> If killing thousands of people distracts from sex scandal’s
Wikipedia states that this "9/11 Esque" attack "kill[ed] one employee and wound[ed] eleven". Do you mean there was a medicine shortage caused by the attack? Wikipedia comments briefly on that:
> Germany's ambassador to Sudan at the time of the airstrike, Werner Daum, wrote an article in 2001, in which he called "several tens of thousands of deaths" of Sudanese civilians caused by a medicine shortage a "reasonable guess". but this claim was described as "hard to take seriously" and implausible by historian Keith Windschuttle.
Also:
> the bombing had the unintended effect of stopping relief efforts aimed at supplying food to areas of Sudan gripped by famine caused by that country's ongoing civil war. Many of these agencies had been wholly or partially manned by Americans who subsequently evacuated the country out of fear of retaliation.
I guess I was thinking of something like the not too indirect effects. So the invasion of Iraq, even if counted, wouldn't count as an indirect effect, but the economic effects of the buildings falling would.
How is a hardcore utilitarian like you drawing lines between proximate indirect effects and distant indirect effects? You're either considered the effects of both or you're not. You also need to include: 40,000 people exposed to asbestos, more people killed in car accidents than died in the buildings due to avoidance of planes until 2006-- and that just in the US; I bet there are more if you consider the whole world-- the billions of hours lost standing in security lines at the airport, the downturn in the global economy (that always kills poor people), the inspiration it gave to recruits to other jihadist groups, the trauma it caused millions of viewers, people who died because they couldn't get organ transplants in time, and yes, the wars. Not only that, but it seems to have destabilized American politics in a bad way, leading to Trump, and revitalized our appetite for interventionism when it was finally waning. There are also non-consequentialist things to consider. The intention of 9/11 was to kill as many people as possible, motivated by religion-based hate; the intention of the Monica Missiles is, as you point out, debated and the deaths weren't intended. In light of all this, I say this is not a convincing comparison.
> If killing thousands of people distracts from sex scandal’s
Wikipedia states that this "9/11 Esque" attack "kill[ed] one employee and wound[ed] eleven". Do you mean there was a medicine shortage caused by the attack? Wikipedia comments briefly on that:
> Germany's ambassador to Sudan at the time of the airstrike, Werner Daum, wrote an article in 2001, in which he called "several tens of thousands of deaths" of Sudanese civilians caused by a medicine shortage a "reasonable guess". but this claim was described as "hard to take seriously" and implausible by historian Keith Windschuttle.
Also:
> the bombing had the unintended effect of stopping relief efforts aimed at supplying food to areas of Sudan gripped by famine caused by that country's ongoing civil war. Many of these agencies had been wholly or partially manned by Americans who subsequently evacuated the country out of fear of retaliation.
It didn't kill as many directly. The indirect effects, however, were more deaths than 9/11. Not just medical shortage--also famine.
Are you taking all the indirect effects of 9/11 into account? Do you even know what they are?
I guess I was thinking of something like the not too indirect effects. So the invasion of Iraq, even if counted, wouldn't count as an indirect effect, but the economic effects of the buildings falling would.
How is a hardcore utilitarian like you drawing lines between proximate indirect effects and distant indirect effects? You're either considered the effects of both or you're not. You also need to include: 40,000 people exposed to asbestos, more people killed in car accidents than died in the buildings due to avoidance of planes until 2006-- and that just in the US; I bet there are more if you consider the whole world-- the billions of hours lost standing in security lines at the airport, the downturn in the global economy (that always kills poor people), the inspiration it gave to recruits to other jihadist groups, the trauma it caused millions of viewers, people who died because they couldn't get organ transplants in time, and yes, the wars. Not only that, but it seems to have destabilized American politics in a bad way, leading to Trump, and revitalized our appetite for interventionism when it was finally waning. There are also non-consequentialist things to consider. The intention of 9/11 was to kill as many people as possible, motivated by religion-based hate; the intention of the Monica Missiles is, as you point out, debated and the deaths weren't intended. In light of all this, I say this is not a convincing comparison.