Terrorism Disccusion

[babywax]

we killed 340,000 people in japan (after radiation and injury deaths)... 9/11 they killed 3000

people still have genetic defects from the poisoning.. Japan will never truly recover

9/11 = big, nukeing of japan = tank

not to start a political flamewar, but the way america reacts is really extremist... we have already invaded 2 countries post 9/11 (now evidence surfaceing on bush planning it way before) did he use it to justify his invasion??

Going to take this one part at a time, sorry, but I'm a bit scatter brained right now so try to bear with me...

not to start a political flamewar, but the way america reacts is really extremist... we have already invaded 2 countries post 9/11 (now evidence surfaceing on bush planning it way before) did he use it to justify his invasion??

First of all, where is this evidence saying that Bush was planning it before? Please, I'm eager to see it. Bush didn't use it to justify the invasion, he said we were invading Iraq due to Saddam Hussein's continued accumilation of WOMDs. It's very funny, but plenty of evidence has been found pointing to WOMDs, such as missiles specifically designed to deliver sarin gas (it must be mixed in flight, it is very complex and the mechanisms can't be used for hardly anything else).

we killed 340,000 people in japan (after radiation and injury deaths)... 9/11 they killed 3000

people still have genetic defects from the poisoning.. Japan will never truly recover

9/11 = big, nukeing of japan = tank

I don't see the point you're trying to make...

 

[GhostValkyrie]

Oh, wow, another kid in Texas. In my school we actually say it after the American Pledge . The Texas pledge is so meaningless and such a waste of time (well maybe not--it takes about 10 seconds of dull recitation). Nobody says it in my class... people who actually say it in other classes basically say it to the wall or the chalkboard or something since we don't have Texas flags up or anything like that. Before this year nobody even knew a "Texas pledge" ever existed. Makes you wonder if they just made up some stupid junk and then said "hey, let's make those kids in school recite this, haha, hahaha."

I feel so bad for you guys, I never had to do this when I was in school.
If I did, I'd feel dirty...like it was back before the annexation of Texas.
Ugh...

 

[Lil' Timmy]

I feel so bad for you guys, I never had to do this when I was in school.
If I did, I'd feel dirty...like it was back before the annexation of Texas.
Ugh...

this is what john titor was talking about.... the war is coming!


anyway, i have to agree witht the others that this was a bad way to start a thread about terrorism and the justification thereof, sidewinder.. but anyway..

babywax, if you don't know that a war in iraq was planned long before 9/11, you need to wake up. there are plenty of documents out there, you can probably google it, just put in wolfowitz iraq rumsfeld or something. lets not forget that this isn't really bush's administration, it's cheney's and cheney's right hand men paul wolfowitz and rumsfeld, both of whom are die hard warhawks, and were absolutely livid when bush1 pulled out of iraq. they both also lobbied clinton to invade iraq in 98, look it up. there is no question that iraq was top of the agenda as soon as the white house changed hands.

that said, i'm not sure what the relevence of iraq is to this, since it has nothing to do with terrorism (except in the respect that we are probably creating more terrorists by invading and occupying it).

also isreal.. ah isreal.. what a complicated issue huh? isreal doesn't bomb busses? they would if they weren't too busy bulldozing women and children. the US aid of isreal is of course the major reason for hatred towards the US in the middle east. the US has to realize that isreal is not some sort of beacon for goodness. why do we always write them a free ticket for their actions? whether it's the overt missle attacks on civilian targets, bulldozing babies, or the 'soft violence' of forced relocations and "settlements" (which are just as damaging), it's not hard to see how palestinians might feel they are the ones under attack. would you give you life to defend your homeland?

i don't necessarily support the above view, just wanted to point out that it's not so easy to pick sides. but picking sides is what caused 9/11 in the first place. if we don't understand that, we're just sleeping our way into another 9/11 or worse..

 

[phantomdesign]

SO the 3 BILLION we send them every year in military aid, that doesn't count? We can send them tanks and subs and guns, and they can kill with the weapons we give them but we're not responsible for what they do? So if I give a known murder a gun, and they shoot people, I'm not responsible? WTF.

I like israel more then palistine, at least the israeli don't blow up buses but NEITHER side is innocent. And the anger of our continued support of israel is what has set the entire muslim world population against united states. But isreal still does some WRONG things, like jail without jury, forced relocation of the palestine people, and targeted assasinations that cause alot of innocent civilians to be killed. You want to kill someone? Use a gun, not a missle fired into a car which is in a crowded market.

Whoa….LOGIC FLAW!!!

I have a degree in mathematics, which is a logic structure, so don’t even try to argue this one. Just to have a little fun….
A [X> B (A relates B to according to X relationship)
A => B (A implies B)

You are arguing that the US is causing terrorism against Israel.

So….
SomeTerrorists [Attack> Americans
Americans [Give$> Israel

According to your logic:
Some Terrorists [Attack> Americans [Give$> Isreal => SomeTerrorists [Attack> Israel

So far so good? If this is true…. Lets give a couple $$ to Syria

SomeTerrorists [Attack> Americans
Americans [Give$> Syria
Some Terrorists [Attack> Americans [Give$> Syria => SomeTerrorists [Attack> Syria

Ha Ha Ha Ha ……

 

[Sprafa]

Who said all Americans are worried about terrorism? There's a difference between realization, and anxiety. I live and love my life, but that doesn't cahnge the fact that there will be more attacks. Hell, it seems like people forgot how old terrorism is. In '93 the WTC was bombed. I can mention some other terrorists attacks that happenned before 9/11.
Kanya, Tanzania, Lebanon, Oklahoma City, Iran, and many others.

Terrorism officialy exits since the beggining of society. A leader 4000 years ago made massacres to win power in Egypt and it also considered terrorism so, its even older than you think....

 

[The Mullinator]

we killed 340,000 people in japan (after radiation and injury deaths)... 9/11 they killed 3000

people still have genetic defects from the poisoning.. Japan will never truly recover

9/11 = big, nukeing of japan = tank

not to start a political flamewar, but the way america reacts is really extremist... we have already invaded 2 countries post 9/11 (now evidence surfaceing on bush planning it way before) did he use it to justify his invasion??

It may be true that the U.S. killed far more in Japan, but there is one part of that debate that many people don't think about. The fact is Japan at the time would have fought to the death in their own country if it would have involved taking over by more conventional warfare. Dropping the bomb it is often argued was the only way to have Japan actually surrendered. Heck you can clearly see how far Japan would have gone if their was no nuclear weapon, the U.S. gave them alot of warning in advance that they would use a new weapon that could obliterate the Japenese if they didn't surrender. The Japenese refused to surrender after the warning so a bomb was dropped, and guess what? They still didn't surrender, it wasn't until the U.S. dropped a second one that they finally gave up.

Now just think what would have happened if the bomb wasn't dropped. Many argue that more would have in fact died (including american troops) if the bombs were not dropped.

 

[SidewinderX]

also isreal.. ah isreal.. what a complicated issue huh? isreal doesn't bomb busses? they would if they weren't too busy bulldozing women and children. the US aid of isreal is of course the major reason for hatred towards the US in the middle east. the US has to realize that isreal is not some sort of beacon for goodness. why do we always write them a free ticket for their actions? whether it's the overt missle attacks on civilian targets, bulldozing babies, or the 'soft violence' of forced relocations and "settlements" (which are just as damaging), it's not hard to see how palestinians might feel they are the ones under attack. would you give you life to defend your homeland?

i don't necessarily support the above view, just wanted to point out that it's not so easy to pick sides. but picking sides is what caused 9/11 in the first place. if we don't understand that, we're just sleeping our way into another 9/11 or worse..

Well, yes. Like I said neither side is completley innocent. However, The Palestinians want a homeland. Isreal has the land they want. (Which was the "fault" of Great Britian, let us not forget) They think that they cna get this by attacking Israel. Israel won't talk until the attacks stop.

 

[The Mullinator]

When you are as big as the U.S. is on the world stage you really don't have much choice BUT to pick a side. If you try to stay neutral (Like in the beggining of WWI and WWII) then many people are still going to become mad at you because of the fact that you aren't helping them.

Thats the big problem for the U.S. Their damned if they do and their damned if they don't.

 

[bastard_loud]

It may be true that the U.S. killed far more in Japan, but there is one part of that debate that many people don't think about. The fact is Japan at the time would have fought to the death in their own country if it would have involved taking over by more conventional warfare. Dropping the bomb it is often argued was the only way to have Japan actually surrendered. Heck you can clearly see how far Japan would have gone if their was no nuclear weapon, the U.S. gave them alot of warning in advance that they would use a new weapon that could obliterate the Japenese if they didn't surrender. The Japenese refused to surrender after the warning so a bomb was dropped, and guess what? They still didn't surrender, it wasn't until the U.S. dropped a second one that they finally gave up.

Now just think what would have happened if the bomb wasn't dropped. Many argue that more would have in fact died (including american troops) if the bombs were not dropped.

Possibly the biggest crock of shite i've ever seen on these forums.

And Sidewinder, you're pretty fking ignorant yourself for starting this thread.

 

[The Mullinator]

Possibly the biggest crock of shite i've ever seen on these forums.

And Sidewinder, you're pretty fking ignorant yourself for starting this thread.

lol, don't get so upset. Please elaborate because you can't just say its a "crock of shite" without giving any evidence as to why it is that.

 

[bastard_loud]

I think i just did, Mullinator.

 

[SidewinderX]

Possibly the biggest crock of shite i've ever seen on these forums.

And Sidewinder, you're pretty fking ignorant yourself for starting this thread.

Possibly the biggest crock of shite in thes forums? More people would have died total if the US had to invade Japan. The forces that were going to invaded, included over 600,000 American Troops, at least half of whom whould have died in the first month of combat on the Island. That's 300,000 American's dieing in the first month. That's almost as many poeple that dies in The nuking. And that's ONLY the American Troops. More Japanese soldiers would have died, and then Japanese "civilans" would have dies to. Why? Becuase they didn't Believe in Surrender. Every japanese person would do something to stop or slow down the Americans. Think of how the Vietnamese people acted, but on a larger scale.

It was estimated, that by the time Americans manage to concour the isleands, over 1 million troops would have died. That's only the troops. As many as 300,000 civilians would have perished as well.

Looking back at it, yes nukeing Japan was a horrible thing that shouldn't ever happen again, but look at the alternatives.



And your Comment about me: Would prettly please elabotate, or provide some kind of reaosn for that comment?

 

[bastard_loud]

Though I may not agree with the views IchI expressed, I think it was in bad taste to single out his statement to try and make your own point. I think it would be entirely possible to express your own opinion and start a discussion on it without bashing someone else's view and telling them they are ignorant in some sort of attempt to give merit to your own opinions.

There you go.
Also, if you can't figure this shit out by yourself, you shouldn't be a moderator on a forum.

 

[ComradeBadger]

Turning into a flame war.

Closed.