Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2022 September 12
| Miscellaneous desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < September 11 | << Aug | September | Oct >> | Current desk > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
September 12
edit9/11 question
editRealistically, about how long does it take to read a list of 11,000 names out loud? 2601:646:8A81:6070:D8BF:A848:6B19:9108 (talk) 03:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
- According to this source, 3,000 names took 3 hours. You can extrapolate. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
- Where do you suppose the OP got that 11,000 number? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:34, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- 3000 Americans murdered by the terrorists on 9/11, and 8000 more murdered by the same terrorists on the field of battle in Afghanistan, Iraq and other theaters of war in the Great War on Terrorism, as well as in other terrorist attacks on America and elsewhere in the world -- which gives a total of 11,000. Of course, there's also the issue of between 3000 and 8000 Americans who were left behind in Afghanistan and did not escape, and who should therefore be counted as missing and presumed dead -- but that's a separate issue, if only because their actual status (and their actual number) should be ascertained before they can be included in the same list! 2601:646:8A81:6070:BDFD:989E:25C0:966B (talk) 03:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- Where do you suppose the OP got that 11,000 number? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:34, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- I think this was more of a war on terror question than a 9/11 one. The two events are related, but they're not the same thing. Hmm1994 (talk) 03:52, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- The same terrorists? Only if you believe that all people in the Middle East are the same. Were the regular soldiers of the Iraqi army defending their country against a foreign invasion even terrorists? --Lambiam 10:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- Also, the military personnel we lost overseas were mostly due to warfare. And let's not forget who invaded who. 07:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC)←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→
- Saudi Arabians did. As yet, the U.S. has not retaliated against Saudi Arabia. Iraqis most certainly had nothing to do with it. And yet the US fought a decade+ war against Iraq. Don't confuse "who was to blame" with "how did the people in the U.S. Government spin the situation to their own political gain". Those are mostly unrelated. --Jayron32 15:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- Yes. I'm saying Iraq and Afghanistan did not invade us, we invaded them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- I would note that the OP also seems to be including every single American who stayed in Afghanistan after the withdrawal as someone they want to memorialise which seems weird considering everything else they said since we can be fairly confident there's probably at least a few members of the Taliban in those ranks, and perhaps even some Al Qaeda members. It's unlikely that they can all be missing presumed dead either and most of them definitely do not want to return to the US. I suspect despite the risks there is probably at least one journalist and at least once aide worker who voluntarily chose to stay behind who's location is known to various people outside Afghanistan maybe even the US government as well as the Taliban, and who is in semi regular contact with someone outside Afghanistan and so cannot reasonably be considered missing presumed dead. Meanwhile some of those who are (only) citizens of Afghanistan who's lives are at risk because of assistance they gave to the Americans etc who do want to get out are receiving very little help doing so after the withdrawal sometimes even basics like getting visa that may allow them to leave and some have died, but are ignored. Nil Einne (talk) 01:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- For clarity when I followed on from the Taliban and Al Qaeda thing with "It's unlikely", I was referring to only that group i.e. Taliban and Al Qaeda members who are US citizens and who stayed in Afghanistan after the withdrawal. In retrospect though, I should have included Islamic State – Khorasan Province and not just Al Qaeda. Note that it's quite likely my last point is also related to the wider issue of Americans who remain in Afghanistan as it's reasonable to expect even among those would would prefer to leave, some of them did stay and are still staying, not because of difficulty getting out themselves but due to concerns over family and friends, included in cases where these Americans (who may or may not be Afghani citizens themselves aided the Americans or others and so may have made themselves targets for reprisals but consider their leave may increase the risk for those they leave behind including those who may not have directly helped themselves. In other words, assuming these American citizens have documentation of their citizenship, they themselves may not have faced the visa hurdles that others trying to leave have faced, however that may not be the case for family and friends including in some cases immediate family (e.g. adult children, wives and children from polygamous marriages) given the well recognised problems. Nil Einne (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- I should clarify I wasn't really intending to only include journalists or aide workers who stayed behind, my comment above was poorly worded since I was thinking of what the IP said. I mean some probably did stay behind, these may or may not have left since then and they may or may not have returned. Some may have left during the withdrawal but decided to return sometime after. The ultimate point is there are likely some Americans who are completely voluntarily in Afghanistan and can't reasonably be said to have been "left behind" as the OP seems to be implying is the case for all Americans in Afghanistan. And to be clear I'm excluding in this case those who's stay is only partially voluntary (concerned about family and friends as I mentioned later). An interesting example is [1]. While their detention means they can no longer be said to be there voluntarily, it seems clear they were until sometime just before that. I suspect even with the risk highlighted by this case, there is probably still at least one more who's stay is voluntary at this time. I also hope it remains inaccurate to say the detained journalist should be presumed dead. Also I came across that from this case [2] which illustrates an interesting point. While this American could likely be said 'missing' from the PoV of the US for at least part of the time, it's not clear if it was ever accurate to say they should be presumed death, and definitely it seems likely the US government was confident they were alive during much of the negotiations. It seems likely the family [3] also had some degree of confidence I suspect with some minimal information being provided by the US government and the video also being a factor. Even for 'missing', it seems possible that sometime after the withdrawal the US became aware of where he was being held but decided it too risky to attempt a rescue. In any case, it seems the Taliban did acknowledge he was being held hostage so I'm not sure he should really be said missing even if the specifics of where he was being held wasn't known. Nil Einne (talk) 10:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- For clarity when I followed on from the Taliban and Al Qaeda thing with "It's unlikely", I was referring to only that group i.e. Taliban and Al Qaeda members who are US citizens and who stayed in Afghanistan after the withdrawal. In retrospect though, I should have included Islamic State – Khorasan Province and not just Al Qaeda. Note that it's quite likely my last point is also related to the wider issue of Americans who remain in Afghanistan as it's reasonable to expect even among those would would prefer to leave, some of them did stay and are still staying, not because of difficulty getting out themselves but due to concerns over family and friends, included in cases where these Americans (who may or may not be Afghani citizens themselves aided the Americans or others and so may have made themselves targets for reprisals but consider their leave may increase the risk for those they leave behind including those who may not have directly helped themselves. In other words, assuming these American citizens have documentation of their citizenship, they themselves may not have faced the visa hurdles that others trying to leave have faced, however that may not be the case for family and friends including in some cases immediate family (e.g. adult children, wives and children from polygamous marriages) given the well recognised problems. Nil Einne (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- I would note that the OP also seems to be including every single American who stayed in Afghanistan after the withdrawal as someone they want to memorialise which seems weird considering everything else they said since we can be fairly confident there's probably at least a few members of the Taliban in those ranks, and perhaps even some Al Qaeda members. It's unlikely that they can all be missing presumed dead either and most of them definitely do not want to return to the US. I suspect despite the risks there is probably at least one journalist and at least once aide worker who voluntarily chose to stay behind who's location is known to various people outside Afghanistan maybe even the US government as well as the Taliban, and who is in semi regular contact with someone outside Afghanistan and so cannot reasonably be considered missing presumed dead. Meanwhile some of those who are (only) citizens of Afghanistan who's lives are at risk because of assistance they gave to the Americans etc who do want to get out are receiving very little help doing so after the withdrawal sometimes even basics like getting visa that may allow them to leave and some have died, but are ignored. Nil Einne (talk) 01:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- Yes. I'm saying Iraq and Afghanistan did not invade us, we invaded them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- Saudi Arabians did. As yet, the U.S. has not retaliated against Saudi Arabia. Iraqis most certainly had nothing to do with it. And yet the US fought a decade+ war against Iraq. Don't confuse "who was to blame" with "how did the people in the U.S. Government spin the situation to their own political gain". Those are mostly unrelated. --Jayron32 15:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- Also, the military personnel we lost overseas were mostly due to warfare. And let's not forget who invaded who. 07:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC)←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→
- I can guarantee that it wasn't "the same terrorists on the field of battle in Afghanistan", as those 19 dudes were well and truly dead by then.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- They also weren't Afghani. 15 were Saudi Arabian, 2 were Emirati, 1 was Egyptian, and 1 was Lebanese. The US took no action against anyone in any of those countries after the attacks. Killing the destitute citizens of Afghanistan really accomplished very little in the way of even revenge. --Jayron32 15:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- 3000 Americans were not murdered by the terrorists on 9/11. 372 of those who were killed were citizens of other countries, including 67 from the United Kingdom, 41 from India, 39 from Greece, 28 from South Korea, 26 from the Dominican Republic, 24 from Canada, 24 from Japan, 19 from Jamaica, 16 from the Philippines, 16 from Mexico, 16 from Trinidad and Tobago, 13 from Ecuador, 11 from Australia, 11 from Germany and 10 from Italy. And so on. Cullen328 (talk) 01:37, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Why wasn't Ted Bundy convicted of rape?
editForgive me if this is a stupid question, but why wasn't serial killer Ted Bundy convicted of rape during his Florida trials? At least 2 of those he killed (Lisa Levy and Kimberly Leach) had been sexually assaulted. Can they not charge you with rape in a murder trial or something? Hmm1994 (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
- They could have, but given that he was convicted and executed for murder, it seems superfluous. Discretion means that the state can decide to not separately charge a person with a lesser offense. For example, if a person is caught by a shopkeeper stealing a pack of gum, and when confronted, they also shoot and kill the shopkeeper, the state may decide to not bother with a separate charge for shoplifting. --Jayron32 19:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
- And that may be for a whole host of reasons, including cost/reward (as with Jayron's example), relative strengths of cases, and also leaving the possibility open for a separate trial. Adding complexity to a trial has both literal costs and figurative costs. Matt Deres (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2022 (UTC)