If you could go back in time, would you stop 9/11?

I'm not living m ylife fearful, but my life just isn't as black and white as your's seems to be. I said no to the original hypo because of what could occur by doing that. I don't understand what's wrong with that. If I knew that nothing bad could come of erasing 9/11, of course I would, so would everyone else. It's idiotic to think otherwise. However, it's impossible to know what could've occured if this attack. BTW, I never used the word measly or implied it. All I said was that we were extremely lucky that only 3,000 people were lost. I mourn for every single one of those. **** you for saying I thought the number was measly.

 

Now we're going into crazy areas...clearly time travel and changing the past are impossible...so we can NOT assume the role of God. This hypothetical clearly indicates that we CAN...so to bring the role of God and man into this instantly kills the hypothetical...

I think what giddyup's and my response to this has to do with our theology is likely a respect for innocent human life and a desire for justice.

God is in control...He certainly works through the worst of things for good, in my view. But ask me if I wished 3,000 people hadn't died in a savage attack or not, and my answer will be the same every time...NO! NO! NO! And frankly, I'm seriously concerned that some people would say, "yes."

Whether or not their families take peace in the fact they're in Heaven or not is certainly left up to the families...that's not for me to decide. And, quite frankly, I don't know if these individuals are in Heaven or not. Christianity, my faith, doesn't teach me that simply being killed by terrorists allows one to spend eternity with God.

And no one...I mean no one....should have an easy time with this event. Faith gives me some comfort...but it doesn't erase the fact that it was wrong and evil and heartbreaking. Read Psalms..King David is quite forthright with his emotions in that book, and we don't see God denying him the right to those emotions....sometimes we have to go through those emotions to reach real peace. But if you didn't have a difficult time with this event, my next question would be, are you human?

 

But no one here is saying that they wished 3,000 people died, and honestly, I'm pissed off at that accuastion. However, 3,000 people did die, in a horrible, tragic accident that I shed tears over...on that day and six months later. However, those of us who answered no to the hypo did so with good reason, the same way that those who answered yes did. No one said they wouldn't change it because they were happy, or not even sad, that 3,000 people died.

 

but what is being said is that's it worth 3,000 lives for the lesson (at least that's what someone said here)...i wouldn't be willing to say that before the fact...and to go back in time puts me in that position. I certainly understand your position, RM95....and I don't think you WISHED these people would die...that's not at all what I meant....sorry if it came across that way.

 

Oh, well why didn't you just ask that in the first place? Of course I'm not human. I'm a horrible, horrible monster, as anyone who holds different beliefs from you must be.

 

ITS A MONSTER! KILL IT KILL IT!

 

Mrs. JB...you know I didn't mean that of you!!! that's not fair!!

weren't you troubled by the events of 9/11???

 

Calm down, Rambo! I criticized YOUR what-if because in assuming the next outcome would possibly be worse you have willingly re-sacrificed 3,000 innocent lives.

Cool down. I said "measly" not you. I didn't cite or quote you. I wrote that to contrast that "small" number of 3,000 to my sarcastic and hypothetical killing off of everyone. You are right; it's not a small number. We agree. You are probably disappointed.

You worldview accounts for a worse outcome. Mine allows for a triumphant one. Whose world view is black-and-white?

 

Of course I was, you dork. But I CAN'T change what happened. No one can. So why are we all arguing about it !!?!??!!! AAARRRGGHHHH!!!!!! If you'll excuse me, I'm going to go eat some cookies now...

 

Your's is. You're looking at this hypothetical in a black and white manner...either the 3,000 or dead or they're not.

I'm looking at it like this...either the 3,000 or dead, or they're not, or quite possibly, 10,000 are dead, or 50,000 are dead, or 1,000,000 are dead. I believe that because our current President and our former President didn't seem to want to do anything about bin Laden. I'm sorry if I can't ignore the fact that what happened potentially saved more lives, but I can't. Most people agree that if this had to happen, losing 3,000 people was very lucky for the reasons I have already stated. I can't ignore the fact that bin Laden's out there. You seem to be able to.

 

I think you missed the point. No one is saying they'd not save these people's lives, they are simply concerned with the possible consequences of doing it. Especially when those consequences could be many times worse than 9-11. If 9-11 never happened then the airlines would not have been shut down for a few days and security would not have been increased and Al-Qaeda would not be on the run, etc. Who knows what the heck they had planned in the event that 9-11 didn't go down. Would you trade 3,000 lives today for 50,000 lives tomorrow?

 

i'm literally confused by your responses now!!!

first, you act offended that somehow i meant you in particular, when i said someone would have to be less than human to not be disturbed by 9/11....then you tell me you WERE disturbed by 9/11. huh?

then, in a thread about a hypothetical, you say, "it can't be changed!!!" of course it can't be changed!!! it's a hypothetical, and we all acknowledged as much...that's why the original poster had to reframe the question with certain rules. i didn't post the hypothetical, I merely answered it!!!

but if you have any extra cookies, I'd love one!!!

 

i absolutely would (again, in some world where such an act would be possible) as long as i knew for certain that we would lose 50,000 tomorrow. But if I go back in time to 9/11, I have no idea if that's a possibility....even given information I have TODAY!! what if al qaeda instead attempted this thing, but it were foiled...but it was clear to us all that something needed to be done??? and then what if we took those steps??? i'd EASILY choose to save those 3,000 lives in the hope that would happen!! you guys are all looking at this like it's a definite we would have lost MORE lives had 9/11 not happened...I'm not sure how you necessarily arrive at that conclusion. Is it a possibility, sure??? I suppose it's also a possiblity an asteroid could hit us tomorrow rendering the entire terrorism problem moot!

 

That was the simple question. It's 9/12 and 9/11 either happened or it didn't. I chose the latter.

We were lucky to only lose 3,000 but I would still render it a non-event if given the power of the hypothetical.

I don't criticize Clinton or Bush; we all seem to have underestimated bin Laden. Our intelligence operations are using cold war techniques in a modern world.

Your possible outcomes all include 3,000 or many, many more dead. Mine allowed for a sharpening of our wits. Perhaps uncovering and foiling the plan would have been sufficent to take bin Laden and the Al-Quaeda more seriously.

How do you see me ignoring bin Laden? Your scenario plays-out just to have him succeeding perhaps on an even larger scale.

 

Drew -- i'm saying that if you knew for certain that a loss of 3,000 lives would prevent a loss of 50,000, and the question were presented to me, i would choose the lesser of two evils and say Ok, take the 3,000...but prevent the death of 50,000.

 

Max and Rich:

I'm sure the 2 of you off the BBS are great guys in real life, but this isn't the first time that I have been reading a thread and the 2 of you (if both are posting - if not then whoever of the 2 of you is posting) are acting like pompous assholes.

Now before you start jumping to conclusions about me being buddies with RM95, there are only 2 people off this BBS that I have even talked to outside of email - and zero BBS members that I have met in person. So, I wouldn't know RM95 from Adam if he came walking up to me right now. However, from reading his posts, I doubt very seriously he is some cold-hearted b*stard that enjoyed 3,000 innocent people losing their lives. The same goes for Mrs. JB - a poster that I didn't get along with it at first, but reading her posts, you can tell that she is not some sociopathic monster.

The 2 of you have severe problems accepting dissenting opinions from your own. I don't understand why you can't acknowledge RM95 or Mrs. JB's viewpoint without saying stuff like "You monster! or you aren't human!" No, they are not a monster or non-human...they are just not a MadMax Jr. or RichRocket Jr.

Granted, I have gotten uppity in the past about music and come across as pompous myself. However, I was in the wrong and music is a trivial matter compared to what we are talking about here.

For the record, I'm a Christian. However, my father is not. I can see why many people are not Christians; however, it is not my place to judge those individuals. Labelling someone who simply has a different opinion from you is something that I would try to avoid. It just makes those people who are undecided and thinking about joining your side have second thoughts.

I don't mean to come across as being harsh, but I am so damn tired of seeing these threads evolve into mudslinging extravanganzas. It makes me want to quit reading the thread.

 

Manny -- why don't you read the entire thread before you start jumping to conclusions about me here??? how about reading the mulitple posts here where i made it clear to both RM95 and Mrs. JB that I acknowledged their feelings on this and could completely understand them...how about reading where I told Mrs. JB that I did not direct my comments directly at her....

I really don't appreciate the "pompous *******" reference...truly. Particularly since you clearly did not even bother to read my posts.

 

No - I have read enough posts in this thread that led me to the conclusion stated in my previous post.

And like I said before, it's not the first time & probably won't be the last that I have seen incenidary, labelling posts that denigrate other posters here.

You just can't *categorize* things as black and white. The sooner you realize this, the better off you will be for your own peace of mind.

Anyway, I'm out of here on this thread.