will and dignity for their ability to make rational decisions for themselves.

 

[Lawnchair Bes]

so would it be safe to assume that it WASN'T a terrorist attack?

 

[Rami]

I don't think he was trying to liberate Palestine. Palestine is a ruse, IMO. What Bin Laden wanted was a purified Saudi Arabia, free of the Royal Family baggage and the pro-American influences.



Rami has always been my favorite terrorist.

Trust me, I have heard lots of his speeches, most of them revolve around Palestine in a first degree, and secondly purifying the Gulf. You used the word ruse, yet I still disagree, I am not saying that Palestine is top priority to OBL because of his speeches, but because of my understanding of the Arab emotions toward Palestine. Most if not all Arabs dream of the day they regain rule in Palestine, and Osama and his bandits do not stray away from that emotion. The whole issue has seized the minds and souls of Arabs/Muslims for centuries now, it would be only foolish to think that its not one of OBL's doesn't share that same feeling, after all he is comes from a generation that lived through multiple wars against Israel. It's almost like saying that a British political party doesn't really want to see Hitler crushed during WW2 and its just a ruse to get something else (I just hope that there wasn't any pro-Hitler parties at that time, I wouldn't know, you would shoot that analogy right down)

It's not that I don't follow where you're coming from. I just think there's a danger with a mentality that eliminates the ability for choice -- it becomes a "Oh, helpless me. I'm a Muslim and the U.S. has repeatedly fucked over my homeland. I have no choice now but to blow myself up with civilians."

That's just much worse on a lot of levels. And the problem is, there are American policymakers who think that. Particularly if more people lend credibility to this inevitable cause-to-effect attitude. Because then every Muslim is just a hand grenade waiting to go off when the aggravation level is dialed in just right.

I mean, we all have our limits. But let's not stereotype followers of an entire religion and remove their personal will and dignity for their ability to make rational decisions for themselves.

You don't see all Arabs blowing themselves now do you? It's free choice of course, a group of people decided to blow themselves up, others decided to aid Palestinians with their money, another group boycotted American and Israeli goods, some tried to share understanding and exchange with America,
others decided to sit idle and mind their own business. Whats your point? Isn't that all free will? Even blowing oneself?
http://www.saudiamericanexchange.org/saesite/index.aspx

 

[Vinman]

What are you trying to say? That I am a terrorist but nice? or the nicest Arab?

the choice is "C", all the above

 

[swag]

so would it be safe to assume that it WASN'T a terrorist attack?

Good conspiracy theory. I like. But someone would have claimed responsibility by now then.

Trust me, I have heard lots of his speeches, most of them revolve around Palestine in a first degree, and secondly purifying the Gulf. You used the word ruse, yet I still disagree, I am not saying that Palestine is top priority to OBL because of his speeches, but because of my understanding of the Arab emotions toward Palestine. Most if not all Arabs dream of the day they regain rule in Palestine, and Osama and his bandits do not stray away from that emotion. The whole issue has seized the minds and souls of Arabs/Muslims for centuries now, it would be only foolish to think that its not one of OBL's doesn't share that same feeling, after all he is comes from a generation that lived through multiple wars against Israel. It's almost like saying that a British political party doesn't really want to see Hitler crushed during WW2 and its just a ruse to get something else (I just hope that there wasn't any pro-Hitler parties at that time, I wouldn't know, you would shoot that analogy right down)

If OBL was all about Palestine, than I clearly do not understand why America -- a secondary target -- was chosen over a primary target in Israel. It's that simple.

You don't see all Arabs blowing themselves now do you? It's free choice of course, a group of people decided to blow themselves up, others decided to aid Palestinians with their money, another group boycotted American and Israeli goods, some tried to share understanding and exchange with America,
others decided to sit idle and mind their own business. Whats your point? Isn't that all free will? Even blowing oneself?
http://www.saudiamericanexchange.org/saesite/index.aspx

The question of free will isn't about whether some chose to do so and some don't. It's the notion that some were merely compelled to do so by outside forces, and thus they aren't capable of controlling themselves. That the focus of blame or cause is pointed externally to them and not internally to them.