[News] Post a D&D Picture

Previous incarnations of Cleveland/P&C/D&D have had an image thread, to handle political cartoons and other image-based stuff that doesn't belong in the general post-a-picture threads.

If any of them spawn an extended discussion, please spawn it off into its own thread. Replies to non-picture replies should take the form of a link pointing to a post on a different discussion thread.

And I shouldn't have to say it, but the images still need to abide by the rules.

"I was scared by a shirt" isn't exactly a robust legal defense, is it?

Well, I know of at least one murderer who was scared of a hoodie and that seemed to be enough to acquit.

Jonman wrote:

"I was scared by a shirt" isn't exactly a robust legal defense, is it?

"I was scared by the color of their skin" seems to hold weight in our legal system. Why not this?

Gremlin wrote:

I'm reminded, for some reason, of the extreme panic in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 to secure everything--every park, mall, parade, minor league baseball game. While there were a couple of plots that got stopped, realistically no terrorists were going to target a mall in middle-of-nowhere Indiana or a parade in Boise, Idaho. Even the airport security is way overblown versus the actual threat model.

I've said for years that if they really wanted to terrify us, and it wasn't just a symbolic attack on our military/finances, a few car bombs at midwestern little league games would've driven home the point it could happen anywhere, to anyone.

Per capita, not that many people work in skyscrapers or the Pentagon, and we completely lost our sh*t. If it had been something that could definitely have happened to anyone, I can't imagine how much worse off we'd be.

Wembley wrote:
Jonman wrote:

"I was scared by a shirt" isn't exactly a robust legal defense, is it?

"I was scared by the color of their skin" seems to hold weight in our legal system. Why not this?

Cos the dude wearing the shirt is white?

Jonman wrote:
Wembley wrote:
Jonman wrote:

"I was scared by a shirt" isn't exactly a robust legal defense, is it?

"I was scared by the color of their skin" seems to hold weight in our legal system. Why not this?

Cos the dude wearing the shirt is white?

What? I'm not sure you read what I wrote the way I intended. Or I am not reading what you said the way you intended. My point was that using the color of someone's skin as a defense is absurd but it works in our legal system if you're talking about someone that isn't white, so why shouldn't using a shirt they were wearing be an equally valid defense.

Cos the dude wearing the shirt is white?

But the hat is black so we know that he is up to no good!

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/Hr0r51P.png)IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/kUs4B4x.png)

Bonus_Eruptus wrote:
Gremlin wrote:

I'm reminded, for some reason, of the extreme panic in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 to secure everything--every park, mall, parade, minor league baseball game. While there were a couple of plots that got stopped, realistically no terrorists were going to target a mall in middle-of-nowhere Indiana or a parade in Boise, Idaho. Even the airport security is way overblown versus the actual threat model.

I've said for years that if they really wanted to terrify us, and it wasn't just a symbolic attack on our military/finances, a few car bombs at midwestern little league games would've driven home the point it could happen anywhere, to anyone.

Per capita, not that many people work in skyscrapers or the Pentagon, and we completely lost our sh*t. If it had been something that could definitely have happened to anyone, I can't imagine how much worse off we'd be.

The World Trade Center was the kind of symbolic target that made a lot of sense to non-US people and not a lot of sense to Americans. Before 2001 it wasn't really a mom-and-apple-pie symbol outside of NYC. They were shorter than the Sears tower, which I had seen, and if I thought about them at all it was as "oh, there are those other tall buildings over there." Look at what buildings got blown up in Independence Day: Empire State Building: a direct hit, WTC: survives the film. (If I'd grown up in the 1970s when they were being built, it might be different.)

Since Al-Qaeda's planners and audience are non-Americans, it made sense from their perspective to attack the pillars of US financial dominance: the rest of the planet cares more about American economic hegemony than United States citizens do. That's probably why they were the target in the 1993 bombing. (Also, the 1993 bomber was apparently under the impression that destroying the towers would cause 250,000 casualties, which would only have happened if all of that day's visitors were in the complex at the time. In 2001, only about 17,400 people were present at the time of the attack.)

The White House and the Capital would have been way bigger symbolic targets, but that was UA 93.

I thought they hated our Freedom?!

Bonus_Eruptus wrote:

I've said for years that if they really wanted to terrify us, and it wasn't just a symbolic attack on our military/finances, a few car bombs at midwestern little league games would've driven home the point it could happen anywhere, to anyone.

Per capita, not that many people work in skyscrapers or the Pentagon, and we completely lost our sh*t. If it had been something that could definitely have happened to anyone, I can't imagine how much worse off we'd be.

Eh, a lot of people work in places with lots of skyscrapers. New York City *alone* would be the 13th biggest state. Wait, is your location...your location? ; D

Gremlin wrote:

Since Al-Qaeda's planners and audience are non-Americans, it made sense from their perspective to attack the pillars of US financial dominance: the rest of the planet cares more about American economic hegemony than United States citizens do. That's probably why they were the target in the 1993 bombing. (Also, the 1993 bomber was apparently under the impression that destroying the towers would cause 250,000 casualties, which would only have happened if all of that day's visitors were in the complex at the time. In 2001, only about 17,400 people were present at the time of the attack.)

Before we turn our former allies against the Soviet Union into, like, Leftover Crack, I think there's a simpler explanation: they're landmarks in a major city.

Sure they could have attacked small targets in the midwest, but in terms of bang-for-your-buck, two super tall buildings right next to each other in a major city make them a rational target if you want to inflict terror.

You know, I've never thought about this until now, but in terms of small targets in the midwest vs. big ones in cities, I wonder if they grasped how much of the Heartland doesn't consider people from the I-95 corridor to be 'real' Americans. Whatever the symbolism of the Twin Towers, New York City is a global symbol.

Mixolyde wrote:

I thought they hated our Freedom?!

They hated a lot of things.

How different would history have been if it was Iran that invaded Afghanistan before 9/11 even happened?

Note that in the event the Twin Towers have become a potent American symbol, so the attack certainly worked to devastate us. I was hundred of miles away, but I lived close enough to an airport that I still remember what it felt like to walk outside the day after and not see any planes or contrails in the sky.

Just, if you'd asked me before it happened, I'd have told you that the most symbolic target in NYC was the Empire State Building or the Statue of Liberty.

I still don't get why random films felt they had to remove the Twin Towers scenes (like the broadcast version of Home Alone 2 for a few years after 2001). But I suppose different people mourn in different ways.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

You know, I've never thought about this until now, but in terms of small targets in the midwest vs. big ones in cities, I wonder if they grasped how much of the Heartland doesn't consider people from the I-95 corridor to be 'real' Americans. Whatever the symbolism of the Twin Towers, New York City is a global symbol.

Another phenomenon of the time was that panic over the attacks seemed to be inversely correlated with how far away from NYC you were. Midwesterners seemed to be a lot more worried than New Yorkers.

I was surprised for a while that there weren't any real follow-up attacks, but I suspect that Al Qaeda didn't expect to succeed to quite the degree that they did. Turning the planes themselves into weapons was a diabolically clever break from the patterns of prior hijackings (both in terms of the degree of damage and the symbolism of American industrial power) but I suspect they didn't have a follow-up idea. I imagine that in a few decades historians will have acquired enough declassified accounts to tell that story more fully.

One thing I do remember is how the next couple of years were characterized by an on-edge fear, anticipating that any development could turn out to presage the next attack. The anthrax scare, the Columbia disaster--lots of fear that this would turn out to be the next strike. And there were some, like the guy who stuffed the bottoms of his shoes with plastic explosives and had the fuses fail, which is why we now all have to take off our shoes at the airport. But reading the news, there was this expectation that the next attacks were going to be masterminded, elaborate plans with apocalyptic results.

From this vantage point it feels like we were expecting a Hollywood-style Bond villain's plot.

Gremlin wrote:

From this vantage point it feels like we were expecting a Hollywood-style Bond villain's plot.

I think it's human nature to look for some powerful, coordinated force behind a significant event. Many conspiracy theories are premised on well-funded government geniuses concealing superior tech, all working in concert and able to keep everything secret.

It didn't help that the government at the time was literally working night and day to try to make people afraid so they could sell their disastrous wars.

It was always insane that people in the mid-west were afraid of terrorist attacks on the Peoria Cinnabon. It was a really successful propaganda effort aimed at people who were primed to do anything to feel safe.

That's what's made me so fearful of the post-Trump world. I'm not personally at risk. I have heaps of privilege. However, I'm also acutely aware after 9/11 that there are people in America willing to countenance any awful policy to feel secure again and I no longer trust them (en masse, at least).

Gremlin wrote:

Just, if you'd asked me before it happened, I'd have told you that the most symbolic target in NYC was the Empire State Building or the Statue of Liberty.

The Twin Towers were still significant enough to inspire terror. They were significant enough that it registered as an attack on NYC. I would say don't discount NYC itself as the symbol for attack and a vector for spreading terror. The Twin Towers might not have been the *strongest* symbol, but they were more than sufficient, so I wouldn't read too much into passing up other targets.

Like, I don't even think the Statute of Liberty would of been as terrifying. It's a tourist destination out on an island. The attack on the Twin Towers was an attack on a part of NYC that lots and lots of people pass through and work in. If we're thinking about terror, don't just think about targets as cultural symbols. Also think in terms of the number of people impacted by an attack.

And it was the site of the 1993 attack. Which, that was a truck coming out of NJ, right? This is going to sound flippant, but wouldn't traffic be an issue?

Like, in all seriousness--any covert operation is seeking to balance the return on success against the likelihood of that success. If you can fly in a spaceship with a death ray you've got your pick of targets, but if you have to drive your weapon in through some of the worst traffic in the country, it's a consideration. The less time spent in transit, the fewer chances for something to go wrong.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

You know, I've never thought about this until now, but in terms of small targets in the midwest vs. big ones in cities, I wonder if they grasped how much of the Heartland doesn't consider people from the I-95 corridor to be 'real' Americans. Whatever the symbolism of the Twin Towers, New York City is a global symbol.

Another phenomenon of the time was that panic over the attacks seemed to be inversely correlated with how far away from NYC you were. Midwesterners seemed to be a lot more worried than New Yorkers.

I was surprised for a while that there weren't any real follow-up attacks, but I suspect that Al Qaeda didn't expect to succeed to quite the degree that they did. Turning the planes themselves into weapons was a diabolically clever break from the patterns of prior hijackings (both in terms of the degree of damage and the symbolism of American industrial power) but I suspect they didn't have a follow-up idea. I imagine that in a few decades historians will have acquired enough declassified accounts to tell that story more fully.

One thing I do remember is how the next couple of years were characterized by an on-edge fear, anticipating that any development could turn out to presage the next attack. The anthrax scare, the Columbia disaster--lots of fear that this would turn out to be the next strike. And there were some, like the guy who stuffed the bottoms of his shoes with plastic explosives and had the fuses fail, which is why we now all have to take off our shoes at the airport. But reading the news, there was this expectation that the next attacks were going to be masterminded, elaborate plans with apocalyptic results.

From this vantage point it feels like we were expecting a Hollywood-style Bond villain's plot.

True--that's how I remember it too. I remember the fear was whether this the tip of the iceberg? In retrospect, it wasn't.

Man this brings back a lot of memories of that time that feel like ancient history now.

Like I said, I think that's also a reason they picked what they did over some midwestern little league game. It doesn't seem they had the resources to carry out a 'fear by a thousand cuts' strategy. Leaving aside the 'draw the US into war' motive, if we're talking about terror, don't discount the bang they got for their buck from targeting the Twin Towers.

Also, I'm not sure if they were aware of this or even if I'm remembering it correctly from a documentary...a decade ago, but I think the WTC was built in a 'bathtub' like structure. It's also not that far away from the Hudson River. If the site became destabilized enough, there could have been catastrophic failure and the Hudson River could have poured into the site. That would have been a disaster because of all the transit tunnels that run through that area, flooding the NYC transit system. It would have been Hurricane Sandy times...some really big number.

DSGamer wrote:

It was always insane that people in the mid-west were afraid of terrorist attacks on the Peoria Cinnabon. It was a really successful propaganda effort aimed at people who were primed to do anything to feel safe.

That's what I was getting at with my point about "it could happen to anyone". $20 of materials from Home Depot to build a pipe bomb and set it off in a mall is a hell of a lot more cost-efficient and probably would've been a lot worse for us in the long run than sending 19 dickheads to flight school.

Bonus_Eruptus wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

It was always insane that people in the mid-west were afraid of terrorist attacks on the Peoria Cinnabon. It was a really successful propaganda effort aimed at people who were primed to do anything to feel safe.

That's what I was getting at with my point about "it could happen to anyone". $20 of materials from Home Depot to build a pipe bomb and set it off in a mall is a hell of a lot more cost-efficient and probably would've been a lot worse for us in the long run than sending 19 dickheads to flight school.

I'm not so sure. Like was said above, 9/11 made them look like a much bigger, much more resourceful enemy than they turned out to be.

I'm not sure how much cost-efficient it would have been, either. How much did that flight school training cost? The real cost is in setting up and running the sabotage network in the first place, isn't it? Getting people into the country, setting up safe houses, etc.?

Heck, speaking of Home Depot, didn't they buy like, box cutters or whatever?

Bonus_Eruptus wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

It was always insane that people in the mid-west were afraid of terrorist attacks on the Peoria Cinnabon. It was a really successful propaganda effort aimed at people who were primed to do anything to feel safe.

That's what I was getting at with my point about "it could happen to anyone". $20 of materials from Home Depot to build a pipe bomb and set it off in a mall is a hell of a lot more cost-efficient and probably would've been a lot worse for us in the long run than sending 19 dickheads to flight school.

The spectacle and scale of the 9/11 attacks did far more than 19 terrorists with pipe bombs ever could. The fact that it was a one-off that took advantage of a weakness in aviation security (weak cockpit doors) and terrorism protocols (acquiesce to demands, don't resist) hasn't resonated with the country. TSA security theater will be with us for the foreseeable future, and politicians will continue to milk 9/11 to foment fear for political advantage. And Americans will continue to be afraid.

We've had the equivalent of localized terrorism going on for several years now in the form of mass shootings, and nobody cares enough to do anything. Friday's shooting in Virginia Beach barely moved the needle. I admit I had to ask why the flags were at half-staff again. It would take an obviously-coordinated attack on our infrastructure with some scary group claiming responsibility to cause a panic anywhere close to what 9/11 did.

JeffreyLSmith wrote:

The fact that it was a one-off that took advantage of a weakness in aviation security (weak cockpit doors) and terrorism protocols (acquiesce to demands, don't resist) hasn't resonated with the country. TSA security theater will be with us for the foreseeable future, and politicians will continue to milk 9/11 to foment fear for political advantage. And Americans will continue to be afraid.

Seriously. Their attacks were disrupted by private citizen before their attack was even over. We just had a government more interested in scaring the hell out of us to keep us easily manipulated than in honoring how 9/11 was a day the people protected the government.

That still pisses me off.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

I'm not so sure. Like was said above, 9/11 made them look like a much bigger, much more resourceful enemy than they turned out to be.

I'm not sure how much cost-efficient it would have been, either. How much did that flight school training cost? The real cost is in setting up and running the sabotage network in the first place, isn't it? Getting people into the country, setting up safe houses, etc.?

Heck, speaking of Home Depot, didn't they buy like, box cutters or whatever?

9/11 cost AQ between $400,000 and $500,000. Our response is $5.6 trillion and counting. It was a ridiculously cost-efficient operation.

And that's not counting all the civil rights and privacy we eagerly handed over via the Patriot Act, creation of the DHS, rapid expansion of electronic surveillance, and more.

OG_slinger wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

I'm not so sure. Like was said above, 9/11 made them look like a much bigger, much more resourceful enemy than they turned out to be.

I'm not sure how much cost-efficient it would have been, either. How much did that flight school training cost? The real cost is in setting up and running the sabotage network in the first place, isn't it? Getting people into the country, setting up safe houses, etc.?

Heck, speaking of Home Depot, didn't they buy like, box cutters or whatever?

9/11 cost AQ between $400,000 and $500,000. Our response is $5.6 trillion and counting. It was a ridiculously cost-efficient operation.

And that's not counting all the civil rights and privacy we eagerly handed over via the Patriot Act, creation of the DHS, rapid expansion of electronic surveillance, and more.

Yes, in hindsight bin Laden really was an evil genius. As Putin, Kim, and other adversaries are also aware, our military might is irrelevant. All they have to do is make us afraid and we'll destroy ourselves from within. And instead of being a voice of calm and reason, our national leadership is taking advantage of that fear for power and profit.

JeffreyLSmith wrote:
Bonus_Eruptus wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

It was always insane that people in the mid-west were afraid of terrorist attacks on the Peoria Cinnabon. It was a really successful propaganda effort aimed at people who were primed to do anything to feel safe.

That's what I was getting at with my point about "it could happen to anyone". $20 of materials from Home Depot to build a pipe bomb and set it off in a mall is a hell of a lot more cost-efficient and probably would've been a lot worse for us in the long run than sending 19 dickheads to flight school.

The spectacle and scale of the 9/11 attacks did far more than 19 terrorists with pipe bombs ever could. The fact that it was a one-off that took advantage of a weakness in aviation security (weak cockpit doors) and terrorism protocols (acquiesce to demands, don't resist) hasn't resonated with the country. TSA security theater will be with us for the foreseeable future, and politicians will continue to milk 9/11 to foment fear for political advantage. And Americans will continue to be afraid.

We've had the equivalent of localized terrorism going on for several years now in the form of mass shootings, and nobody cares enough to do anything. Friday's shooting in Virginia Beach barely moved the needle. I admit I had to ask why the flags were at half-staff again. It would take an obviously-coordinated attack on our infrastructure with some scary group claiming responsibility to cause a panic anywhere close to what 9/11 did.

In fairness, Americans have vastly different reactions to terrorists who look like them, as opposed to scary brown people.

How out of touch can a human be? While the rest of the internet was making fun of this photo, Ivanka thought it was worth sharing.

https://twitter.com/IvankaTrump/stat...
IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/mRkGtrW.png)

I think we found the right body to base the CGI on for the new Eggman/Dr. Robotnik.

IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D8MoYqlVUAEg4XG.jpg:large)

IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D8QF9EtXUAAy07Z.jpg)

That chart is abysmal.

What am I supposed to learn from it?

Well, the thick black line is where they are in 2019, which looks like a lot less corn is being planted because, tariffs.

Do the tariffs counter corn subsidies in some bizarro world way?

Jayhawker wrote:

Well, the thick black line is where they are in 2019, which looks like a lot less corn is being planted because, tariffs.

Weather. You can't plant when the fields are flooded.

Jayhawker wrote:

Well, the thick black line is where they are in 2019, which looks like a lot less corn is being planted because, tariffs.

Is it tariffs? I heard the other day farmers were having trouble planting because of the floods.