Originally posted by noticingthemistake

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
First off, you're blowing the Kamikaze's effectiveness WAY out of proportion, and by your portrayal of Middle Easterners Israel should be cinders by now. If I was Arab, I'd actually be offended by that remark.

Am I? How? Where?s the lion's den?? The Middle East. 13 middle-easterners (most were from the middle east) flew 4 jet planes and killed around 175000 people in a matter of a couple of hours.

175,000 killed in the 9/11 hijackings? Try around 3,000. Your number is 58 times too large. So who is it that's buying propoganda now? (PS: it was 19 hijackers on the planes, not 13).

Sorry, but when I make a point, it's backed up by multiple sources; you're spewing a lot of exadurations (this is a prime example), and a great deal of information that is simply out of context.

Now, as to the Kamikaze attacks; Initially effective because they came completely as a suprise, but ultimately became inconsequential as 1). it wasn't a suprise any more and so were shot down a lot more easily, and 2). the quality of pilots trying to make Kamikaze attacks deteriorated rapidly, again making them much easier to shoot down before they could attack their targets. As a specific example, in the battle of Leyte Gulf - the first mass Kamikaze attack of the war - only five ships were sunk. Considering the US fleet consisted of several hundred ships at this point in the war, trying to say Kamikaze attacks sunk anything resembling "most" of the Pacific Fleet is totally innacurate.

I also fail to understand how Iraqi refugees living in the US who left to escape Saddam and still talk to relatives in Iraq are more prone to propoganda than the rest of us who've never even been there.