9/11

[SeVeR]

I'm sorry if you're trying to defend these people who think blowing themselves up in a car and killing 20 civilian lives helps them accomplish anything in their fight.

This kind of talk is a symptom of post-9/11 patriotism. I'm not trying to defend anyone NBV, i'm trying to establish motive. Anyone who wants to stop the evil in this world has to understand the motive for that evil. I'll write a more detailed response when i have the time tomorrow.

[JDS]

evil is relative , moron

[SeVeR]

Actually i agree with you, it is relative.

 

It's a pity you haven't read my other posts on this forum where i actually argue for moral relativity.

 

Maybe you shouldn't be so quick to insult people on this board. Especially when you do it from a position of complete ignorance.

Edited September 13, 2007 by SeVeR

[JDS]

im an ignorant high kinda guy

[NBVegita]

As stated in my prior post, the only reason why you attack a civilian area is to cause a massive amount of casualties, in this case international casualties.

 

What ever motive they can try to rationalize, it does not account for a m!@#$%^&* attack on a civilian target. If they had attacked a military target it would have been completely different.

 

 

And I ask you sever, how is:

 

I'm sorry if you're trying to defend these people who think blowing themselves up in a car and killing 20 civilian lives helps them accomplish anything in their fight.

 

Post 9/11 patriotism.

 

It seems like logical deduction to me.

 

Any groups who use these crude weapons and bombs to kill civilians, sometimes even their own, to try to prove their point, are not accomplishing anything, no matter how well they try to rationalize a motive. This goes beyond just the Iraq/Afghanistan incidents. Tell me what motive would rationalize sending your 8 year old son wandering alone, wired with enough explosives to kill not only himself, but many others in the area, in the hopes that when he is found and detonates he manages to take a US soldier or two with him? What is the motive that rationalizes laying your newborn child in a basket, and wiring it so that the next passer by, who will try to be a decent human being and care for the abondoned child, dies along with your child?

 

I believe that no action is done without a motive. But just because you have a motive, that does not rationalize your actions in any way shape or form.

 

As stated before, there was no rational motive behind flying those planes into the WTC.

[Drake7707]

is there ever a rational motive for a fight, war, attack etc ?

[ra$ta420]

From terrorists point of view each attack they make has a huge motive,they think that killing people and them selfs will somehow get them into the after life and in doing so,others will join there "cause".

 

I somehow think killing your self along with others isn't going to help one bit to get you to heaven or after life .

[Animate Dreams]

So much hypocrisy in this topic. "No one deserves an event like 9/11" "The terrorists deserve to have something like this happen to them"

 

You've all been blinded. You speak the contradiction and still can't see it. If you look at this from the terrorists' point of view, you'll see they believe even 9/11 was not enough to pay for what we've done. Do you realize America started this? The terrorists believe America is the reason the Pakistanis no longer have their own country(their holy land). In a very real way, we are responsible for it. The terrorists weren't starting a war when they attacked us - we started it when we supported Israel and gave Israel the Pakistani's land. You have as much reason to believe the terrorists deserved an attack as they do to believe we deserved one.

 

Any groups who use these crude weapons and bombs to kill civilians, sometimes even their own, to try to prove their point, are not accomplishing anything, no matter how well they try to rationalize a motive. This goes beyond just the Iraq/Afghanistan incidents. Tell me what motive would rationalize sending your 8 year old son wandering alone, wired with enough explosives to kill not only himself, but many others in the area, in the hopes that when he is found and detonates he manages to take a US soldier or two with him? What is the motive that rationalizes laying your newborn child in a basket, and wiring it so that the next passer by, who will try to be a decent human being and care for the abondoned child, dies along with your child?

 

I believe that no action is done without a motive. But just because you have a motive, that does not rationalize your actions in any way shape or form.

 

As stated before, there was no rational motive behind flying those planes into the WTC.

 

I'd just like to bring up such events as the Boston Tea Party. I'm sure I don't have to remind you of all the individual events used by colonials in their wars against Britain and the Native Americans, because I'm sure everyone here has had history classes. Whether you believe in their cause or not, America is responsible for many terrorist acts. !@#$%^&*, we practically define terrorism. For the past few hundred years, wars had been carried out very methodically, with very strict rules, and we broke them to get what we wanted. We used guerilla tactics, which the Britains considered barbaric. But why not? If your cause is true, and you don't fight for it in every way you can, then you only have yourself to blame when you lose your battle. But the same can be said for the terrorists.

 

Basically, I would defend terrorism. A terrorist is not evil because he is a terrorist. A terrorist is good or evil based on whether what he fights for is good or evil. Bush would have you believe that all terrorists are evil, because that way he can easily coerce Americans into following a war, by labeling someone a terrorist. Most of the terrorists we are fighting ARE evil, but if you hate them because they are terrorists instead of hating them because of the ideals they fight for, then you are also supporting/fighting for an unjust ideal, and you are every bit as evil as they are.

Edited September 14, 2007 by Animate Dreams

[NBVegita]

your ignorance is astounding.

 

You just tried to compare the Boston tea party, an event cause by British colonists in North America revolting against their government and the unfair tax laws imposed around and about them, in which tea was dumped into a harbor, further more where not a single being was killed, much less harmed in the event, nor was anything damaged, and compared that to nationallist from a foreign country coming onto american soil attacking a heavily populated civilian area, causing thousands of civilian casualties, spanning across many international countries, and billions of collateral damage.

 

Laugh out loud.

 

For the past few hundred years, wars had been carried out very methodically, with very strict rules, and we broke them to get what we wanted. We used guerilla tactics, which the Britains considered barbaric.

 

Are you trying to say that !@#$%^&*uming guerilla warfare tactics is tantamount to wiring children with explosives and using them as traps? Or justifying killing 30 civilians in the hope of killing one enemy soldier? What exactly would your comparison be? Or is guerilla warefar, during an engaged war tantamount to killing 3000 civilians in a non war time situation?

 

The closest thing you could try to call the US on for terrorism is the Atom Bomb. Which cost thousands of japanese lives, to save hundreds of thousands of both allied and axis lives. At least that accomplished something.

 

Since the attack on the WTC, there have been roughly 320,000 military and civilian casualties, not including any that have died due to things like not having resources after a city is destroyed ect. I'm glad you support such people. They started a war. If not for those attacks The nearly half a million lives lost in the past 6 years would not have occurred.

 

Not even an ignorant person can claim that Al queda didn't see what was coming after they did their attacks. If it tells you just how bad things became internationally for their cause, even Russia and China supported the US. A direct quote from a message sent from Foreign minister Tang, of china, read "in the fight against terrorism, the United States and China stand side by side.". I think !@#$%^&* just about froze over right there.

 

The terrorists believe America is the reason the Pakistanis no longer have their own country(their holy land). In a very real way, we are responsible for it. The terrorists weren't starting a war when they attacked us - we started it when we supported Israel and gave Israel the Pakistani's land.

 

Gave who's land to Isreal? Oh wait, it was Great Britians land. People tend to forget that. What is now Israel was last "owned" by Great Britian. And like the ottoman empire, Britian took "ownership" of that land through military force. They, after WWI, continued to occupy that land for the next 30 or so years until the league of nations finally "gave" it to Israel. in 1920 when the mandate was created Britian was told to recognize "the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for recons!@#$%^&*uting their national home in that country"

 

Yes America was for the creation of Israel, and so were many other countries. Yes we have aided them in much over the past 60 years, but they are our ally. Just as Britian has !@#$%^&*isted us, and vice versa. Thats what allied countries do.

 

But of course blame america for everything, we're used to it by now.

[Drake7707]

But of course blame america for everything, we're used to it by now.

 

Slightly offtopic: Everyone targets the ppl most powerful or most involved. Look at microsoft, apple, google: they all get critisicm on their actions and/or products, so it's only natural to blame the most powerful or involving player.

 

Slightly more ontopic: imagine that it did not happen on us soil but on russia or china's soil. Would there be an equal amount of discussion about it, somehow i doubt it?

[LiDDiS]

Slightly more ontopic: imagine that it did not happen on us soil but on russia or china's soil. Would there be an equal amount of discussion about it, somehow i doubt it?

 

Evil twisted !@#$%^&* happens daily around the world , and no one gives a !@#$%^&*. You're a bit dense so I guess you couldn't tell I was being cynical about 9/11

[Samapico]

gorilla warfare tactics

Sorry that made me laugh

[JDS]

The closest thing you could try to call the US on for terrorism is the Atom Bomb. Which cost thousands of japanese lives, to save hundreds of thousands of both allied and axis lives. At least that accomplished something.

 

 

are you !@#$%^&*ting me, your the ignorant one, the bomb on hiroshima was POINTLESS all it did was wipe out a city, Yea a city, not a tower, not 2 towers.. but a WHOLE CITY millions.. not 3000

 

 

whatever awful thing happend to the USA on 911 is nothing in comparison to an atomic bomb droping on a city... do you even think?

[JDS]

someone messed w/ my edit button

 

 

so il continue my in post 2..

 

 

Also what about the americans and how they treated the japanese living on there soil... for years !! Generations even... they rounded them up and put them in camps, yea japanese concentration camps.. and if you ran from the guards who came to pick you up, they shot you on the spot

 

how are americans diffrent from germans? they both !@#$%^&*ed up a potential .. lol 'threat' to there country and got rid of it

 

 

...sure it was in wake up peral harbour ... but americans are just as sqrewd up as anyone else

[NBVegita]

I am one of the first to denounce america for the concentration camps, but neither that nor what germany did is terrorism.

 

As for the Atom bomb, are you just plain stupid? All the bomb did was destroy a city? Have you read a history book?

 

The atom bombs were dropped to prevent casualties. It is estimated that just over 70,000 people from each city were killed in the bombings, so estimate high and say 150,000 people were killed. Nagasaki was bombed on August 9th, and the war ended on August 15th. It was estimated, just in allied forces, that an invasion of japan would have cost between 1.5-4.5 million allied casualties. Which also means japan would have lost millions in the fight. The war had already cost of 50,000,000 allied military and civilian lives, and over 12,000,000 axis military and civilian lives. Ironically over 2/3 of the allied deaths were civilian casualties.

 

I'm sorry if you feel that killing 150,000 axis civilians and military is "POINTLESS" when it saved milions of allied forces and axis.

Edited September 19, 2007 by NBVegita

[Aileron]

JDS, were you referring to the treatment of Japanese during WWII? Yes, it was somewhat non-legal, but it was an action taken during a war, and it certainly did not last "generations". They weren't "inhumane" camps either. The persons got food and medical care, and got let out after the war was over. If only that were the worst event to occur in WWII...

 

 

Look, Al Queda's, and their financial backbone, the Muslim Brotherhood, have a stated goal which is to force the world to convert to Islam. The United States was the first to cons!@#$%^&*utionalize freedom of religion. They cannot tolerate that because it is in direct interference with their goals. For their goals to be obtained, the principle of freedom of religion must be abolished, and thus they attack any nation which supports it.

 

Anyone who wishes to blame this on Israel has too much of a one-track mind. It was Al Queda, not Hamas. Even if what you were saying is true, which it isn't, but even if it was, the theory that 9/11 was caused by Israel falls short in that the people who "lost land" weren't involved in 9/11. The people who were involved in 9/11 were a bunch of sunnis from Saudi Arabia who certainly haven't been hurt by the United States in terms of material property.

 

The act of suicide bombing is contradictory to greed. Thus the motivation for it cannot be material. Its not money or oil or land they care about. What they care about is forcing their ideaology upon the world.

[AstroProdigy]

Sorry I haven't been around for a while with college and all. Just want to make a point here.

 

The definition of terrorism from dictionary.com:

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

 

The reason for dropping the a-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to scare the population into submission. When they didn't submit after the first bomb we dropped another one and were prepared to continue this until Japan surrendered. This perfectly follows the definition of terrorism. We used violence on their civilians (we killed mostly civilians) and threatened to continue doing it until Japan was a flaming pile of radioactive ruins in order to coerce the Japanese for our political purpose of winning the war.

 

Don't get me wrong after looking at the facts I think it was totally justified. From the example we got from Japanese civilians on outlying islands in the Pacific they were ready to fight to the death. The Japanese saw the emperor as their God and as long as their emperor told them to fight to the death most of them would do so and the result is millions and millions of dead Japanese and hundreds of thousands of dead Allied soldiers in a war that would make the German invasion of Russia look like a cup of tea. It would be a tomb for Allied soldiers and would likely require exterminating most of the Japanese people. Using the a-bomb was very effective because the emperor saw that we could massacre his people without heavy losses on our side and had to capitulate. It was a smart move by the Japanese emperor to surrender and was a smart move for us to do it. The occupation of Japan was also done brilliantly. These were smart guys who know what they're doing, not like the people in charge now.

 

The point is that although it was both justified and effective it was still terrorism since we terrorized Japan into surrendering. All this goes to show is that regardless of what you hear from leaders terrorism can be extremely effective. The difference between what we did in Japan and what Al Qaeda is doing is while we did it after a heavy war with Japan and really helped them out after Al Qaeda does it without a war as a premise and does it for some psychotic dream of a worldwide Islamic caliphate.

 

Christian groups in the United States say non Christians don't belong here and these are the same people who support war against extremist Muslims the most. What's the difference? Not much. I'm not saying all Christians believe this (most don't), but the extremists do as do extremist Muslims think non Muslims belong there. Al Qaeda takes it further by trying to force the entire planet to convert, but otherwise the ideology is pretty similar. It's just a matter of extra extremism.

 

Al Qaeda really started to hate us only after we sent troops to Saudi Arabia, which is the holy land that no infidel can be allowed to go, and kept them there. Saudi Arabia rejected Osama bin Laden's help to push back Saddam in favor of America. That was a good move since if I were a corrupt dictator I wouldn't trust Mujahedeen to not try to overthrow me afterwards, but it explains how this really got going. The US also props up an extremely corrupt aristocracy that robs the tremendous oil wealth of Saudi Arabia from the people and uses it to support thousands of spoiled princes to drive their Cadillacs and go gamble, drink, and hire hookers. Sure if we let the regime fall it will be replaced by an extremist Islamist group that threatens us and paralyzes the oil market, but this explains the reasoning for Arabs from Saudi Arabia to be willing to kill themselves to "fight the infidel".

 

Suicide bombing serves a few purposes actually. It can be about forcing Islamic ideology on the world, but only in the most extreme terrorist groups. The way it's done today it's usually to try to beat back infidels like the US from Muslim lands. It can also be used for greed. The people who blow themselves up aren't the greedy ones; they're the stupid ones who get used as a tool. The people who run things are the one profiting from this if not financially in a power hungry way.

[LiDDiS]

JDS, were you referring to the treatment of Japanese during WWII? Yes, it was somewhat non-legal, but it was an action taken during a war, and it certainly did not last "generations".

I think he's referring to the anti Japanese sentiment that lingered well after the camps ended. And you're a !@#$%^&*ing idiot for even slightly trying to defend putting a whole ethnicity into concentration camps, no matter how pleasant said camps are. And if you bothered to do any research about these camps, you would find they were !@#$%^&* pits. Just because we didn't gas them like the Nazi's doesn't mean the camps were humane in the least.

 

Also what about the americans and how they treated the japanese living on there soil... for years !! Generations even... they rounded them up and put them in camps' date=' yea japanese concentration camps.. and if you ran from the guards who came to pick you up, they shot you on the spot

 

how are americans diffrent from germans? they both !@#$%^&*ed up a potential .. lol 'threat' to there country and got rid of it

 

 

...sure it was in wake up peral harbour ... but americans are just as sqrewd up as anyone else[/quote']We did it too man, (Canadians) it wasn't just the US

Edited September 19, 2007 by LiDDiS