You dodged the question.

Exactly WHEN did you learn of the fuel tanks' existence?  "A very long time" could mean decades, years, months ....

But, if you don't know, just say so.  I'm trying to get an idea of how long this problem was bothering you .. before or after the tanks were declassified?

The fuel leak problem that has thankfully been finally officially exposed, along with the many environmental problems concerning military activity in Hawaii has long been a concern of both the Hawaiian and local community for decades.  From the bombing of Kahoolawe Island to the health hazards of depleted uranium littered at the many army training facilities on Oahu and the Big Island, one does not need to wait for official government reports to learn that damage to the environment was done.

But, somehow what others think about the tank situation IS your business in as much as you get to characterize our opinions as supporting an evil US Imperial Navy and not caring about the water contamination.

It's hard to characterize specific peoples' opinions, when I don't recall asking any specific person for their opinion. 

To be honest, I don't even know what your personal stance on this issue is.  You raised a counter point that I addressed.  I do not automatically presume what you presented is your personal opinion, as that is your business, not mine.  I am only discussing positions and the self-revealing characteristics of those who take them.

There is a difference here.

Kuleana

I thought you were a commie but maybe I was wrong.

You could be another antisocial genZ'er who played too many video games and never learned how to communicate.

Insulting the people you are trying to convince only makes them want to disagree with you more

There is no judge who is going to rule in your favor for being smarter and more ethical than everyone else

It's hard to characterize specific peoples' opinions, when I don't recall asking any specific person for their opinion. 

To be honest, I don't even know what your personal stance on this issue is.  You raised a counter point that I addressed.  I do not automatically presume what you presented is your personal opinion, as that is your business, not mine.  I am only discussing positions and the self-revealing characteristics of those who take them.

There is a difference here.

that's not what you said earlier
"inaction is action"...

Don't BS, I am discussing issues.

Your recent statements are trying to derail this thread by focusing on my involvement with the fuel tank situation, which is irrelevant and not your business.

Derail? Was just pointing out that there are actions being taken and things going on that media doesn’t report and MAYBE folks weren’t aware of, including the OP. That there’s so many that are approaching this from an emotional perspective that MAYBE they forsake rational and logical.

But, somehow what others think about the tank situation IS your business in as much as you get to characterize our opinions as supporting an evil US Imperial Navy and not caring about the water contamination.

Can't cast stones at the rest of us and then pretend your own inaction regarding the tanks is off limits.

Precisely

You want to make this personal brah.

but saying that not commenting against the situation is supporting the evil empire/power okole is not personal?

that's not what you said earlier
"inaction is action"...

Wow.  Grand Inquisitor.

I did not know this thread would become a court trial with me as a defendant.

I'm flattered you would take a personal interest in my personal views rather than the topic at hand.

predictable.
Victim card out. Status changed to victim.

Wow.  Grand Inquisitor.

I did not know this thread would become a court trial with me as a defendant.

I'm flattered you would take a personal interest in my personal views rather than the topic at hand.

you made it personal first
focus
"For such an issue that has huge ramifications for everyone living on Oahu, notice how little responses to this thread expressing condemnation of the US Navy allowing the continued use of those fuel tanks that the US Navy knew whose integrity was compromised for many decades now.  It's not that no one has read this thread, but perhaps for those who did, many decided not to post because their posts would be in-favor of the continuation of those fuel tanks to support the US imperial war machine, which, of course, would mean sacrificing the well-being of all the people living on Oahu"
"there are those on this forum who assent to that imperial view even at their own detriment."

Kuleana

I thought you were a commie but maybe I was wrong.

You could be another antisocial genZ'er who played too many video games and never learned how to communicate.

Insulting the people you are trying to convince only makes them want to disagree with you more

There is no judge who is going to rule in your favor for being smarter and more ethical than everyone else.

I sincerely fail to see how any individual can have their feelings hurt by the position I raised regarding the fuel tank situation on Red Hill.  In essence, there are only three positions in this case.


Option 1:  Shut down the fuel tanks.  Why?  Protect Oahu's water supply from any potential contamination, as the people on Oahu are absolutely more important than the US imperial military.

Option 2.  Don't shut down the fuel tanks and try to repair them.  Why?  Need them to fuel the US imperial military machine, as the safety of the people on Oahu IS important, but being able to supply fuel to the US imperial military machine is similarly important as well.

Option 3.  Do nothing.  Why?  US imperial military machine is absolutely more important than the lives that may be at-stake even if the integrity of those fuel tanks catastrophically fail, dooming Oahu residents for decades to come.


I have put forward in this thread reasons for Option 1, as the people of Oahu are very important and deserve clean drinking water, whose aquifer is free from any potential sources of contamination now and into perpetuity.  I never specifically called out any forum member by name and questioned the background of their personal beliefs.  In fact, I do not know or even care about anyone's personal beliefs, as it is the issue of clean drinking water that is important.  My characterization of those unnamed individuals who are partial to Options 2 or 3 above is to open a issued-based dialog and make transparent the foundational motivations of those positions.

Case-in-point, when Flapp asked an issue-related clarification regarding my stance that he may have interpreted, as me not being rational in considering Option 2, I responded back with research findings of fact from the joint EPA / US Navy reported in 2019 that clearly indicated that there is no technology that can effectively ensure the integrity of Red Hill's fuel storage tanks.  Hence, based on the EPA / US Navy's own findings, there is no reasonable Option 2 and, in lieu of that research, the only reason why anyone who is still against Option 1 would have indirectly revealed that fueling the US imperial military machine with faulty outdated fuel tanks is perhaps a more important consideration than pure drinking water for Oahu's residents.

you made it personal first
focus
"For such an issue that has huge ramifications for everyone living on Oahu, notice how little responses to this thread expressing condemnation of the US Navy allowing the continued use of those fuel tanks that the US Navy knew whose integrity was compromised for many decades now.  It's not that no one has read this thread, but perhaps for those who did, many decided not to post because their posts would be in-favor of the continuation of those fuel tanks to support the US imperial war machine, which, of course, would mean sacrificing the well-being of all the people living on Oahu"
"there are those on this forum who assent to that imperial view even at their own detriment."

Did I call out anyone by name?

Yes or no?

Answer this question.

predictable.
Victim card out. Status changed to victim.

Victim?

Hold on brah, people call me out personally, when I did not call anyone personally out and I am not the one now being gang attacked?

How you figure?

calling us out for "inaction" on a firearms-centric forum for an issue that is not related to firearms.
Did you organize a day for protest at a local Navy base? A petition? I did not see a link to a petition throughout this thread. Maybe some would sign it.

calling us out for "inaction" on a firearms-centric forum for an issue that is not related to firearms.

I do recall the title of this thread started by Hound as being about discussing the issues regarding "Navy Polluting the Water Supply".

Hound, just as I suspected.

For such an issue that has huge ramifications for everyone living on Oahu, notice how little responses to this thread expressing condemnation of the US Navy allowing the continued use of those fuel tanks that the US Navy knew whose integrity was compromised for many decades now.  It's not that no one has read this thread, but perhaps for those who did, many decided not to post because their posts would be in-favor of the continuation of those fuel tanks to support the US imperial war machine, which, of course, would mean sacrificing the well-being of all the people living on Oahu.  The imperial DOD, if you have not heard already, has decided to fight the shut-down order in court.

Hence, it appears at least at this point, the argument that you paraphrased in my original post is sadly accurate.  All the people living in Hawaii are expendable when it comes to maintaining the US empire and, not surprisingly, there are those on this forum who assent to that imperial view even at their own detriment.

Inaction is action...

When people weren't responding the way YOU wanted to. Perhaps some people have a differing opinion so they stayed out of it.

When people weren't responding the way YOU wanted to. Perhaps some people have a differing opinion so they stayed out of it.

Cool!

But where do people get the notion that I was referring to every single person on this forum.  That's a pretty big presumption without directly discussing that openly but resorting to vicious emotional personal attacks.

You made a blanket assumption that those people who did not respond were in favor of the fuel tanks. There are many second and third order effects when these tanks go away. As I stated earlier, we react irrationally.

You made a blanket assumption that those people who did not respond were in favor of the fuel tanks.

Based on my own post, I said, "It's not that no one has read this thread, but perhaps for those who did, many decided not to post because their posts would be in-favor of the continuation of those fuel tanks to support the US imperial war machine, which, of course, would mean sacrificing the well-being of all the people living on Oahu."

Does my use of "many decided" equate to a general call-out to the entire forum body?  If I say many ugly people in this forum like the 2nd Amendment, does that automatically mean I am referring to every forum member as being ugly?

I think not.

I think there should be more farms.