NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, 9/11 happened. Yes, it happened 3 years ago. But when should we stop mourning it? 9/12, 2001. What is the point of mourning several thousand dead 3 years after it occured? Do we still mourn every day of World War 1? World War 2? I beleive more people died every day in those wars than in 9/11. Yet people still seem to think 9/11 has more of a monumental importance.

This, of course, forces me to deviate into a rant against the right-wing, especially George W. Bush. What gives him the right to force the entire country into days of mourning and remembrance? What right does he have to impose religion and "prayer" onto the entire country? Well?

George W. Bush has used the 9/11 bandwagon to further his agenda multiple times. We invaded Afghanistan to arrest a "war criminal", who declared war on the United States, then attacked a civilian target. Need I remind the world of World War 2? Where the Allies (Particularly Britain and the United States), bombed both Germany and Japan? Over 200,000 people were killed in Potsdam in a single night of bombing, and over 400,000 were killed in the atomic blasts over Japan. Why were Truman, Eisenhower, and Churchill not hunted down and arrested for Crimes Against Humanity?

Bush is no better. Many more have died in our "War on Terror", especially in our invasion and illegal occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq than died in 9/11.

I am still waiting for Bush's evidence that Saddam Hussein was deliberating with terrorists. I beleive that it was proven that Saddam Hussein turned down terrorist organizations that asked for support from him because he did not want to enrage the United States. In all likelyhood, it was more likely George W. Bush deliberated with terrorists than Saddam, since who gained more from 9/11 and other terrorist attacks?

Now, what is a "War on Terror"? Terror is defined as "Intense Fear". So, we are going to fight fear? Can we invade terror? Can we defeat terror? Can we see terror? No. Terror is not a physical entity. I guess a war on terrorist organizations would be possible to win, however unlikely, but a war on terror is impossible.

When are other nations in the world going to stand up to the United States? I live in the US, and have my entire life, but even I beleive the government often oversteps it's bounds. The least you could do is sever economic ties with the United States. If every other nation severed economic ties with the US, no nation, except the US, would feel pressure from it.

I do believe we should mourn those who died.

However, I think it's sick that Bush is politicizing 9/11 after he said he wouldn't! He's doing it in all of his speeches, they did it at the RNC, and they're doing it today.

These people make me sick. :mad: :headbang:

This, of course, forces me to deviate into a rant against the right-wing, especially George W. Bush. What gives him the right to force the entire country into days of mourning and remembrance? What right does he have to impose religion and "prayer" onto the entire country? Well?
Nothing does, and no one is being forced to do it. He can't order the media to cover 9/11 24 hours straight. He can't force people to have a moment of silence, he can't force them to pray, and he can't force them to be Baptists, and he isn't.

George W. Bush has used the 9/11 bandwagon to further his agenda multiple times. We invaded Afghanistan to arrest a "war criminal", who declared war on the United States, then attacked a civilian target. Need I remind the world of World War 2? Where the Allies (Particularly Britain and the United States), bombed both Germany and Japan? Over 200,000 people were killed in Potsdam in a single night of bombing, and over 400,000 were killed in the atomic blasts over Japan. Why were Truman, Eisenhower, and Churchill not hunted down and arrested for Crimes Against Humanity?
To the WW2 stuff, the reason we didn't put the Allied leaders on trial was because we won. Not fair and hypocritical, but we did it anyway at the end of the war. That shouldn't stop us from trying to hunt down Bin Laden now, over half a century later.


Bush is no better. Many more have died in our "War on Terror", especially in our invasion and illegal occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq than died in 9/11.

Explain to me why invading Afghanistan and occupying it was illegal?

Now, what is a "War on Terror"? Terror is defined as "Intense Fear". So, we are going to fight fear? Can we invade terror? Can we defeat terror? Can we see terror? No. Terror is not a physical entity. I guess a war on terrorist organizations would be possible to win, however unlikely, but a war on terror is impossible.
You're being too literal. The War on Terror obviously means a war on terrorist organizations, it just has a nicer ring to it with just "War on Terror". When there was a "War on Poverty" we didn't line up tanks and try to hunt down poverty and blow it up, obviously, even though by the definition thats what it might mean.

When are other nations in the world going to stand up to the United States? I live in the US, and have my entire life, but even I beleive the government often oversteps it's bounds. The least you could do is sever economic ties with the United States. If every other nation severed economic ties with the US, no nation, except the US, would feel pressure from it.
Every nation would feel pressure from it. The USA is the worlds largest economy and huge net importer, with tons of natural resources. You can't just cut off economic ties to it and hope that everything goes well, the world economy would probably plunge into depression.

Well then replace market economics if you must. The world seemed to do well without US imports back in the 1500s/1600s.

I think more people would rather live with the USA than go back to the pre-Industrial age.

I think more people would rather live with the USA than go back to the pre-Industrial age.
For me, neither is overly exciting.

What does the USA have to do with the industrial age? The United Kingdom started it, not the USA.

For me, neither is overly exciting.
All the more reason to vote for Bush.

What does the USA have to do with the industrial age? The United Kingdom started it, not the USA.
Going back to the 1500's and 1600's economically would mean getting rid of all the factories and deporting people to the countryside.

Why does removing the USA mean removing industry?

All the more reason to vote for Bush.
Bush's actions made me an anti-American. If you are proud of creating many people in the world who would like to see the US crumble to dust asap, then go ahead and vote for Bush. He does more to support terrorism than Osama ever could.

Why does removing the USA mean removing industry?
You said the economy of the world seemed to function pretty well without America back in the 1500s and 1600s. I was just saying, back in the 1500s and 1600s wasn't quite like the world is today.

Bush's actions made me an anti-American. If you are proud of creating many people in the world who would like to see the US crumble to dust asap, then go ahead and vote for Bush. He does more to support terrorism than Osama ever could.

Damn right.

You said the economy of the world seemed to function pretty well without America back in the 1500s and 1600s. I was just saying, back in the 1500s and 1600s wasn't quite like the world is today.

But it probably could survive now without the USA, as well. Market Economics is pliable. There would be a large downfall after the USA was shut out, yes, but it would recover as business readjusted themselves to not focus on the USA.

Bush's actions made me an anti-American. If you are proud of creating many people in the world who would like to see the US crumble to dust asap, then go ahead and vote for Bush. He does more to support terrorism than Osama ever could.
I'm not proud of it of creating Anti-Americans, but on the other hand I can't deny that I grin when I see so many people making fools of themselves by being so willing to believe anything thats anti-Bush/anti-American.

Quite frankly, I believe FDR was almost being prophetic when he said "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself -- nameless, unreasoning, unjustified which paralyzes needed efforts to advance".

Think about it, not only was he predicting the major way in which smaller countries or interest groups would assault larger ones at the end of his century and the beginning of this one, but he is also predicting what would happen in those larger countries and/or interest groups. Fear of terrorism has gripped the United States, and the current administration has been all to happy to embrace this impure patriotism.

I believe it was Ben Franklin who said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ". The current administration is having a field day with those who Franklin describes, and they will continue to do so until people begin to listen to those who have lent wisdom to the American people in the past. These so-called "Patriots" are not better than the blind adherents of a dangerous cult, or the radical believers in Al-Qaeda and other such organizations.

It was Thomas Paine who said, "It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government", and I'll be damned if he wasn't right. Using an event like 9/11 to boost your own support and further your own goals, whether through fear or garnered sympathy, is just plain wrong.

But it probably could survive now without the USA, as well. Market Economics is pliable. There would be a large downfall after the USA was shut out, yes, but it would recover as business readjusted themselves to not focus on the USA.
It took World War Two to pull the world out of the depression of the 30's. Its more likely that all the governments that shut out the USA would be voted out and more sensible regimes would be put in place.

Nothing does, and no one is being forced to do it. He can't order the media to cover 9/11 24 hours straight. He can't force people to have a moment of silence, he can't force them to pray, and he can't force them to be Baptists, and he isn't.
but he is highly suggesting it and saying it every few hours just to make sure we are in fear


To the WW2 stuff, the reason we didn't put the Allied leaders on trial was because we won. Not fair and hypocritical, but we did it anyway at the end of the war. That shouldn't stop us from trying to hunt down Bin Laden now, over half a century later.
and we are NOT trying to hunt down bin laden, read bush's speeches




Explain to me why invading Afghanistan and occupying it was illegal? wasn't our goal and authorization


You're being too literal. The War on Terror obviously means a war on terrorist organizations, it just has a nicer ring to it with just "War on Terror". When there was a "War on Poverty" we didn't line up tanks and try to hunt down poverty and blow it up, obviously, even though by the definition thats what it might mean.
if it was a war on terrorist organizations it is still impossible to win and we arnt even trying, our focus is iraq, not terrorist nations and terrorist groups.

A school in Beslan, Russia was taken hostage last week and three hundred innocent young children were brutally murdered.

Anyone remember that now that the anniversary of the World Trade Center attack has arrived?

Probably not.

All the more reason to vote for Bush.
do you even listen to yourself or do you purposefully ignore the real world?

you are so damn close to getting ignored i dont know why i havnt yet

but he is highly suggesting it and saying it every few hours just to make sure we are in fear
Ok so you admit that he's not forcing anyone to do anything.

and we are NOT trying to hunt down bin laden, read bush's speeches
We have thousands of troops in Afghanistan and we're working with Pakistani forces as well. We're trying to hunt him down, whether he's our main priority or not is a different matter.


wasn't our goal and authorization
Our goal was to hunt down Al-Qaeda, and to do so required the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan.

if it was a war on terrorist organizations it is still impossible to win and we arnt even trying, our focus is iraq, not terrorist nations and terrorist groups.
1.) We're killing terrorists in Iraq, and,
2.) We still are doing other things than Iraq. Our military is large enough to multitask.

You're also killing innocent civilians.

Is it fun? Are you proud to know that?

do you even listen to yourself or do you purposefully ignore the real world?

you are so damn close to getting ignored i dont know why i havnt yet
Go ahead Chess, it would spare you trouble of another person actually challenging your worldview. And you call Republicans narrowminded. :rolleyes:

You're also killing innocent civilians.

Is it fun? Are you proud to know that?
Are we trying to kill innocent civilians?

Are you trying to stop killing innocent civilians?

Ok so you admit that he's not forcing anyone to do anything.


We have thousands of troops in Afghanistan and we're working with Pakistani forces as well. We're trying to hunt him down, whether he's our main priority or not is a different matter.


Our goal was to hunt down Al-Qaeda, and to do so required the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan.


1.) We're killing terrorists in Iraq, and,
2.) We still are doing other things than Iraq. Our military is large enough to multitask.
the smell of bullshit, gotta love it

bin laden is no longer a target, were he a target we would've had him, how long were we hunting saddam? a year? yeah thats right, how long hase we been hunting bin laden? 3 years? yeaht thats right.

there is no reason to overtake and occupy a country in that manner to hunt some one down

and in iraq, there are terrorist in other places in iraq, we are NOT in iraq because there are terrorist there, and just to clarify everyone that opposes the US occupation is NOT a terrorist

Are you trying to stop killing innocent civilians?
Yes. We're trying to hunt down the terrorists who plant bombs in marketplaces and things like that, and by taking out people like Saddam Hussein and Slobadan Milosovic, both without the sanction of the UN, we're stopping the future killing of innocent civilians by twisted tyrants.

Go ahead Chess, it would spare you trouble of another person actually challenging your worldview. And you call Republicans narrowminded. :rolleyes:
trying to argue with you ignorant saps who refuse to see any position other than their own is detrimental to my health, the strain of trying to rationalize away how you people are somehow purposefully and willingly that ignorant is bad for my mental and physical health

Yes. We're trying to hunt down the terrorists who plant bombs in marketplaces and things like that, and by taking out people like Saddam Hussein and Slobadan Milosovic, both without the sanction of the UN, we're stopping the future killing of innocent civilians by twisted tyrants.
and in doing so have killed over 10,000 civilians, in iraq alone

The US army is lazy, careless and has a vendetta against anyone in a country from where 'terrorists' came from.

How do you actually know (and I mean 'know') that Osama bin Laden orchestrated the monstrosities of the World Trade Center attacks?

and in doing so have killed over 10,000 civilians, in iraq alone

That is why I celebrate the first retaliation act of the poor against the US on 9/11. Now, they felt what it is when innocents die..(a US speciality)

I doubt your morals in celebrating the attack.

Yes, 9/11 happened. Yes, it happened 3 years ago. But when should we stop mourning it? 9/12, 2001. What is the point of mourning several thousand dead 3 years after it occured? Do we still mourn every day of World War 1? World War 2? I beleive more people died every day in those wars than in 9/11. Yet people still seem to think 9/11 has more of a monumental importance.

This, of course, forces me to deviate into a rant against the right-wing, especially George W. Bush. What gives him the right to force the entire country into days of mourning and remembrance? What right does he have to impose religion and "prayer" onto the entire country? Well?

George W. Bush has used the 9/11 bandwagon to further his agenda multiple times. We invaded Afghanistan to arrest a "war criminal", who declared war on the United States, then attacked a civilian target. Need I remind the world of World War 2? Where the Allies (Particularly Britain and the United States), bombed both Germany and Japan? Over 200,000 people were killed in Potsdam in a single night of bombing, and over 400,000 were killed in the atomic blasts over Japan. Why were Truman, Eisenhower, and Churchill not hunted down and arrested for Crimes Against Humanity?

Bush is no better. Many more have died in our "War on Terror", especially in our invasion and illegal occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq than died in 9/11.

I am still waiting for Bush's evidence that Saddam Hussein was deliberating with terrorists. I beleive that it was proven that Saddam Hussein turned down terrorist organizations that asked for support from him because he did not want to enrage the United States. In all likelyhood, it was more likely George W. Bush deliberated with terrorists than Saddam, since who gained more from 9/11 and other terrorist attacks?

Now, what is a "War on Terror"? Terror is defined as "Intense Fear". So, we are going to fight fear? Can we invade terror? Can we defeat terror? Can we see terror? No. Terror is not a physical entity. I guess a war on terrorist organizations would be possible to win, however unlikely, but a war on terror is impossible.

When are other nations in the world going to stand up to the United States? I live in the US, and have my entire life, but even I beleive the government often oversteps it's bounds. The least you could do is sever economic ties with the United States. If every other nation severed economic ties with the US, no nation, except the US, would feel pressure from it.


Just out of curiosity, ARe you american?

How would you like it if you died, and people stopped mourning for you the next day? ANd they stopped caring about you, and thought you never even existed?

Listen, if we do NOT remember the past, then quite frankly we are doomed to repeat it. Take Hitler, for example. Napolean invaded russia during winter and was murderifed. 130 years later, Hitler does the EXACT SAME THING. Thats the only reason we arent saying Heil Hitler! every time we talk on the phone.

I DO believe that the right wing people have been exploiting 9/11(And yes, i am a staunch Bush Supporter. But even WE have feelings too, y'know. We arent ALL Rich billonaires and texans), but that doesnt mean dont remember it. We remember ever year the Pearl Harbor Bombings, and BOTH of the Warsaw Uprisings. The only reason we dont mourn them so much is because 97% of the population wasnt even ALIVE then. Im certain that in 70 years 9/11 will be jsut liek what Pearl Harbor is today.

3,000 INNOCENT people were killed on PURPOSE(In Iraq and Afghanistan, all civilian casualties were ACCIDENTS. Don't act like they werent.) Plus, Afghanistan WAS a threat to us, while Iraq wasnt(although it wasnt exactly a good place either...). The Taliban was PROVEN to have Al-Qaeda training camps(you could kinda tell from the fact that there were tens of thousands of Al-Qaeda members in the country and hundreds of training camps). The Taliban was an evil regime, it was toppled, and life in Afghanistan is Infinetly better than before. Now Iraq, theres a diferent matter....

Heres on last thing: If you lost a family member on Sept 11, would you want everyone to forget them? I believe that mourning is good. It shows that we are only human, and it brings everyone together. LEft-wing estremists like you who think that Sept. 11th should be forgotten should be banished to live in Somalia where you can join your American-government hating friends.


(BTW-Britain WAS the start of the Industrial revolution. Of course, within a few decade the Americans just WHIZZED by England because, frankly, we hade more resources, more people, more money, and more land. I dont mean any offence, but a small European Nation that has been nearly stripped dry of all its resources and relies mostly on their EXTREMELY volitile EMpire for resources is obviously going to be surpased by a HUGE nation that is overflowing with natural resources.)

the smell of bullshit, gotta love it

bin laden is no longer a target, were he a target we would've had him, how long were we hunting saddam? a year? yeah thats right, how long hase we been hunting bin laden? 3 years? yeaht thats right.
Saddam and Bin Laden are two different scenarios. First, before this "point" comes out, yes we had and have more people in Iraq, but most of them weren't looking for Saddam. Saddam wasn't a popular dictator no matter what propoganda people might believe, and the populous was against him. Bin Laden, on the other hand, is popular and thus it is much harder to find him in a sea of his supporters. We didn't find some Nazi leaders until the 50's and later, but we did find them, and we were looking for them.

there is no reason to overtake and occupy a country in that manner to hunt some one down
We gave an ultimatum to the Taliban, either they hand over Bin Laden or we go to war. They had the option, and they chose war. We can't go in an hunt Bin Laden down if the country is ruled by a hostile power and we don't know exactly where he is.

and in iraq, there are terrorist in other places in iraq, we are NOT in iraq because there are terrorist there, and just to clarify everyone that opposes the US occupation is NOT a terrorist
I know everyone that opposes the US occupation isn't a terrorists, if they're peaceful or even if they only attack American military targets. The people who shoot at Iraqi police forces and other "collaborators", who shoot at innocent civilians to spread fear and unrest are terrorists.

and in doing so have killed over 10,000 civilians, in iraq alone
And inflamed the Middle East into a terrorist paradise with literally endless recruiting possibilities. Many thanks, USA.

trying to argue with you ignorant saps who refuse to see any position other than their own is detrimental to my health, the strain of trying to rationalize away how you people are somehow purposefully and willingly that ignorant is bad for my mental and physical health
At least console yourself that every post we make isn't filled with ad hominem fallacies. Someone with such a great mental capacity should certainly understand and never practice such things.

The so called "war on communism" was even worse. Millions were killed for no purpose at all and several countries were left completely broken.
Of cause Afghanistan got a nifty pipeline and Iraq will probably get some more oil (meaning money to those who are rich), but I don't think some lame terrorist attack justifies anything.

It's not a war on terror, it's a war with terror. The american people are being terrorized by their government (because people who fear are fairly controlable) and the citizens of the invaded countries are being terrorized by other terrorized people. The terror won.

Saddam and Bin Laden are two different scenarios. First, before this "point" comes out, yes we had and have more people in Iraq, but most of them weren't looking for Saddam. Saddam wasn't a popular dictator no matter what propoganda people might believe, and the populous was against him. Bin Laden, on the other hand, is popular and thus it is much harder to find him in a sea of his supporters. We didn't find some Nazi leaders until the 50's and later, but we did find them, and we were looking for them.


We gave an ultimatum to the Taliban, either they hand over Bin Laden or we go to war. They had the option, and they chose war. We can't go in an hunt Bin Laden down if the country is ruled by a hostile power and we don't know exactly where he is.


I know everyone that opposes the US occupation isn't a terrorists, if they're peaceful or even if they only attack American military targets. The people who shoot at Iraqi police forces and other "collaborators", who shoot at innocent civilians to spread fear and unrest are terrorists.
Btw, if you have no clue where Bin Laden is, what makes you think the Taliban knew where Bin Laden is?

3,000 INNOCENT people were killed on PURPOSE(In Iraq and Afghanistan, all civilian casualties were ACCIDENTS. Don't act like they werent.) Plus, Afghanistan WAS a threat to us, while Iraq wasnt(although it wasnt exactly a good place either...). The Taliban was PROVEN to have Al-Qaeda training camps(you could kinda tell from the fact that there were tens of thousands of Al-Qaeda members in the country and hundreds of training camps). The Taliban was an evil regime, it was toppled, and life in Afghanistan is Infinetly better than before. Now Iraq, theres a diferent matter....

lol, thats bs. they were all "accidents", yeah a bomb accidently hit their home while were carpet bombing the city they live in with illegal cluster bombs
and they died when we "accidently" shot rockets into their houses thinking the "evil" insurgents live there

Heres on last thing: If you lost a family member on Sept 11, would you want everyone to forget them? I believe that mourning is good. It shows that we are only human, and it brings everyone together. LEft-wing estremists like you who think that Sept. 11th should be forgotten should be banished to live in Somalia where you can join your American-government hating friends.
if i lost a family member on 9/11 i wouldnt want him making the incident as a pro-bush political statement as he continues to do EVERY DAY, there is a difference between being forgotten and not being politicised


and your rant about europe is ignorant and stupid, you attack people you dont even know if they live in the in the US about them saying things about sept 11 then you go and make completely stupid ignorant statements about the whole of europe, you are a foolish hypocrite

The US army is lazy, careless and has a vendetta against anyone in a country from where 'terrorists' came from.

How do you actually know (and I mean 'know') that Osama bin Laden orchestrated the monstrosities of the World Trade Center attacks?
There's videos of Osama Bin Laden, Mullah Omar, and the rest in caves in Afghanistan talking about it.

and in doing so have killed over 10,000 civilians, in iraq alone
Which is why we need to hunt down the terrorists and make sure they stop killing so many innocent people on purpose!

The so called "war on communism" was even worse. Millions were killed for no purpose at all and several countries were left completely broken.
At least we have the knowledge that if we didn't fight in Korea and Vietnam and fund places elsewhere, the communists who would have ruled the country would have killed millions for no purpose and left their countries completely broken.

Saddam and Bin Laden are two different scenarios. First, before this "point" comes out, yes we had and have more people in Iraq, but most of them weren't looking for Saddam. Saddam wasn't a popular dictator no matter what propoganda people might believe, and the populous was against him. Bin Laden, on the other hand, is popular and thus it is much harder to find him in a sea of his supporters. We didn't find some Nazi leaders until the 50's and later, but we did find them, and we were looking for them.
that just proves we are fighitng the war on terror wrong, how an we fight a war on terror by making those who oppose us more popular by killing innocent people and thus convincing more people to join them


We gave an ultimatum to the Taliban, either they hand over Bin Laden or we go to war. They had the option, and they chose war. We can't go in an hunt Bin Laden down if the country is ruled by a hostile power and we don't know exactly where he is.
Pertitio Percipi, it was decided they had bin laden before we made the ultimatem, we didnt know if they actually "HAD" him, if they had bin laden you would've think we would've had him by now, there is the ASSUMPTION they had bin laden, though he could've been in pakistan or saudi arabi or you know soemwhere else where he is quite welcome


I know everyone that opposes the US occupation isn't a terrorists, if they're peaceful or even if they only attack American military targets. The people who shoot at Iraqi police forces and other "collaborators", who shoot at innocent civilians to spread fear and unrest are terrorists.[/QUOTE]

the smell of bullshit, gotta love it

bin laden is no longer a target, were he a target we would've had him, how long were we hunting saddam? a year? yeah thats right, how long hase we been hunting bin laden? 3 years? yeaht thats right.

there is no reason to overtake and occupy a country in that manner to hunt some one down

and in iraq, there are terrorist in other places in iraq, we are NOT in iraq because there are terrorist there, and just to clarify everyone that opposes the US occupation is NOT a terrorist

Have you even BEEN to the PAkistan/Afghanistan border?

I have. I LIVED There for YEARS. Its full (read, FULL) of mountains and caves and places to hide. i mean it, a GIANT mountain range with hundreds of thousands of caves. Not to mention its connected to the White mountains, and the Karakorum Mountains (home of the second largest mountain in the world and the most deadly, K-2). Its a miracle we haev found ANYONE in those mountains. If Osama Wanted, he could EASILY travel across the mountains to Kashmir, then go across northern India, then enter Nepal. Its a wonder we havent searched there...

Btw, if you have no clue where Bin Laden is, what makes you think the Taliban knew where Bin Laden is?
Because they were haboring Al-Qaeda and they simply said there was no connection of 9/11 with Al-Qaeda, so they wouldn't give him up. To quote the Afghani ambassador "If there is no evidence and proof, we're not prepared to give up Osama bin Laden"

http://www.latimes.com/la-092201diplo.story

At least console yourself that every post we make isn't filled with ad hominem fallacies. Someone with such a great mental capacity should certainly understand and never practice such things.
the ONLY thing wrong with ad hominem is that it can detract from the support of your point, other than that its not really a fallacy. where as you and your ilk quite commonly pertake in the "begging the question" and false analogy fallacies

lol, thats bs. they were all "accidents", yeah a bomb accidently hit their home while were carpet bombing the city they live in with illegal cluster bombs
and they died when we "accidently" shot rockets into their houses thinking the "evil" insurgents live there

STUFF HAPPENS IN WAR. INNOCENTS DIE. There is no such thing as a war without civilian casualties. DO you want me to tell youa bout how many innocent EUROPEANS have killed over the last 7 thousand years!?!?? DO YOU?!?!?! because the list will go on for eternity.


if i lost a family member on 9/11 i wouldnt want him making the incident as a pro-bush political statement as he continues to do EVERY DAY, there is a difference between being forgotten and not being politicised


and your rant about europe is ignorant and stupid, you attack people you dont even know if they live in the in the US about them saying things about sept 11 then you go and make completely stupid ignorant statements about the whole of europe, you are a foolish hypocrite


Listen. I DO NOT support what George Bush is doing by using 9/11, but these people HaVE to be remembered.

BTW- Somalia is in AFRICA, you dolt.

There's videos of Osama Bin Laden, Mullah Omar, and the rest in caves in Afghanistan talking about it.
did the caves have signs on them that said *somewhere*,Afghanistan
how the hell can you identify the country a cave exists in.


Which is why we need to hunt down the terrorists and make sure they stop killing so many innocent people on purpose!
CIRCULAR LOGIC, so we have to keep killing innocent people to convince the terrorists they should stop killing innocent people. you, sir, are a moron. how do you think we are going to stop people who already hate our country by killing their families and friend and clan members?


At least we have the knowledge that if we didn't fight in Korea and Vietnam and fund places elsewhere, the communists who would have ruled the country would have killed millions for no purpose and left their countries completely broken.
oh yes, thats COMPLETELY different than what we did. who wants to know why the countries were left completely broken? because communism was dying and unable to keep working very well, and why was this happening? because the UNITED STATES were cutting them off, it is the UNITED STATES that destroyed those nations, not communism

that just proves we are fighitng the war on terror wrong, how an we fight a war on terror by making those who oppose us more popular by killing innocent people and thus convincing more people to join them

Bin Laden was already popular. Its not like Al-Qaeda was having trouble finding recruits before 9/11.

Pertitio Percipi, it was decided they had bin laden before we made the ultimatem, we didnt know if they actually "HAD" him, if they had bin laden you would've think we would've had him by now, there is the ASSUMPTION they had bin laden, though he could've been in pakistan or saudi arabi or you know soemwhere else where he is quite welcome
Read the LATimes Article, their ambassador said they weren't going to give up Bin Laden. You can't give up something you don't have.

the ONLY thing wrong with ad hominem is that it can detract from the support of your point, other than that its not really a fallacy. where as you and your ilk quite commonly pertake in the "begging the question" and false analogy fallacies
It is a fallacy, and going around calling everyone you don't agree with idiots, narrowminded, extremists, ect., and thus unable to be argued with and because of that should be ignored, is the epitome of the fallacy.

STUFF HAPPENS IN WAR. INNOCENTS DIE. There is no such thing as a war without civilian casualties. DO you want me to tell youa bout how many innocent EUROPEANS have killed over the last 7 thousand years!?!?? DO YOU?!?!?! because the list will go on for eternity.
try making sense and come back





Listen. I DO NOT support what George Bush is doing by using 9/11, but these people HaVE to be remembered.
if you repeatedly sit there and say they should be remembered while attacking me you agree with bush and the politicisation of 9/11. there is a difference between remembering it and politicising it. people can remember it without plastering it across billboards and TV and the internet and newspapers

BTW- Somalia is in AFRICA, you dolt.
no shit do you have a point? i never even brought it up

did the caves have signs on them that said *somewhere*,Afghanistan
how the hell can you identify the country a cave exists in.



CIRCULAR LOGIC, so we have to keep killing innocent people to convince the terrorists they should stop killing innocent people. you, sir, are a moron. how do you think we are going to stop people who already hate our country by killing their families and friend and clan members?



oh yes, thats COMPLETELY different than what we did. who wants to know why the countries were left completely broken? because communism was dying and unable to keep working very well, and why was this happening? because the UNITED STATES were cutting them off, it is the UNITED STATES that destroyed those nations, not communism


Left-wing extremists like you dont listen to other peoples views. You REALLY dont.

And dont you know how many AMERICANS and RUSSIANS(yes, russians) hate terrorists because of the Family members THEY'VE lost?!?!?!

STUFF HAPPENS IN WAR. INNOCENTS DIE. There is no such thing as a war without civilian casualties. DO you want me to tell youa bout how many innocent EUROPEANS have killed over the last 7 thousand years!?!?? DO YOU?!?!?! because the list will go on for eternity.


Oh.. how good for the US that they are the world's babynation...

did the caves have signs on them that said *somewhere*,Afghanistan
how the hell can you identify the country a cave exists in.
Where else would the Taliban leadership and Osama be? Throughout all of his video tapes, experts have consistently identified the region as Southeastern Afghanistan near the Pakistani border.

CIRCULAR LOGIC, so we have to keep killing innocent people to convince the terrorists they should stop killing innocent people. you, sir, are a moron. how do you think we are going to stop people who already hate our country by killing their families and friend and clan members?

No, we have to keep on killing the terrorists so they stop killing innocent people. I never said anything about killing innocent people.

oh yes, thats COMPLETELY different than what we did. who wants to know why the countries were left completely broken? because communism was dying and unable to keep working very well, and why was this happening? because the UNITED STATES were cutting them off, it is the UNITED STATES that destroyed those nations, not communism
There were two superpowers, if you didn't have the USA you had the Soviet Union. The USA in no way caused atrocities like the Great Leap Forward, Cultural Revolution, or artificial famines in the Ukraine.

try making sense and come back






if you repeatedly sit there and say they should be remembered while attacking me you agree with bush and the politicisation of 9/11. there is a difference between remembering it and politicising it. people can remember it without plastering it across billboards and TV and the internet and newspapers


no shit do you have a point? i never even brought it up

Then WHY HAve yOu bEEN ATTACKING ME!

All i said was that 9/11 should be remembered. Plain and simple. Then you had to attack everythign i said.

THen WHAT did you mean about How i was talking about Europe??? I was statign the truth, everyone knows Europe is nearly stripped dry of natural Resources because of 7 thousands years of use.

Bin Laden was already popular. Its not like Al-Qaeda was having trouble finding recruits before 9/11.
but we are supposed to be fighting terrorism, not helping bin laden recruit people and making him MORE popular


Read the LATimes Article, their ambassador said they weren't going to give up Bin Laden. You can't give up something you don't have.
if they had bin laden we would have taken him when we took the country


It is a fallacy, and going around calling everyone you don't agree with idiots, narrowminded, extremists, ect., and thus unable to be argued with and because of that should be ignored, is the epitome of the fallacy.
well when you are an ignorant, idiotic, narrowminded extremist...

and let me repeat, ad hominem does NOT make you wrong, however circular logic, falsy analogy, and undistributed middle, your ilk's favorite fallacies, DO make you wrong

Left-wing extremists like you dont listen to other peoples views. You REALLY dont.

And dont you know how many AMERICANS and RUSSIANS(yes, russians) hate terrorists because of the Family members THEY'VE lost?!?!?!
what opinions should i listen to?

the ones that state bush is right no matter what he does?

the ones that state that being liberal is bad?

the oens that say a national health care system is the epitome of evil and the private insurance system we have is god?

the ones that say ann coulter, sean hannity, and bill o'reilly are independent and intelligent?

i think not, provide me with an INTELLIGENT opinion and i will consider it

but we are supposed to be fighting terrorism, not helping bin laden recruit people and making him MORE popular

Its a trade off. If invading Afghanistan and trying to take out Al-Qaeda's leadership means more recruits for terrorists, so be it. It would be even worse to simply do nothing out of fear that it might increase terrorist support.

if they had bin laden we would have taken him when we took the country
No we wouldn't have, its easy to flee. You don't stay in one place while the US and Northern Alliance is invading.

well when you are an ignorant, idiotic, narrowminded extremist...
Good. Now, in all of your extremely large number of posts where you've employed these words, in how many have they been backed up? If you're going to say that they're justified, justify them from now on.

Then WHY HAve yOu bEEN ATTACKING ME!

All i said was that 9/11 should be remembered. Plain and simple. Then you had to attack everythign i said.

THen WHAT did you mean about How i was talking about Europe??? I was statign the truth, everyone knows Europe is nearly stripped dry of natural Resources because of 7 thousands years of use.
do you live in europe?
have you studied the geology of europe?
have you studied the industries of europe?

i highly doubt it, even some one with glancing knowledge of the subject knows you arem aking up inane shit without even bothering to think. the whole 7000 years thing proves it by itself

Its a trade off. If invading Afghanistan and trying to take out Al-Qaeda's leadership means more recruits for terrorists, so be it. It would be even worse to simply do nothing out of fear that it might increase terrorist support.
please, please, PLEASE tell me you did not just say that, let me ask again? do you even read what you are typing?





Good. Now, in all of your extremely large number of posts where you've employed these words, in how many have they been backed up? If you're going to say that they're justified, justify them from now on.
posts like yours is a good example, light is also doing a pretty good job of it..

Oh.. how good for the US that they are the world's babynation...

....

In the Lightning Stars Secret Extremist Ignore Cannon facility

"Sir! There are some Left-wing extremists who are complaining that the U.S. is stupid and that 9/11 should be forgotten attacking us with words, what shall we do? Did i forget to mention that they arent even LISTENING to what the moderates are saying, they're just responding in a desperate attempt to dis America!"

"What the hell was {insert Leader of TLS' REAL name here} thinking when he decided to enter this thread?!?!? There are flaming trolls attacking from all sides! Arm the cannon! Battlestations, Battlestations!"

Ignore Extremist Cannon FIRED! Direct Hit on Gigatron and Attican Empire!
___________________________________________________

BTW- im leaving this thread. I never should have even entered this flaming Troll...

please, please, PLEASE tell me you did not just say that, let me ask again? do you even read what you are typing?
Yes I did. I'll say it again : Sitting around letting him plan in Afghanistan for the next attack would have been worse than invading and increasing his support.

posts like yours is a good example, light is also doing a pretty good job of it..
Sounding a bit like MKUltra. You don't need to provide justification, because its there for everyone to see. Or as he would say, its common knowledge.

....

In the Lightning Stars Secret Extremist Ignore Cannon facility

"Sir! There are some Left-wing extremists who are complaining that the U.S. is stupid and that 9/11 should be forgotten attacking us with words, what shall we do? Did i forget to mention that they arent even LISTENING to what the moderates are saying, they're just responding in a desperate attempt to dis America!"

"What the hell was {insert Leader of TLS' REAL name here} thinking when he decided to enter this thread?!?!? There are flaming trolls attacking from all sides! Arm the cannon! Battlestations, Battlestations!"

Ignore Extremist Cannon FIRED! Direct Hit on Gigatron, Chess Squares, and Attican Empire!
___________________________________________________

BTW- im leaving this thread. I never should have even entered this flaming Troll...
no one but you suggests anyoen has mentioned completely forgetting 9/11 happened, i think you are repressing things

Yes I did. I'll say it again : Sitting around letting him plan in Afghanistan for the next attack would have been worse than invading and increasing his support.
no, thats not what you said

what you said was THIS:
it is better to have invaded and INCREASED THEIR SUPPORT than have not invaded and maybe have them increase their support

Sounding a bit like MKUltra. You don't need to provide justification, because its there for everyone to see. Or as he would say, its common knowledge.
justification for ignorance: invading and indefinately increasing support for terrorism is better than not invading and perhaps creating support for terrorism

no, thats not what you said

what you said was THIS:
it is better to have invaded and INCREASED THEIR SUPPORT than have not invaded and maybe have them increase their support
Its the same thing. It would have been better to invade and increase their support, and it would have been worse to not have invaded. 4+2 or 8-2? They both equal six. Maybe you don't understand that this problem won't go away by just sitting around and hoping it does. We can do things like help the Phillipenes and Georgia with their domestic terrorist problems, but we still have to crack the shell, and I stand by my statement that invading Afghanistan and increasing their support was better than not invading and not increasing their support - although seeing America not doing anything to terrorist attacks would probably harden the view that we've been weakened by materialism and are ripe for attack.

This thread shouldn't even have been started today. Can't we just take pause for those that died. Remembering the thousands of innocent people with families, the courageous firefighters, police, and emt's that selflessly sacrificed themselves to save others, the passengers that stopped the terrorists on one of the planes, preventing another disaster. Lets just remember these people.

Its the same thing. It would have been better to invade and increase their support, and it would have been worse to not have invaded. 4+2 or 8-2? They both equal six. Maybe you don't understand that this problem won't go away by just sitting around and hoping it does. We can do things like help the Phillipenes and Georgia with their domestic terrorist problems, but we still have to crack the shell, and I stand by my statement that invading Afghanistan and increasing their support was better than not invading and not increasing their support - although seeing America not doing anything to terrorist attacks would probably harden the view that we've been weakened by materialism and are ripe for attack.
a war on terror is stupid and uneffective if it only succeeds at increasing their support and hate for us 10 fold

it is being fought WRONG, it would be much better were we not fighting it

you are brainwashed or ignorant, probably both. the middle east does not think how we do, killing their families is far worse than not outwardly retaliating to the attacks

a war on terror is stupid and uneffective if it only succeeds at increasing their support and hate for us 10 fold

it is being fought WRONG, it would be much better were we not fighting it
If we weren't fighting it, then they would still be there in Afghanistan planning and plotting the next attack, knowing that they were immune from retaliation. That would be worse than the current situation.

If we weren't fighting it, then they would still be there in Afghanistan planning and plotting the next attack, knowing that they were immune from retaliation. That would be worse than the current situation.
is he in custody? no?
he is plotting another attack

Seems my plea for reason and respect was ignored. Anyway, seems to me we're in a damned if ya do, damned if ya don't situation. In that case, I'd rather topple as many ruthless dictators and terrorist groups as I could. We do have a responsibility to at least give as many people as possible a chance at freedom. Just look to spidey "With great power, comes great responsibilty".

Is there nothing that we can't solve when we look to spidey?

is he in custody? no?
he is plotting another attack
Its much harder to do so when several of your lieutenants have been captured, you're constantly on the run, and your communications and infrastructure at your disposal are much weaker than they were before.

The attacks on middle eastern nations have caused more terrorism. It is spreading like a plague. Sooner or later the USA will be hit again, simply due to the fact that there is so much terrorism by now, that no nation can "defend" against this. There is no way to make a country completely safe because terrorists can get to where they want to strike. More terrorism = increased chance that the US will be hit again. I do not think that the US did themselves a favour by attacking Afghanistan and Iraq. The only favour they did themselves with Iraq is, that US corporations now make billions on war profits.

Its much harder to do so when several of your lieutenants have been captured, you're constantly on the run, and your communications and infrastructure at your disposal are much weaker than they were before.
asumtpion, assumption, assumption.

billions on war profits.

War profits kick ass.

I guess the Iraqi people got nothing out of losing a dictator that gassed them, kidnapped people in the middle of the night, and tortured/killed them...o wait

asumtpion, assumption, assumption.

O, like your assumption that because we didn't catch Osama in Afghanistan he must not have been there right? Even though there were thousands of caves in the mountains to hide in between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

O, like your assumption that because we didn't catch Osama in Afghanistan he must not have been there right? Even though there were thousands of caves in the mountains to hide in between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
the assumption you accuse me of having is just as fair as the assumption the taliban regime has bin laden to turn over

asumtpion, assumption, assumption.
We've haven't captured the top 2 of the organization, but we've gotten the 3rd (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed), as well as many others, such as Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the leader of Persian Gulf operations. The others are common sense - so I guess they are assumptions, but to say that the mountain areas of Southeastern Afghanistan provide better communications than an unbombed HQ in Kabul would seem fairly shocking to me.

the assumption you accuse me of having is just as fair as the assumption the taliban regime has bin laden to turn over
So I guess its pretty fair?

if they had bin laden we would have taken him when we took the country





There's your assumption. We had pretty good reason to suspect Osama was in Afghanistan and we knew that Al-quada had camps there. So at least we took out a bunch of camps/leaders.

The attacks on middle eastern nations have caused more terrorism. It is spreading like a plague. Sooner or later the USA will be hit again, simply due to the fact that there is so much terrorism by now, that no nation can "defend" against this. There is no way to make a country completely safe because terrorists can get to where they want to strike. More terrorism = increased chance that the US will be hit again. I do not think that the US did themselves a favour by attacking Afghanistan and Iraq. The only favour they did themselves with Iraq is, that US corporations now make billions on war profits.
By refusing to fight terrorism, you support it. To refuse to destroy evil is to support it. We will fight for our way of life and the right for all people to live the way they choose. We are embracing life by defending ours and yours, whether you see that or not. We liberated your country and have defended it for about 60 years. Yet, you, like all those who live free and bad-mouth America, act like spoiled children, whining and complaining and abandoning all responsibility. You have no gratitude. You have no appreciation for how precious your freedom is. You have no moral clarity. You are decadent and complacent and you are slowly losing your freedom because of it.

If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. Evil wins when good men stand by and do nothing.

War profits kick ass.

I guess the Iraqi people got nothing out of losing a dictator that gassed them, kidnapped people in the middle of the night, and tortured/killed them...o wait
If "liberating" the Iraqis from the ebil, ebil dicator (who was installed by the US) was your goal, why the heck did Bush lie about it? Because it is *illegal* to do so. What happens in another country is none of your business unless it is being decided in the UN that action must be taken. The mass murders were a result of rebelling kurds who were betrayed by the US and consequently stopped by Saddam - though he did it in a cruel way. Saddam was who he was because the US made him and used him as long as he was convenient. This is why the US are seen as the imperialists and dangerous superpower they are. If you are not useful for the US, you will be trashed.

If "liberating" the Iraqis from the ebil, ebil dicator (who was installed by the US)
I suppose you have something to back this up? Oh wait, you don't, because its false.

All the world's problems can be solved if we look to Spider-Man.

"With great power, comes great responsibility"

Words to live by.

The democratic nations of the world need to remember that with their power, they are responsible to secure basic human freedoms for all.

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to freedom everywhere" Martin Luther King

By refusing to fight terrorism, you support it. To refuse to destroy evil is to support it. We will fight for our way of life and the right for all people to live the way they choose. We are embracing life by defending ours and yours, whether you see that or not. We liberated your country and have defended it for about 60 years. Yet, you, like all those who live free and bad-mouth America, act like spoiled children, whining and complaining and abandoning all responsibility. You have no gratitude. You have no appreciation for how precious your freedom is. You have no moral clarity. You are decadent and complacent and you are slowly losing your freedom because of it.

If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. Evil wins when good men stand by and do nothing.
Terrorism cannot be fought. End of discussion. I will not fall for this "you are with evil if you dont follow us" crap. Besides, you did not "protect" our country. You split it up and at least the East where I live was left to be looted. I have nothing to thank the US. Keep your morals for yourself. If being morally right means killing thousands of civilians for the capturing of one man, then I do not want anything of it.

If "liberating" the Iraqis from the ebil, ebil dicator (who was installed by the US) was your goal, why the heck did Bush lie about it? Because it is *illegal* to do so. What happens in another country is none of your business unless it is being decided in the UN that action must be taken. The mass murders were a result of rebelling kurds who were betrayed by the US and consequently stopped by Saddam - though he did it in a cruel way. Saddam was who he was because the US made him and used him as long as he was convenient. This is why the US are seen as the imperialists and dangerous superpower they are. If you are not useful for the US, you will be trashed.

Even though Saddam fired on planes patrolling the no fly zone. Even though the UN showed its corruption during the oil for food program. You're right even though Saddam violated the terms of the cease fire at the end of the Gulf War, and the UN agreed then that the US had the right to attack if Iraq violated the agreement, we were still the ones at fault. Riiiiiighhhhhhhhtttt.........

I suppose you have something to back this up? Oh wait, you don't, because its false.
http://www.rise4news.net/Saddam-CIA.html

Even though Saddam fired on planes patrolling the no fly zone. Even though the UN showed its corruption during the oil for food program. You're right even though Saddam violated the terms of the cease fire at the end of the Gulf War, and the UN agreed then that the US had the right to attack if Iraq violated the agreement, we were still the ones at fault. Riiiiiighhhhhhhhtttt.........
The "no-fly" zone was a US-UK construct, not backed by the UN.
The UN did not give the USA the mandate to attack Iraq. Thus why the UN was blatantly ignored. There would have been at least one veto against a resolution in the security council, which would have been a clear signal that the UN does notapprove of a war against Iraq, based on lies.

The "no-fly" zone was a US-UK construct, not backed by the UN.

And Saddam kicking out UN inspectors in '98. Or how about trying to murder the elder Bush? Not to mention funding palestinian suicide bombers and providing terrorists a safe haven (read the 9/11 commission report, Saddam may not have been involved in 9/11 but did have links with Al-quada).

And Saddam kicking out UN inspectors in '98. Or how about trying to murder the elder Bush?
No backup by the UN for a war, thus Saddam "kicking out the inspectors" would have been reason for the UN to decide something. Not the US. Murder the elder Bush? I guess that would have made Saddam a hero. Too bad he apparently failed.

There's your assumption. We had pretty good reason to suspect Osama was in Afghanistan and we knew that Al-quada had camps there. So at least we took out a bunch of camps/leaders.
which fails to answer why we didnt go after ppakistan or saudi arabia

http://www.rise4news.net/Saddam-CIA.html
The BBC, which has no mention of the CIA in Saddam's rise to power :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_iraq_timeline/html/hardline_deputy.stm

Although thats a little skimpy, going into a much bigger PBS thing :
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/longroad/etc/cron.html
It provides mention of an early CIA-Saddam connection, however, this does not equate to installing Saddam in power. While you could make the case that the USA installed the Ba'ath party in power in Iraq, to say the same of Saddam Hussein is false. He came to power via a palace coup of his own design.

And Saddam kicking out UN inspectors in '98. Or how about trying to murder the elder Bush? Not to mention funding palestinian suicide bombers and providing terrorists a safe haven (read the 9/11 commission report, Saddam may not have been involved in 9/11 but did have links with Al-quada).
wrong, the commision said there were not significant links between al-qaeda and saddam

and there wer UN inspectors in iraq in 2001
and the trying to kill bush sr just proves its a vendetta war

and hamas is a not an international terrorist organization, despite what the idiot says, they are antipisrael, like the majority of the arba world, he was supporting their FAMILIES.

get your info right

Peter, you have to realise that just because the UN dosen't back something so it may be "illegal" dosen't mean anything at all. After all, NATO and the West bypassed the UN in order to attack Yugoslavia, because we knew the Russians would veto it. That dosen't mean that the attack was based on lies, either.

which fails to answer why we didnt go after ppakistan or saudi arabia

Pakistan's government has been cooperating with us and the monarchy in Saudi Arabia is preferable to what the fundamentalist clerics in that nation. I agree that something should be worked out over there. But it is unlikely considering that Saudi Arabian money is everywhere (not just in the US) and everyone has money in Saudi Arabia.

Pakistan's government has been cooperating with us and the monarchy in Saudi Arabia is preferable to what the fundamentalist clerics in that nation. I agree that something should be worked out over there. But it is unlikely considering that Saudi Arabian money is everywhere (not just in the US) and everyone has money in Saudi Arabia.
Saddam was not part of fundamentalist islam, and pakistan supporting us means nothing, their top nuclear scientist was selling nuclear technology to terrorists, they have links to bin laden among the people that controkl the outskirts of the country. bin laden is from saudi arabia.

wrong, the commision said there were not significant links between al-qaeda and saddam

and there wer UN inspectors in iraq in 2001
and the trying to kill bush sr just proves its a vendetta war

and hamas is a not an international terrorist organization, despite what the idiot says, they are antipisrael, like the majority of the arba world, he was supporting their FAMILIES.

get your info right

Ok, maybe I was wrong on the first point. I am human. Hamas is still a terrorist organizaton that threatens people in Israel (including Americans there). Try to keep in mind that ousting Saddam was a GOOD thing.

Ok, maybe I was wrong on the first point. I am human. Hamas is still a terrorist organizaton that threatens people in Israel (including Americans there). Try to keep in mind that ousting Saddam was a GOOD thing.
i consider the army of israel no more than terrorists themselves, if you want to go around attacking terrorist organizations, i would ignore the only anti- israel ones in your attempt to make a point

and so was putting him in power
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saddam/interviews/aburish.html

Saddam was not part of fundamentalist islam, and pakistan supporting us means nothing, their top nuclear scientist was selling nuclear technology to terrorists, they have links to bin laden among the people that controkl the outskirts of the country. bin laden is from saudi arabia.

Maybe not, but he was a ruthless dictator that killed a good deal of people. Even though some of pakistan's people are for Osama it doesn't mean we shouldn't try to work with thier government to get these people. Osama and the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, true, but attaking the monarchy won't help much. It would be better if we could make a more active effort to get the reigning government to crack down on fundamentalism and terrorists.

i consider the army of israel no more than terrorists themselves, if you want to go around attacking terrorist organizations, i would ignore the only anti- israel ones in your attempt to make a point

and so was putting him in power
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saddam/interviews/aburish.html

Ya, but at the time it was either Saddam or Ayatollah Khomeini. Not much of a choice, but it was a reasonable decision to assume the secular dictator would be prefereable to the fundamentalist.

As for the Israel/Palestine conflict. Thats a case of two peoples that history hasn't been very kind too and then sticking them in this little terrirtory to fight over. Actually its the same damn mistake as India/Pakistan. Trying to separate Israelis and Palestinians into Israel and Jordan. Shows how history can repeat itself. Unfortunate, but I don't think violence in the Holy Land will ever end.

sage, go away, no really, you speak before you research, try it vice versa

suggestion. the easiest thing to fo if you font like Bush is to leave. I mean if you are so anti-american what's stopping you from packing up your things and moving to Canada? or Mexico? or any other country? You know you won't leave? Because even through all this you like it here. You know you will have plenty of food available and won't after to stand in a three mile long line to get it. You like it because most likely you have a job and good job security at that. You like it because you have a home, a computer, a automobile, and many other things that you can't get outside the U.S. Such as freedom of religion (you dont even have this in the U.K.) So, either just shut-up and vote for the left-wing liberals who want to expand the government and introduce more and more socialistic programs ( I believe someone maid the complaint that the government under Bush has grown, anyone that took basic American Government knows that the Democrats want to expand the government and Republicans want to keep it smaller), or the other option is simply to leave I mean plane tickets are cheap right now.
As to the orginal post, what do you think Veterans Day is for, or Memorial Day, don't you think these holidays are for people who have died? And why shouldnt we remember when 3000 or our countrymen got killed in a terrorst attack? if you had lost someone in the attacks wouldn't you mourn for them? So why shouldn't we? Oh, and let's not forget that Kerry is also using 9/11 in his campaigns. Let's look at both sides of campaigning before we critizie the other. ;)

sage, go away, no really, you speak before you research, try it vice versa

Because everything you say must be completely true, right?
By the way, I do research, in fact I bother to read things called "books" instead getting all my info online. Sry I can't post a link of a book.

what's all this crap about "illegal" wars. By whose laws? the UN? why should we listen to them? or perhaps you mean illegal according to your own personal ideas of what "International law" should be.

Because everything you say must be completely true, right?
By the way, I do research, in fact I bother to read things called "books" instead getting all my info online. Sry I can't post a link of a book.
but you CAN cite the books, by all means, go ahead

what's all this crap about "illegal" wars. By whose laws? the UN? why should we listen to them? or perhaps you mean illegal according to your own personal ideas of what "International law" should be.
was it ok for germany to invade poland

was it ok for germany to invade poland
No. Was it ok for NATO to attack Yugoslavia?

Kind of hard to when I'm at my computer, arguing with a thick-skulled d-bag like you. Besides you only really disproved my Saddam/Al-quada link in the 9/11 commission.
well you remember what book you read it in then relate the book to me, i take a few minutes to look it up ONLINE and disprove you

was it ok for germany to invade poland

Did the League of Nations do anything about Germany's Military Buildup in violation of the Treaty of Versailles?

The answer to that is No they did not. They went with appeasement and that was a mistake. Germany provoked the engagement with Poland by dressing up some crooks as Polish Soldiers and "invaded" thus sparking WWII! If the League of Nations did its job, Hitler would never have had the power he had.

well you remember what book you read it in then relate the book to me, i take a few minutes to look it up ONLINE and disprove you

Disprove me on what? You didn't even make clear what point you thougt was wrong.

Man, I thought you could be reasoned with. But geez, if you're just going to complain then theres no point talking to you.

Hey i have a solution to this entire thread, if you dont like Kerry (aka hate bush) then vote Kerry. If you like bush, vote bush. And if you can't vote because you don't live in the US or are not a citizen, then stop whining and become one so you can do something about your opinions. The US is the most powerful nation in the world and if you dont like what we're doing then you and all your buddies can go form your own nation and start a big nasty war and settle all our disputes. Or you can support the UN and we'll completely ignore you because Nelson Mandela is not president of the US, George W. Bush is.

Disprove me on what? You didn't even make clear what point you thougt was wrong.

Man, I thought you could be reasoned with. But geez, if you're just going to complain then theres no point talking to you.
we arnt talkngi about anything specific
you said you got your facts from books, cite the book and i will look it up

"...for germany to invade poland"

No.
But it wasn't "illegal"
there is no international law on justification for war, if you don't like someones reason for starting a war then stop them. When your talking about nations vs. nations it's its survival of the fittest. It's not like you can get interpol to arrest the United States

we arnt talkngi about anything specific
you said you got your facts from books, cite the book and i will look it up

Can't cite a specific book unless you tell me what fact you were questioning.
You know what, I still have a hangover and don't feel like arguing right now.

Kwangistar - While I agree that the USA has done a lot to further progress in many things since the end of WWII, I still must say you give the USA far more credit then it earned or deserves.

kwangistar i dont no where to start with u, all of ur posts so far seem to be completey and utterly ignorant of what everyone else has posted, except when you make irrelevant quotes and follow with equaly irelevant and frankly insulting responses. your from a vast republican...... headquarters (i had to put that in to point out the futility of this) half of the posters are saying you should blindly follow your leader whilst the other half seem to be trying to achive a happy medium. you pretend that you take notice of other peoples posts but it seems that you just repeat your tired old phrases, rather like a broken record....

ok now for sage, wot is it with you and marvel heroes and how do you manage to bring up 'spidey' as you call him in a political discussion?!? marvel isnt the only answer lol

big ups for chess squares for repeatedly trying to explain basic arguements

kwangistar i dont no where to start with u, all of ur posts so far seem to be completey and utterly ignorant of what everyone else has posted, except when you make irrelevant quotes and follow with equaly irelevant and frankly insulting responses. your from a vast republican...... headquarters (i had to put that in to point out the futility of this) half of the posters are saying you should blindly follow your leader whilst the other half seem to be trying to achive a happy medium. you pretend that you take notice of other peoples posts but it seems that you just repeat your tired old phrases, rather like a broken record....

ok now for sage, wot is it with you and marvel heroes and how do you manage to bring up 'spidey' as you call him in a political discussion?!? marvel isnt the only answer lol

big ups for chess squares for repeatedly trying to explain basic arguements

Does anyone else think that this is someone's puppet?

wot? im not a puppet, im suprised at you and your audacity, lol ur crazy

wot? im not a puppet, im suprised at you and your audacity, lol ur crazy

LOL! Sorry for a brief seconded you sounded like Chess Squares. BTW, Chess Squares insults those that don't have the same opinion as he and ignores them.

BTW. Welcome to the board and again apologies for the confusion.

anyway 'corney' how do i no your not a puppet to kwangistar and all the other people your trying to defend - childish name-calling always did have a place in my heart

you seem obsessed with the idea that im chess squares

you seem obsessed with the idea that im chess squares
And you seem obsessed with the need to defend yourself against it? ;)

were i going to bother creating a puppet of myself for the forums it wouldnt be till after i was banned, and were it before that im not going to pull republican bullshit and go around patting myself on the back in a loser circle

And you seem obsessed with the need to defend yourself against it? ;)

LOL!!! :D:p

yes, wouldn't you deny and unproven allegation of murder? its the same kinda principle

kwangistar i dont no where to start with u, all of ur posts so far seem to be completey and utterly ignorant of what everyone else has posted, except when you make irrelevant quotes and follow with equaly irelevant and frankly insulting responses. your from a vast republican...... headquarters (i had to put that in to point out the futility of this) half of the posters are saying you should blindly follow your leader whilst the other half seem to be trying to achive a happy medium. you pretend that you take notice of other peoples posts but it seems that you just repeat your tired old phrases, rather like a broken record....

ok now for sage, wot is it with you and marvel heroes and how do you manage to bring up 'spidey' as you call him in a political discussion?!? marvel isnt the only answer lol

big ups for chess squares for repeatedly trying to explain basic arguements

I was trying to lighten the mood with the marvel reference, geez.

sorry, i personally like humour, i jus didnt realise, i withdraw the part of my statement bout u, i jus thort it was a bit random is all

sorry, i personally like humour, i jus didnt realise, i withdraw the part of my statement bout u, i jus thort it was a bit random is all

Randomness was the point. O, and chess squares, I said some things I regret (calling you a d-bag and such). If you knew me you'd know I'm a pretty reasonable guy when sober (which, believe it or not, I am most of the week). Damn you Miller High Life!

LOL!!! :D:p

yeh i can c how that is funny...

yeh i can c how that is funny...

Ok look I'm sorry I accused you of being a puppet! Peace?

to sage: so we cool now? since ur a drunkard like me, du u like guiness?

cornelio: yey peace, i was only jokin wit those names i called u, soz

to sage: so we cool now? since ur a drunkard like me, du u like guiness?

cornelio: yey peace, i was only jokin wit those names i called u, soz

Drunkards Unite! Guiness is good, especially draught.

soz spelt ur name rong corneliu* anyway you really do need to no me to get wot my humour is like

Damn you Miller High Life!

if you like beer/alcohol in general you should move into our region, its called USOD - United states of drunkenness.

soz spelt ur name rong corneliu* anyway you really do need to no me to get wot my humour is like

:) Maybe we can get to know eachother.

Drunkards Unite! Guiness is good, especially draught.
personally i thing original is best, full flavour etc, and we should unite

personally i thing original is best, full flavour etc, and we should unite

This your first nation or did you start a new one. I don't think I'd want to be in a noob region.

yeh sure corneliu wots ur full nation called??
we cud du it thru that

This your first nation or did you start a new one. I don't think I'd want to be in a noob region.
its my first nation but hey, u gotta start somewhere, and anyway its a game and it doesnt realy matter, as there are no real competitive elements to this game

its my first nation but hey, u gotta start somewhere, and anyway its a game and it doesnt realy matter, as there are no real competitive elements to this game

True, I'll consider joining your region. How many people are in it?

yeh sure corneliu wots ur full nation called??
we cud du it thru that

The Armed Galatic Empire of Corneliu

about 9 but most of them are not serious people but nevermind

I'll say it once, and I'll say it again...

"Poeple in other countries don't like us Americans because lead the world in 'doing things'. Just as in any country, you'll find those who oppose anything you do. Poeple in the US protested against us joining WW2 even after Pearl Harbor. Trust me, if you where the President of the US, and you did ANYTHING AT ALL ...poeple whold start hating you. So give us a break."


(EDIT)
This is intended as a responce to the initial statement in this thread...btw

I am still waiting for Bush's evidence that Saddam Hussein was deliberating with terrorists. I beleive that it was proven that Saddam Hussein turned down terrorist organizations that asked for support from him because he did not want to enrage the United States. In all likelyhood, it was more likely George W. Bush deliberated with terrorists than Saddam, since who gained more from 9/11 and other terrorist attacks?



I could be wrong, but the war in Irag didn't necessarily start because of terrorism or WoMD. These things were later added as either argument for or ignorance about the war. As i recall, 10 years ago the UN created a resolution with regards to Iraq and Suddam Hussein. He had 10 years to abide by the resolution or we (the US and the UN) would take action. 10 years passed and nothing changed. Unlike the UN, who pussyfooted around about the situation, the US said we'll do what we said we'd do - and we did. As for Osama, in my mind at least, that's a different situation.

He does more to support terrorism than Osama ever could.

Agreed, Gigatron.