NationStates Jolt Archive

I am tired of various liberal characters trying to downplay the importance and horror of 9/11 by citing several statistics, such as the number of people who die each year in vehicular accidents and murders, as proof positive that they are more ominous threats to US security. From this, they seem to conclude that our foreign engagements are "unnecesary." This thesis is patently false for a plethora of reasons. I will endeavor to outline them below.


Morally, this theory does not hold any water. We were treacherously attacked by a foreign foe on that fateful day -- it was not an internal menace which demolished the WTC building. It was a modern version of Pearl Harbor. I don't recall many people claiming that we should worry more about murders or car accidents than the Japanese breathing bombs down our necks. Why? Because an external enemy who is trying to subvert the government of your country poses a much greater danger to a country's well-being than domestic crime. We cannot allow terrorists to proceed in their grotesque plans for the slaughter of civilians simply because they are not powerful enough to launch strikes consistently enough to equal the murder rate in this country. We didn't kiss and make up with Japan in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor for the same reason we're not kissing and making up with the terrorists now. When goaded by a violent foe, we must take decisive action to eliminate the threat, lest we send the wrong message to the world and to our people. When pushed, we push back.
Numerically, the argument is also false. Although murders may account for a greater number of total deaths in the US than terrorism-related deaths, never are 3000 innocent people butchered in cold blood in a day.
Practically, there is no way to significantly reduce the crime rate in ways that we are not already doing. We can train our police force well and ensure that they are adequately funded, but we are already doing that. There is no way keep crime under control other than to install cameras in public areas and to employ harsher punishments against criminals, but liberals seem loath to implement such solutions. There is, however, a way to curb terrorism -- to kill terrorists and those who fund, aid, and harbor them. We have done that to great effect already.
Logically, the terrorists would draw strength from the fact that their assault came uncontested. They would be heartened by the fact that the US did not launch a harsh reprisal against those guilty of helping in the perpetration of the ghastly deed. Thus, they would be encouraged to continue plotting fiendish plans to destroy America. Eventually, the death toll would pile higher and higher, with seriously detrimental consequences.
Economically, murders and such are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Should we care if a drug-addled criminal is shot dead by a rival gang? No. However, should we care if 3000 business professionals who greatly contribute to the US economy are slaughtered? Obviously, yes. Perhaps if street bums were targeted by 9/11, it would not have been so damaging an attack. But rich people were the ones against whom the attack was directed, and that surely cannot be allowed to stand.

http://www.fstdt.com/funnyimages/uploads/215.gif


You're still on my ignore list I just wanted an excuse to post that. Heh..

Being that it was 5 years ago I don't believe it's dangerous at all any more.


I may or may not have more to add once I actually read the OP.

EDIT: Meh, I'll lurk a bit and play it by ear.

I may or may not have more to add once I actually read the OP.


You'd do well to read the initial post, at least before double-posting. Seriously.

You phail. 9-11 wouldn't have happened had we not be entangled in such messy foreign affairs, so its because of our foreign entanglements that the stupid attack even happened. Learn history. :)

You'd do well to read the initial post, at least before double-posting. Seriously.

Normally I would, but I wanted to get that out before I was beaten to it, and I didn't double post. In any case, let's not hijack the thread on the first page.

Fuck 9/11.




Morally, this theory does not hold any water. We were treacherously attacked by a foreign foe on that fateful day -- it was not an internal menace which demolished the WTC building. It was a modern version of Pearl Harbor. I don't recall many people claiming that we should worry more about murders or car accidents than the Japanese breathing bombs down our necks. Why? Because an external enemy who is trying to subvert the government of your country poses a much greater danger to a country's well-being than domestic crime. We cannot allow terrorists to proceed in their grotesque plans for the slaughter of civilians simply because they are not powerful enough to launch strikes consistently enough to equal the murder rate in this country. We didn't kiss and make up with Japan in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor for the same reason we're not kissing and making up with the terrorists now. When goaded by a violent foe, we must take decisive action to eliminate the threat, lest we send the wrong message to the world and to our people. When pushed, we push back.

Invading (i.e "pushing back") Iraq because of 9/11 would be like invading China because of Pearl Harbor. For many people they can reduce the "foreign foe" to "Asians" in one case, or in yours, "Muslims." For thinking people, this is not morally justified in any way.


Numerically, the argument is also false. Although murders may account for a greater number of total deaths in the US than terrorism-related deaths, never are 3000 innocent people butchered in cold blood in a day.

Big deal. So it's a higher daily rate. The total numbers remain quite telling.


Practically, there is no way to significantly reduce the crime rate in ways that we are not already doing. We can train our police force well and ensure that they are adequately funded, but we are already doing that. There is no way keep crime under control other than to install cameras in public areas and to employ harsher punishments against criminals, but liberals seem loath to implement such solutions. There is, however, a way to curb terrorism -- to kill terrorists and those who fund, aid, and harbor them. We have done that to great effect already.

Bullshit. We could "kill criminals and those who fund, aid and harbor them." But we don't. So the first part, the apathy-to-crime part, is wrong. The second part is also wrong because again, you blithely assume that when we kill some Iraqis, we are killing terrorists.


Logically, the terrorists would draw strength from the fact that their assault came uncontested.

Logically, the terrorists would draw support from the fact that when they assault us, we eliminate secular Middle Eastern governments, kill innocent people, both of which vastly increase the justification and support base for terrorist type warfare.


Economically, murders and such are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Should we care if a drug-addled criminal is shot dead by a rival gang? No.

Nice bit of trollish idiocy. Apparently, only "drug addled criminals" are murdered now. Apparently, crime has no impact on economies. What interestingly idiotic assumptions you are making in order to peddle yet another stupid thread about you, and how you want attention real bad.

However, should we care if 3000 business professionals who greatly contribute to the US economy are slaughtered? Obviously, yes. Perhaps if street bums were targeted by 9/11, it would not have been so damaging an attack. But rich people were the ones against whom the attack was directed, and that surely cannot be allowed to stand.


First the strawman that no one "cares" about 9/11's deaths.

Second, yet more trolling about how rich people deserve to live and poor ones don't. Similar to how rich people should be able to vote and poor ones shouldn't. And how we should bring back slavery. Blah blah fucking blah blah.

I have a suggestion, MTAE - if you want attention, blow your brains out. Since you're just a dumb kid who doesn't contribute to the economy, it won't matter.

I have a suggestion, MTAE - if you want attention, blow your brains out. Since you're just a dumb kid who doesn't contribute to the economy, it won't matter.

But that's so 1990's.

Normally I would, but I wanted to get that out before I was beaten to it, and I didn't double post. In any case, let's not hijack the thread on the first page.

Hijacking?!?! :eek: Doing that to a thread on NS...well that would be like 911 times 2,356.

-snip-

I get this feeling, for some reason, that you don't care for MTAE nor his/her beleifs. Call it a hunch, but thats what I think.

Hijacking?!?! :eek: Doing that to a thread on NS...well that would be like 911 times 2,356.

??? how is Hijacking a thread similar to the US emergency phone number (911)times 2,356?

Hijacking?!?! :eek: Doing that to a thread on NS...well that would be like 911 times 2,356.

We're taking this thread to Cuba!

We're taking this thread to Cuba!

Again???


Dibs on the window seat!

??? how is Hijacking a thread similar to the US emergency phone number (911)times 2,356?

damn..it should have been 9-11 tme 2356...like off that stupid team america movie.. I fail :(

there was never any tragedy on the ninth of november.

there was never any tragedy on the ninth of november.Are you sure? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht)

there was never any tragedy on the ninth of november.

Jesus Christ, get over you anti-everythign USA. So what if we used 9/11 instead of 11/9 as you might write. You understood what he meant.

there was never any tragedy on the ninth of november.
actually...


Bill Waterson, creator of Calvin and Hobbes announced his retirement... :(

Invading (i.e "pushing back") Iraq because of 9/11 would be like invading China because of Pearl Harbor. For many people they can reduce the "foreign foe" to "Asians" in one case, or in yours, "Muslims." For thinking people, this is not morally justified in any way.

How, in any way, was the Chinese government implicated in the planning of Pearl Harbor? It wasn't. In fact, China itself was embroiled in a war againstJapan at that point. However, no one disputes the extremely strong ties between Afghanistan and 9/11. If would be false to refer to Iraq as an example of retribution for 9/11 -- it was an attempt to overthrow a genocidal maniac, liberate an oppressed people, and put a halt to nuclear proliferation. It also had the beneficial side effect of liberalizing the oil infrastructure in Iraq.

Big deal. So it's a higher daily rate. The total numbers remain quite telling.

You don't consider it a "big deal" that thousands of American citizens were slaughtered in one day? Why, that's more than the amount of US soldiers who have died in Iraq in over three years! Anybody who is not a heartless monster would acknowledge that such an incredibly high death toll is staggering, monstrous, and extremely saddening.

No, but the 11th of November is Armistice day.
Woo!

Are you sure? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht)

okay, so I was wrong. no-one is perfect.

You don't consider it a "big deal" that thousands of American citizens were slaughtered in one day? Why, that's more than the amount of US soldiers who have died in Iraq in over three years! Anybody who is not a heartless monster would acknowledge that such an incredibly high death toll is staggering, monstrous, and extremely saddening.


Sept 17, 1862, battle of antietam was the bloodiest day in American history. I think we should go down there and kick around all the dead soldiers and their descendants for this horrific crime!:rolleyes:

Jesus Christ, get over you anti-everythign USA. So what if we used 9/11 instead of 11/9 as you might write. You understood what he meant.
so? That does not mean I cannot make fun of your method of writing the date.

so? That does not mean I cannot make fun of your method of writing the date.

And I'll make fun of your...native language?

:headbang: I suck at this game

If would be false to refer to Iraq as an example of retribution for 9/11 -- it was an attempt to overthrow a genocidal maniac, liberate an oppressed people, and put a halt to nuclear proliferation. It also had the beneficial side effect of liberalizing the oil infrastructure in Iraq.
Funny, because:

1. Our war there caused more deaths than Saddam could ever hope for.

2. The Iraqis have little no freedom of speech, press, movement, or a democratic voice.

3. What nuclear proliferation? HE HAD NO WMD. What have we done in North Korea, meanwhile?

4. Finally... the real reason.

I am tired of various liberal characters ...snip...
Logically, the terrorists would draw strength from the fact that their assault came uncontested. They would be heartened by the fact that the US did not launch a harsh reprisal against those guilty of helping in the perpetration of the ghastly deed. Thus, they would be encouraged to continue plotting fiendish plans to destroy America. Eventually, the death toll would pile higher and higher, with seriously detrimental consequences....snip...this last bit of trollery made me laugh: rich people were the ones against whom the attack was directed, and that surely cannot be allowed to stand.
[/LIST]

I am sure that many terrorists draw strength from the fact that their assault came uncontested, as Bin Laden is still free, and the Taliban and Al-Qaeda operate freely in Pakistan, theoretically a US ally. The US did not launch a harsh reprisal against those guilty of helping in the perpetration of the ghastly deed. They launched a good, but ineffectively short one, and now UN peacekeepers are cleaning up after you.

Thus, they have been encouraged to continue plotting fiendish plans to destroy America. Eventually, the death toll has piled higher and higher, with seriously detrimental consequences for us all.

Doesn't attacking them empower them more? It gives them a reason to fight. They use the fact that we are agressive to win the hearts of their people. If they attacked us, and we didn't attack back, wouldn't it put a hole in their story that we are barbaric infidels? Besides, going after them is really illogical. Sure its a good patriotic move to win votes, but we can't kill everyone of them.

Besides, going after them is really illogical.

So you advocate letting terrorists slaughter Americans with impunity? That is a disgusting viewpoint. And make no mistake -- the US military can kill every last terrorist if it so desires.

So you advocate letting terrorists slaughter Americans with impunity? That is a disgusting viewpoint. And make no mistake -- the US military can kill every last terrorist if it so desires.

By nuking everyone in the middle-east, I assume? And that isn't a disgusting viewpoint?

And make no mistake -- the US military can kill every last terrorist if it so desires.

How? Please explain in detail how the military will find every terrorist, know he/she is a terrorist, and then execute them all. Add information showing how it can be done without creating so much oppression that others are not inspired to terror acts against the USA.

I have many questions about this.

So you advocate letting terrorists slaughter Americans with impunity? That is a disgusting viewpoint. And make no mistake -- the US military can kill every last terrorist if it so desires.

Going after them certainly isn't working, now is it? So why was the money, resources and human life? And each time they kill one terrorist, 10 more come to fill his/her shoes. Its a endless cycle.

Doesn't attacking them empower them more? It gives them a reason to fight. They use the fact that we are agressive to win the hearts of their people. If they attacked us, and we didn't attack back, wouldn't it put a hole in their story that we are barbaric infidels? Besides, going after them is really illogical. Sure its a good patriotic move to win votes, but we can't kill everyone of them.

We should go after them with special forces instead of the army that we are using. By invading countries and ignoring the viewpoints of others we have really pissed off the world and made them less likely to help us. In many ways we have become a danger instead of a help to the world thanks to our methods and increased terrorist recruitment by taking our war to civilian populations. But hey, seeing soldiers blow crap up and invade countries on TV makes it look like we are accomplishing something. Special Forces teams to destroy terrorist hiding places doesn't have the same effect. Not to mention the various other reasons we invaded Iraq that have nothing to do with terrorism.

So you advocate letting terrorists slaughter Americans with impunity? That is a disgusting viewpoint. And make no mistake -- the US military can kill every last terrorist if it so desires.

They seem to be failing so far ...

Not to badmouth our servicemen it is just the type of battle that CANT be won by strength or skill. There is just no way.

They seem to be failing so far ...

Not to badmouth our servicemen it is just the type of battle that CANT be won by strength or skill. There is just no way.


If this was a convential war, with fronts, we'd be able to stomp ass. But there is no way we can stand up against these BS guerilla tactics. I thought we learned from all the deaths in viet nam?

So you advocate letting terrorists slaughter Americans with impunity? That is a disgusting viewpoint. And make no mistake -- the US military can kill every last terrorist if it so desires.

That's not disgusting - that's coolness. It was just a scratch, so why bother if some stupid children are trying to attack you. They'll get tired of this soon enough, if they see that they didn't reach anything.

You phail. 9-11 wouldn't have happened had we not be entangled in such messy foreign affairs, so its because of our foreign entanglements that the stupid attack even happened. Learn history. :)

It also wouldn't have happened if the Allies hadn't carved up the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War One, but I'm not wishing for free booze for a week.

They seem to be failing so far ...

We have enjoyed momentous gains in all of Afghanistan and areas of Iraq. With time, we shall succeed.

It also wouldn't have happened if the Allies hadn't carved up the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War One, but I'm not wishing for free booze for a week.

Well we can go back as far as saying, it happened because people settled in the middle east, and that gave way to our violence today..somehow.. but anyways, what i meant, is that the Al-Qaeda jihad is based soley on the US foreign policy in the middle east.

We have enjoyed momentous gains in all of Afghanistan and areas of Iraq. With time, we shall succeed.

Right, because there has been NO resurgence of the taliban in Afghanistan, and Iraq is just a bed of roses!!!

Right, because there has been NO resurgence of the taliban in Afghanistan, and Iraq is just a bed of roses!!!

There was been some resurgence, yes, but there are no new Taliban terrorists being indoctrinated and recruited. When we kill them, they stay dead. However, it will take a while to purge them all.

Well we can go back as far as saying, it happened because people settled in the middle east, and that gave way to our violence today..somehow.. but anyways, what i meant, is that the Al-Qaeda jihad is based soley on the US foreign policy in the middle east.

Given that our policy is pure self interest it is not surprising we are pissing off people in the Middle East. Spreading democracy has nothing to do with that policy either. The fact that Iran had a democratically elected leader and we overthrew him should demonstrate that.

Given that our policy is pure self interest it is not surprising we are pissing off people in the Middle East. Spreading democracy has nothing to do with that policy either. The fact that Iran had a democratically elected leader and we overthrew him should demonstrate that.

That can be seen everywhere we have set foot. Look at latin america. I don't think we even need to cover that. We just set up dicatator after dictator. You are right, we are in it for only self intrest. We don't want freedom for anyone, other than big business to have freedom in other countries.

The fact that Iran had a democratically elected leader and we overthrew him should demonstrate that.

Do you have nothing better to cite as an example than a 50-year-old gripe?

We have enjoyed momentous gains in all of Afghanistan and areas of Iraq. With time, we shall succeed.

You mean the UN has in Afghanistan ... they have been doing the lions share there

That can be seen everywhere we have set foot. Look at latin america. I don't think we even need to cover that. We just set up dicatator after dictator. You are right, we are in it for only self intrest. We don't want freedom for anyone, other than big business to have freedom in other countries.

When it comes to MTAE's threads the obvious seems neccessary.

*shrugs*

You mean the UN has in Afghanistan ... they have been doing the lions share there

The only thing that the UN has a lion's share of is corruption and scandals.

Do you have nothing better to cite as an example than a 50-year-old gripe?

Do crazy conservatives like you have any other defense to valid points against your arguements other then "get over it" or "it happened, like, so long ago"? We could care less about democracy in the Middle East. We are simply there for it is in our interests to have control there. Freeing the oppressed peoples has nothing to do with it. Deal with it.

Do you have nothing better to cite as an example than a 50-year-old gripe?

Do you have nothing better to do than talk about a 5 year old terrorist attack?

We could care less about democracy in the Middle East. We are simply there for it is in our interests to have control there. Freeing the oppressed peoples has nothing to do with it. Deal with it.

Do you have any proof to back up your assertions? All you have offered thus far was that the US staged a coup against a proto-communist leader of Iran during the Cold War -- 50 years ago. That's hardly a resounding critique of the modern American approach of democracy-building in the Middle East. Democracy in insignificant Middle Eastern countries was, unfortunately, a casualty of war in the struggle for survival against the Evil Empire. However, we have now embarked upon a crusade of spreading freedom throughout the Middle East and installing democratic governments there. As examples, I can cite Afghanistan and Iraq.

Logically, the terrorists would draw strength from the fact that their assault came uncontested. They would be heartened by the fact that the US did not launch a harsh reprisal against those guilty of helping in the perpetration of the ghastly deed. Thus, they would be encouraged to continue plotting fiendish plans to destroy America. Eventually, the death toll would pile higher and higher, with seriously detrimental consequences.

Yet by retaliating you have increased their resolve further and made them more angry. I thing if you had not retaliated and not given into demands, you would be in a better situation

Do you have any proof to back up your assertions? All you have offered thus far was that the US staged a coup against a proto-communist leader of Iran during the Cold War -- 50 years ago. That's hardly a resounding critique of the modern American approach of democracy-building in the Middle East. Democracy in insignificant Middle Eastern countries was, unfortunately, a casualty of war in the struggle for survival against the Evil Empire. However, we have now embarked upon a crusade of spreading freedom throughout the Middle East and installing democratic governments there. As examples, I can cite Afghanistan and Iraq.

You can cite them all you want. The unfortunate truth for you is that US has been overthrowing democracies and installing friendly dictators far longer than the reverse, and it will take an awful lot to convince the world that behavior is not continuing.

Just to tell you before you read the rest of this, it's not a critique of this post, it's of your entire world view.
You seem to think that people are only important if they contribute to the economy.
But the economy doesn't exist for no reason, or it wouldn't exist at all.
It exists so that people can get things they don't have for things they do have.
In other words, it exists to make people's lives better, so any plan that makes people's lives worse to improve the economy is crap.
Which describes most of your topics fairly accuratly.

You can cite them all you want. The unfortunate truth for you is that US has been overthrowing democracies and installing friendly dictators far longer than the reverse, and it will take an awful lot to convince the world that behavior is not continuing.

Or the US could be like Europe and overthrow governments it does'nt like or like the USSR and overthrow governments it did'nt like.

During the cold war the powers fought it out in the third world because nobody would survive a war in the first.

Anyway, think about this

Your country is dependent on oil from country B, country B's government is overthrown and says "we are not selling any oil to you, we're giving it to your enemy" what do you do? watch as your economy crashes and burns?
or try to find a way of restoring oil supply

However, we have now embarked upon a crusade of spreading freedom throughout the Middle East and installing democratic governments there. As examples, I can cite Afghanistan and Iraq.Yep, you are a Hoot!

EDIT:I know you're an 'anti-troll'... but baby, give them a chance.

It was a modern version of Pearl Harbor. I don't recall many people claiming that we should worry more about murders or car accidents than the Japanese breathing bombs down our necks.

Do you have nothing better to cite as an example than a 50-year-old gripe?

Yet by retaliating you have increased their resolve further and made them more angry. I thing if you had not retaliated and not given into demands, you would be in a better situation

What situation would that be? One in which terrorists think that they have a carte blanche to attack the US because we do not retaliate against terrorist strikes? No, that would not be a better situation -- that's what would really encourage the terrorists.

However, we have now embarked upon a crusade of spreading freedom throughout the Middle East and installing democratic governments there. As examples, I can cite Afghanistan and Iraq.
Installing democracy?

An oxymoron, no?

However, we have now embarked upon a crusade of spreading freedom throughout the Middle East and installing democratic governments there. As examples, I can cite Afghanistan and Iraq.

So the basis for the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq was in order to bring about regime change of foreign sovereign states?

Jesus Christ, get over you anti-everythign USA. So what if we used 9/11 instead of 11/9 as you might write. You understood what he meant.

The Chilean Coup in '73 and subsequent slaughter?

What situation would that be? One in which terrorists think that they have a carte blanche to attack the US because we do not retaliate against terrorist strikes? No, that would not be a better situation -- that's what would really encourage the terrorists.
I'm sorry, but you are just way too stupid here...

Ever hear of empathy?

Try it...

No, that would not be a better situation -- that's what would really encourage the terrorists.

And here was me thinking that having a cavalier attitude to foreign policy and treating the inhabitants of foreign states as expendable in order to achieve your national aims was the real problem.

Question: what do you think motivated the WTC attacks? Was it because the attackers believed there would be no retribution and it would be a fun way to spend an afternoon, or was it because they believed they had a grudge against the US?

Ever hear of empathy?

You want me to empathize with the terrorists? I'd be better off trying to empathize with Hitler or Stalin -- at least they were not completely bereft of even a modicum of reason.

You want me to empathize with the terrorists?

Question for you: how many terrorist movements have been defeated by purely military means, and how many have been brought to an end by getting around the debating table?

Empathy is not the same thing as sympathy.

was it because they believed they had a grudge against the US?

Yes, they believed that the US was composed of infidels who thirsted for Muslim blood -- they were paranoid and heavily indoctrinated with religious beliefs. What reason did they have to dislike the US prior to 9/11? Apparently, it was because the US defeated Saddam Hussein in 1991. Those extremists Muslims must have really liked that ethnic cleansing and were ever so upset when the US put a halt to it. Seriously, read the fatwas of Osama to see how crazy he really is and how acutely sensitive he is to perceived injustices.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1998.html
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html

You want me to empathize with the terrorists? I'd be better off trying to empathize with Hitler or Stalin -- at least they were not completely bereft of even a modicum of reason.

Even terrorists have justifications for their actions -- those justifications may be very misinformed, and you may disagree with them, but they still exist. Empathy and sympathy are not the same thing, which you don't seem to understand -- and if you don't empathize with your enemy in what is essentially an ideological battle, how can you ever hope to beat them?

You seem to think that terrorists are primal savages operating solely on bloodlust. That is incredibly simplistic and, frankly, sad.

Yes, they believed that the US was composed of infidels who thirsted for Muslim blood -- they were paranoid and heavily indoctrinated with religious beliefs. What reason did they have to dislike the US prior to 9/11? Apparently, it was because the US defeated Saddam Hussein in 1991. Those extremists Muslims must have really liked that ethnic cleansing and were ever so upset when the US put a halt to it. Seriously, read the fatwas of Osama to see how crazy he really is and how acutely sensitive he is to perceived injustices.

Yep, terrorist rhetoric definitely doesn't mention Israel or our historic support of corrupt regimes throughout the middle east. No sir.

You want me to empathize with the terrorists? I'd be better off trying to empathize with Hitler or Stalin -- at least they were not completely bereft of even a modicum of reason.
Fucksakes you're dumb.

A terrorist is just a normal person like you or I, who is made to fight for a cause, for whatever reason.

They are not biologically different, and they do have reason.

You're pissed off by September 11th, enough to justify the deaths of thousands in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Someone in the Middle East might well be pissed off with the US for what's it's done there to justify the deaths of thousands there.

That's all there is to it.

And the threat is increased by far by killing people, and blowing up their houses, and making their lands shit to live in.

See Israel for the last 39 years, and Iraq and Afghanistan for a while also.

Yes, they believed that the US was composed of infidels who thirsted for Muslim blood -- they were paranoid and heavily indoctrinated with religious beliefs. What reason did they have to dislike the US prior to 9/11? Apparently, it was because the US defeated Saddam Hussein in 1991. Those extremists Muslims must have really liked that ethnic cleansing and were ever so upset when the US put a halt to it. Seriously, read the fatwas of Osama to see how crazy he really is and how acutely sensitive he is to perceived injustices.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1998.html
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html


And yet, according to GW, with regards to Osama: "I don't care where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care."

So much for "dead or alive".


Oh yes, and as to your previous assertion that there are no new Taliban - let me respond with a hearty guffaw!

Yep, terrorist rhetoric definitely doesn't mention Israel or our historic support of corrupt regimes throughout the middle east. No sir.

What he said.

So, MTAE, the Muslim extremists took up arms becuase they viewed the military defeat of a secular country as an attack on Islam?

Even terrorists have justifications for their actions -- those justifications may be very misinformed, and you may disagree with them, but they still exist. Right! I'm surprised you can't understand MeansToAnEnd then... you should, right?

Ooh Ooh! Can I say again how I like to snort the ashes of 9/11 victims like cocaine and get another week-long forum ban?

A terrorist is just a normal person like you or I

Yeah, because normal people like you or I would commit suicide in such a way as to maximize the amount of civilian casualties so that we would be able to enjoy the fringe benefits of 72 virgins in heaven.

So, MTAE, the Muslim extremists took up arms becuase they viewed the military defeat of a secular country as an attack on Islam?

That's what Osama said, if you bothered to read his fatwa.

Yeah, because normal people like you or I would commit suicide in such a way as to maximize the amount of civilian casualties so that we would be able to enjoy the fringe benefits of 72 virgins in heaven.

You ain't prepared to die for something you believe in?

Yeah, because normal people like you or I would commit suicide in such a way as to maximize the amount of civilian casualties so that we would be able to enjoy the fringe benefits of 72 virgins in heaven.
If someone invaded the US, would you give your life for it?

Yeah, because normal people like you or I would commit suicide in such a way as to maximize the amount of civilian casualties so that we would be able to enjoy the fringe benefits of 72 virgins in heaven.

Dude ... your weekends must be boring, then. That's a typical Friday night for me! *checks watch* Oh crap ... late for the jihad ... catch ya'll later!

You ain't prepared to die for something you believe in?

For a Klondike Bar.

I get this feeling, for some reason, that you don't care for MTAE nor his/her beleifs. Call it a hunch, but thats what I think.

You could be right.

How, in any way, was the Chinese government implicated in the planning of Pearl Harbor? It wasn't. In fact, China itself was embroiled in a war againstJapan at that point. However, no one disputes the extremely strong ties between Afghanistan and 9/11. If would be false to refer to Iraq as an example of retribution for 9/11 -- it was an attempt to overthrow a genocidal maniac, liberate an oppressed people, and put a halt to nuclear proliferation. It also had the beneficial side effect of liberalizing the oil infrastructure in Iraq.

Interesting, because 9/11 was used emotionally to rally the people in support of the war against Iraq, and "ties to Al Queda" were also mentioned. It is indeed false to assume this meant there WAS a tie to 9/11, but that doesn't change the fact that 9/11 was a convinient political tool used to push the agenda. In much the same way you use it to push yours.


You don't consider it a "big deal" that thousands of American citizens were slaughtered in one day?

Not if you don't consider it a big deal when tens of thousands of "drug addled criminals" are killed each year by American citizens. And you don't.

Anybody who is not a heartless monster would acknowledge that such an incredibly high death toll is staggering, monstrous, and extremely saddening.

Nah. I masturbate to it. Why, don't you? Oh yeah - your kink is killing Muslims, poor people, immigrants, black people, etc etc. Oh well, whatever floats your boat.

You ain't prepared to die for something you believe in?

I certainly don't believe in massacring innocent civilians.

If someone invaded the US, would you give your life for it?

That's a moot point. Which country did the US invade which prompted the 9/11 attacks? Iraq, a country which illegally invaded a sovereign country for no reason whatsoever except building an empire and gaining access to its oil?

That's what Osama said, if you bothered to read his fatwa.

The stationing of US troops in Muslim countries outside Iraq is a very different thing from military defeat. Note how no mention is made in the fatwah of the justice or injustice of the Gulf War, instead the focus is on the deployment of US forces.

I certainly don't believe in massacring innocent civilians.
Answer the question.

If someone invaded the US, and took over cities, with civilians and all, would you give your life for the cause of recapturing it?

If someone invaded the US, and took over cities, with civilians and all, would you give your life for the cause of recapturing it?

Of course not. I'd probably move to Britain. It is completely irrational to give your life up for a cause unless you assign a negative value to your life which would cause you to seek to end it.

The stationing of US troops in Muslim countries outside Iraq is a very different thing from military defeat. Note how no mention is made in the fatwah of the justice or injustice of the Gulf War, instead the focus is on the deployment of US forces.

So his justification for the slaughter of 3000 American civilians was that the US army had a small amount of troops stationed in the Arabian peninsula, with the consent of those Arab governments?

Of course not. I'd probably move to Britain. It is completely irrational to give your life up for a cause unless you assign a negative value to your life which would cause you to seek to end it.
You can't get in or out unless you're from the invading land.

For the purposes of making you remotely interest, China and India team up and attack the US. There.

Now what do you do?

That's a moot point. Which country did the US invade which prompted the 9/11 attacks? Iraq, a country which illegally invaded a sovereign country for no reason whatsoever except building an empire and gaining access to its oil?

Actually, 9/11 happened because bin Laden was pissed about US Troops tromping around on "sacred Saudi soil", not the Iraq thing. It was our troops launching from Saudi Arabia that got him all worked up, not the liberation of Kuwait.

Osama didn't care much for Saddam. Saddam was a secular leader of a secular country. Osama saw him as just as much an infidel as he sees you and me.

So his justification for the slaughter of 3000 American civilians was that the US army had a small amount of troops stationed in the Arabian peninsula, with the consent of those Arab governments?

That's the main thrust of the Fatwa, that and support for the state of Israel.

So his justification for the slaughter of 3000 American civilians was that the US army had a small amount of troops stationed in the Arabian peninsula, with the consent of those Arab governments?

Yes.

Nobody said the man wasn't a bit bat-shit, but that's his whole justification.

Crazier things have happened. Hitler slaughtered 6 million Jews because his penis was too small. *shrug*

So his justification for the slaughter of 3000 American civilians was that the US army had a small amount of troops stationed in the Arabian peninsula, with the consent of those Arab governments?
And the fact that it supports the digustingly aggresive Israeli regime, and has installed many dictatorships in the region.

Of course not. I'd probably move to Britain.

We don't want you.

It is completely irrational to give your life up for a cause unless you assign a negative value to your life which would cause you to seek to end it.

So, you'd sit back and watch your own thankfully hypothetical sons and daughters die before you, knowing that you could save them at the cost of your own life?

Now what do you do?

If I could get by nicely when a new government would be installed in the US, I would not fight. Otherwise, I would.

So, you'd sit back and watch your own thankfully hypothetical sons and daughters die before you, knowing that you could save them at the cost of your own life?
A thought occurs -

Maybe the Americans, having never been properly attacked by anyway, have a different view on depending one and one's family to us.

and has installed many dictatorships in the region.

Many? Name three.

If I could get by nicely when a new government would be installed in the US, I would not fight. Otherwise, I would.
Then you're weak.

A man who would die for nothing is not fit to live.

Many? Name three.
Hussein, the Afghani 'government', the new Iraqi 'government' and propping up the Saudis.

So, you'd sit back and watch your own thankfully hypothetical sons and daughters die before you, knowing that you could save them at the cost of your own life?

Who says that they're hypothetical? And I should hope that my sons and daughters have enough sense not to fight against a foe even though they themselves would not be able to effect the outcome of the campaign in any way whatsoever. Perhaps I would drug them to render them incapable of joining the army -- who knows? I'll decide what to do when I come to that fork in the road, which, incidentally, is when hell freezes over.

Many? Name three.

Even Condi Rice openly apologised in Egypt recently for the US sponsoring more than a few dictatorial regimes in the ME.

A man who would die for nothing is not fit to live.

Quote of the Month.

That yours?

Quote of the Month.

That yours?
Urmm in a previous life, maybe :rolleyes:

Hussein, the Afghani 'government', the new Iraqi 'government' and propping up the Saudis.

I'll give you Hussein. However, the other two could not be used as justification for 9/11 unless Osama, in additional to being an insane fanatic, could predict the future.

Quote of the Month.

Perhaps it's the quote of the month for suicidal people, but for those of us who are rational, it would be completely illogical to give up your life.

Perhaps I would drug them to render them incapable of joining the army -- who knows? I'll decide what to do when I come to that fork in the road, which, incidentally, is when hell freezes over.
You're willing to take away the freedom of your children to resist... what makes you better than the invaders?

Urmm in a previous life, maybe :rolleyes:

Heh ... sorry ... wanted to add it to my sig and wanted to give proper credit. :)

Get over it.

The Bush Admin was the real organization that made it happen anyway.

You're willing to take away the freedom of your children to resist... what makes you better than the invaders?

Perhaps because I'm saving lives instead of taking them -- I am stopping the senseless waste of human life.

Perhaps it's the quote of the month for suicidal people, but for those of us who are rational, it would be completely illogical to give up your life.

Tell that to the nearly 3,000 men and women of the US Armed Forces who have died in the Iraq War.

I'll give you Hussein. However, the other two could not be used as justification for 9/11 unless Osama, in additional to being an insane fanatic, could predict the future.
Propping up the Saudi Royalty... putting the Muhajuhadeen (hence the Taliban) into power... there's your three dictatorships.

And it's not just Osama who was and is pissed off in the region. Think about that.

Tell that to the nearly 3,000 men and women of the US Armed Forces who have died in the Iraq War.

I don't really feel like getting beaten up -- again, that would be an irrational course of action to take.

Heh ... sorry ... wanted to add it to my sig and wanted to give proper credit. :)
It's from Martin Luther King ;)

Propping up the Saudi Royalty... putting the Muhajuhadeen (hence the Taliban) into power... there's your three dictatorships.

We did not install the Saudi Royal family -- we simply supported them. Try again. Also, although we sponsored the Mujahideen to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan, we did not support the following government. We assisted an armed resistance group; we did not install a dictatorship. I cannot give you that one either. The only one you have so far is Saddam Hussein. I'll be nice and give you the one in Iran, too. That's two.

Perhaps it's the quote of the month for suicidal people, but for those of us who are rational, it would be completely illogical to give up your life.
If I could give my life to end an invasion - I'd do it. And it'd be rational.

I don't really feel like getting beaten up -- again, that would be an irrational course of action to take.

Awwww come on ... take another for the team. ;) Hehehe

Sorry ... was just reading through your "I'm not a troll" thread.

I wish more people had my sense of humor.

If I could give my life to end an invasion - I'd do it. And it'd be rational.

How, by any definition of the word, would it be rational? The marginal costs would far outweigh the marginal benefits, rendering it a decidedly illogical course of action.

We did not install the Saudi Royal family -- we simply supported them. Try again.
*sighs*

Israel, then. In how it rules Palestine. There you fucking go.

Congratulations on 1000 trollish posts, MTAE. I notice you still try the tried-and-true tactic of ignoring successful arguments and focusing on the divertive and less successful ones in order to 1) increase the length of the thread (thus getting more attention), 2) decrease your need to post content and instead just come up with one or two line quips (again, thus increasing the length of the thread at low energy expenditure) and 3) to push aside the fact that your 'arguments' and 'logic' get WTFPWNED. Maybe if people don't see it, it didn't happen, yes?

How, by any definition of the word, would it be rational? The marginal costs would far outweigh the marginal benefits, rendering it a decidedly illogical course of action.
It's ideological as well, it shows willing, and most of all it breaks the morale of the enemy.

Well worth it.

Israel, then. In how it rules Palestine. There you fucking go.

The UN was the entity responsible for the establishment of the Israeli state, not the US. Furthermore, it is not a dictatorship. Next!

Well worth it.

Perhaps from an objective point of view it is worth it, but from a subjective standpoint (your best interests) it is not.

The UN was the entity responsible for the establishment of the Israeli state, not the US. Furthermore, it is not a dictatorship. Next!
Not interested in this. The US is the only state backing them up for what they're doing in Palestine.

They certainly are ruling it like a dictatorship there.

Perhaps from an objective point of view it is worth it, but from a subjective standpoint (your best interests) it is not.
My interests differ from yours. A lot.

The UN was the entity responsible for the establishment of the Israeli state, not the US. Furthermore, it is not a dictatorship. Next!

The UN is not a separate, autonimous entity. The UN is made up of its members, of which we (especially in the 1950s) are a massive member.

My interests differ from yours. A lot.

I should think that life would be your primary interest, seeing as how without it, you'd have no interests at all. Giving up your life is completely irrational, I am afraid.

The UN is not a separate, autonimous entity. The UN is made up of its members, of which we (especially in the 1950s) are a massive member.

However, the Israeli state was neither installed by the US, nor was it installed in the 1950s, nor is it a dictatorship.

I should think that life would be your primary interest, seeing as how without it, you'd have no interests at all. Giving up your life is completely irrational, I am afraid.
My goal in life is to make lives better for others.

Giving up my life to get a better future for my society is worth it.

The US is the only state backing them up for what they're doing in Palestine.

Do you have any proof of this? Also, your claim wasn't that the US backs up some countries in the Middle East which other Arab countries do not -- you asserted that the US has "installed many" dictatorial regimes in the Middle East. You have, so far, only been able to cite Iraq as an example.

My interests differ from yours. A lot.

You intrigue me, Yoo. I would love to hear more about you. Nothing naughty or weird, I'm just curious. So many people come and go on these forums and I've been around so long, I've probably forgotten more people than have registered.

Define Yootopia. Who are you?

We think we like you.

Giving up my life to get a better future for my society is worth it.

I see you are a completely irrational person in that sense. The only thing which should be in your logical interest is your own self-benefit. The only instance in which it would make sense for you to give up your life would be if you could not live with yourself if you did not lay down your life to help others.

However, the Israeli state was neither installed by the US
It certainly was, along with the French and British.
nor was it installed in the 1950s
Merely funded and armed up in the '50s.
nor is it a dictatorship.
Just the kind of democracy that ignores its Arab members when they disagree.

However, the Israeli state was neither installed by the US, nor was it installed in the 1950s, nor is it a dictatorship.

No, but you gotta admit ... Israel is quite the bully lately. Especially since the assassination of Rabin.

I see you are a completely irrational person in that sense. The only thing which should be in your logical interest is your own self-benefit.
No. In your own viewpoint, that's the best thing. That's your logic. Mine is set apart from yours in so many ways.
The only instance in which it would make sense for you to give up your life would be if you could not live with yourself if you did not lay down your life to help others.
And if I could have ended an invasion by enemies, and helped my area, but had chosen not to, then I could not live with myself.

Those are my views.

The UN is not a separate, autonimous entity. The UN is made up of its members, of which we (especially in the 1950s) are a massive member.

It is not as if only the U.S. voted for the establishment of Israel. It was a majority of the U.N. We can say it was the world who made Israel in 1948. Trying to put it on the U.S. can't be done.

The UN is not a separate, autonimous entity. The UN is made up of its members, of which we (especially in the 1950s) are a massive member.
Do not do that no more, right?!? Telling that breaks too many craniae.

I'm all for pranks, but that is just too much!

It is not as if only the U.S. voted for the establishment of Israel. It was a majority of the U.N. We can say it was the world who made Israel in 1948. Trying to put it on the U.S. can't be done.

I'm not saying it was just the US, I just want people to acknowledge that it was partially us and to stop blaming the "EVIL UN" ...

The danger posed by 9/11
Cowboy Bush with a microphone in his hand!

Do not do that no more, right?!? Telling that breaks too many craniae.

I'm all for pranks, but that is just too much!

Hehehe ... you're cool, Bunny. :D

I'm not saying it was just the US, I just want people to acknowledge that it was partially us and to stop blaming the "EVIL UN" ...

Well people should realize that we voted for the creation of Israel but so did most of the world. Besides I'm not in the "OMG, Israel is SO EVIL" crowd. I really don't think the Jews living in Palestine at the time really needed the UN's permission when it came down to it. Given how they handled themselves when their neighbors invaded them after the U.N. vote I think if they wanted their own state they would have gotten themselves one.

Hehehe ... you're cool, Bunny. :D
I KNOW!!! *how do you literally convey jumping?*

It certainly was, along with the French and British.

Merely funded and armed up in the '50s.



Just the kind of democracy that ignores its Arab members when they disagree.

There was a group of Jews know as the Zionist that fought for the establishment of a jewish state. The British had control of the area as a protectorate. In 1948 the UN establishe TWO Nations. One jewish and one Palistine. The jews accepted while the arabs rejected it. So the question is who fault is that?
When a group of people takes up arms in a country they pretty much leave theirselves out of the political process.

There was a group of Jews know as the Zionist that fought for the establishment of a jewish state. The British had control of the area as a protectorate. In 1948 the UN establishe TWO Nations. One jewish and one Palistine. The jews accepted while the arabs rejected it. So the question is who fault is that?
When a group of people takes up arms in a country they pretty much leave theirselves out of the political process.
The fault lies with a great deal of parties -

The UN and specifically Britain for putting it where it was.
The Zionists for not being very open to debate.
The Palestinians for rejecting it.

There was a group of Jews know as the Zionist that fought for the establishment of a jewish state. The British had control of the area as a protectorate. In 1948 the UN establishe TWO Nations. One jewish and one Palistine. The jews accepted while the arabs rejected it. So the question is who fault is that?
When a group of people takes up arms in a country they pretty much leave theirselves out of the political process.

Yup. The Palestinians revolted and Israel's neighbors invaded. And they lost. So Israel got more territory then the U.N. gave them. Spoils of war. If they simply agreed to the U.N.'s decision the Palestinians would have had a country. Who knows how things would be today if they accepted the U.N. mandate?

The Zionists for not being very open to debate.

The Zionists agreed to the U.N. mandate. A deal had been struck but since the Palestinians rejected it they are now worse off.

Well people should realize that we voted for the creation of Israel but so did most of the world. Besides I'm not in the "OMG, Israel is SO EVIL" crowd. I really don't think the Jews living in Palestine at the time really needed the UN's permission when it came down to it. Given how they handled themselves when their neighbors invaded them after the U.N. vote I think if they wanted their own state they would have gotten themselves one.

I see Israel right now much like I see the US (and I am American) ....

Great people, cool place ... but the government sucks total ass.

(and I am American)

If you make jokes about snorting the ashes of the 9/11 victims like cocaine, you are no American.

If you make jokes about snorting the ashes of the 9/11 victims like cocaine, you are no American.

If you say American troops are stupid, you are no American.

If you make jokes about snorting the ashes of the 9/11 victims like cocaine, you are no American.This one needs examination. Sadly, I have poker to play, so somebody else has to do it.

I see Israel right now much like I see the US (and I am American) ....

Great people, cool place ... but the government sucks total ass.

I can certainly agree with that.

If you make jokes about snorting the ashes of the 9/11 victims like cocaine, you are no American.

That he can make jokes that some may find offensive is what makes being in this country so great. Just hope that doesn't change.

If you make jokes about snorting the ashes of the 9/11 victims like cocaine, you are no American.
Yes you are. Just one with something of a sense of humour about tragedies.

That he can make jokes that some may find offensive is what makes being in this country so great. Just hope that doesn't change.

Really? Well, I enjoy rolling in the remains of those who died in the Holocaust. It is especially nice when they are crispy, just after they came out of the oven. Do you find that amusing? No, it is disgusting and it revolts the senses. Anybody who either says what Keruvalia said or laughs at his statement is no American.

The UN and specifically Britain for putting it where it was.
.

Are you talking about where Israil is? Let us remember that the Jews where there anyway. Yes a number of jews returned once the state was created. Would you not if you had a strong connection to a place? But as for the United States we have to agree with the Isreali state. If they were made to give land back. We just might have to give all America back to it's real owners. The Native Americans!

Really? Well, I enjoy rolling in the remains of those who died in the Holocaust. It is especially nice when they are crispy, just after they came out of the oven. Do you find that amusing?

It's too absurd. I mean, you weren't even alive when those remains were fresh and warm, so that ruins the suspension of disbelief.

Nice effort though. Maybe one day you'll have good humour about your small penis size.

Really? Well, I enjoy rolling in the remains of those who died in the Holocaust. It is especially nice when they are crispy, just after they came out of the oven.
2000 times more people died in the holocaust. It's a bit more sad.
Anybody who either says what Keruvalia said or laughs at his statement is no American.
In your own view. Which nobody else holds, outside of you and a few nutjob chums, eh?

Really? Well, I enjoy rolling in the remains of those who died in the Holocaust. It is especially nice when they are crispy, just after they came out of the oven. Do you find that amusing? No, it is disgusting and it revolts the senses. Anybody who either says what Keruvalia said or laughs at his statement is no American.

What a disgusting thing to say and uncalled for! A human is a human have some respect!!

Really? Well, I enjoy rolling in the remains of those who died in the Holocaust. It is especially nice when they are crispy, just after they came out of the oven. Do you find that amusing? No, it is disgusting and it revolts the senses. Anybody who either says what Keruvalia said or laughs at his statement is no American.

I may find it insulting but you still have the right to say it. It is the reason we have freedom of speech. The idea that someone could tell people that they couldn't say it is more revolting then the trash they spout.

Maybe one day you'll have good humour about your small penis size.

That's flaming. Please refrain from posting messages designed to solicit a negative response. Thanks.

Are you talking about where Israil is? Let us remember that the Jews where there anyway. Yes a number of jews returned once the state was created. Would you not if you had a strong connection to a place?
Just remember that there were other groups there too, outside of the Jews. ;)
But as for the United States we have to agree with the Isreali state. If they were made to give land back. We just might have to give all America back to it's real owners. The Native Americans!
That would be just and excellent. Write to your congressperson now!

In your own view. Which nobody else holds, outside of you and a few nutjob chums, eh?

Really? Go out to a random American citizen and say the vile trash Keruvalia has posted on this forum. See how they respond.

That's flaming. Please refrain from posting messages designed to solicit a negative response. Thanks.


Talking about the pot calling the kettle black.

The idea that someone could tell people that they couldn't say it is more revolting then the trash they spout.

I am all for freedom of speech; however, I do not classify anybody who not only makes light of the 9/11 victims, but outright insults them and their legacy, as an American.

That's flaming. Please refrain from posting messages designed to solicit a negative response. Thanks.
Same goes to every topic you've created, really, then, no?

Really? Go out to a random American citizen and say the vile trash Keruvalia has posted on this forum. See how they respond.
They'll say "they're an arsehole (probs actually 'asshole'), but an American one".

That's flaming. Please refrain from posting messages designed to solicit a negative response. Thanks.

Saying someone else is not an American is also flaming. And as usual, you've just proven that the only kinds of responses you bother with ARE negative - you IGNORE the real debate, IGNORE your own 'logical' points in favour of flamebaiting and trolling.

Besides, it's my real opinion. Are you saying a guy can't have an opinion about another posters tiny member?

Same goes to every topic you've created, really, then, no?

No. I seldom employ ad hominen assaults, especially in regards to penis size. It would be most puerile to do so.

They'll say "they're an arsehole (probs actually 'asshole'), but an American one".

Really? Well, go out and try it then. I'd like to see if you live to tell of your exploits to this forum.

If you make jokes about snorting the ashes of the 9/11 victims like cocaine, you are no American.

Can't avoid it ... was born here, grew up here, parents were born here.

I'm an American whether you like it or not.

Saying someone else is not an American is also flaming. And as usual, you've just proven that the only kinds of responses you bother with ARE negative - you IGNORE the real debate, IGNORE your own 'logical' points in favour of flamebaiting and trolling.

Besides, it's my real opinion. Are you saying a guy can't have an opinion about another posters tiny member?

maybe it was to close to home. He may need neddles and a magnifing lend to see.

No. I seldom employ ad hominen assaults, especially in regards to penis size. It would be most puerile to do so.
Your topics seem to be designed for a negative response...

"Slavery ftw"
"Slice innocent peoples' faces off even if it turns out they're not a terrorist, and don't offer an apology"
"Waterboarding : For fun and for profit"

(I paraphrase, true)

I'm an American whether you like it or not.

I wasn't talking about the legal sense of the word -- you are the scum of the earth.

I wasn't talking about the legal sense of the word -- you are the scum of the earth.
Coming from someone who advocated that social conditioning of ten-year-olds to become sexual slaves is OK?

I am all for freedom of speech; however, I do not classify anybody who not only makes light of the 9/11 victims, but outright insults them and their legacy, as an American.

Trying to claim that anyone who says something you find offensive in not American is the kind of dangerous talk I hope we have less of in the future.

Coming from someone who advocated that social conditioning of ten-year-olds to become sexual slaves is OK?

WHAT?? :eek:

Can I have a link? I haven't seen this part of the insanity.

Why are we arguing with a person with a brain the size of a pea? Let him show his stupid ideas. JKust ignore him.

Why are we arguing with a person with a brain the size of a pea? Let him show his stupid ideas. JKust ignore him.
I'd rather not let ignorance stand, to be honest.

Really? Well, I enjoy rolling in the remains of those who died in the Holocaust. It is especially nice when they are crispy, just after they came out of the oven. Do you find that amusing? No, it is disgusting and it revolts the senses. Anybody who either says what Keruvalia said or laughs at his statement is no American.What is funny , is, even I am more american than a a person telling what is 'American' in NSG. That is so sad. Someone telling what is 'AMERICAN'. I do not want to move to USA, nor do I want your laws or customs, we have it way better here, but I know what USA means, and it is not MeansToAnEnd or George Walker Bush. Thank you.

EDIT: I wanted to edit that post so hard... but no. I was a tad drunk, a tad truthful. Let it be.

I wasn't talking about the legal sense of the word -- you are the scum of the earth.

I'm glad to see you're not posting things just to illicit a negative response. Especially considering how sensitive you are to them yourself. :)

I wasn't talking about the legal sense of the word -- you are the scum of the earth.

Yeah .... *I* am what's wrong with the world. Puleeze.

What does it mean to be an American?

It means this to me.

I am free to express my likes or dislike of the goverment without fear of reprisal. (that was until the patriot act.)

I can help change the goverment when I believe it is headed down the wrong path.

I can disagree with my fellow Americans and it is okay. ( unless you a nut job then and you call me un-American)

What does it mean to be an American?

It means this to me.

I am free to express my likes or dislike of the goverment without fear of reprisal. (that was until the patriot act.)

I can help change the goverment when I believe it is headed down the wrong path.

I can disagree with my fellow Americans and it is okay. ( unless you a nut job then and you call me un-American)

Nuh uh! To be a true American, you must jack-off with the flag every day and salute GWB.

We're taking this thread to Cuba!

http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/2117/hijack5erxw0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Can I have a link? I haven't seen this part of the insanity.
Originally Posted by LiberationFrequency :
A 40 year man old may condition a 10 year old girl into being his sex slave, are you ok with that as long as she sees being degraded as fun?

Then MTAE :
Sure. Why not? As long as the relationship is mutually beneficial to both parties involved, it is not up to us to question the moral fibre of either of the participants. You should not be able to interfere with the happiness of two people because you are squemish.

Nuh uh! To be a true American, you must jack-off with the flag every day and salute GWB.


I know your being sarcastic but please that was a little over the top. I was trying to say the same thing with out being a jackass.

I know your being sarcastic but please that was a little over the top. I was trying to say the same thing with out being a jackass.

Oh .... hi .... I'm Keruvalia ... I'm a jack-ass. ;)

Nuh uh! To be a true American, you must jack-off with the flag every day and salute GWB.

To be a real American, you must not make grotesque jokes regarding the gruesome deaths of thousands of Americans.

Oh .... hi .... I'm Keruvalia ... I'm a jack-ass. ;)
On that very note (actually, not at all), you have a TG.

To be a real American, you must not make grotesque jokes regarding the gruesome deaths of thousands of Americans.

So does that mean if I say "I used 9/11 victims' ground up remains to make a nice lubricant to improve my masturbation techniques", I wouldn't have to pay taxes?

To be a real American, you must not make grotesque jokes regarding the gruesome deaths of thousands of Americans.
No, to be a real American, you have to understand that the views of some differ from your own, but that they're free to express them.

So does that mean if I say "I used 9/11 victims' ground up remains to make a nice lubricant to improve my masturbation techniques", I wouldn't have to pay taxes?
Yep. Just have to do it in front of an IRS solicitor.

No, to be a real American, you have to understand that the views of some differ from your own, but that they're free to express them.

I always figured you just had to reside in or be born in the US, and if you're over 18, to pay taxes, work and register for the selective service.

I always figured you just had to reside in or be born in the US, and if you're over 18, to pay taxes, work and register for the selective service.
That also :)

To be a real American, you must not make grotesque jokes regarding the gruesome deaths of thousands of Americans.

Yes. A real American only makes grotesque jokes regarding gruesome deaths of foreigners. Preferably brown, black or yellow foreigners. I understand perfectly.

Yes. A real American only makes grotesque jokes regarding gruesome deaths of foreigners. Preferably brown, black or yellow foreigners. I understand perfectly.
Palestinian or Iraqi Freedom Fighters if poss. also.

Economically, murders and such are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Should we care if a drug-addled criminal is shot dead by a rival gang? No. However, should we care if 3000 business professionals who greatly contribute to the US economy are slaughtered? Obviously, yes. Perhaps if street bums were targeted by 9/11, it would not have been so damaging an attack. But rich people were the ones against whom the attack was directed, and that surely cannot be allowed to stand.
ROFLMAO!

Also, there are obviously plenty of ways that the US government can reduce the crime rate. Unless you think Americans are naturally criminals as opposed to Europeans and such like.

Yep. Just have to do it in front of an IRS solicitor.

Wait, I have to *say* that in front of the IRS solicitor, or do an actual demonstration? Because I don't think I could if it's the latter. Do you think photographic evidence will suffice?

Wait, I have to *say* that in front of the IRS solicitor, or do an actual demonstration? Because I don't think I could if it's the latter. Do you think photographic evidence will suffice?
Get it written down. No need for photos.

snip
Perhaps if street bums were targeted by 9/11, it would not have been so damaging an attack. But rich people were the ones against whom the attack was directed, and that surely cannot be allowed to stand.


So if terrorists only kill poor people it is fine with you?
Poor people, in your eyes, are somehow less human?
Oh wait I forgot with whom I am communicating!
:rolleyes:

See where the OP fails is that any reasonable person can gather that such foreign action the US has engaged in since 11/9 has created more terrorism and more terrorists than ever before. The War on Terror will never be won as long as those in power continue to try to fight the war through force and military action. I'm not saying the attacks weren't bad, because they were. But the response has not been measured or intelligent.

Yes you are. Just one with something of a sense of humour about tragedies.

I wonder what it would feel like to snort up human ash? do you think it would burn?

So does that mean if I say "I used 9/11 victims' ground up remains to make a nice lubricant to improve my masturbation techniques", I wouldn't have to pay taxes?
You just got a sig-quote.

So if terrorists only kill poor people it is fine with you?
Poor people, in your eyes, are somehow less human?
Oh wait I forgot with whom I am communicating!
:rolleyes:

now now, he never said they were less than human, just that since poor people contribute less to the GDP of the country they have a lower value in terms of future earning power. So they are worth less than a rich person.

Example
100 McDonalds employees = 1 Mid-size company director.

:)

I do not agree with the way the U.S acted over this atrocity. Killing civilians, as was mentioned earlier, can never be justified. How all of the world should of acted is that we should of infilitrated these 'cells' and gradually work out where their main HQs are. Then we should of organised a number of stragetic strikes, and capture the leaders.

Then, we should teach them the meaning of pain.

But thats my opinion, and I am not flaming anyone for their views.

Maybe one day you'll have good humour about your small penis size.

That's flaming.

Are you suggesting there is something wrong with having a small penis?

Anybody who either says what Keruvalia said or laughs at his statement is no American.

Aye, and no real Scotsman has sugar on his porridge.

I do not agree with the way the U.S acted over this atrocity. Killing civilians, as was mentioned earlier, can never be justified. How all of the world should of acted is that we should of infilitrated these 'cells' and gradually work out where their main HQs are. Then we should of organised a number of stragetic strikes, and capture the leaders.

Then, we should teach them the meaning of pain.

But thats my opinion, and I am not flaming anyone for their views.

So, 'killing civilians' is never justified, but abducting and teaching civilians the meaning of pain is?

So does that mean if I say "I used 9/11 victims' ground up remains to make a nice lubricant to improve my masturbation techniques", I wouldn't have to pay taxes?
The funniest post I have seen in ages. That's what it means to be in a 1st world democracy. Free Speech. And you obviously are a true American if you're worried about how much tax you pay. :cool:

Aye, and no real Scotsman has sugar on his porridge.And no real man eats porridge.
.

Numerically, the argument is also false. Although murders may account for a greater number of total deaths in the US than terrorism-related deaths, never are 3000 innocent people butchered in cold blood in a day.
Not in America, no.
I would assume there were 3000 innocent people in Nagasaki in 1945. If you look at the deaths that sanctions have done, there were days that would have topped 3000 deaths in Iraq. Rwandan Genocide. Cambodian genocide. Yugoslavia break up. All cleared 3000 a day at certain points. The Rwandan average was 8000 a day. Look beyond your front door.

I worded that wrong. Sorry. I meant that the terrorists leaders should be tortured, not the civilians. I would never want innocents to be tortured.

I worded that wrong. Sorry. I meant that the terrorists leaders should be tortured, not the civilians. I would never want innocents to be tortured.

So 'terrorist leaders' aren't civilians then?

Morally, this theory does not hold any water. We were treacherously attacked by a foreign foe on that fateful day -- it was not an internal menace which demolished the WTC building.

How can you not be an American or an American Ally and commit treason against the USA?

I see you are a completely irrational person in that sense. The only thing which should be in your logical interest is your own self-benefit. The only instance in which it would make sense for you to give up your life would be if you could not live with yourself if you did not lay down your life to help others.

This should be in a whole different thread about philosophy and motive. It is
rather simplistic, and easy, to say every action is selfish, or should be selfish. The justification to that claim. A person wouldn't do something if it wasn't in their best interest. The easiest way to back this up is with examples. You give to charity because it makes you feel good. You could have an affair but you don't. Is it because of your morals. No. It's because if you get found out it would be really bad, so the positive payoff (tawdry, nast sex) doesn't counteract the bad (divorce, splitting of assets, arguments), so you do it for selfish reasons. You see where I'm going here.

I did say this was simplistic. Using this to shut someone down, as MTAE attempted, is flawed. Why? Your morals and ethics decides, when you think the payout from the affair is worth it, when you think sacrificing your life for a cause is worth it. Gandhi and Biko {sp?} being obvious examples.

I wonder what it would feel like to snort up human ash? do you think it would burn?
Probably not, but the insides of your nose would be black, and everyone'd be like "Got Plague?"

And no real man eats porridge.
.

:confused:

What do they eat, then? Cream of wheat?

:confused:

What do they eat, then? Cream of wheat?
Haggis and Blood Pudding with scrambled eggs on wholemeal toast.

Haggis and Blood Pudding with scrambled eggs on wholemeal toast.

What, no kippers?

What, no kippers?
Aye, they're nice also, but they might clash rather with with the blood pudding.

Aye, they're nice also, but they might clash rather with with the blood pudding.

Alright then - save the kippers for afters.

Alright then - save the kippers for afters.
Exactly correct.

No, to be a real American, you have to understand that the views of some differ from your own, but that they're free to express them.

No, to be a real American you must stand on your left leg while facing NNW at precisely 17:23 GMT and holding a 4 month old electricity bill between your teeth, a blind lamb in your right hand and a chicken drumstick from KFC in your left and recite "Badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, mushroom, mushroom!" 12 times, taking exactly 14 minutes to do so.

No, to be a real American you must stand on your left leg while facing NNW at precisely 17:23 GMT and holding a 4 month old electricity bill between your teeth, a blind lamb in your right hand and a chicken drumstick from KFC in your left and recite "Badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, mushroom, mushroom!" 12 times, taking exactly 14 minutes to do so.

You have some serious problems, don't you?

You have some serious problems, don't you?

I have some problems of varying seriousness, yes. What of it?

You have some serious problems, don't you?

You're one to talk.

You believe that:

- Paedophilia is normal, and laudable as a civil right;
- Slavery should be reinstated;
- Votes should be conditioned to wealth;
- The best way to be a good American is to be completely unAmerican;
- Poor people are inferiors;
- The strong have the right to trample on the weak;
- Extreme psychological trauma is not torture;
- And other despicable absurdities.

I can whip up an alphabetical list of fictional and non-fictional people who are saner than you are, beginning on letter A with Adolph Hitler, passing through letter J with the Joker from Batman, and ending in letter Z with Maximilian Zeus, also from Batman.

You have some serious problems, don't you?
Nothing compared to your "issues".

There was been some resurgence, yes, but there are no new Taliban terrorists being indoctrinated and recruited. When we kill them, they stay dead. However, it will take a while to purge them all.

Are you high?
New terrorists are being "made" every single day in both Afghanistan and Iraq!
How else do you explain the attack on a "supposed" Al-Qeda training camp (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/29/pakistan.militants.ap/index.html) in Pakistan?
If no new terrorists are being trained why was this school bombed?
And why is it that there were widespread protests (http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=8aa491b017cf17f5) over this bombing with thousands of people vowing to become martyrs?
Why can't people like you understand that every time we kill someone’s father/brother/uncle/friend that we create new terrorists?
Why can't people like yourself understand that for every innocent person, that your pResident writes off as "collateral damage", that is killed more terrorists are created?

You cannot kill an idea MTAE.
Terrorism is not an army that can be defeated with guns and bombs.
It is a concept that must be defeated by showing people that we are indeed better than the terrorists.
The Bush administration has utterly failed at proving we are better than they are by torturing and killing innocent people.

Because none of the victims of our torture have been convicted in a court of law they are, by our own standards of justice, innocent.

And writing off innocent civilians as "collateral damage", or as you have cynically called them in the past "eggs" that are unfortunately "broken" in the march towards "Democracy" in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have indeed proven to the citizens of these countries that we are no better than terrorists ourselves.

Isn't it fascinating how southerners can defend the civil war? 360,000 dead. All so they could trample on the dignity of humanity.

Now, consider Iraq: tens of thousands of civilians killed.

Compared to that, 9/11 was nothing.

Terrorism is not an army that can be defeated with guns and bombs.


B

no but terrorists are

no but terrorists are

Terrorists don't have to win battlefields, all they have to do is win hearts and minds, doesn't matter how many you kill; like a hydra 2 more will rise to take their place.

no but terrorists are

No, they aren't. Simply because conventional armies don't replenish their numbers whenever the opposing side makes blunders like declaring war on countries that have nothing to do with Al Qaeda (such as Iraq).

Terrorists don't have to win battlefields, all they have to do is win hearts and minds, doesn't matter how many you kill; like a hydra 2 more will rise to take their place.

if terrorists dont win battlefeilds they lose the war. if you kill them they die

Now, consider Iraq: tens of thousands of civilians killed.

Compared to that, 9/11 was nothing.

Civilians are killed in Iraq because of cowardly insurgents that choose to hide behind the skirts of little girls.

The World Trade Center was not a military base but rather an easy civillian target for even more cowards.

if terrorists dont win battlefeilds they lose the war.

The battlefield for terror is the hearts and minds of people.

if you kill them they die

And leave two others in their place, that are their relatives or the relatives of the innocent killed by shrapnel.

Aside from that, this statement made me think of a caveman trying to articulate words.

if terrorists dont win battlefeilds they lose the war.
No they don't, the NVA and the VC lost almost every battlefield, yet still won the war. We defeated both the Iraqi army as well as most of the jihadis in Baghdad, yet still anarchy reigns, people are still dying, and militias are gaining more and more influence on iraqi politics.

The war on terror is not a conventional war, quit treating it as if it was. To win the war on terror we need a strategy that works........against terrorism.

if you kill them they die

Doesn't matter, more people will take their place.

The battlefield for terror is the hearts and minds of people.



if that were the case they wouldn't be terrorists, they would be psycharists.

*sighs*

Maybe you others don't "get" UN Ambassadorship. He's playing Devil's Advocate. This is all.

No they don't, the NVA and the VC lost almost every battlefield, yet still won the war. We defeated both the Iraqi army as well as most of the jihadis in Baghdad, yet still anarchy reigns, people are still dying, and militias are gaining more and more influence on iraqi politics.

The war on terror is not a conventional war, quit treating it as if it was. To win the war on terror we need a strategy that works........against terrorism.

they didnt win the war, we did.

Doesn't matter, more people will take their place.

eventually they will run out of people,

they didnt win the war, we did.
The war hasn't ended yet, and we seem to be losing. Also, Terrorism is FLOURISHING in other parts of the ME.

eventually they will run out of people,

We would need to declare war on the entire ME, which we AREN'T prepared for.

if that were the case they wouldn't be terrorists, they would be psycharists.

Oh boy.

Oh boy.

Oh my fucking God.

This can't have been written.

I can't believe I'm answering to somebody COMPLETELY devoid of ANY grasp of semantics!

A war for the "minds" is a war that uses IDEOLOGY as a weapon! ANYBODY KNOWS THAT! For crying out loud, I'm laughing as I type!

The war hasn't ended yet, and we seem to be losing


we won the war. the Iraqi forces lost in aobut 2 months. right now its more of a peace keeping operation.

We would need to declare war on the entire ME, which we AREN'T prepared for.
says who?

1- its more of a peace keeping operation.


2 - says who?

It's a civil war and anyone sane, respectively.

This is hilarious. UNA - you're back, and I love it.

we won the war. the Iraqi forces lost in aobut 2 months. right now its more of a peace keeping operation.
and now we have boatloads of insurgents, foreign jihadis, and warring sectarian militias to wage war with.

says who?

Terrorism is all over the ME, not just in Iraq, there actually was little or no terrorism in Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion.

It's a civil war and anyone sane, respectively.

:confused:

:confused:

Iraq is a civil war, and anyone sane would know that destroying terrorism by brute force would constitute a full scale invasion of the ME, and thats just Islamic terrorism, not even taking into account the myriad of other terrorist groups worldwide.

and now we have boatloads of insurgents, foreign jihadis, and warring sectarian militias to wage war with.

I dont think we are actually fighting them. Its more like we occiasionally get caught in their crossfire, their fighting each other more than they fight us.

Terrorism is all over the ME, not just in Iraq, there actually was little or no terrorism in Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion.

there was a lot. Thats why we went in.

there was a lot. Thats why we went in.

We went in to deny Saddam his stock of WMD's, which funnily enough he didn't have.

Let's play the "what if" game. Does anyone really think that if the US had sat back quietly after 9/11 and had changed our foreign policies that terrorism would have stopped?

We went in to deny Saddam his stock of WMD's, which funnily enough he didn't have.

Give Saddam a bit of credit. If he realized that American troops were invading, he'd either obliterate his WMD stockpile or ship it to Libya. He wouldn't plant a flag on his WMDs reading "here they are, Bush!"

Give Saddam a bit of credit. If he realized that American troops were invading, he'd either obliterate his WMD stockpile or ship it to Libya. He wouldn't plant a flag on his WMDs reading "here they are, Bush!"

No, he would have used them against our troops, Why would he destroy such a great defensive asset? We would he ship them to Libya? What was he saving them for?

No they don't, the NVA and the VC lost almost every battlefield, yet still won the war. .

they didnt win the war, we did.


I hope you are not suggesting that we won the Vietnam war?
Because, even though I was only a kid, I seem to remember a scene of Americans being lifted off the top of our embassy by helicopter as North Vietnamese tanks rolled into Saigon.

eventually they will run out of people

So we basically have to kill all Arabs?
Because at the rate we are going we are creating terrorists faster than we can kill them.

No, he would have used them against our troops, Why would he destroy such a great defensive asset? We would he ship them to Libya? What was he saving them for?

He knew it was a lost cause -- no amount of WMDs would deter our troops. Since he was thinking only about his narrow self-interests, he would not want to be caught red-handed, so to speak. He wanted to cast himself in the best possible light, as a victim, prior to going on trial for crimes against humanity. Although he's a crazy bastard, he knows a thing or two about politics; we could learn from him.

He knew it was a lost cause -- no amount of WMDs would deter our troops. Since he was thinking only about his narrow self-interests, he would not want to be caught red-handed, so to speak. He wanted to cast himself in the best possible light, as a victim, prior to going on trial for crimes against humanity. Although he's a crazy bastard, he knows a thing or two about politics; we could learn from him.

Sorry this is an old argument, and myself (along with millions of others) will refuse to beleive Saddam had WMDs until we see the proof. Period.

He knew it was a lost cause -- no amount of WMDs would deter our troops. Since he was thinking only about his narrow self-interests, he would not want to be caught red-handed, so to speak. He wanted to cast himself in the best possible light, as a victim, prior to going on trial for crimes against humanity. Although he's a crazy bastard, he knows a thing or two about politics; we could learn from him.

thats an amazing idea. note i say idea.

Sorry this is an old argument, and myself (along with millions of others) will refuse to beleive Saddam had WMDs until we see the proof. Period.

correction. billions of others.

He knew it was a lost cause -- no amount of WMDs would deter our troops. Since he was thinking only about his narrow self-interests, he would not want to be caught red-handed, so to speak. He wanted to cast himself in the best possible light, as a victim, prior to going on trial for crimes against humanity. Although he's a crazy bastard, he knows a thing or two about politics; we could learn from him.

A rat in a corner always lashes out, regardless of whether they have hope. He also had no idea he was going to get caught and put on trial, he probably expected to go the path of Idi Amin Dada, silently walk out the back-door to some state that would harbor him.