Space shuttle Columbia crashes
- Thread starter Shadowfax
- Start date
Well, it doesn't anger me that I think about it, it angers me that I have to think about it, however. Face it, in todays world, especially since 9/11, it is on most everyone's mind. Certainly in the US, and most of the rest of the world too.
Now, after hearing it was 200,000 feet up, and traveling at 12,500 mph, I think it's fair to assume that terrorists don't have SAM's that can reach that. So, I dismissed it, however, the thought was still there.
Now, after hearing it was 200,000 feet up, and traveling at 12,500 mph, I think it's fair to assume that terrorists don't have SAM's that can reach that. So, I dismissed it, however, the thought was still there.
Professur
Well-Known Member
PuterTutor said:
You have no idea. For the most part, I can ignore it. I have to daily, since most french people speaking english will automatically butcher the grammar. I suppose I do the same speaking french. But every once in a while, there's something either so blindingly obvious, or ... Well, you know. If I think that the person deliberately made the mistake, I'll leave it alone. Or if it's part of his dialect.
outside looking in
<b>Registered Member</b>
First, I'll say that I am also grieving for the astronauts' families.
I'm sorry, but I feel the need to comment on this before it goes any further. When any unexpected "accident" on a large scale has happened in the US for the past half of a century, terrorism is always considered a real possibility until logically discarded. When an airliner goes "boom" the FAA and all investigating bodies treat terrorism as a candidate until evidence has been collected. Why? Because there just aren't that many categories of things that bring down airliners; you have human error, design error, material/electrical/software failure, or act or terrorism. And sadly, terrorism has been fingered as the culprit in an alarming number of incidents.
Add to that the current climate in which we live: the US just lost thousands of civilians and two seemingly invincible buildings in disgusting act of cowardice ("terror"), we are currently in a war with one country responsible for allowing terrorism to flourish, are staring squarely with yet another war with yet another like counrty, and the first Israeli astronaut was on board the Colombia (Israelies, sadly, are terror magnets).
When I first heard the news, did the thought "was this another act of terrorism" enter into my mind? Of course it did. I think that's only natural. I didn't assume it was terrorism, but much like our government does I did consider that to be a realistic possibility until further facts were gathered. I feel no need to apologize for this attitude, and if people who think that buildings or planes blowing up unexpectdly might be somewhat "unnatural" offend you I think you need to rethink your own attitude.
As soon as the news spoke of altitude and velocity, I knew that terrorism was extremely unlikely, unless it was a result of some pre-launch sabbotage (which also seemed extremely unlikely to me). However, the average American probably has absolutely no idea what altitude or velocity makes an aircraft an unreachable target. To most people, blowing up the Colombia would seem no less possible than blowing up two of the world's tallest buildings and damaging one of the most highly secured buildings (Pentagon) in the US.
Now, the US government probably considered terrorism to be a realistic possibility about as long as I - a few seconds. But it is their responsibility to calm the fears of the "average" American who doesn't understand the details of the situation and can't make that assessment for themselves. It is the President's duty as the spoken representative of our government in such unfortunate times to make that information clear.
To fault either the people who don't have the background to rule out such possibilities for themselves, or President Bush for being the one in the unenviable position of having to make such a statement, is being very short sighted.
Mirlyn said:Gonz said:
I'm almost more offended by anyone and everyone who even remotely assumed it was a result of terrorism in the first place. Why can't we just grieve over the loss first instead of trying to blame it on something right away? Especially when it involves jumping to such extreme conclusions. I can't believe people out there are so ignorant that they see tragedy on TV and automatically blame it on terrorism. Quite sad. Scary, even.
I'm sorry, but I feel the need to comment on this before it goes any further. When any unexpected "accident" on a large scale has happened in the US for the past half of a century, terrorism is always considered a real possibility until logically discarded. When an airliner goes "boom" the FAA and all investigating bodies treat terrorism as a candidate until evidence has been collected. Why? Because there just aren't that many categories of things that bring down airliners; you have human error, design error, material/electrical/software failure, or act or terrorism. And sadly, terrorism has been fingered as the culprit in an alarming number of incidents.
Add to that the current climate in which we live: the US just lost thousands of civilians and two seemingly invincible buildings in disgusting act of cowardice ("terror"), we are currently in a war with one country responsible for allowing terrorism to flourish, are staring squarely with yet another war with yet another like counrty, and the first Israeli astronaut was on board the Colombia (Israelies, sadly, are terror magnets).
When I first heard the news, did the thought "was this another act of terrorism" enter into my mind? Of course it did. I think that's only natural. I didn't assume it was terrorism, but much like our government does I did consider that to be a realistic possibility until further facts were gathered. I feel no need to apologize for this attitude, and if people who think that buildings or planes blowing up unexpectdly might be somewhat "unnatural" offend you I think you need to rethink your own attitude.
As soon as the news spoke of altitude and velocity, I knew that terrorism was extremely unlikely, unless it was a result of some pre-launch sabbotage (which also seemed extremely unlikely to me). However, the average American probably has absolutely no idea what altitude or velocity makes an aircraft an unreachable target. To most people, blowing up the Colombia would seem no less possible than blowing up two of the world's tallest buildings and damaging one of the most highly secured buildings (Pentagon) in the US.
Now, the US government probably considered terrorism to be a realistic possibility about as long as I - a few seconds. But it is their responsibility to calm the fears of the "average" American who doesn't understand the details of the situation and can't make that assessment for themselves. It is the President's duty as the spoken representative of our government in such unfortunate times to make that information clear.
To fault either the people who don't have the background to rule out such possibilities for themselves, or President Bush for being the one in the unenviable position of having to make such a statement, is being very short sighted.
Mirlyn
Well-Known Member
Eh, I figured this would be taken the wrong way.
What really irked me was seeing the headline "Columbia explodes upon reentry, FBI claims no terrorist links." I wish I had a screenshot of it....it was just bad context to put the two so closely together. I heard details of the accident AFTER hearing it wasn't related to terrorism.
What really irked me was seeing the headline "Columbia explodes upon reentry, FBI claims no terrorist links." I wish I had a screenshot of it....it was just bad context to put the two so closely together. I heard details of the accident AFTER hearing it wasn't related to terrorism.
outside looking in
<b>Registered Member</b>
Even in such a headline, don't you think it's responsible journalism to make it clear as soon as possible that this was not terrorism related, before the rumors and fears start spreading through the general population?
Would you rather people watch a half-hour new special describing the details of the explosion without making it clear that terrorism is just not a possibility... and them assuming it is, telling their friends it is, etc.? Remember, most Americans probably can't judge for themselves how unlikely a target of terror the Colombia was. They have to be told. And, IMO, it's the responsible thing for the government and the press to do in making it very clear what was not the cause of the tragedy.
Would you rather people watch a half-hour new special describing the details of the explosion without making it clear that terrorism is just not a possibility... and them assuming it is, telling their friends it is, etc.? Remember, most Americans probably can't judge for themselves how unlikely a target of terror the Colombia was. They have to be told. And, IMO, it's the responsible thing for the government and the press to do in making it very clear what was not the cause of the tragedy.
I'm not sure it was, Mirlyn....Obviously the initial fear would be terrorism. But as soon as one hears the particulars, that would vanish. Bush was making a required statement given the circumstances. Which is whyno one should have been offended by it.
Mirlyn
Well-Known Member
I dunno.....I guess I'm alone in hating the terrorsim-blaming thing. I can think of some analogies that might better explain my thoughts, but I'm not sure they'd be appropriate in this thread.
Boiled down, I dont' like terrorism being used as an excuse. Yeah, fine it exists. I'm tired of hearing about it. Lets move on instead of letting the fear of terrorism plauge us. And I dislike people who would immediately assume its terrorism. Blah, always searching for an excuse. </rant>
Boiled down, I dont' like terrorism being used as an excuse. Yeah, fine it exists. I'm tired of hearing about it. Lets move on instead of letting the fear of terrorism plauge us. And I dislike people who would immediately assume its terrorism. Blah, always searching for an excuse. </rant>