giddy, you can't see the distinction between "ancient history" being destroyed during the heat of battle, and the incredible stupidity of building a base in close proximity to a place as historic as Jerusalem or Athens? Keep D&D Civil!!
It's a legitimate question. Two of our own monuments are ruined-- now called Ground Zero. Apparently we have trampled part of something of historic value to the world and to the Iraquis. Oops. Ground Zero is worse than "oops." Why is this not a legitimate point of comparison? Why do you like to accuse those with whom you disagree of being trolls?
Maybe it kept the insurgents RPGs away. That's what they pulled on us in Baghdad et al. Why is it stupid?
The twin towers were close to 30 years old. Babylon is thousands and thousands of years old. There is no comparison whatsoever. Skyscrapers bigger than the twin towers have been put up elsewhere. they were of significance because of their size. Not because of any significant historic value. That is not true of Babylon. Babylon is significant in the history of the world, many different religions, etc. Not so for the Twin towers.
I have no idea what you are talking about. What Associate's degree did those curators get? Wow, you got me there. I love the way you use BM repeatedly.... That is what it is called. Glad you love it.
Fine. We may disagree. One has more historical significance. That doesn't make you (or me) a troll....
No, I know you weren't; you never do. That was for SamFisher. The other thing of import of course is that the Twin towers were razed while the Tower of Babylon was simply "defiled"-- shall we say?
Someone tell me what is so priceless about old stuff. Yea it's interesting to some extent but why so sacrosanct. It's dusty, crumbly stuff ususally built by the exploitation of slave labor. You know, take some pictures, put some examples in a museum and raze the place for something useful. Of course I used to get booed out of my urban planning courses where all they wanted to talk about was historic preservation. If someone is willing to build something new where a substandard old building stands now, more power to them. If the 'beauty' has value then the marketplace will exploit it.
At least you could respond at all ... I couldn't. And WRT FB ... I'm not certain if it's remarkable patience or tolerance.
Considered the initial response from most people (here and abroad) was that those who committ the crime must be hanged and the country that housed them must be invaded to bring those that planned it to justice.............. I'm not really sure you want that as an argument. I'd stick with, it's war and there's not much you can do with it, which I buy.
Yea I get that a lot, but please expound. I realize for most people rarity yields value but for me I wouldn't pay $100 million for the original Starry Night when I could buy a nice reproduction for $39.95. I wouldn't have put the atiquities lost ahead of the commercial value of the Aswan Dam. I wouldn't try to preserve some 3rd. Ward shotgun homes if demand dictated newer housing. Yes, history should be learned from, art is an evoultion but the past is the past. It is to be improved on. The needs, desires and comforts of the living should be more important. And I won't be offended when things I have built are torn down in the future. They aren't inviolable just because I happened to build them during my temporary tenure. Everything on this planet is temporary and recycled. Human being's reverence for things pas tis just a futile attempt to deny our mortality. It's like worshiping dead ancestors.
