NationStates Jolt Archive

Well? Who here does?

no, he is a bad man

he killed women and children. Theres no way he could have a good reason

I'm sure someone could've found a way to justify his actions, until Sept 11, that is. That was a declaration of war on the world by him.

I'm sure someone could've found a way to justify his actions, until Sept 11, that is. That was a declaration of war on the world by him.Exactly! But then you have a lot of hotheaded afgans, and irans and so forth who believe that he is like a god. It almost seems hopeless to even try to change their minds. It is as if they have been brainwashed. ( by the way, I DESPISE every aspect of Osama Bin Laden.)

I'm sure someone could've found a way to justify his actions, until Sept 11, that is. That was a declaration of war on the world by him.

Nah, just by the USA GOV and it's puppet nations and the rest had to tag along because of his "with us or against us" statement.

I do not like his ways of action, but I like to see that someone takes up the struggle against USA's GOV.

Remember, I wrote GOV(goverment), not people, so no personal attacks on you, your culture or your neighbours dogs and I do not spit on the 11/9 victims.

Oh, I am going to get SO flamed over this. :D

I'm sure someone could've found a way to justify his actions, until Sept 11, that is. That was a declaration of war on the world by him.

Nah, just by the USA GOV and it's puppet nations and the rest had to tag along because of his "with us or against us" statement.

I do not like his ways of action, but I like to see that someone takes up the struggle against USA's GOV.

Remember, I wrote GOV(goverment), not people, so no personal attacks on you, your culture or your neighbours dogs and I do not spit on the 11/9 victims.

Oh, I am going to get SO flamed over this. :DWell, all i have to say is that there really isn't much wrong with the USA's government. At least some governments try to sort some of the crime in the world out. ( DON'T scold me, as i really don't know that much about the recent actions of my government, which obviously is the USA/)

he killed women and children. Theres no way he could have a good reason

Damn! I coulda sworn he killed some men, too!?! :?

I'm sure someone could've found a way to justify his actions, until Sept 11, that is. That was a declaration of war on the world by him.

Nah, just by the USA GOV and it's puppet nations and the rest had to tag along because of his "with us or against us" statement.

I do not like his ways of action, but I like to see that someone takes up the struggle against USA's GOV.

Remember, I wrote GOV(goverment), not people, so no personal attacks on you, your culture or your neighbours dogs and I do not spit on the 11/9 victims.

Oh, I am going to get SO flamed over this. :DWell, all i have to say is that there really isn't much wrong with the USA's government. At least some governments try to sort some of the crime in the world out. ( DON'T scold me, as i really don't know that much about the recent actions of my government, which obviously is the USA/)

Well, keeping illegal prisoners and raiding other nations I would call very much terroristic so, the american goverment is very terroristic and illegal, so they have no rights, at all, to claim to be the world's police.

Well, keeping illegal prisoners and raiding other nations I would call very much terroristic so, the american goverment is very terroristic and illegal, so they have no rights, at all, to claim to be the world's police.

no.

Zyzyx, no on what?

explain to me who these illegal prisoners are?

also, terrorism is targeting innocent civillians, like what Osama does. the american government is certainly not doing that.

explain to me who these illegal prisoners are?

also, terrorism is targeting innocent civillians, like what Osama does. the american government is certainly not doing that.

/me dances the 'USA bombed hospitals, schools and wedding' dance

The illegal prisoners are the ones on Guantanamo Bay that they have NO rights to keep. They are prisoners of law and should according to international laws be returned when the war is over. Also, they break the human violation laws by keeping them in cages that is too small for a dog to live healthy in and frequently interrogates them under gunpoint.


THAT, is illegal prisoners.

He is no better than the thugs in the government.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

Osama pretends to use the principle of Islamic Jyhad in what he does, but this simply isnt true.
According to what I know, (and you should really ask a muslim), but some of the rules of jyhad say that:

Attacking women and children is the lowest thing one can do.

Attacking unarmed opponents is deplorable.

One must not destroy anything green and growing.

Basically, the principle says that its only right to attack those that are directly involved, and not unarmed civillians.

Osama ignores all of these.
Hes scum..the worst kind of fanatical swine there is.

Waging war on civillians is a cowardly, dishonorable, and detestable action.
This is why The Palestinians, and Isrealis, and groups like Hamas, Islamic Jyhad, and Al-Qeada, are the worst kind of scum.

explain to me who these illegal prisoners are?

also, terrorism is targeting innocent civillians, like what Osama does. the american government is certainly not doing that.

/me dances the 'USA bombed hospitals, schools and wedding' dance

The illegal prisoners are the ones on Guantanamo Bay that they have NO rights to keep. They are prisoners of law and should according to international laws be returned when the war is over. Also, they break the human violation laws by keeping them in cages that is too small for a dog to live healthy in and frequently interrogates them under gunpoint.



THAT, is illegal prisoners.

Yeah. Fuck America.

The illegal prisoners are the ones on Guantanamo Bay that they have NO rights to keep. They are prisoners of law and should according to international laws be returned when the war is over.

Prisoners of law? There's a slight difference between detective work and shooting war, y'know? As for being "returned when the war is over," you'd do well to note that American forces are still actively deployed in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Also, they break the human violation laws by keeping them in cages that is too small for a dog to live healthy in and frequently interrogates them under gunpoint.

Care to back that up?

/me dances the 'USA bombed hospitals, schools and wedding' dance

There's a "slight" difference between military action and a terrorist attack. In one, there is an unfortunate collateral damage to war that comes about from lack of proper intelligence, inaccuracy of weapons, or simple human error. In the other, civilians are quite openly and specifically targeted, near to or at the point of excluding military targets -- say, taking a few planes and ramming them into a few buildings with no combatants in them.

Osama pretends to use the principle of Islamic Jyhad in what he does, but this simply isnt true.
According to what I know, (and you should really ask a muslim), but some of the rules of jyhad say that:

Attacking women and children is the lowest thing one can do.

Attacking unarmed opponents is deplorable.

One must not destroy anything green and growing.

Basically, the principle says that its only right to attack those that are directly involved, and not unarmed civillians.

Osama ignores all of these.
Hes scum..the worst kind of fanatical swine there is.

Waging war on civillians is a cowardly, dishonorable, and detestable action.
This is why The Palestinians, and Isrealis, and groups like Hamas, Islamic Jyhad, and Al-Qeada, are the worst kind of scum.

A lot of them are freedom fighters but a lot of them are people who probably deserve to be killed. On the other hand, it's a reaction to the kind of economic and military imperialism that has been going on for like a hundred years in the region. It's a result. It's what happens.

Osama pretends to use the principle of Islamic Jyhad in what he does, but this simply isnt true.
According to what I know, (and you should really ask a muslim), but some of the rules of jyhad say that:

Attacking women and children is the lowest thing one can do.

Attacking unarmed opponents is deplorable.

One must not destroy anything green and growing.

Basically, the principle says that its only right to attack those that are directly involved, and not unarmed civillians.

Osama ignores all of these.
Hes scum..the worst kind of fanatical swine there is.

Waging war on civillians is a cowardly, dishonorable, and detestable action.
This is why The Palestinians, and Isrealis, and groups like Hamas, Islamic Jyhad, and Al-Qeada, are the worst kind of scum.

A lot of them are freedom fighters but a lot of them are people who probably deserve to be killed. On the other hand, it's a reaction to the kind of economic and military imperialism that has been going on for like a hundred years in the region. It's a result. It's what happens.

That doesnt mean that its not deplorable and cowardly.

I don't think you can justify sept 11, but you could at least try and figure out their reasons behind it. The US never properly did that. "They hate freedom" isn't an answer.

Prisoners of law? There's a slight difference between detective work and shooting war, y'know? As for being "returned when the war is over," you'd do well to note that American forces are still actively deployed in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
Well, shouldn't you then tell that to your 'elected' officials that keep telling the world that the wars are over then?


Care to back that up?

Sure, just look up any articles with interviews of the released English-Arabian prisoners.


There's a "slight" difference between military action and a terrorist attack. In one, there is an unfortunate collateral damage to war that comes about from lack of proper intelligence, inaccuracy of weapons, or simple human error. In the other, civilians are quite openly and specifically targeted, near to or at the point of excluding military targets -- say, taking a few planes and ramming them into a few buildings with no combatants in them.
Well, shooting people on the street just because of them not stopping at first when the american soldiers are yelling at them to stop in a language a lot of them don't understand isn't so militaristic as well, not is supporting a terroristic nation that ALSO bombs civilians and launch rockets at men in wheelchairs.(Guess which?)

Sure, just look up any articles with interviews of the released English-Arabian prisoners.


They were probably lying.

They were justifiable becasue the US has elections. This means that every citizen over age 18 and not a felon (not to mention any non-citizens in the army) is a justifiable war-time target. Anything else was incidental / collateral damage.

Prisoners of law? There's a slight difference between detective work and shooting war, y'know? As for being "returned when the war is over," you'd do well to note that American forces are still actively deployed in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
Well, shouldn't you then tell that to your 'elected' officials that keep telling the world that the wars are over then?


Care to back that up?

Sure, just look up any articles with interviews of the released English-Arabian prisoners.


There's a "slight" difference between military action and a terrorist attack. In one, there is an unfortunate collateral damage to war that comes about from lack of proper intelligence, inaccuracy of weapons, or simple human error. In the other, civilians are quite openly and specifically targeted, near to or at the point of excluding military targets -- say, taking a few planes and ramming them into a few buildings with no combatants in them.
Well, shooting people on the street just because of them not stopping at first when the american soldiers are yelling at them to stop in a language a lot of them don't understand isn't so militaristic as well, not is supporting a terroristic nation that ALSO bombs civilians and launch rockets at men in wheelchairs.(Guess which?)

The Pentagon was most definitely full of military targets by any measure, and by mine (posted a second ago) so was the WTC.

Prisoners of law? There's a slight difference between detective work and shooting war, y'know? As for being "returned when the war is over," you'd do well to note that American forces are still actively deployed in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
Well, shouldn't you then tell that to your 'elected' officials that keep telling the world that the wars are over then?


Care to back that up?

Sure, just look up any articles with interviews of the released English-Arabian prisoners.


There's a "slight" difference between military action and a terrorist attack. In one, there is an unfortunate collateral damage to war that comes about from lack of proper intelligence, inaccuracy of weapons, or simple human error. In the other, civilians are quite openly and specifically targeted, near to or at the point of excluding military targets -- say, taking a few planes and ramming them into a few buildings with no combatants in them.
Well, shooting people on the street just because of them not stopping at first when the american soldiers are yelling at them to stop in a language a lot of them don't understand isn't so militaristic as well, not is supporting a terroristic nation that ALSO bombs civilians and launch rockets at men in wheelchairs.(Guess which?)

The Pentagon was most definitely full of military targets by any measure, and by mine (posted a second ago) so was the WTC.

Osama should be captured and tried in an International Court of Law, and spend the rest of his life basketweaving, after he is convicted.

He did what he thought would destroy us. Well, that didnt work. Now Al Qeuda is trying to kill our allies. Of course, i dont belive that mass murder is right, but i do belive that we will be brought down if we dont deal with this the right way. I personally think that there is something else to this, some corrupt politics or something. (As you might be able to guess, im a conspiricy theorist.) There is something being hidden from us.

In short, im saying that i dont think anything justifies killing thousands of innocents, but there is something else going on behind the political curtian.

On another note, i find it highly doubtful that we will catch Osama. He'll kill himself before anyone can even get close to him.

Well, shouldn't you then tell that to your 'elected' officials that keep telling the world that the wars are over then?

The voice of a single elected official does not necessarily represent the United States government. If you're going to get nitpicky, I might as well point out that there has been no declaration of war (US hasn't done so, technically, since 1941). Nor has there been a flood of elected officials telling "the world" that "the wars" are over -- I'm really starting to wonder where you get your news.

Sure, just look up any articles with interviews of the released English-Arabian prisoners.

Oh, okay, sure, let's trust the unlinked, unsubstantiated, unquoted, reports from likely former enemy combatants. No need for study or the voice of any other group -- especially not the Red Cross or any sort of major news service.

Well, shooting people on the street just because of them not stopping at first when the american soldiers are yelling at them to stop in a language a lot of them don't understand isn't so militaristic as well...

It's a military checkpoint. They pointed guns at them and started yelling -- what the hell do you think they want them to do? These people knew what they were doing and they knew what they were risking. When you run at or past a military checkpoint, you get shot. That's how things work. Wartime is not the same as everyday civilian existence -- especially not when the opposing force wears the uniform of a civilian.

...supporting a terroristic nation that ALSO bombs civilians and launch rockets at men in wheelchairs.(Guess which?)

I don't especially care for a good deal of Israel's actions, either. However, I was unaware that sitting in a wheelchair exempted people from retaliation for ordering and operating scores of suicide bombings -- many targeted specifically and intentionally at civilian targets.

They were justifiable becasue the US has elections. This means that every citizen over age 18 and not a felon (not to mention any non-citizens in the army) is a justifiable war-time target. Anything else was incidental / collateral damage.

Whaaaaat the hell? I mean, it'd at least make sense if you were advocating total war, but designating civilians as military targets because a particular nation is a democracy?

The Pentagon was most definitely full of military targets by any measure, and by mine (posted a second ago) so was the WTC.

The Pentagon could be considered a military target. There are two things to remember, though: (1) The Pentagon is not a major troop base; few of its personell are combatants -- I see your point, and I don't directly disagree, but I have to point that out, and (2) any attack on such an important military facility is a de facto declaration of war which demands response.

If Osama bin Laden dropped dead within five seconds, no big loss to the world. In fact, he really ought to drop dead sometime very soon.

The only way you can "justify" these actions is if you are an ultra-rightie Islamic Fundie (like Bin Laden). So by living in his little state of self-justification, he denies himself the truth

But if you are not a religious fundie, then NO HIS ACTIONS ARE NOT JUSTIFIABLE

Of course it's not justifiable, although it is understandable.

Politics, maybe. Actions, no.

Justafiable? No.

Understandable... not to my mentality, but if we are ever to combat Al'Queda we must seek to understand them. To dismiss it as "evil" is to be ignorant of the enemy and that is a very dangerous thing to do.

Osama bin Laden is a pervert. His Islam is false, and does not represent the true practise of that religion. Even within Islams own laws OBL is not qualified to declare Jihad, so he is no more a true Muslim than Saddam is.

9/11 didn't happen in a vacuum, and like all acts of terrorism, the political context must be acknowledged. It was barbaric yes, but it was not mindless.

Murder is never justifiable, even in retaliation.

Osama should be used as a living molotov cocktail.

All current declared Jihads are illegal under Islamic doctrine for the following reasons...

1) The initiator must possess Mohammed's sword.

2) The initiator must be a direct descendent of Mohammed.

The Pentagon was most definitely full of military targets

Sure - except it wasn't the target.

firstly jihad just means struggle, not specifically war
and i dnt really think osama had anything to do with 11/9 (SIC) anyway

No justification in it! I slap anyone who says otherwise!

firstly jihad just means struggle, not specifically war
and i dnt really think osama had anything to do with 11/9 (SIC) anyway
Can you tell me where you bought the bubble you live in? To say Osama didn't have anything to do with September Eleventh is pretty ridiculous... its like saying Bush didn't have anything to do with the War in Iraq.

Don't give me this "America is responsible" crap. If someone breaks into my house, rapes and kills my wife, stabs my kids to death, and then points the knife at me, I'm not going to try to figure out how I am "responsible", or what I did to "provoke" him. I'm going to grab a shotgun, and splatter his brains across the wall.

You know what? I think I'll nuke Belgium, and when the survivors ask why, I'll tell them that their terrible waffles and expensive chocolate provoked me, and that they are responsible for being nuked, because they have sub-par food. Maybe they will start hating themselves, and just surrender.

-Emperor Jim.

Well, all i have to say is that there really isn't much wrong with the USA's government. At least some governments try to sort some of the crime in the world out.
The biggest criminal of them all, George Bush, is still free. If they realy wanted to sort out crime he would be in Guantanamo by now. Or preferably, pushing up dasy's.

Well, all i have to say is that there really isn't much wrong with the USA's government. At least some governments try to sort some of the crime in the world out.
The biggest criminal of them all, George Bush, is still free. If they realy wanted to sort out crime he would be in Guantanamo by now. Or preferably, pushing up dasy's.
Liberator, the US needs to join the ICJ and sort out its own war crimes first.

The fact that people actually convince themselves that George W. is a war criminal is exactly why the United States dosen't join.

firstly jihad just means struggle, not specifically war
and i dnt really think osama had anything to do with 11/9 (SIC) anyway

This is a good Question....
Who organized 9-11 :?:

Osama?
maybe...maybe not

he never said "I did"...
and he never said "I didnt"...
all he said is America had it coming...
He never rolled a tear for American deaths..

But is that proof he did it ???

Osama knows (if we cach him) he is a dead man anyways...
so he has nothing to lose...

he migth as well show no weak sides...

I rather suspect that minor details like, say, that the hijackers were members of al-Qaida, or how al-Qaida financed the operation, or how raids on al-Qaida camps produced documents detailing plans for the attack, "might" be viable evidence indicating who "might" have had something to do with the 9/11 attacks.

The fact that people actually convince themselves that George W. is a war criminal is exactly why the United States dosen't join.

Maybe the US should start upholding international law.
If US troops, or any other troops for that matter, break international law, they shoudl be punished. The whole concept of US 'exceptionalism' is completely skewed

I rather suspect that minor details like, say, that the hijackers were members of al-Qaida, or how al-Qaida financed the operation, or how raids on al-Qaida camps produced documents detailing plans for the attack, "might" be viable evidence indicating who "might" have had something to do with the 9/11 attacks.

got any links?

dont forget Governements tend to say AlQaide..avery time a bomb goes BOUM!...i

Before 911...there were dozens of known muslim "terrorist" organizations...
Today its all "affiliated" with AlQaueda...

Al-Qaeda Chief Reveals Full 9/11 Plan (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,9109387%255E401,00.html)

All I really have to say is why justify terrorism by giving them what they all wanted? A terrorist is:

characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity" n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon

And why, I ask you, do they employ terrorism as a political weapon? To spark wars. And the United States of America was too easily overwhelmed by the attack. Show the enemy no attention whatsoever and I really do think that they will have to seek out differing methods to start their own wars.

Terrorism - Ask a Latin American, they've been subjected to US government sponsored 'terror' for decades. Sept. 11 is not just a date synomous in the US with tragedy, on that same date (different year) Gen. Augusto Pinochet took power in Chile, a CIA backed dictator. He proceded to murder thousands of his own people. Look at what the US government did in Nicuargua, if that isn't 'terrorism', I don't know what is.

The blocakades enforced by the US against Cuba and formerly against Iraq targeted the most vulnerable in society, such as the poor, especially women and children. Terror?

Targeting of non-military infrastructure is a key part of US military planning. If someone did that to your country , such as an attack on a power plant, you'd be the first to call it 'terror'.

But ofcourse, it's okay to kill non-US citizens just as long as they are 'collateral damage' in what you deem 'a just cause'. Do you think the mother and father of child who was killed by a bomb dropped by a US plane would see it this way? Who do you think they'll blame?

The simple fact the US is seeking to control the Middle East is why so many people in that region hate the US with a passion. Supporting corrupt oppresive governments (such as Saudi Arabias) and your close support of Isreal is not making you any friends. Continuing to blow the crap out the region isn't going to help. The US stations troops in THEIR countries, how would you feel if you saw foriegn troops in your homeland?

In closing, Sept 11 was not a pretty sight and not justifable but neither is how the US treats anything they preceive as a 'threat'.

True dat.

The US.....has become so bloated with its power that people living there think that going against the UN vote and invading Iraq has been good.

Seriously.....when they say the news...ever count up how many people are dead? more than 600 Americans are never gonna return, and for what? Sure, saddams gone. But where are the WMD? Where are all the allies we had on the days after september 11th? Where's our world support? Seems like we're only gaining enemies...

almost all of the Arab nations that we give aid to vote against us in the UN more than 70 percent of the time....

Maybe we should take a hint. Invading nations won't get us support. Giving money to governments like musharraf that are despised among the Arab world wont give us anything. So why do we do what we do? What's up with the US policy?

"If someone breaks into my house, rapes and kills my wife, stabs my kids to death, and then points the knife at me, I'm not going to try to figure out how I am "responsible", or what I did to "provoke" him. I'm going to grab a shotgun, and splatter his brains across the wall"

I think this statement sums up why the US has stirred up so much hate in the world, especially where it drops most of its bombs.

Drastically emotionally oversimplified, but allot of Americans (no offence) seem to get like this when talking about 11/9. Can't forget you're not the first or last country to suffer 'terrorist' attacks. We had one targeted at us in Bali, but you didn't see us blow the living hell out of Indonesia.

Well if your military goal is to get United States to attack an islamic country so you can wage war against them there, a major terrorist attack is militarily justified. It's a tactic of drawing your enemy out of its base.

Philosophically you can also say that American civilians pay taxes and thus support American military.

I rather suspect that minor details like, say, that the hijackers were members of al-Qaida, or how al-Qaida financed the operation, or how raids on al-Qaida camps produced documents detailing plans for the attack, "might" be viable evidence indicating who "might" have had something to do with the 9/11 attacks.
You Talking here about Proof like Bank records...transaction trailpapers...... detailing plans....

but all you have...is a has-been Bum(Khalid) testimony....
its like getting Saddam to testify that he is hiding the WMD in his a$$..after a couple hours toture..he will tell tell whatever you wanna hear...anything....

Al-Qaeda Records solve many 9/11 puzzles, but others linger (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-08-29-al-qaeda-clues_x.htm)

You Talking here about Proof like Bank records...transaction trailpapers...... detailing plans....

Oh, well, I'm terribly sorry for not having ready access to privately held and otherwise classified information. Maybe if you'd been watching the news for yourself you'd notice that no serious group with access to high level information thinks al-Qaida wasn't behind the 9/11 attacks.

but all you have...is a has-been Bum(Khalid) testimony....
its like getting Saddam to testify that he is hiding the WMD in his a$$..after a couple hours toture..he will tell tell whatever you wanna hear...anything....

Right. Except that his testimony has led to findings of evidence and dozens of arrests -- things that can't be made up on the spot -- look things up for yourself. And I'm sure that you can prove he's been tortured, as long as you're expecting me to back up everything I say with a link?

Well if your military goal is to get United States to attack an islamic country so you can wage war against them there, a major terrorist attack is militarily justified. It's a tactic of drawing your enemy out of its base.

Philosophically you can also say that American civilians pay taxes and thus support American military.

Which means you advocate something called "total war." Namely, war in which an entire country, civilians and all, is an acceptable target. Logically consistent and effective, but not widely liked by most civilized people.

Drastically emotionally oversimplified, but allot of Americans (no offence) seem to get like this when talking about 11/9. Can't forget you're not the first or last country to suffer 'terrorist' attacks. We had one targeted at us in Bali, but you didn't see us blow the living hell out of Indonesia.

Ah, how easy it is to make a point when you remove scales from your evidence. Over 3,000 people died in the 9/11 attacks -- that makes it the largest terrorist attack in history. Given the Taliban's support of al-Qaeda, such a large scale attack is a de facto declaration of war. If the Taliban and al-Qaeda didn't want us to be shooting at them, they should have thought about that before they conducted an act of war.

Look at what the US government did in Nicuargua, if that isn't 'terrorism', I don't know what is.

You mean where we supported anti-Sandinista groups? Or where free elections have repeatedly taken the Sadinistas out of power? What? I'm afraid I don't see the USAF operating bombing campaigns with Marines on the ground aiming laser target designators at civilians.

Terrorism specifically targets civilians. Collateral damage is definitely unfortunate and undesirable, but if you can't see the difference, quite frankly, I pity your deductive skills.

The blocakades enforced by the US against Cuba and formerly against Iraq targeted the most vulnerable in society, such as the poor, especially women and children. Terror?

I don't agree with the sanctions against Cuba; that's a done deal. The sanctions against Iraq happen to have been the United Nations operation, so I don't see why you're trying to put blame where it doesn't belong -- in actuality, the US wanted to continue Desert Storm and eliminate the Baathists in 1991, but the international community hesitated -- look how much good that did everyone.

Targeting of non-military infrastructure is a key part of US military planning. If someone did that to your country , such as an attack on a power plant, you'd be the first to call it 'terror'.

Infrastructure is a marginal military target (meaning that's where I draw the line, in case anyone's wondering). People aren't.

But ofcourse, it's okay to kill non-US citizens just as long as they are 'collateral damage' in what you deem 'a just cause'. Do you think the mother and father of child who was killed by a bomb dropped by a US plane would see it this way? Who do you think they'll blame?

It's not okay that these people die. It's quite terrible. But that doesn't make it terrorism, as I get the impression you're trying to suggest.

The simple fact the US is seeking to control the Middle East is why so many people in that region hate the US with a passion. Supporting corrupt oppresive governments (such as Saudi Arabias) and your close support of Isreal is not making you any friends. Continuing to blow the crap out the region isn't going to help. The US stations troops in THEIR countries, how would you feel if you saw foriegn troops in your homeland?

The simple fact that so many people in the Middle East want to kill us is why we seek to "control" the region. It's a vicious cycle. In an abstract sense, it's easier to argue that the US is perpetuating the cycle, but when it's your family that's being threatened by terrorist attacks and you have a more vested interest in the matter, things are a little different.

Compared to several governments in the area, Saudi Arabia isn't oppresive. I suppose I could also point out that all of NATO supported the "corrupt, oppressive" government of Saudi Arabia with a "minor" thing called Desert Shield back in '91.

"Blowing the crap out of the region," as you so aptly put it, has helped. Al-qaeda's organization has been dealt a major blow. Iran and Libya have both begun to allow inspections of their weapons programs -- something the UN has never accomplished and, from the looks of things, never would have. From an American point of view, no significant terrorist attack has followed on American soil. Something you might want to note, though -- most people differentiate between the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq because they're seperate issues; an attempt to debate about both of them at the same time could get rather complicated.

How would I feel if foreign troops were in my city? I think that depends on whether they're freeing me from the clutches of a crazed, despotic tyrant and his henchmen.

I'm sure someone could've found a way to justify his actions, until Sept 11, that is. That was a declaration of war on the world by him.

Hmm I thought I lived in the world? We have had no terrorist attacks against us. Maybe because every one likes us..lol.. point is. They didn't declare war on the world.. just the USA and any one who decides to help them. Thus, I suppose one day they might , because while we don't support the war in IRAQ, we do have troops in Afghanistan. So, I guess we had no enemies till we decided to help America.. and don't go saying we owe you any thing, we don't. In fact the only thing America has ever done for Canada is try to invade us in 1812..lol :P

You'll have left-wing hippies and fanatics say they were but in reality and in the "moral" world (which they'll argue too) it was an act of cowardice but then again what do you get from a terrorism but attacking civilians.

Now for the ANTI-US/ANTI-ISRAEL stuff to preceed by those on NS who think the world is a shiny bubble without the US.

You'll have left-wing hippies and fanatics say they were but in reality and in the "moral" world (which they'll argue too) it was an act of cowardice but then again what do you get from a terrorism but attacking civilians.

Now for the ANTI-US/ANTI-ISRAEL stuff to preceed by those on NS who think the world is a shiny bubble without the US.

I don't know if it would be a "shiny bubble", but I'm willing to give it a shot. The Americans have caused more heartache in the world post WWII then any other country in the world. I'm not suggesting doing away with America, but I don't think their government comes any where close to the most responsible country in the world to handle all the power they have. To bad power wasn't based on brains instead of how many guns and bombs you have. The world would be much better off.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-08-29-al-qaeda-clues_x.htm]AQ "corporate" Records solve....nothing at all[/url]


Interesting...Is this is the best you got...its pretty weak...
the article asks 4 major questions:

1 * When did the planning begin?

2* Who gave final approval for the attacks?

3* Was Zacarias Moussaoui, the French citizen facing trial in Virginia on terrorism conspiracy charges, part of the Sept. 11 plot?

4* Where was United Airlines Flight 93 headed when it crashed in Pennsylvania?

Very good questions...but the answers are pretty weak...
And Abu-Zubaydah's computer hard drives, CD-ROMs and documents do not mention Osama...not even once.

In the second paragraph it says "with suspected ties to al-Qaeda are under surveillance."

and thats is the bottom line....

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-08-29-al-qaeda-clues_x.htm]AQ (http:[url) "corporate" Records solve....nothing at all[/url]


Interesting...Is this is the best you got...its pretty weak...
the article asks 4 major questions:

1 * When did the planning begin?

2* Who gave final approval for the attacks?

3* Was Zacarias Moussaoui, the French citizen facing trial in Virginia on terrorism conspiracy charges, part of the Sept. 11 plot?

4* Where was United Airlines Flight 93 headed when it crashed in Pennsylvania?

Very good questions...but the answers are pretty weak...
And Abu-Zubaydah's computer hard drives, CD-ROMs and documents do not mention Osama...not even once.

In the second paragraph it says "with suspected ties to al-Qaeda are under surveillance."

the word "suspected" is pretty much in line with everything else about Osama....

Interesting...Is this is the best you got...its pretty weak...

If that's the best, most thought-out, detailed counterpoint you can make, I think it's about time to say we're done here. I happen to be one of those funny people who still gets the bulk of his news from hard sources like daily papers and weekly magazines. I suppose it wouldn't do much good to ask you to back up your own posts with links or government sources -- it's much easier for you to debate when only the other side has to do so. I suppose you might be having a tough time finding a government which backs up your opinion, but that's how things go.

the word "suspected" is pretty much in line with everything else about Osama....

Apparently you're not familiar with international principles of justice. Generally, government and media refrain from declaring a person guilty until after they've faced trial by court of law and have been proven guilty. Until such a time, it is unwise for the government to make all of its data public -- releasing such information could and probably would do significant harm to an investigation such as this.

And Abu-Zubaydah's computer hard drives, CD-ROMs and documents do not mention Osama...not even once.

An ultimately pointless distinction -- our war is not with Osama but with al-Qaeda. Osama, being the leader of the organization, will face trial as a highly suspected individual. Considering al-Qaeda's reputation for being able to hide data from investigators, this may not even be a significant point. I suppose as long as we're citing sources, you might as well provide some variety of evidence to support this claim.

How the F*ck could anyone suggest that what Osama did was justifiable? It is outrageous to suggest that anything could justify his actions. It was one thing for him to bomb a barracks full of US Marines, or a Naval Ship, those are filled with soldiers who have agreed to put their lives on the line. But to go after civilians is just wrong. All but two countries in the entire world condemned the attacks of 9/11, those countries were the Taliban in Afghanistan, and Saddam in Iraq, we got them both. Has justice been done? Hell no. I will enlist in the Army when I turn 18 and I will request that I be sent to Iraq or Afghanistan to try and find Osama and kill him. I want to be remembered as the man who brought him down. He deserves to die a thousand deaths, horrible deaths, not a gun shot or anything like that, but rather a slow painful death, maybe even pull a little bit of the Inquistion on him. Wouldn't that be fun, (No offense to any muslims out there, unless of course you support his actions, which I doubt many with a computer do.)

There are better means to proving a point, and OBL's point was mistaken badly if he thought killing 2000+ people was making it.

I don't know if it would be a "shiny bubble", but I'm willing to give it a shot. The Americans have caused more heartache in the world post WWII then any other country in the world. I'm not suggesting doing away with America, but I don't think their government comes any where close to the most responsible country in the world to handle all the power they have. To bad power wasn't based on brains instead of how many guns and bombs you have. The world would be much better off.

Actually America has spent most of its international efforts since WWII trying to clean up the mess that European colonialism created prior to that point in time. No nation 'owes' us anything. America does not 'owe' any nation either. I do not believe that the Belgians, Dutch, and French among others were condemned by the rest of the world when they fought against the Germans when they invaded these nations and killed civilians as well as military personnel. The retaliation taken by the British in their own versions of 'terror bombings' was not condemned either. Well, America has been attacked, civilians have been killed so pardon us if we retaliate against these groups and the nations that support them in ANY WAY without first asking for permission from this country or that country.

What seems to bother other folks is that America is acting out of character. We did not simply say 'Oh my, how tragic, how sad, the poor terrorists must have had some childhood trauma and are not responsible for their actions... hug hug kiss kiss' as our government has done so often in the recent past. Enough is enough. These terrorists expected the U.S. to react differently. They hoped to get Americans to withdraw their support from Israel and their interests in the middle east. Fact is that even without American support Israel is more than capable of taking care of itself as it has proven several times since the British permitted it to be formed... and it did so each time without U.S. military support.

I apologize for not believing there is anything to apologize for.

True dat.

The US.....has become so bloated with its power that people living there think that going against the UN vote and invading Iraq has been good.

Seriously.....when they say the news...ever count up how many people are dead? more than 600 Americans are never gonna return, and for what? Sure, saddams gone. But where are the WMD? Where are all the allies we had on the days after september 11th? Where's our world support? Seems like we're only gaining enemies...

almost all of the Arab nations that we give aid to vote against us in the UN more than 70 percent of the time....

Maybe we should take a hint. Invading nations won't get us support. Giving money to governments like musharraf that are despised among the Arab world wont give us anything. So why do we do what we do? What's up with the US policy?Good point. come to think of it, we really don't have many allies left, if any. and no matter what we may do, i believe, they will never forgive us and be our allies yet again. the allies that we do have actually hate us. look at britain, they are our allies, but only because during WWII( i believe) we gave them 50 battle ships and in return they become our allies. They all basically despise us. They all take it out on the USA as a whole( most people) when it is just some of our leaders. It's not all of them, but there are quite a few. I dont know, but perhaps we should go back into isolation. Wait, then again that would be like bending our knee to the enemy. It's true, many people hate us not only because of some of our actions( cant say that it was all of our actions, and if you do, it proves that you just hate america in general) but also because we are a world power, whether you believe it or not. i dont know, let me stop my rambling on and on. ( watch, someone is gonna try to scold me. probably someone with a huge ego that just hates america)

I don't like Al Quaida, they have very little excuse. However i've a great deal of sympathy for the Iraqi Resistance fighters.

I don't know if it would be a "shiny bubble", but I'm willing to give it a shot. The Americans have caused more heartache in the world post WWII then any other country in the world. I'm not suggesting doing away with America, but I don't think their government comes any where close to the most responsible country in the world to handle all the power they have. To bad power wasn't based on brains instead of how many guns and bombs you have. The world would be much better off.

Actually America has spent most of its international efforts since WWII trying to clean up the mess that European colonialism created prior to that point in time. No nation 'owes' us anything. America does not 'owe' any nation either. I do not believe that the Belgians, Dutch, and French among others were condemned by the rest of the world when they fought against the Germans when they invaded these nations and killed civilians as well as military personnel. The retaliation taken by the British in their own versions of 'terror bombings' was not condemned either. Well, America has been attacked, civilians have been killed so pardon us if we retaliate against these groups and the nations that support them in ANY WAY without first asking for permission from this country or that country.

What seems to bother other folks is that America is acting out of character. We did not simply say 'Oh my, how tragic, how sad, the poor terrorists must have had some childhood trauma and are not responsible for their actions... hug hug kiss kiss' as our government has done so often in the recent past. Enough is enough. These terrorists expected the U.S. to react differently. They hoped to get Americans to withdraw their support from Israel and their interests in the middle east. Fact is that even without American support Israel is more than capable of taking care of itself as it has proven several times since the British permitted it to be formed... and it did so each time without U.S. military support.

I apologize for not believing there is anything to apologize for.

Quite an impressive post, except for one thing: the British did not "permit" Israel to be formed. It was formed against their will, and they did all they could to sabotage Israel's creation. Check out who held the top officer positions in the Arab invasion forces in 1948- almost exclusively Brits.

Lovely observation about the US cleaning up the European post-colonial mess.

I dont support OBL's actions that cost thousands of civilians their lives. However, I do not support the current American trend of "an eye for an eye" and raids of sovereign nations, based on lies which are not at all related to terrorism or OBL (or at least the US fails to deliver proof).

Basically.. I am shocked since September 11th 2001, how deep the US have sunk from the once admired nation to the now feared and in the western european area, mainly hated country, ruled by a pro-capitalist dictator who has successfully muted his people. I am truly glad that I do NOT live in the US!!!

For some proof that the US has sunk very low:

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/irq-110504-action-eng

I don't think you can justify sept 11, but you could at least try and figure out their reasons behind it. The US never properly did that. "They hate freedom" isn't an answer.
But they do, at least the Western brand. Look at the Taliban. bin Laden's hope is to spread that model of government throughout the Middle East, as some twisted revival of the Abbasid Caliphate. He only attacked the US because he saw us as being in the way. After all, there were far deeper reasons for him to be pissed about US troops on Saudi soil, other than the fact that they were near Mecca and Medina.

Basically.. I am shocked since September 11th 2001, how deep the US have sunk from the once admired nation to the now feared and in the western european area, mainly hated country, ruled by a pro-capitalist dictator who has successfully muted his people. I am truly glad that I do NOT live in the US!!!
Oh pleeeeeeeeeeease. You mean the US was once admired? Sorry to disappoint you, but they were always hated by Europe. Always.

Here is a text written by no other than Mark Twain himself, in 1898, as a reply to an American exile living in France.

"...Well, what do you think of our country now? And what do you think of the figure she is cutting before the eyes of the world? For one, I am ashamed. [Extract from a long and heated letter from a Voluntary Exile, Member of the American Colony, Paris.]"

And so you are ashamed. I am trying to think out what it can have been that has produced this large attitude of mind and this fine flow of sarcasm. Apparently you are ashamed to look Europe in the face; ashamed of the American name; temporarily ashamed of your nationality. By the light of remarks made to me by an American here in Vienna, I judge that you are ashamed because:

1. We are meddling where we have no business and no right; meddling with the private family matters of a sister nation; intruding upon her sacred right to do as she pleases with her own, unquestioned by anybody.
2. We are doing this under a sham humanitarian pretext.
3. Doing it in order to filch Cuba, the formal and distinct disclaimer in the ultimatum being very, very thin humbug, and easily detectable by you and virtuous Europe.
4. And finally you are ashamed of all this because it is new, and base, and brutal, and dishonest; and because Europe, having had no previous experience of such things, is horrified by it and can never respect us nor associate with us any more.

Brutal, base, dishonest? We? Land Thieves? Shedders of innocent blood? We? Traitors to our official word? We? Are we going to lose Europe's respect because of this new and dreadful conduct? Russia's, for instance? Is she lying stretched out on her back in Manchuria, with her head among her Siberian prisons and her feet in Port Arthur, trying to read over the fairy tales she told Lord Salisbury, and not able to do it for crying because we are maneuvering to treacherously smouch Cuba from feeble Spain, and because we are ungently shedding innocent Spanish blood?

Is it France's respect that we are going to lose? Is our unchivalric conduct troubling a nation which exists to-day because a brave young girl saved it when its poltroons had lost it - a nation which deserted her as one man when her day of peril came? Is our treacherous assault upon a weak people distressing a nation which contributed Bartholomew's Day to human history? Is our ruthless spirit offending the sensibilities of the nation which gave us the Reign of Terror to read about? Is our unmanly intrusion into the private affairs of a sister nation shocking the feelings of the people who sent Maximilian to Mexico? Are our shabby and pusillanimous ways outraging the fastidious people who have sent an innocent man (Dreyfus) to a living hell, taken to their embraces the slimy guilty one, and submitted to indignities Emile Zola - the manliest man in France?

Is it Spain's respect that we are going to lose? Is she sitting sadly conning her great history and contrasting it with our meddling, cruel, perfidious one - our shameful history of foreign robberies, humanitarian shams, and annihilations of weak and unoffending nations? Is she remembering with pride how she sent Columbus home in chains; how she sent half of the harmless West Indians into slavery and the rest to the grave, leaving not one alive; how she robbed and slaughtered the Inca's gentle race, then beguiled the Inca into her power with fair promises and burned him at the stake; how she drenched the New World in blood, and earned and got the name of The Nation With The Bloody Footprint; how she drove all the Jews out of Spain in a day, allowing them to sell their property, but forbidding them to carry any money out of the country; how she roasted heretics by the thousands and thousands in her public squares, generation after generation, her kings and her priests looking on as at a holiday show; how her Holy Inquisition imported hell into the earth; how she was the first to institute it and the last to give it up - and then only under compulsion; how, with a spirit unmodified by time, she still tortures her prisoners to-day; how, with her ancient passion for pain and blood unchanged, she still crowds the arena with ladies and gentlemen and priests to see with delight a bull harried and persecuted and a gored horse dragging his entrails on the ground; and how, with this incredible character surviving all attempts to civilize it, her Duke of Alva rises again in the person of General Weyler - to-day the most idolized personage in Spain - and we see a hundred thousand women and children shut up in pens and pitilessly starved to death?

Are we indeed going to lose Spain's respect? Is there no way to avoid this calamity - or this compliment? Are we going to lose her respect because we have made a promise in our ultimatum which she thinks we shall break? And meantime is she trying to recall some promise of her own which she has kept?

Is the Professional Official Fibber of Europe really troubled with our morals? Dear Parisian friend, are you taking seriously the daily remark of the newspaper and the orater about "this noble nation with an illustrious history"? That is mere kindness, mere charity for a people in temporary hard luck. The newspaper and the orator do not mean it. They wink when they say it.

And so you are ashamed. Do not be ashamed; there is no occasion for it.




Painfully familiar, is it not?

Personally I dont care what Mark Twain wrote sometime years ago. Firstly I am German and he doesnt seem to mention my country. Secondly I dont think the *people* here care for your president while their government leaders might.. they act against the will of their population here anyway, just like Bush does in the US. I can guarantee you though that 100% of my family hate G.W.B. and what the US have become with him leading that country. And it is not just my family, but everyone I have had the chance to talk to regarding the US of A. This may not concern you, but rest assured that what the governmental leaders in "old europe" say is not neccessarily what their population thinks. The result being the loss of power for them lieing bastards (Aznar in Spain and most certainly Blair in England and everywhere else a government head supported the US in the war against Iraq, against the will of the people).

And here is a part of why:
http://www.bushin30seconds.org/150/view.html?ad_id=2802

(Its not the entire reason, but one of them why at least I dislike the President of the US of A for his actions.)