Poll: Why was the US attacked on 9/11?

[bliink]

Get on topic.

 

[burner69]

No, we did'nt deny them they're religion. Second, we did'nt kill thousands of innocents intentionally.

... and I think thats all we need to say. Plus, then they're was that Northern Alliance Commander who was killed on the eve of 9/11. Poor basterd ... alls he wanted was his country back.

We have just made them democratic. There are many relgions in that country, and people are MUCH more religious over there than most people in the west. Democracy = either secularisation, or dominence of one religion. Some religious folk will believe that their religion is not being fairly treated, or being undermined.

There was a girl living near me up until a few weeks ago. While she was on a paperround she stepped across the road, and was hit by a woman returning from work, speeding, with a mobile phone to her ear. She left the girl for dead, barely slowing down before tearing off into the distance.
Eventually she was caught, and you know what, the family of the girl wanted to kill her. She did not kill the girl intentionally, but it happened. Just as in Iraq thousands of people are being killed, and death brings up powerful emotions, especially hatred. Telling an Iraqi who's lost his family that the coalition "didn't mean it" is no good. He has every right to hate them, so don't be suprised when you see him wrapped up in explosives holding a detonator.

 

[firemachine69]

Some people think if they blow up innocent people they'll get their way. :upstare:

Although the following quote may seem to contradict what I think, it doesn't. Get over it.

"An eye for an eye and the world goes blind"

We have just made them democratic. There are many relgions in that country, and people are MUCH more religious over there than most people in the west. Democracy = either secularisation, or dominence of one religion. Some religious folk will believe that their religion is not being fairly treated, or being undermined.

There was a girl living near me up until a few weeks ago. While she was on a paperround she stepped across the road, and was hit by a woman returning from work, speeding, with a mobile phone to her ear. She left the girl for dead, barely slowing down before tearing off into the distance.
Eventually she was caught, and you know what, the family of the girl wanted to kill her. She did not kill the girl intentionally, but it happened. Just as in Iraq thousands of people are being killed, and death brings up powerful emotions, especially hatred. Telling an Iraqi who's lost his family that the coalition "didn't mean it" is no good. He has every right to hate them, so don't be suprised when you see him wrapped up in explosives holding a detonator.

True, but keep in mind, there were enough news reports (and just plain common logic) to tell the woman that talking on her cell while driving is dangerous and can kill. She placed herself above everyone else "oh I can but not others because <insert her pathetic excuses here>", or the classic "it won't happen to me". I would support her execution. Arrogant people need to be straightened out.


If a civilian casualty ran in the middle of a blaringly obvious firefight (the exception that he got caught in the middle, then he was SOL), trying to run whenever he shoulda have kept his ass to the ground or nearest cover... I always feel like saying DUHHH...


I don't care who the f*ck raises you, killing your fellow human being is NEVER rational. Hence why dam terrorists freak us out, their crazy, psychotic, walking bombs.

 

[burner69]

True, but keep in mind, there were enough news reports (and just plain common logic) to tell the woman that talking on her cell while driving is dangerous and can kill. She placed herself above everyone else "oh I can but not others because <insert her pathetic excuses here>", or the classic "it won't happen to me". I would support her execution. Arrogant people need to be straightened out.

The point of the story was that otherwise normal people can show extreme forms of hatred after family or friend deaths.
The women who ran her over was a c**t for driving off though.

If a civilian casualty ran in the middle of a blaringly obvious firefight (the exception that he got caught in the middle, then he was SOL), trying to run whenever he shoulda have kept his ass to the ground or nearest cover... I always feel like saying DUHHH...

Looks like being suicidal is in their nature.
Do you really think these civvies are being killed because they run into the middle of fire fights? OK, fire fight deaths happen but do you genuinely believe that Iraqis just, like, run around during them? They're gonna get to cover ASAP.
Unfortunatly many deaths aren't like that.
One man was shot at a wedding, when to celebrate they fired their guns in the air. The army heard shots and opened fire.
Another man heard a disturbance in his house, went downstairs to see coalition troops breaking through his door, they shot him on his stairs despite him being unarmed.
Another man was having a cigar on the roof of his house one night, a patrol came round the corner and opened fire at him.
A 21 year Iraqi was at market when violence broke out. He packed up his stall to keep out of trouble and walked home. On the way he was shot by coalition soliders, twice, in the back - again, he was unarmed.
Then we could go into the deaths caused by the bombings - we all saw the pics.

I don't care who the f*ck raises you, killing your fellow human being is NEVER rational. Hence why dam terrorists freak us out, their crazy, psychotic, walking bombs.

I agree. But when you see your family being killed, or see a friend get shot, or whatever, as the story about the girl in my last post demonstrated, your views can drastically change.
The principle of a) revenge, or b) I'll kill these guys before they kill anymore of us comes into play. And bingo, you've got terrorists.

EDIT: Lol, you say you condone execution for manslaughter, and yet say killing your fellow man is NEVER rational.
You crazy cat

 

[firemachine69]

Yes, I do understand your point. Keep in mind, until you're a US soldier on the front, you'll never truly grasp the feeling of gun shots. My friend still can't get me to understand it fully. I'm just tired of all the supposedly blood-thirsty american wild west image that abounds for US soldiers. For christ sakes, most of them ARE rational.

BTW, I don't condone execution for manslaughter. I condone it for stupidity.


And I meant for the reasons they thought were justifiable. That quote was definitely sig'able.

 

[burner69]

Yes, I do understand your point. Keep in mind, until you're a US soldier on the front, you'll never truly grasp the feeling of gun shots. My friend still can't get me to understand it fully. I'm just tired of all the supposedly blood-thirsty american wild west image that abounds for US soldiers. For christ sakes, most of them ARE rational.

Seconded. I don't view the US as being a bunch of gun-ho dudes just blasting everything that moves. My point is that accidents do happen, and putting them in a place where LOT'S of accidents can and do happen, in the aim of stopping terrorism is counter productive.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

She did not kill the girl intentionally, but it happened. Just as in Iraq thousands of people are being killed, and death brings up powerful emotions, especially hatred. Telling an Iraqi who's lost his family that the coalition "didn't mean it" is no good. He has every right to hate them, so don't be suprised when you see him wrapped up in explosives holding a detonator.

So, even though she did'nt kill the girl intentionally, you'd still stand by the family wanting to kill the women responsible?

You mean, you stand by murder, and making the situation worse because of some idolized vengeance of "well, they feel bad, so they should make others feel bad." No. Not the correct answer my friend.

But yes, they're was however a good point you made -- and that was that this women should've been looking were she was going; and both of them at the same merit.

You cannot justify murder with murder. Its ludacris, ya'll heard!

 

[bliink]

Topic please

 

[burner69]

So, even though she did'nt kill the girl intentionally, you'd still stand by the family wanting to kill the women responsible?

Why is it every time I describe a situation you make out that I condone it? What's wrong with you? When I stated that an Iraqi hostage was sold by a small group to Al Zarquai (sp?) you said that I was condoning her killing. And now, again, you're doing the same.

You mean, you stand by murder, and making the situation worse because of some idolized vengeance of "well, they feel bad, so they should make others feel bad." No. Not the correct answer my friend.

No, what I said was, that when people are killed very strong emotions come out of normal people, and bad things can happen. I was describing human nature, whether I agree with it or not (which I don't) is irrelevant.

But yes, they're was however a good point you made -- and that was that this women should've been looking were she was going; and both of them at the same merit.

You cannot justify murder with murder. Its ludacris, ya'll heard!

No you can't. But as I've stated earlier IT HAPPENS, and is happening in Iraq right now. Whether or not we agree with it is unimportant, what's important is that it is happening, and we need to stop it.

So, moving it back on topic (I don't think we'd really strayed though bliink); Yes, we need to supress the terrorists, and goading them out for a fight, creating new ones through accidental killing, giving them lot's of media attention (Blame Bush and Blair, they hyped the situation up so much) is not helping.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Why is it every time I describe a situation you make out that I condone it? What's wrong with you? When I stated that an Iraqi hostage was sold by a small group to Al Zarquai (sp?) you said that I was condoning her killing. And now, again, you're doing the same.

No, now your skewing things. Unfortunately, I cannot correct you herein. Continue in PM's about your charge.

No, what I said was, that when people are killed very strong emotions come out of normal people, and bad things can happen. I was describing human nature, whether I agree with it or not (which I don't) is irrelevant.

No, its completely relevant albeit off-topic from the original thread. We can continue this also, in PM's (since the story you brought up side-tracks from the thread).

Yes, we need to supress the terrorists, and goading them out for a fight, creating new ones through accidental killing, giving them lot's of media attention (Blame Bush and Blair, they hyped the situation up so much) is not helping.

However, what would you say if we did supress the terrorists?

Lets also state this -- if in 1993 and 2001, our World-Trade Centers were not attacked, we would'nt have been goaded or have been goading them into a fight.

In many more ways then one, they attacked first; which is unfortunate because Clinton had a strategy to deal with them anyways. (Unfortunately, Monica Lewinsky came into the picture).

What if we also gave the terrorists NO media hype? I imagine that would also be a, "passive" complaint for some on the forums. Oh, but I agree with your stance there ... depressing them off media hype -- you know, like stop calling them Insurgents or Freedom-Fighters ...

 

[burner69]

No, now your skewing things. Unfortunately, I cannot correct you herein. Continue in PM's about your charge.

I'll leave it at this. But I'd rather you stopped presuming that because I am aware of a certain type of behaviour, that I condone it - it's very offensive.

However, what would you say if we did supress the terrorists?

Lets also state this -- if in 1993 and 2001, our World-Trade Centers were not attacked, we would'nt have been goaded or have been goading them into a fight.

In many more ways then one, they attacked first; which is unfortunate because Clinton had a strategy to deal with them anyways. (Unfortunately, Monica Lewinsky came into the picture).

Depends how you look at it. Most westerners would say that 9/11 started this whole war on terror, so it was the terrorists who started this. While the terrorists, along with some other middle easterners and anti-war westerners would say that it was the foreign policy of the West that started it. The half a million killed by UN sanctions would seem fitting as a reason to attack the west, don't you think? (Note; I am not condoning it, but explaining a reason, stated by OBL, for them to attack the western world on 9/11).

What if we also gave the terrorists NO media hype? I imagine that would also be a, "passive" complaint for some on the forums. Oh, but I agree with your stance there ... depressing them off media hype -- you know, like stop calling them Insurgents or Freedom-Fighters ...

Hype is the key word.
Remember all those terrorist threats we were given? The ones that ended up being based on year-old threats. The ones about the dirty bomb which is well documented by both western and eastern governments as being a 'useless' weapon that would kill very few people, if at any at all. Remember the hype when they captured 'Al Quaeda' members in America? All that fuss, that prooved they were operating over there... and yet there was no evidence to support the claim, and they were soon released without charge. Along with hundreds of others who we announced proudly of their capture, then when there was absolutely no evidence of terrorist involvment, were released. Same thing happening in Britain.

What we need to do is stop all the fear-tactic BS, and concentrate on the real problem. The people in the Middle East who are gathering hatred towards the west because of our actions, both past and present.
How we handle this problem, I don't know.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

We can handle the problem easy enough, its just that there's no "one" side to the problem either.

I see that your saying, but I also see that these people are'nt just recruiting off of random attacks -- they're attacking through the recruitment of citizens at Religious centers.

I've seen the videos all shot by CBS reporters -- if noone knows what I'am talking about, search the CBS site.