Is middle eastern terrorism against the west justified?

[loveisdead]

Those who post regularly know where I got this idea from.

I think it's a really interesting discussion to be had. And as hard as it is for me to do as an American(especially a new yorker) I think once you take a step back and look at the issue objectively it most certainly is justifiable.

[caveBEAR]

justify;
1. To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid: anger that is justified by the circumstances.
2. To declare free of blame; absolve.
3. To free (a human) of the guilt and penalty attached to grievous sin.


(Just so we're all on the same page)

[caveBEAR]

I don't find it to be justified, as violence against innocents is never justifiable. You want to assassinate the Prime Minister? Fine. At least you're going after a political figure. However, acts like 9/11, in which people stuck in the same bullshit rat race as everyone else on the planet are made to suffer for a cause they didn't create or understand, is unjustifiable.

Multiply this feeling by 1000 when the reasoning behind the terrorism is religious over political.

[saysmydoctor]

I don't condone it, but I understand it.

[whiterussian]

No one has to say the US are the good guys. I don't necessarily defend that, especially because I don't know a fraction of what might really be going on.

But seriously. Is this thread for real?

[Midget Pirates]

Those who post regularly know where I got this idea from.

I think it's a really interesting discussion to be had. And as hard as it is for me to do as an American(especially a new yorker) I think once you take a step back and look at the issue objectively it most certainly is justifiable.

my immediate answer is hell no, but it'd be easier to respond if you gave an example of a specific situation in which you felt it was justifiable.

[Mibabalou]

no

[Americanism]

I would never say it was justifiable. I can definitely understand if you maybe change your rhetoric and ask if its understandable, or maybe even a reasonable reaction to their environment and our actions. However, to reiterate, I also would never call any of their actions justifiable.

[loveisdead]

I would never say it was justifiable. I can definitely understand if you maybe change your rhetoric and ask if its understandable, or maybe even a reasonable reaction to their environment and our actions. However, to reiterate, I also would never call any of their actions justifiable.
yeah this may be a better way to word it.

[anamericangod]

No.

[tfot11]

...wow. no

[apoemtothedead]

Basically agree with others. Not justifiable but understandable.

[loveisdead]

my immediate answer is hell no, but it'd be easier to respond if you gave an example of a specific situation in which you felt it was justifiable.

I'll write out some longer responses when I get home from work. It's a pain on my phone...especially when I'm working haha.

[alice+interiors]

Well, I'd say something very close to yes. Laying aside conspiracy theories pertaining to 9/11, I'd say that there far less of a threat than is made out to be, to start with - especially with Iran. It was very scary to hear Gordon Brown talking of expanding the UK's anti-Taliban forces possibly into Somalian and Yemen borders, in the election debate.
Weighing up the damage done to the Middle East by America and other countries of the West (the UK, Spain, a couple of others) with the terrorist atrocities committed by some individuals and organisations against the West - I'd say the statistics would tell you that the warzones in the East amount to far more damage than you will find in individual acts of terrorism.
That said - terrorism/the murder of innocent civilians can surely never be justified. I an 99% certain that there is almost always a better way. But understandable, as others have said; but possibly the word 'justified' is a step too far.

Could the title be edited to 'Can Middle Eastern terrorism against the West ever be justified?' Because it isn't just the US that is relevant to this discussion.

[loveisdead]

Well, I'd say something very close to yes. Laying aside conspiracy theories pertaining to 9/11, I'd say that there far less of a threat than is made out to be, to start with - especially with Iran. It was very scary to hear Gordon Brown talking of expanding the UK's anti-Taliban forces possibly into Somalian and Yemen borders, in the election debate.
Weighing up the damage done to the Middle East by America and other countries of the West (the UK, Spain, a couple of others) with the terrorist atrocities committed by some individuals and organisations against the West - I'd say the statistics would tell you that the warzones in the East amount to far more damage than you will find in individual acts of terrorism.
That said - terrorism/the murder of innocent civilians can surely never be justified. I an 99% certain that there is almost always a better way. But understandable, as others have said; but possibly the word 'justified' is a step too far.

Could the title be edited to 'Can Middle Eastern terrorism against the West ever be justified?' Because it isn't just the US that is relevant to this discussion.

Yeah I can do that when I get home. And thanks for the well thought out response.

[alice+interiors]

Yeah I can do that when I get home. And thanks for the well thought out response.
I feel like I haven't expanded much yet (which might worry some people ;-)) but I will do so when I have a bit more time. I'm going to a friend's any minute so I can't go into great detail about what I believe.

[jwicklun]

taking innocent lives is something that should never be justified. There has to be a better way.

[saysmydoctor]

I know I originally stated that I understand it and I don't condone, but I still think it's justified.

Attacks against coalition troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are justified. Completely.

Bare in mind the standing US policy is that we don't negotiate with terrorist.

[Scrandon]

If you say it is understandable, then you should believe that there should be no retaliation and that the U.S. should change whatever they did to make the terrorists mad. As far as I know, this consists of not worshiping their god and not making our women wear parkas and be second class citizens.

Not justifiable, nor understandable to me.

[Scrandon]

I know I originally stated that I understand it and I don't condone, but I still think it's justified.

Attacks against coalition troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are justified. Completely.

Bare in mind the standing US policy is that we don't negotiate with terrorist.

This is the same type of person who would become completely outraged at the news of the military killing civilians in a war, where is the consistency?

[jwicklun]

again, I can see if the anger is justified, but most certainly the actions aren't.

[Scrandon]

I know I originally stated that I understand it and I don't condone, but I still think it's justified.

Attacks against coalition troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are justified. Completely.

Bare in mind the standing US policy is that we don't negotiate with terrorist.

Fighting a military is not terrorism.

[saysmydoctor]

This is the same type of person who would become completely outraged at the news of the military killing civilians in a war, where is the consistency?
Really?

Hell, look, the Palestinians elected Hezbollah. They chose the entity best equipped to remove what they saw as a problem: the Israelis.
Fighting a military is not terrorism.
A Catch-22 in live action. This'll be interesting.

[Alex Djaferis]

Justifiable? No but can you blame them? I'd say no.

Do I understand it? Not entirely but am I surprised by it? Not one bit.

[Scrandon]

Sorry? Could you be more vague? I'm not understanding you as it is.

[saysmydoctor]

Justifiable? No but can you blame them? I'd say no.

Do I understand it? Not entirely but am I surprised by it? Not one bit.
"He's a question-talker."

[alice+interiors]

If you say it is understandable, then you should believe that there should be no retaliation and that the U.S. should change whatever they did to make the terrorists mad. As far as I know, this consists of not worshiping their god and not making our women wear parkas and be second class citizens.

Not justifiable, nor understandable to me.
This is the stupidest post in this thread to date.

edit: particularly the highlighted bit.

[guitarpunk411]

Can't say its justified. but then again i can't say anything until my home is bombed to dust, innocent friends and family are killed, and my country is ravished for its natural resources and strategic location for future bases of my enemy.

[Scrandon]

This is the stupidest post in this thread to date.

edit: particularly the highlighted bit.

Okay, well then show me the light, don't just call me stupid. What is the true problem?

[Alex Djaferis]

I never think it is right or can be outright justified. But I don't blame certain terrorists for doing what they do - those guys are brain dead and brainwashed. Doesn't make them right by any means. It's hard to change attitudes on something that is bricked into their heads from the get go. If an army came under the guise to liberate my country but killed my entire family by accident in the process, I'd be pissed as hell too and most certainly would want those responsible's held accountable. Most can't catch a whiff of justice so they turn to extremes. Of course this is just a silly small example in a hugely larger probelm but what I guess I am saying is that there are just far too many angles to look at this from to get any sort of concrete answer.

[MyNameIsRoss]

no. but i understand it to an extent.

[saysmydoctor]

Sorry? Could you be more vague? I'm not understanding you as it is.
I can't help you with reading comprehension.

The US has a standard policy not to communicate with terrorists. We don't strike deals and work in cooperation with them or make compromises. My point was that the people, the public at large, ultimately approves of their actions because they aren't really listened to by the Israelis or the Americans. You think the Palestinians didn't know what they were signing up for when they went to the polls and voted for 'terrorists?'

I think the fundamentalist terrorists are misguided in a lot of ways; their sexist and racist views undermine the credibility of their attacks on the US and the Western world and some of their more vile attacks (polling places, clubs, metro facilities)--but attacks against military convoys, bases, or our headquarters (the Pentagon), though tragic and scary, are in some ways justified.

I'm not like advocating for them to continue just bombing stuff. But if and when it does happen, I can't get outraged at them and not get outraged at my government for allowing this scenario to play out because it is obscenely short-sighted and hypocritical.

[Scrandon]

I never think it is right or can be outright justified. But I don't blame certain terrorists for doing what they do - those guys are brain dead and brainwashed. Doesn't make them right by any means. It's hard to change attitudes on something that is bricked into their heads from the get go. If an army came under the guise to liberate my country but killed my entire family by accident in the process, I'd be pissed as hell too and most certainly would want those responsible's held accountable. Most can't catch a whiff of justice so they turn to extremes. Of course this is just a silly small example in a hugely larger probelm but what I guess I am saying is that there are just far too many angles to look at this from to get any sort of concrete answer.

Can you blame the people who are doing the brainwashing? Or is everyone just off the hook for being ignorant?

[Midget Pirates]

Really?

Hell, look, the Palestinians elected Hezbollah.

Hamas

[saysmydoctor]

Okay, well then show me the light, don't just call me stupid. What is the true problem?
Well, it was riddled with xenophobia. Problem numero uno.

[saysmydoctor]

Hamas
Thank you, yeah haha, I knew Hezbollah didn't sound right. I knew it had an H and a z-sound. Middle East isn't really my thing. :shrug:

[Yellowcard2006]

No it's not

[Alex Djaferis]

Can you blame the people who are doing the brainwashing? Or is everyone just off the hook for being ignorant?

I don't know who would be to blame but one thing I believe is that we have no right to finger point whilst we continue to 'liberate' countries (that are wrongly deemed a threat) and flatten the countries entire safety and livelihood in the process. It's only natural that the 'liberators' are then targeted by extremists.

[Scrandon]

Well, it was riddled with xenophobia. Problem numero uno.

I'm standing by it until someone at least tries to explain an alternative.

[Scrandon]

People are getting so off topic. Trying to prove your point based off of a failed policy has no merit as to whether or not terrorism is justified.

[SlappedActor]

No

[subwaycollision]

If you say it is understandable, then you should believe that there should be no retaliation and that the U.S. should change whatever they did to make the terrorists mad. As far as I know, this consists of not worshiping their god and not making our women wear parkas and be second class citizens.

Not justifiable, nor understandable to me.

Wait - so according to you the terrorists and mad and angry simply because American's don't believe in their God and/or they don't treat women like shit? You honestly think that's where the negativity stems from?

And the fact that you thew the "women wear(ing) parkas and be second class citizens" to somehow back up your 'point', for lack of a better word, is just sad.

[Alex Djaferis]

You can't look at it as if its a stand alone issue. It's not a clear cut black and white. Terrorism is bred from the plethora of actions that are executed by the policies in place.

[saysmydoctor]

I'm standing by it until someone at least tries to explain an alternative.
Do I really need to explain to you the alternative to xenophobia?
People are getting so off topic. Trying to prove your point based off of a failed policy has no merit as to whether or not terrorism is justified.
It's not just one policy, it's an example. We can do a case by case breakdown of US foreign policy concerning the Middle East if you want to. I don't know if you've noticed, there are two resounding quagmires in the news constantly. We can break those down? And we can see how they have both fractured the stability of the Middle East (see: Pakistan, Yemen).

[Scrandon]

Wait - so according to you the terrorists and mad and angry simply because American's don't believe in their God and/or they don't treat women like shit? You honestly think that's where the negativity stems from?

And the fact that you thew the "women wear(ing) parkas and be second class citizens" to somehow back up your 'point', for lack of a better word, is just sad.

Explain, then.

[TheProsAndCons]

Since the majority of the pepole posting in this thread are American, the majority of responses will be no,
If this thread was reversed (Is what the American's are doing to the middle east justifieable), and the majority of pepole posting in this thread were middle eastern, the responses would be no.

Also, some of you are saying "blah blah blah innocent lives, blah" but I think you forget that they have lost more innocent lives then you have, and their country is inhabited by a bunch of pepole from your country, trying to change their country to be more like your country, so my answer is it's not justifiable, but it is definetley understandable, and I think anyone who can acctually think for themselves, would have the same answer.

[Scrandon]

Do I really need to explain to you the alternative to xenophobia?

You call it xenophobic, but I want to see you describe the situation in a way to your liking. Now do it, stop dancing around it.

[Scrandon]

Since the majority of the pepole posting in this thread are American, the majority of responses will be no,
If this thread was reversed (Is what the American's are doing to the middle east justifieable), and the majority of pepole posting in this thread were middle eastern, the responses would be no.

Also, some of you are saying "blah blah blah innocent lives, blah" but I think you forget that they have losed more innocent lives then you have, and their country is inhabited by a bunch of pepole from your country, trying to change their country to be more like your country, so my answer is it's not justifiable, but it is definetley understandable, and I think anyone who can acctually think for themselves, would have the same answer.

Thanks you for being extremely generic.

Anyway, your reasoning is based on events that occurred after the terrorist attacks took place, and therefore irrelevant to whether or not the original attack was 'understandable'.

[TheProsAndCons]

Thanks you for being extremely generic.

Anyway, your reasoning is based on events that occurred after the terrorist attacks took place, and therefore irrelevant to whether or not the original attack was 'understandable'.

Thank you for being a generic catholic.

[Scrandon]

...right

[caveBEAR]

But seriously. Is this thread for real?

No...it's all in your miiiiiiinnnnd...:rolleyes:

[TheProsAndCons]

...right

So you think that your religious views don't change your views on teroists?

[hurryupbrett]

Thanks you for being extremely generic.

Anyway, your reasoning is based on events that occurred after the terrorist attacks took place, and therefore irrelevant to whether or not the original attack was 'understandable'.

:hitself:

[Scrandon]

So you think that your religious views don't change your views on teroists?

I didn't care much about being called generic in retaliation to me calling someone generic.

[whiterussian]

Most victims of terrorism have little to do with the US.

So how about we phrase it this way:

was 9/11 justified? Were the London subway bombings justified?

When western military forces act, no matter how many civilians are killed, the goal is to disarm, to disable the threat posed by militants.
Terrorist attacks, which by definition target civilians, might have an effect on public opinion, which may in turn slightly disable the attacked country. That is the most that can be said about this subject.

[myplanforescape]

I'm more of a lurker, but this thread reminded me of this.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_IrtPpCgvEH4/S66RDa4lgQI/AAAAAAAAB5I/YoYyaxU2p4o/s1600/relativism2.jpg
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_IrtPpCgvEH4/S66RDa4lgQI/AAAAAAAAB5I/YoYyaxU2p4o/s1600/relativism2.jpg)

[paper halo]

Thanks you for being extremely generic.

Anyway, your reasoning is based on events that occurred after the terrorist attacks took place, and therefore irrelevant to whether or not the original attack was 'understandable'.

He didn't specify any events... A few potentials are listed here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivations_of_the_September_11_att acks)

[whiterussian]

No...it's all in your miiiiiiinnnnd...:rolleyes:

I'm not doing a background check on what kind of poster you are. But I hope you understood that I meant it is almost ridiculous to think Middle Eastern suicide bombing is justified.

[caveBEAR]

I'm not doing a background check on what kind of poster you are. But I hope you understood that I meant it is almost ridiculous to think Middle Eastern suicide bombing is justified.

Of course it's absurd to think violence against innocents (in any case) is justified. However, seeing as most people can't even pin down the definition of 'justification' I think it's a little absurd to write off the entire topic of discussion.

[subwaycollision]

Explain, then.

It is probably the backlash to the continued and incessant interference of America in Middle Eastern affairs.

Of course 9/11 isn't justified, obviously not. No one in this thread, I think has said that. Here's what you specifically don't seem to be understanding - the terrorists are blindly following self proclaimed leaders that are twisting the religion of Islam into some jihad-loving nonsense.

It is only understandable in the sense that the terrorists are brain washed. They are literally coerced into believing that what they are doing is for some greater good - which ultimately ties in with the leader's distorted view of the religion.

[caveBEAR]

Attacks against coalition troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are justified. Completely.

Isn't 'terrorism' generally applied to a non-military stance? Such as attacking civilians?

I agree with you, political figures and military targets are definitely justifiable (especially if the military is an invading force). Signing up for politics or the military takes you off that 'innocents' list, in my opinion. I still don't condone any violence against another person, but I can understand the justification in that scenario.

[caveBEAR]

This is the same type of person who would become completely outraged at the news of the military killing civilians in a war, where is the consistency?

Are you fucking serious? Civilians didn't sign up for the war, you tool.

[caveBEAR]

If you say it is understandable, then you should believe that there should be no retaliation and that the U.S. should change whatever they did to make the terrorists mad. As far as I know, this consists of not worshiping their god and not making our women wear parkas and be second class citizens.

Not justifiable, nor understandable to me.

Hey, everyone look! Someone who doesn't understand world affairs but thinks they do! Quick!

[whiterussian]

Of course it's absurd to think violence against innocents (in any case) is justified. However, seeing as most people can't even pin down the definition of 'justification' I think it's a little absurd to write off the entire topic of discussion.

I propose then that this thread implode.

Everybody agrees that there are causes for terrorism. Everyone agrees people shouldn't kill others, or die doing so.

Trying to morally explain the conflict is a chicken and egg debate. Everyone has been done wrong at some point.

[Scrandon]

It is probably the backlash to the continued and incessant interference of America in Middle Eastern affairs.

Of course 9/11 isn't justified, obviously not. No one in this thread, I think has said that. Here's what you specifically don't seem to be understanding - the terrorists are blindly following self proclaimed leaders that are twisting the religion of Islam into some jihad-loving nonsense.

It is only understandable in the sense that the terrorists are brain washed. They are literally coerced into believing that what they are doing is for some greater good - which ultimately ties in with the leader's distorted view of the religion.

So when I say they hate us because we don't believe in their god, I am totally wrong, then you come back with this? That is incredibly dense.

Anyway, the 'self proclaimed leaders' are terrorists too, so we can talk about whether their actions are justified or understandable as well.

[Scrandon]

Are you fucking serious? Civilians didn't sign up for the war, you tool.

Neither did the people in the World Trade Center, but people here seem to think it was understandable.

The same people who would never deem it understandable for the U.S. army to kill civilians in a war.

[Scrandon]

Wow 5 pages and nobody has added anything more than useless rhetorical questions. Peace out.

[caveBEAR]

Neither did the people in the World Trade Center, but people here seem to think it was understandable.

The same people who would never deem it understandable for the U.S. army to kill civilians in a war.

Both are understandable, neither justifiable.

[Scrandon]

Both are understandable, neither justifiable.

Understandable? What good comes from the latter?

[caveBEAR]

Understandable? What good comes from the latter?

Who said something good has to come from something to understand the reasoning behind it. I babysat my cousins last night, and one of them smacked the shit out of the other one for taking his toy. Do I understand why he hit him? Of course. Do I justify it? Not at all.

[TheProsAndCons]

Wow 5 pages and nobody has added anything more than useless rhetorical questions. Peace out.

Haha you're acctually the biggest fucking tool going, when you learn to think for yourself, please come back into this thread with a valid point.

[Alex Djaferis]

Who said something good has to come from something to understand the reasoning behind it. I babysat my cousins last night, and one of them smacked the shit out of the other one for taking his toy. Do I understand why he hit him? Of course. Do I justify it? Not at all.

/thread

[Scrandon]

Who said something good has to come from something to understand the reasoning behind it. I babysat my cousins last night, and one of them smacked the shit out of the other one for taking his toy. Do I understand why he hit him? Of course. Do I justify it? Not at all.

Well I can't argue with you when you cease to use logic.

[caveBEAR]

Well I can't argue with you when you cease to use logic.

:mellow:

Why don't you explain to me exactly where the logic ceased?

[Scrandon]

:mellow:

Why don't you explain to me exactly where the logic ceased?

You think it's okay to kill someone even if no good comes out of it.

[Americanism]

Neither did the people in the World Trade Center, but people here seem to think it was understandable.

The same people who would never deem it understandable for the U.S. army to kill civilians in a war.

As somebody who earlier stated that it may be understandable in certain circumstances I would definitely agree that the pendulum swings both ways. I would just rather my country and its people hold ourselves to a higher standard than, lets be honest, the barbarians. So yes I guess even all the way down to Gitmo can be viewed as understandable but I'd rather try to progress humanity as a whole and set a precedent of honorable behavior.

[paper halo]

:hitself:

[MyWorldEntire]

Who said something good has to come from something to understand the reasoning behind it. I babysat my cousins last night, and one of them smacked the shit out of the other one for taking his toy. Do I understand why he hit him? Of course. Do I justify it? Not at all.

Pretty much this.

[Americanism]

Who said something good has to come from something to understand the reasoning behind it. I babysat my cousins last night, and one of them smacked the shit out of the other one for taking his toy. Do I understand why he hit him? Of course. Do I justify it? Not at all.

Ya this would be considered a summation of this thread and about 2/3 of the opinions on here. Well put.

[caveBEAR]

You think it's okay to kill someone even if no good comes out of it.

::deep inhale::

Do you lack a fundamental understanding the human language? Let's look at my post again;

Who said something good has to come from something to understand the reasoning behind it. I babysat my cousins last night, and one of them smacked the shit out of the other one for taking his toy. Do I understand why he hit him? Of course. Do I justify it? Not at all.

Read it one more time and see if you can figure out for yourself where your reading comprehension went askew. If not, I can help you at a later point.

[xshady121]

Wow this thread really blew up.

[jwicklun]

Wow 5 pages and nobody has added anything more than useless rhetorical questions. Peace out.
Let me give you an easier example.
In Star Wars episode II, Anakin's mom gets kidnapped and tortured by Tuskan Raiders. Anakin finds his mom, and she dies in her arms. Now we can understand his anger toward the Tuskan raiders, and can sympothize. However, Anakin killing the Tuskan raider group is far too much, and although we understand his anger, his actions cannot be justified. Now moving on toward terrorists and radical muslims. Some are heavily angry at foreign US policy, because of the actions taken in place in Afganistan and Iraq. Their frustrations can be understandable, but their actions are not justified. I think thats the point everyone is trying to make out.

[caveBEAR]

Let me give you an easier example.
In Star Wars episode II, Anakin's mom gets kidnapped and tortured by Tuskan Raiders. Anakin finds his mom, and she dies in her arms. Now we can understand his anger toward the Tuskan raiders, and can sympothize. However, Anakin killing the Tuskan raider group is far too much, and although we understand his anger, his actions cannot be justified.

:appl:

[caveBEAR]

Scrandon....?

[deFobbed14yrs]

they are the "freedom fighters" of their people.
and you have to look at the history of the country. But i do not condone violence in anyway, especially one country attacking another. But we're doing the same thing in Iraq that Afghanistan did to us and what the USSR did to Afghanistan.
Not justified though.

[jwicklun]

"one man's terrorist, is another's freedom fighter...."

[perceptrons]

As somebody who earlier stated that it may be understandable in certain circumstances I would definitely agree that the pendulum swings both ways. I would just rather my country and its people hold ourselves to a higher standard than, lets be honest, the barbarians. So yes I guess even all the way down to Gitmo can be viewed as understandable but I'd rather try to progress humanity as a whole and set a precedent of honorable behavior.
Just wondering, who exactly are you calling barbarians?

[alice+interiors]

Thanks you for being extremely generic.

Anyway, your reasoning is based on events that occurred after the terrorist attacks took place, and therefore irrelevant to whether or not the original attack was 'understandable'.
1. This isn't about one specific attack, like 9/11. I don't like your display of ignorance on this topic - try the London bombings in July 2005 and the Madrid bombings in 2004. These were in direct retaliation to wars instigated in Afghanistan and Iraq.

2. You want to know why 9/11 happened? Say for just one minute that it was Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda behind the attacks on 9/11 - I, for one, am highly sceptical about this fact, but I don't think this is what you are debating - it is widely accepted that their reasoning for doing this was the US military's desecration of Muslim holy ground in Saudi Arabia, after they forced Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. The US had no right to do this - does this answer your question on what angered/provoked the rebels of the Middle East, and may have consequently led to 9/11?

[alice+interiors]

As somebody who earlier stated that it may be understandable in certain circumstances I would definitely agree that the pendulum swings both ways. I would just rather my country and its people hold ourselves to a higher standard than, lets be honest, the barbarians. So yes I guess even all the way down to Gitmo can be viewed as understandable but I'd rather try to progress humanity as a whole and set a precedent of honorable behavior.
Would you like to know who I think the barbarians are? The troops in Iraq, still present over six years since the 'end' of the war, who have killed, pillaged, and raped the land of it's natural resources. And those countries which put them there. Get the hell down off your high horse.

[perceptrons]

1. This isn't about one specific attack, like 9/11. I don't like your display of ignorance on this topic - try the London bombings in July 2005 and the Madrid bombings in 2004. These were in direct retaliation to wars instigated in Afghanistan and Iraq.

2. You want to know why 9/11 happened? Say for just one minute that it was Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda behind the attacks on 9/11 - I, for one, am highly sceptical about this fact, but I don't think this is what you are debating
Rut-roh.

[caveBEAR]

Ha.

[alice+interiors]

Rut-roh.
I'm not saying it was an American government conspiracy (I'm not one of them) - but I am just not persuaded of bin Laden's guilt. He feels like a scapegoat. Why did he never admit to it? How would it benefit him otherwise?
I am perfectly happy to accept it could've been any number of splinter organisations from the East. That's all I'm saying.

[Midget Pirates]

Say for just one minute that it was Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda behind the attacks on 9/11 - I, for one, am highly sceptical about this fact,

this alone should disqualify you from speaking on any issues regarding terrorism.

[Midget Pirates]

I'm not saying it was an American government conspiracy (I'm not one of them) - but I am just not persuaded of bin Laden's guilt. He feels like a scapegoat. Why did he never admit to it? How would it benefit him otherwise?
I am perfectly happy to accept it could've been any number of splinter organisations from the East. That's all I'm saying.

oh he didn't admit to it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_laden#September_11.2C_200 1_attacks

goddamn, do some basic reading.

[alice+interiors]

this alone should disqualify you from speaking on any issues regarding terrorism.
Did you read my above post?

[Midget Pirates]

Would you like to know who I think the barbarians are? The troops in Iraq, still present over six years since the 'end' of the war, who have killed, pillaged, and raped the land of it's natural resources. And those countries which put them there. Get the hell down off your high horse.

evidence of pillaging and raping please?

[Midget Pirates]

Did you read my above post?

yes. you think Bin Laden is just a scapegoat. you obviously do not have the proper background knowledge to talk on this subject.

[Midget Pirates]

OJ is innocent.

[alice+interiors]

oh he didn't admit to it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_laden#September_11.2C_200 1_attacks

goddamn, do some basic reading.
Don't be so fucking opaque.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#Reports_of_his_deat h

edit: perhaps I have not made myself clear. Obama had a kidney condition, the likes of which would have required sterile environment, electricity, and continuous attention by a team of specialists. Where would he have conveniently got these from, while in hiding in 'Afghan plains'?

[Americanism]

Just wondering, who exactly are you calling barbarians?

Radical cave dwelling muslims and 9/11 glorifying violence threatening Jihadists. Apologies for the lack of clarity.

[Midget Pirates]

Don't be so fucking opaque.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#Reports_of_his_deat h

yeah that link of the reports of his death totally proves he's just a scapegoat. X-)

nice vocab use with the word opaque though.

[alice+interiors]

evidence of pillaging and raping please?
lol where has Iraq's oil gone?

[alice+interiors]

yeah that link of the reports of his death totally proves he's just a scapegoat. X-)

nice vocab use with the word opaque though.
He's so unlikely to have still been alive in late 2004, or whenever he 'admitted' carrying out the 9/11 attacks. He also denied any association with it for a long time before that. I simply don't believe he was alive then, and that the video was probably faked in order to maintain dwindling public support for Bush' illegal wars, a MERE TWO DAYS before the 2004 Presidential election. Now isn't that just a little bit convenient?

[Alex Djaferis]

yes. you think Bin Laden is just a scapegoat. you obviously do not have the proper background knowledge to talk on this subject.

And what background do you have to educate us on this subject?

[Americanism]

Would you like to know who I think the barbarians are? The troops in Iraq, still present over six years since the 'end' of the war, who have killed, pillaged, and raped the land of it's natural resources. And those countries which put them there. Get the hell down off your high horse.

Well don't get me wrong I wouldn't call civilians with rocket launchers on the streets of baghdad barbarians by any means. If I was in their position and somebody was here I'd be doing the same exact thing. Once again my bad on lack of clarity. However with that said I have to say I am not going to get told to get off my high horse by an extremist who generalizes such an enormous spectrum of people so incredibly negatively. Some of the greatest human beings on this earth are troops in Iraq, going through things none of us could EVER imagine. Especially considering most of the horrible things you mentioned are mainly committed by private security companies like blackwater; which are in my opinion the single worst decision of the Iraq war since most of the hatred for American troops spawns from those companies actions and the actions of men like Erik Prince. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Prince)

[alice+interiors]

Well don't get me wrong I wouldn't call civilians with rocket launchers on the streets of baghdad barbarians by any means. If I was in their position and somebody was here I'd be doing the same exact thing. Once again my bad on lack of clarity. However with that said I have to say I am not going to get told to get off my high horse by an extremist who generalizes such an enormous spectrum of people so incredibly negatively. Some of the greatest human beings on this earth are troops in Iraq, going through things none of us could EVER imagine. Especially considering most of the horrible things you mentioned are mainly committed by private security companies like blackwater; which are in my opinion the single worst decision of the Iraq war since most of the hatred for American troops spawns from those companies actions and the actions of men like Erik Prince. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Prince)
I don't doubt the troop soldiers in Iraq are good people - the same way I find it difficult to decide where the line should be drawn in relation to how accountable German foot soldiers were in Nazi Germany. Now this is an EXAMPLE - I am not suggesting America = Nazis before everybody erupts into tears - but they are again 'just doing their job'. As so many of those set on trial for war crimes after WWII later claimed.

[Midget Pirates]

And what background do you have to educate us on this subject?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#September_11.2C_200 1_attacks

basically you can believe the conspiracy rantings, or you can do some basic readings of the overwhelming evidence against Bin Laden. I mean this is basic stuff, I'm not claiming to be an expert.

[Midget Pirates]

He's so unlikely to have still been alive in late 2004, or whenever he 'admitted' carrying out the 9/11 attacks. He also denied any association with it for a long time before that. I simply don't believe he was alive then, and that the video was probably faked in order to maintain dwindling public support for Bush' illegal wars, a MERE TWO DAYS before the 2004 Presidential election. Now isn't that just a little bit convenient?

well now that you say it like that. that is totally convenient.

[Alex Djaferis]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#September_11.2C_200 1_attacks

basically you can believe the conspiracy rantings, or you can do some basic readings of the overwhelming evidence against Bin Laden. I mean this is basic stuff, I'm not claiming to be an expert.

It also only takes a bit of basic reading to collect a bunch of information that with a bit of thought and mental dot connecting can easily suggest a different story entirely.

[Midget Pirates]

lol where has Iraq's oil gone?

i don't know. enlighten us. provide evidence.

[Midget Pirates]

It also only takes a bit of basic reading to collect a bunch of information that with a bit of thought and mental dot connecting can easily begin to suggest a different story entirely.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=7743936

back from the dead?

[Alex Djaferis]

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=7743936

back from the dead?

Yeah I took you a bit out of context so let's get back on him then. I couldn't give a crap if he is dead or alive I am sure that he is never meant to be caught so that there is always a central enemy leader figure to rally support for military action. The USA cannot afford to catch him just yet - they have other agenda's in the region that need fulfilling before they can even begin to leave.

Invade, sustain. That's been the war mantra since god knows when.

[alice+interiors]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#September_11.2C_200 1_attacks

basically you can believe the conspiracy rantings, or you can do some basic readings of the overwhelming evidence against Bin Laden. I mean this is basic stuff, I'm not claiming to be an expert.
Alright, alright. Let's go through and I will attempt to annotate the holy scriptures of Wikipedia where I see fit. After this I am retiring to bed, as I have a busy day tomorrow. Moan all you like.

After initial denial, in 2004 Osama bin Laden claimed responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.[85] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#cite_note-84)[86] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#cite_note-cbc-2004-85)[87] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#cite_note-86) The attacks involved the hijacking of four commercial passenger aircraft,[88] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#cite_note-87) the subsequent destruction of those planes and the World Trade Center (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center) in New York City, New York, severe damage to The Pentagon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon) in Arlington, Virginia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlington,_Virginia)[89] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#cite_note-88), and the deaths of 2,974 people and the nineteen hijackers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizers_of_the_September_11_atta cks#List_of_the_hijackers).[90] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#cite_note-89) In response to the attacks, the United States launched a War on Terror (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terror) to depose the Taliban (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban) regime in Afghanistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan) and capture al-Qaeda operatives, and several countries strengthened their anti-terrorism legislation to preclude future attacks. The CIA's Special Activities Division (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Activities_Division) was given the lead in tracking down and killing or capturing bin Laden.[91] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#cite_note-90)
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation) has stated that classified[92] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#cite_note-91) evidence linking Al-Qaeda and bin Laden to the attacks of September 11 is clear and irrefutable.[93] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#cite_note-92) The Government of the United Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Her_Majesty%27s_Government) reached a similar conclusion regarding Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden's culpability for the September 11, 2001, attacks although the government report notes that the evidence presented is insufficient for a prosecutable case.[94] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#cite_note-93) Bin Laden initially denied involvement in the attacks. On September 16, 2001, bin Laden read a statement later broadcast by Qatar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar)'s Al Jazeera (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera) satellite channel denying responsibility for the attack.[95] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#cite_note-94)
In a videotape recovered by US forces in November 2001 in Jalalabad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jalalabad,_Afghanistan), bin Laden was seen discussing the attack with Khaled al-Harbi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khaled_al-Harbi) in a way that indicates foreknowledge.[96] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#cite_note-95) The tape was broadcast on various news networks on December 13, 2001. The merits of this translation have been disputed. Arabist Dr. Abdel El M. Husseini stated: "This translation is very problematic. At the most important places where it is held to prove the guilt of bin Laden, it is not identical with the Arabic."[97] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#cite_note-96)
In the 2004 Osama bin Laden video (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Osama_bin_Laden_video), bin Laden abandoned his denials without retracting past statements. In it he stated he had personally directed the nineteen hijackers.[86] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#cite_note-cbc-2004-85)[98] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#cite_note-97) In the 18-minute tape, played on Al-Jazeera, four days before the American presidential election, bin Laden accused U.S. President George W. Bush of negligence on the hijacking of the planes on September 11.[86] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#cite_note-cbc-2004-85)
According to the tapes, bin Laden claimed he was inspired to destroy the World Trade Center after watching the destruction of towers in Lebanon by Israel during the 1982 Lebanon War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Lebanon_War).[99] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#cite_note-98)
In two other tapes aired by Al Jazeera in 2006, Osama bin Laden announces,
I am the one in charge of the nineteen brothers … I was responsible for entrusting the nineteen brothers … with the raids [5 minute audiotape broadcast May 23, 2006],[100] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#cite_note-99)
and is seen with Ramzi Binalshibh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramzi_Binalshibh), as well as two of the 9/11 hijackers, Hamza al-Ghamdi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamza_al-Ghamdi) and Wail al-Shehri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wail_al-Shehri), as they make preparations for the attacks (videotape broadcast September 7, 2006).[101 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#cite_note-100)
1. First interesting point. Why would Osama bin Laden, who complained that George Bush and the American people were not listening to him in video of 29th/30th October 2004, time its release of his 'admitting' his wrong-doing at a moment (2/3 days before the 2004 Presidential election) which would only boost Bush' popularity? Call the man sick and twisted, but why would he want to risk bringing four more years of the same American wrath down upon himself?

2. Interesting this. I do not suggest that the evidence should be made public, if it is real, but it is certainly interesting that the 'overwhelming evidence' that you speak of so far amounts to nothing available to the general public. Maybe a little more transparency in the secret services should be established?

3. Riddle me this; if they could not even tie bin Laden to 9/11 in such a way that would even stand up in court, how can a war in which thousands of innocent civilians died, were injured, or were evicted from their homes, be justified?

4. Again, what would have been the point? He must have known, had he been involved, that the US would be determined to seek retribution, especially under the reign of such a man as George Bush.

5. Notice the vague language here, for example - 'indicates'. There is no irrefutable evidence to support this claim. Additionally, foreknowledge, while obviously not what should be condoned, does not necessarily mean that he orchestrated the attacks themselves.

6. I don't think I have to explain the significance of this passage. In no court of law would a translation which does not match up at key moments be permitted to be used as evidence. Why should this case be any different?

7. To emphasise the legitimacy of the videotape, it would surely have been key for him to explain why he had held out before admitting his 'guilt'. It makes zero sense.


8. Again, I draw your attention to the date. You keep clutching at your straw of convenience, go ahead.

9. Pure crap. All the splinter cells which immediately claimed responsibility for 9/11 said it was a response to the desecration of their Islamic Holy ground. Why the sudden change of policy?

10. Seriously, this is such a turnaround. At another stage where Bush' popularity was in rapid decline, another hatred fueled video from bin Laden - totally going against his original denials in the most plain language possible - appears. Also, at May 23rd 2006, there is even less chance that he was still alive than October 2004.

I'm done here. I hope you can see the sense in my arguments; how ridiculous the case against bin Laden truly is.

[Americanism]

I don't doubt the troop soldiers in Iraq are good people - the same way I find it difficult to decide where the line should be drawn in relation to how accountable German foot soldiers were in Nazi Germany. Now this is an EXAMPLE - I am not suggesting America = Nazis before everybody erupts into tears - but they are again 'just doing their job'. As so many of those set on trial for war crimes after WWII later claimed.

No worries, you gave a fair enough analogy. Though crimes on one side are DRASTICALLY worse, that is the whole point of a comparison after all. Its just try to imagine people who are raised and bred into the complete counter to the lifestyle you live. They signed up for nobility and pride and are now experiencing crazy emotional journeys that would, and does, leave many traumatized for life. For some the confusion is so much that being in Iraq is all they can handle. Some returning soldiers are so uneasy in the states they go on several tours. Some returning soldiers have called the Iraq war a drug. For a conservative and sheltered young American this experience sounds harder than almost anything an American can face. So with that and the fact that I have numerous friends there right now, its just impossible for me to speak negatively about troops at all. Some are bad, some are very bad, and some are very unlucky.

[perceptrons]

Radical cave dwelling muslims and 9/11 glorifying violence threatening Jihadists. Apologies for the lack of clarity.
I figured that's what you meant, I was just hoping I was wrong.

[studskalny]

evidence of pillaging and raping please?

If you just look at Iraq, and the damage caused by our various sanctions (during the Gulf War and Iraq War), you can begin to see his point to an extent. This isn't even looking at the inevitable civilian and urban casualties or getting into the other countries which we've affected in wars. Not to mention Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11.

Sources:
http://fff.org/freedom/fd0401c.asp
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/garfield/dr-garfield.html
^ Just off the top of my head.

I think some people are thinking of this as "Oh well they started it by 9/11" and not thinking of our actions in the past which may have ignited the flame of those attacks. This buildup of hate towards the West could go all the way back to the Reagan administration. I'm with the people saying they can understand it, but can't justify it.

[rawspinner]

I'm more of a lurker, but this thread reminded me of this.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_IrtPpCgvEH4/S66RDa4lgQI/AAAAAAAAB5I/YoYyaxU2p4o/s1600/relativism2.jpg
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_IrtPpCgvEH4/S66RDa4lgQI/AAAAAAAAB5I/YoYyaxU2p4o/s1600/relativism2.jpg)

"one man's terrorist, is another's freedom fighter...."

I had a huge comment written up, but I wonder how many of us just got ourselves on the FBI watch list. :-|

[caveBEAR]

Only took 8 pages to lose sight of the debate...

[loveisdead]

Only took 8 pages to lose sight of the debate...

I don't think it's really gone too far off topic.

For those saying it is understandable but not justifiable...what would make it so that it was justifiable? It seems like you're (not specifically you Sean) walking a fine line and playing a bit of semantics. I do not condone any violent attacks, especially on civilians, but I'm curious as to the other options opponents of it propose? What are they supposed to do when we constantly have our people in their country trying to change the way they work? The countries in the middle east are sovereign countries, so what right do we have to meddle in their business? I think after you consider all the shit we have done in the middle east for decades now, they are justified in their response.

[p93]

Kenny Powers: Sure, I've been called a xenophobe, but the truth is, I'm not. I honestly just feel that America is the best country and the other countries aren't as good. That used to be called patriotism.

[caveBEAR]

I don't think it's really gone too far off topic.

For those saying it is understandable but not justifiable...what would make it so that it was justifiable? It seems like you're (not specifically you Sean) walking a fine line and playing a bit of semantics. I do not condone any violent attacks, especially on civilians, but I'm curious as to the other options opponents of it propose? What are they supposed to do when we constantly have our people in their country trying to change the way they work? The countries in the middle east are sovereign countries, so what right do we have to meddle in their business? I think after you consider all the shit we have done in the middle east for decades now, they are justified in their response.

I just don't justify violence against civilians, innocents, etc. I mean, to use the Star Wars example, Luke attacked the Death Star, he didn't blow up the Cantina. Military and political targets (especially in oppressed countries) are fair game as far as I'm concerned, but once you've attacked innocent civilians, you've lost the moral high ground you may have had before (in my opinion).

[loveisdead]

I just don't justify violence against civilians, innocents, etc. I mean, to use the Star Wars example, Luke attacked the Death Star, he didn't blow up the Cantina. Military and political targets (especially in oppressed countries) are fair game as far as I'm concerned, but once you've attacked innocent civilians, you've lost the moral high ground you may have had before (in my opinion).

And both sides are guilty of it.

[caveBEAR]

And both sides are guilty of it.

Definitely.

[loveisdead]

Definitely.

That's my point. We found it justifiable to occupy their lands, try and change the way their country runs etc. etc. What are they supposed to do? I really don't know. I completely understand why they do what they do.

[caveBEAR]

That's my point. We found it justifiable to occupy their lands, try and change the way their country runs etc. etc. What are they supposed to do? I really don't know. I completely understand why they do what they do.

That's the exact way I feel. I don't justify either ends actions, but I understand how we got here. I just think that how we got here has been pretty much a clusterfuck the entire way.

Keep in mind as well, my 'I don't justify violence' is coming from me sitting in my air-conditioned room in the good ole' U.S. of A. Who knows how I would react if I didn't have the option to be philosophical and bleeding-heart about the situation. I don't do good when someone tells me what to do, so I'm sure I would react just like the angry youths in these countries.

But wouldn't it be better if we all just got along. :shrug: / :rolleyes:


The world's too confusing for black and white answers, anyway.

[ActionActionFan]

All I can do is hope this is a joke. If you say yes you're an idiot.

[loveisdead]

All I can do is hope this is a joke. If you say yes you're an idiot.
Why?

[ActionActionFan]

Why?

I really do not see how flying planes into buildings and killing innocent people can be justified.

[loveisdead]

I really do not see how flying planes into buildings and killing innocent people can be justified.

How do you not see the other side of the coin? First the question was about terrorism in general, not 9/11. I'll pose the same question to you that Chomsky posed. Why is it ok for us to fire missiles into their pharmaceutical buildings but not ok for them to fly a plane into one of our buildings? Obviously both acts are reprehensible, but if we committed our act first, then surely you can see why they felt the need to do what they did.

[Midget Pirates]

How do you not see the other side of the coin? First the question was about terrorism in general, not 9/11. I'll pose the same question to you that Chomsky posed. Why is it ok for us to fire missiles into their pharmaceutical buildings but not ok for them to fly a plane into one of our buildings? Obviously both acts are reprehensible, but if we committed our act first, then surely you can see why they felt the need to do what they did.

I believe the Clinton administration believed those buildings were developing nerve gas and some al-qaeda ties? and it was done in the middle of the night if i remember correctly. in my opinion, the two shouldn't be compared.

edit to point out that the unintended consequences of the strike did result in huge losses for the Sudanese people due to lack of drugs to provide to cure things such as malaria.

[caveBEAR]

edit to point out that the unintended consequences of the strike did result in huge losses for the Sudanese people due to lack of drugs to provide to cure things such as malaria.

However;

I believe the Clinton administration believed those buildings were developing nerve gas and some al-qaeda ties? and it was done in the middle of the night if i remember correctly. in my opinion, the two shouldn't be compared.

:squint:

Really?

[Midget Pirates]

However;



:squint:

Really?

yeah i edited it after i originally posted that. still think the situations are a lot different though

[caveBEAR]

yeah i edited it after i originally posted that. still think the situations are a lot different though

If you want to look at final results, sure. However, we attacked what we thought was a military institution, and ended up bringing harm to civilians.

On 9/11 they attacked what they thought (and was) an economic institution, and ended up bringing harm to civilians.


Not all that dissimilar.

[Ishbalan]

Of course they're entitled to their own beliefs and ideas. But the violence, the world is much better off without.

[loveisdead]

Of course they're entitled to their own beliefs and ideas. But the violence, the world is much better off without.

Of course. That's extraordinarily idealistic though.

[studskalny]

I just don't justify violence against civilians, innocents, etc. I mean, to use the Star Wars example, Luke attacked the Death Star, he didn't blow up the Cantina. Military and political targets (especially in oppressed countries) are fair game as far as I'm concerned, but once you've attacked innocent civilians, you've lost the moral high ground you may have had before (in my opinion).

Yeah I agree with this, I had something like it in my initial post but got rid of it for some reason.

[jwicklun]

I just don't justify violence against civilians, innocents, etc. I mean, to use the Star Wars example, Luke attacked the Death Star, he didn't blow up the Cantina. Military and political targets (especially in oppressed countries) are fair game as far as I'm concerned, but once you've attacked innocent civilians, you've lost the moral high ground you may have had before (in my opinion).
hey whoa, if anyone is going to make the Star Wars comparisons, its going to be me,

[saysmydoctor]

I really do not see how flying planes into buildings and killing innocent people can be justified.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Shifa_pharmaceutical_factory

[whiterussian]

On 9/11 they attacked what they thought (and was) an economic institution, and ended up bringing harm to civilians.


Not all that dissimilar.

Seriously?

[xshady121]

I just don't justify violence against civilians, innocents, etc. I mean, to use the Star Wars example, Luke attacked the Death Star, he didn't blow up the Cantina. Military and political targets (especially in oppressed countries) are fair game as far as I'm concerned, but once you've attacked innocent civilians, you've lost the moral high ground you may have had before (in my opinion).

Weren't the contractors innocent civilians?

[macabre]

Weren't the contractors innocent civilians?

Hey man, a roofer's personal politics come heavily into play when choosing jobs.

n6lzEhoXads

[StrictlyBiznas]

How anyone could ever call the deaths of innocent people "justifiable" is beyond me.

[theguy77]

about as justified as instigating a civil war in a country, causing the kind of chaos and civil/structural disruption that the U.S. has hardly been TOUCHED by since 1865, and facilitating the death of hundreds of thousands somewhere else, just because you're like "hey our form of government is better than yours, and we're gonna force you to use it"

[alice+interiors]

I believe the Clinton administration believed those buildings were developing nerve gas and some al-qaeda ties? and it was done in the middle of the night if i remember correctly. in my opinion, the two shouldn't be compared.

edit to point out that the unintended consequences of the strike did result in huge losses for the Sudanese people due to lack of drugs to provide to cure things such as malaria.
Oh did you miss my post about your wikipedia page? Or did you just ignore it?

[jessicalynn-xx]

You think it's okay to kill someone even if no good comes out of it.

I LOL'd.

[jessicalynn-xx]

I think it's worth mentioning that most countries where terrorism is pervasive don't have a military that can really represent or defend them. At least, not a military that is comparable to those of highly developed, western nations. Terrorist groups that form are militias, and they don't have the means to carry out full scale invasions of or proper military attacks on larger, richer countries that they're threatened by, so they fly planes into buildings and bomb subway stations instead. I think in this sense, if you're someone who thinks a military strike against a perceived threat is justifiable, terrorist attacks certainly are. Either both things are justifiable or neither are.

[loveisdead]

I think it's worth mentioning that most countries where terrorism is pervasive don't have a military that can really represent or defend them. At least, not a military that is comparable to those of highly developed, western nations. Terrorist groups that form are militias, and they don't have the means to carry out full scale invasions of or proper military attacks on larger, richer countries that they're threatened by, so they fly planes into buildings and bomb subway stations instead. I think in this sense, if you're someone who thinks a military strike against a perceived threat is justifiable, terrorist attacks certainly are. Either both things are justifiable or neither are.

:appl: well done.

[studskalny]

That's a good point. But isn't it a bit hard to compare our military to the many different factions of 'terrorists' that could exist in a country? Isn't it that the nature of terrorism, as we think of it today, comes in small portions? In other words, a few guys bombing a subway, plane, etc. on their own is more prevalent than an entire country being perceived as, or supporting, terrorists.

You could make an argument concerning the U.S. military acting as a terrorist based on certain actions, but how do you compare that to radical individuals that often aren't supported by a large percentage of people in a particular country? Just curious..maybe I'm missing the point. I just think there's a fine line there, especially when talking about the harming of innocent people who don't even have control over military actions. I'm not saying that the U.S. isn't guilty of harming innocent civilians, as you can see by my previous post. That seems to be a better way of looking at whether the topic here is justifiable for some people, like theguy77 said.

Another thing to take into consideration is how a lot of these groups were first formed and supported: wealthy nations.
(http://absolutepunk.net/member.php?u=134760)

[caveBEAR]

Weren't the contractors innocent civilians?

So long as they weren't attached to the military. If you sign up with the military, you know what you're getting into. I don't condone acts of violence against them, but it's like the war-time reporters; they know what can happen to them. :shrug:

[caveBEAR]

I think it's worth mentioning that most countries where terrorism is pervasive don't have a military that can really represent or defend them. At least, not a military that is comparable to those of highly developed, western nations. Terrorist groups that form are militias, and they don't have the means to carry out full scale invasions of or proper military attacks on larger, richer countries that they're threatened by, so they fly planes into buildings and bomb subway stations instead. I think in this sense, if you're someone who thinks a military strike against a perceived threat is justifiable, terrorist attacks certainly are. Either both things are justifiable or neither are.

That's where I stand in theory. Not so much if I had to put it into practice, I'm sure.

[StrictlyBiznas]

I think it's worth mentioning that most countries where terrorism is pervasive don't have a military that can really represent or defend them. At least, not a military that is comparable to those of highly developed, western nations. Terrorist groups that form are militias, and they don't have the means to carry out full scale invasions of or proper military attacks on larger, richer countries that they're threatened by, so they fly planes into buildings and bomb subway stations instead. I think in this sense, if you're someone who thinks a military strike against a perceived threat is justifiable, terrorist attacks certainly are. Either both things are justifiable or neither are.

The World Trade Center towers were not a "perceived threat". They were 2 buildings filled with innocent people going about their lives. I can't believe people are trying to justify someone hijacking a plane full hundreds and crashing it into a building full of thousands. That and a military strike are two different things.

[Scrandon]

I think it's worth mentioning that most countries where terrorism is pervasive don't have a military that can really represent or defend them. At least, not a military that is comparable to those of highly developed, western nations. Terrorist groups that form are militias, and they don't have the means to carry out full scale invasions of or proper military attacks on larger, richer countries that they're threatened by, so they fly planes into buildings and bomb subway stations instead. I think in this sense, if you're someone who thinks a military strike against a perceived threat is justifiable, terrorist attacks certainly are. Either both things are justifiable or neither are.

We all knew this, as noted by our discussion of civilian vs. military targets. In addition, most people will not agree that a terrorist attack is justifiable because it is against civilians.

[Scrandon]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Shifa_pharmaceutical_factory

Hey look whose back...


Anyway, note:

The alleged use of the factory for the processing of VX nerve agent.

Therefore making the building a military target, and not comparable to the World Trade Center.

[jessicalynn-xx]

The World Trade Center towers were not a "perceived threat". They were 2 buildings filled with innocent people going about their lives. I can't believe people are trying to justify someone hijacking a plane full hundreds and crashing it into a building full of thousands. That and a military strike are two different things.

They aren't different things. The World Trade Center isn't a threat, the US is. Did you really think The WTC was selected because of some problem terrorists have with the WTC itself? It was an attack against America, not against the building itself. :-|

My point is that terrorist groups are independently functioning militias. Anything they do should be treated the same as a military strike. Terrorists killing innocent people in America is the same thing as American soldiers killing innocent Iraqis. That's the same exact thing. There's no difference at all. Can you explain to me the difference you see? I don't see a difference. I would like to point out that Iraq wasn't a perceived threat either. I would also like to point out that I didn't say they were justified. I said either both things are justifiable or neither are. I don't think either are justifiable.

[jessicalynn-xx]

We all knew this, as noted by our discussion of civilian vs. military targets. In addition, most people will not agree that a terrorist attack is justifiable because it is against civilians.
But civilians are killed and even targeted in wars and military strikes all the time. I said both things are justifiable or neither are. What makes it justifiable for the US to kill innocent civilians that could not also be applied to terrorists? Maybe you can be the one to explain the difference between terrorists killing innocent Americans, and the American military killing innocent Iraqis. I see no difference. I thought all human life was equal in this world. Guess I was wrong.

[Midget Pirates]

Oh did you miss my post about your wikipedia page? Or did you just ignore it?

sorry i'm not even going to bother responding to someone who thinks it was some right wing conspiracy to pretend bin laden was still alive to get George Bush re-elected in 2004.

[StrictlyBiznas]

They aren't different things. The World Trade Center isn't a threat, the US is. Did you really think The WTC was selected because of some problem terrorists have with the WTC itself? It was an attack against America, not against the building itself. :-|

My point is that terrorist groups are independently functioning militias. Anything they do should be treated the same as a military strike. Terrorists killing innocent people in America is the same thing as American soldiers killing innocent Iraqis. That's the same exact thing. There's no difference at all. Can you explain to me the difference you see? I don't see a difference. I would like to point out that Iraq wasn't a perceived threat either. I would also like to point out that I didn't say they were justified. I said either both things are justifiable or neither are. I don't think either are justifiable.

Lets be honest here, do you really believe thats what I think? That a group of people had a problem with a building? I realize 9/11 was an attack on America, but it was a planned attack on innocent people. How is crashing a plane into a building full of people the same as targeting military base in Iraq?

[Scrandon]

But civilians are killed and even targeted in wars and military strikes all the time. I said both things are justifiable or neither are. What makes it justifiable for the US to kill innocent civilians that could not also be applied to terrorists? Maybe you can be the one to explain the difference between terrorists killing innocent Americans, and the American military killing innocent Iraqis. I see no difference. I thought all human life was equal in this world. Guess I was wrong.

Ha wow nice rhetoric, but here's the difference: The U.S. military tries it's best to not harm civilians, they do not target them as you would say. Big difference. And furthermore, I did not say that it is okay for a military to kill innocents, it is not okay for a military or terrorist to kill innocent people.

[alice+interiors]

I'm wrong, I won't admit it, and even though the facts have been presented and analysed for me, I won't take my head out of the sand, or at least attempt a decent counter-argument. Consequently, I am going to retire to my 'I am above you, you are stupid' response.
Okay.

[Scrandon]

Okay.
OMGz Conspiracy theorists are the most rational people.

[alice+interiors]

OMGz Conspiracy theorists are the most rational people.
Hey look, somebody else who completely ignored my response to them when I presented them with an argument. It's extremely convenient when you guys decide you are 'above' responding to me.

I also think you should go back and read the extremely rational response I laid down for 'Midget Pirates', which he too dutifully ignored. You can persist in being ignorant all you like, but please don't question my rationality.

[Midget Pirates]

all you did was give me conspiracy theories. no facts or actual evidence was given. just because it was a long response does not make it any less insane. I'll keep my response short.

http://news.yahoo.com/video/world-15749633/18820342;_ylt=AoiNDrCrIMrbnXmhhKV39 qwHS5Z4
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/20/international/middleeast/20tape.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1137819600&en=b43636cd35e7d5d5&ei=5094&partner=homepage

that's called actual evidence.

[Scrandon]

Hey look, somebody else who completely ignored my response to them when I presented them with an argument. It's extremely convenient when you guys decide you are 'above' responding to me.

I also think you should go back and read the extremely rational response I laid down for 'Midget Pirates', which he too dutifully ignored. You can persist in being ignorant all you like, but please don't question my rationality.

My response to you is that I do not believe there is a world-wide conspiracy to elect George Bush to a second term.

[jessicalynn-xx]

Lets be honest here, do you really believe thats what I think? That a group of people had a problem with a building? I realize 9/11 was an attack on America, but it was a planned attack on innocent people. How is crashing a plane into a building full of people the same as targeting military base in Iraq?

Well perhaps you shouldn't have said that if that wasn't what you meant.

It's the same thing because Iraq never attacked America. Terrorists killed innocent, uninvolved Americans, and then America killed innocent, uninvolved Iraqis. I just don't see a difference here, I'm sorry.

[Midget Pirates]

Well perhaps you shouldn't have said that if that wasn't what you meant.

It's the same thing because Iraq never attacked America. Terrorists killed innocent, uninvolved Americans, and then America killed innocent, uninvolved Iraqis. I just don't see a difference here, I'm sorry.

we don't target innocent civilians.

[Scrandon]

Well perhaps you shouldn't have said that if that wasn't what you meant.

It's the same thing because Iraq never attacked America. Terrorists killed innocent, uninvolved Americans, and then America killed innocent, uninvolved Iraqis. I just don't see a difference here, I'm sorry.

Stop ignoring the fact that the military and civilians are not the same thing.

[alice+interiors]

all you did was give me conspiracy theories. no facts or actual evidence was given. just because it was a long response does not make it any less insane. I'll keep my response short.

http://news.yahoo.com/video/world-15749633/18820342;_ylt=AoiNDrCrIMrbnXmhhKV39 qwHS5Z4
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/20/international/middleeast/20tape.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1137819600&en=b43636cd35e7d5d5&ei=5094&partner=homepage

that's called actual evidence.
Yeah, you have a video dated at a time when it is extremely likely the person in the video would, in fact, be dead. Is that all you're basing your assumptions on?

I'm am not giving you any conspiracy theories. All I did in my post was undermine the evidence you have. Which ultimately amounts to a conveniently timed video. You do not offer any explanation to my questions, either.

My response to you is that I do not believe there is a world-wide conspiracy to elect George Bush to a second term.
Not what I am suggesting, good try.

1. This isn't about one specific attack, like 9/11. I don't like your display of ignorance on this topic - try the London bombings in July 2005 and the Madrid bombings in 2004. These were in direct retaliation to wars instigated in Afghanistan and Iraq.

2. You want to know why 9/11 happened? It is widely accepted that their reasoning for doing this was the US military's desecration of Muslim holy ground in Saudi Arabia, after they forced Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. The US had no right to do this - does this answer your question on what angered/provoked the rebels of the Middle East, and may have consequently led to 9/11?
How about this? Since you seem to have bypassed this quote pretty successfully.

[alice+interiors]

Stop ignoring the fact that the military and civilians are not the same thing.
In reality, though, what right had we to ever be in Iraq? Surely attacking the military in this war is illegal too?

[StrictlyBiznas]

Well perhaps you shouldn't have said that if that wasn't what you meant.

It's the same thing because Iraq never attacked America. Terrorists killed innocent, uninvolved Americans, and then America killed innocent, uninvolved Iraqis. I just don't see a difference here, I'm sorry.

So you're telling me you consider the attack on Pearl Harbor and the attack on the World Trade Centers the same thing?

And when has the US ever INTENTIONALY targeted innocent Iraqi civilians?

[Midget Pirates]

Yeah, you have a video dated at a time when it is extremely likely the person in the video would, in fact, be dead. Is that all you're basing your assumptions on?

I'm am not giving you any conspiracy theories. All I did in my post was undermine the evidence you have. Which ultimately amounts to a conveniently timed video. You do not offer any explanation to my questions, either.

the links i have are audio of Bin Laden in 2006 and 2010. directly refuting your Bin Laden is dead theory. you can say they are fake, but you have no evidence of such an accusation. I'll take the experts words over yours.

so if this thing was all a cover up to push an agenda for a war on terror done by George Bush, do you know how many people would have to be in on such a cover up? not only that, you would have to assume now that Obama having access to all top secret information is now also in on it too huh?

[Scrandon]

Yeah, you have a video dated at a time when it is extremely likely the person in the video would, in fact, be dead. Is that all you're basing your assumptions on?

I'm am not giving you any conspiracy theories. All I did in my post was undermine the evidence you have. Which ultimately amounts to a conveniently timed video. You do not offer any explanation to my questions, either.

It's not a conspiracy to say that the American Government has lied and said that Bin Laden is still alive in order to perpetuate a series of wars under false convictions?

Come on, bro.

Not what I am suggesting, good try.


Ok, multi-national? That Better?

[Machu505]

I never thought I'd find myself on the same side as Scrandon.

[alice+interiors]

the links i have are audio of Bin Laden in 2006 and 2010. directly refuting your Bin Laden is dead theory. you can say they are fake, but you have no evidence of such an accusation. I'll take the experts words over yours.

so if this thing was all a cover up to push an agenda for a war on terror done by George Bush, do you know how many people would have to be in on such a cover up? not only that, you would have to assume now that Obama having access to all top secret information is now also in on it too huh?
You are missing my point of focus.. I am not saying that Osama bin Laden didn't instigate 9/11. I just don't think the evidence sufficient is enough to prove that he did. As previously stated, the evidence held so far is (as admitted by British government officials) not enough to prosecute someone in court. So is it enough to start a war on?
The audio tapes could be anyone.

And no, not all that many people would have to be involved for such a cover up. If there ever was one, which isn't necessarily the case. There are just an awful lot of coincidences surrounding the assumptions that bin Laden was behind it all.

[caveBEAR]

I never thought I'd find myself on the same side as Scrandon.

Right?

:explode:

[alice+interiors]

It's not a conspiracy to say that the American Government has lied and said that Bin Laden is still alive in order to perpetuate a series of wars under false convictions?

Come on, bro.


Ok, multi-national? That Better?
Again, interesting that you left aside my comments directed towards you.

I am not saying this is the case. You are exaggerating and twisting my words. I believe two things, 100% and these are:
1. The evidence tying Osama bin Laden to the events of 9/11 are not enough to either a) convict him in a criminal court or b) provide enough reason for a war which totally devastates an entire country.
2. Osama bin Laden is dead, and has been for a while.

[Midget Pirates]

Again, interesting that you left aside my comments directed towards you.

I am not saying this is the case. You are exaggerating and twisting my words. I believe two things, 100% and these are:
1. The evidence tying Osama bin Laden to the events of 9/11 are not enough to either a) convict him in a criminal court or b) provide enough reason for a war which totally devastates an entire country.
2. Osama bin Laden is dead, and has been for a while.

1. http://www.counterpunch.org/dossier1.html
2. see links i already gave you.

your response will likely be "i have no actual evidence so i'll say they are fakes" this despite actual expert's trusting the authenticity of these tapes.

[The Indigo]

I don't find it to be justified, as violence against innocents is never justifiable. You want to assassinate the Prime Minister? Fine. At least you're going after a political figure. However, acts like 9/11, in which people stuck in the same bullshit rat race as everyone else on the planet are made to suffer for a cause they didn't create or understand, is unjustifiable.

Multiply this feeling by 1000 when the reasoning behind the terrorism is religious over political.
This.

[jessicalynn-xx]

So you're telling me you consider the attack on Pearl Harbor and the attack on the World Trade Centers the same thing?

And when has the US ever INTENTIONALY targeted innocent Iraqi civilians?

Yep.

[jessicalynn-xx]

Stop ignoring the fact that the military and civilians are not the same thing.

It's not a fact it's your opinion and I disagree. Why is it okay to try and kill the military of a country that didn't attack you?

[Midget Pirates]

Yep.

how dumb are you to not know the difference between the world trade center and pearl harbor?

this thread has brought out all the idiots.

[StrictlyBiznas]

Yep.

Pearl Harbor was a military base; an acceptable place to mount an attack on an opposing country. The WTC had no military connection and was full of innocent people. Completely different.

[jessicalynn-xx]

how dumb are you to not know the difference between the world trade center and pearl harbor?

this thread has brought out all the idiots.

They are the same in the sense that they were military strikes against a country that hadn't attacked them. This has been my point this whole time. You can just call me dumb and an idiot though and shrug me off instead of making points, if that's easier for you.

[StrictlyBiznas]

They are the same in the sense that they were military strikes against a country that hadn't attacked them. This has been my point this whole time. You can just call me dumb and an idiot though and shrug me off instead of making points, if that's easier for you.

Is killing someone on death row the same as killing a person walking down the street? And I'm not calling you dumb, I just disagree with you.

[Scrandon]

They are the same in the sense that they were military strikes against a country that hadn't attacked them. This has been my point this whole time. You can just call me dumb and an idiot though and shrug me off instead of making points, if that's easier for you.

Generalizing way too much.

[alice+interiors]

1. http://www.counterpunch.org/dossier1.html
2. see links i already gave you.

your response will likely be "i have no actual evidence so i'll say they are fakes" this despite actual expert's trusting the authenticity of these tapes.
As you say, I have little evidence that could prove they are fake. Flip the coin - how do you explain bin Laden's survival, though suffering from illnesses which require constant medical attention? Out of curiosity.

[Midget Pirates]

They are the same in the sense that they were military strikes against a country that hadn't attacked them. This has been my point this whole time. You can just call me dumb and an idiot though and shrug me off instead of making points, if that's easier for you.

al qaeda is a terrorist organization. it was a terrorist act and not a military strike since al qaeda cannot be considered a military.

[alice+interiors]

Generalizing way too much.
Not gonna answer my points to you? Can you not admit you might be wrong?

[Midget Pirates]

As you say, I have little evidence that could prove they are fake. Flip the coin - how do you explain bin Laden's survival, though suffering from illnesses which require constant medical attention? Out of curiosity.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/story.html?id=e20181a7-02f1-40f7-8cba-3d485d99aceb

any more brain busters? al-Zawahri must be in on the cover up too I guess.

[jessicalynn-xx]

Pearl Harbor was a military base; an acceptable place to mount an attack on an opposing country. The WTC had no military connection and was full of innocent people. Completely different.

If you were alive during that attack, I somehow don't think you'd be calling it an acceptable move. The US hadn't attacked Japan and had no reason to anticipate an attack from them. Same goes for the WTC and the invasion of Iraq. I think you're putting too much emphasis on the target and not enough emphasis on the motivation. You're saying that the target is what discerns a justifiable attack from a non-justifiable one. I disagree, I think there's more to it than that. Just because the target of a given attack has military connections doesn't automatically make that attack justifiable.

[jessicalynn-xx]

al qaeda is a terrorist organization. it was a terrorist act and not a military strike since al qaeda cannot be considered a military.

But they can. That was my whole point.

I think it's worth mentioning that most countries where terrorism is pervasive don't have a military that can really represent or defend them. At least, not a military that is comparable to those of highly developed, western nations. Terrorist groups that form are militias, and they don't have the means to carry out full scale invasions of or proper military attacks on larger, richer countries that they're threatened by, so they fly planes into buildings and bomb subway stations instead. I think in this sense, if you're someone who thinks a military strike against a perceived threat is justifiable, terrorist attacks certainly are. Either both things are justifiable or neither are.

[jessicalynn-xx]

Is killing someone on death row the same as killing a person walking down the street? And I'm not calling you dumb, I just disagree with you.

I didn't say you were calling me dumb that was directed at Midget Pirates. No it's not the same. While I disagree with the death penalty, someone on death row killed someone, probably multiple people, and has been condemned to die by a judge and jury of their peers. This does not apply to a civilian or a soldier. Bad analogy.

[jessicalynn-xx]

Generalizing way too much.

I know don't you hate when people do that?

[Scrandon]

Not gonna answer my points to you? Can you not admit you might be wrong?

What points, the fact that you say Bin Laden is dead vs. Every damn news org. saying he is alive.

I believe the non-nutjobs.

[StrictlyBiznas]

But they can. That was my whole point.

Al-Qaeda cannot be considered a military. They have allegiance to no country and their intentions are soley based on religion and beliefs.

[alice+interiors]

What points, the fact that you say Bin Laden is dead vs. Every damn news org. saying he is alive.

I believe the non-nutjobs.
THIS, FOR THE THIRD TIME THAT I HAVE QUOTED YOU.

1. This isn't about one specific attack, like 9/11. I don't like your display of ignorance on this topic - try the London bombings in July 2005 and the Madrid bombings in 2004. These were in direct retaliation to wars instigated in Afghanistan and Iraq.

2. You want to know why 9/11 happened? It is widely accepted that their reasoning for doing this was the US military's desecration of Muslim holy ground in Saudi Arabia, after they forced Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. The US had no right to do this - does this answer your question on what angered/provoked the rebels of the Middle East, and may have consequently led to 9/11?
and
In reality, though, what right had we to ever be in Iraq? Surely attacking the military in this war is illegal too?
..

okay?

[caveBEAR]

Al-Qaeda cannot be considered a military. They have allegiance to no country and their intentions are soley based on religion and beliefs.

:appl:

If we consider al-Qaeda a military, then we have to consider the back-woods nutjobs popping up as 'militias' in our country the military as well.

[Midget Pirates]

But they can. That was my whole point.

"I think it's worth mentioning that most countries where terrorism is pervasive don't have a military that can really represent or defend them. At least, not a military that is comparable to those of highly developed, western nations. Terrorist groups that form are militias, and they don't have the means to carry out full scale invasions of or proper military attacks on larger, richer countries that they're threatened by, so they fly planes into buildings and bomb subway stations instead. I think in this sense, if you're someone who thinks a military strike against a perceived threat is justifiable, terrorist attacks certainly are. Either both things are justifiable or neither are."

no it would be comparable if terrorists made their attacks against military and government targets. when the US makes strikes it is against threats. we do not intentionally strike against civilians. Terrorists strike against civilians on purpose. that is how one has justification and one cannot be justified. you aren't grasping this.

[jessicalynn-xx]

Al-Qaeda cannot be considered a military. They have allegiance to no country and their intentions are soley based on religion and beliefs.

I said they are militias, and they are.

[Midget Pirates]

What points, the fact that you say Bin Laden is dead vs. Every damn news org. saying he is alive.

I believe the non-nutjobs.

the news organizations are in on it too.

[alice+interiors]

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/story.html?id=e20181a7-02f1-40f7-8cba-3d485d99aceb

any more brain busters? al-Zawahri must be in on the cover up too I guess.
That doesn't answer my question.. I asked you to explain how he has remained alive without necessary medical attention, not 'can you prove he is still alive'.

[Midget Pirates]

That doesn't answer my question.. I asked you to explain how he has remained alive without necessary medical attention, not 'can you prove he is still alive'.

that link was Bin Laden's 2nd in command saying he never was sick. please read what i give you.

[jessicalynn-xx]

"I think it's worth mentioning that most countries where terrorism is pervasive don't have a military that can really represent or defend them. At least, not a military that is comparable to those of highly developed, western nations. Terrorist groups that form are militias, and they don't have the means to carry out full scale invasions of or proper military attacks on larger, richer countries that they're threatened by, so they fly planes into buildings and bomb subway stations instead. I think in this sense, if you're someone who thinks a military strike against a perceived threat is justifiable, terrorist attacks certainly are. Either both things are justifiable or neither are."

no it would be comparable if terrorists made their attacks against military and government targets. when the US makes strikes it is against threats. we do not intentionally strike against civilians. Terrorists strike against civilians on purpose. that is how one has justification and one cannot be justified. you aren't grasping this.

No. You aren't grasping what I'm saying. I get that you think the target of an attack is what makes it justifiable or non-justifiable. I have said more than once that I disagree and have elaborated on that more than once also. I'm not going to have the same exact conversation explaining the same points to three different people at the same time. Read what I've said here or don't respond to it please.

"when the US makes strikes it is against threats." Really? What threats was America getting from Iraq?

[StrictlyBiznas]

I said they are militias, and they are.

They're not. They have nothing to do with defending or aiding a country. They kill innocent and defenseless people to impose their religion and beliefs.

[Midget Pirates]

No. You aren't grasping what I'm saying. I get that you think the target of an attack is what makes it justifiable or non-justifiable. I have said more than once that I disagree and have elaborated on that more than once also. I'm not going to have the same exact conversation explaining the same points to three different people at the same time. Read what I've said here or don't respond to it please.

"when the US makes strikes it is against threats." Really? What threats was America getting from Iraq?

Saddam Hussein could be considered a threat.

[alice+interiors]

that link was Bin Laden's 2nd in command saying he never was sick. please read what i give you.
I read it all - it directly contradicts the memoirs of CIA agents who said they acted on intelligence throughout the Afghanistan operation that Osama bin Laden was critically ill, with multiple complaints, including diabetes and severe kidney failures. I can't see how it would be in the CIA's interests to suggest rumours of bin Laden being ill, should that not be the case.
How are you going to choose between your two regular sources - the intelligence agencies, or the news organisations?

[StrictlyBiznas]

No. You aren't grasping what I'm saying. I get that you think the target of an attack is what makes it justifiable or non-justifiable. I have said more than once that I disagree and have elaborated on that more than once also. I'm not going to have the same exact conversation explaining the same points to three different people at the same time. Read what I've said here or don't respond to it please.

"when the US makes strikes it is against threats." Really? What threats was America getting from Iraq?

Saddam Hussein was not a threat to the United States?

[jessicalynn-xx]

They're not. They have nothing to do with defending or aiding a country. They kill innocent and defenseless people to impose their religion and beliefs.

Militias don't necessarily have anything to do with defending or aiding a country. That's what separates a militia from a military.

[StrictlyBiznas]

Militias don't necessarily have anything to do with defending or aiding a country. That's what separates a militia from a military.

OK so lets say al-Qaeda is a militia. What does that prove? If 9/11 was not meant to aid or defend a country, what was it for?

[alice+interiors]

Saddam Hussein could be considered a threat.
Pretty sure the war was justified with the threat of WMDs. Even so, invading Iraq on the premise that they didn't like Saddam Hussein does not fall under the United Nations' stipulations (http://answers.encyclopedia.com/question/did-charter-united-nations-say-just-war-377693.html) for a 'just war'.

[theguy77]

the point that a lot of people are missing is that we started a fucking civil war in THEIR country, and we did the same in vietnam and korea using someone else's country as a battlefield and as collateral to try to attain our own goals. even if we're not trying to harm civilians ourselves, we are indirectly (and in fact i could argue it IS direct in some ways) ruining their lives and putting them at risk of death just because we felt like changing their government. do you think it's only the militias being harmed when a car bomb goes off in a city center? do you think it's not dangerous for them to go outside their homes and walk in the middle of a firefight between americans and iraqis or between iraqis and iraqis? do you think that when the war's over the economy will be fine and everything can go back to normal? most people will be struggling to get jobs and support their families because their company building was bombed or because it was run by the sunni muslims or the old government and we dismantled it. do you think that there's no pressure for iraqi civilians to join certain militias and fight to their death because of loyalty to their families or their religion? most of those people would have never touched an AK-47 in their lives if it weren't for the dire nature of the situation, which we directly caused. and not to mention, a civilian doesn't automatically get to stay out of the fighting just becuase they're a civilian, i bet plenty were drafted in a pretty unorganized way or maybe threatened to be killed for disloyalty, or because they were seen as an enemy by the radicals, if they didn't agree to fight.

here's two things to think about:

-it doesnt matter if we're the ones setting off those car bombs or if we INTENDED to start a civil war in their country. that's what fucking happens when you try to strip down the infrastructure of an entire country in less than 2 months to try to make a new one. saddam hussein's regime may have been terrible to the people, but the country was stable, and when we crudely and violently destabilized their government (and not to mention a major portion of their business), we directly caused chaos. its very much our fault those people died no matter how you look at it. we shouldn't have fucked with their country.

-look at the scale and the numbers. 4,300 american soldiers died, and 3,300 civilians died in the 9/11 attacks (which weren't even orchestrated by anyone in iraq, we just used it as an excuse to do something else in the middle east). that's less than 10,000 deaths due to terrorism, which everyone unanimously considers to be FAR from justified. however, it is estimated that at LEAST 100,000 iraqis suffered "violent deaths" (death due to combat), and that's probably not even close to the real number considering that's from the Iraq Body Count, which only registers reported deaths (think of how many went unreported in that kind of chaos and disunity.) not only that, but remember this is a civil war. people can not continue to run their businesses and make money for their families. it's dangerous to even go to the market to grab a week's worth of food. the hospitals and healthcare are not just fully occupied, they're backlogged and overflowing so those who need help can't get it. it's been estimated that between 600,000 and 1 million people in iraq suffered deaths indirectly caused by the state of the country during combat. you know how many americans died "indirectly" from the conflict? ZERO, because there was no war on our own homeland and there hasn't been for over 150 years. maybe you guys should be thinking about THAT when you think about whether we're more justified than terrorists -- it doesnt matter whether we're targeting civilians or not, every time we start a war zone in someone else's country (which just happens way too often for trivial reasons) civilians are GOING to die. a LOT of them. and for what, so we can pretentiously spread our "perfect" form of government to people who don't want it/countries that can't handle it? seriously, just TRY to say that's justified and/or that it's not in some ways our fault, i dare you to try to justify that to yourselves.

[StrictlyBiznas]

Pretty sure the war was justified with the threat of WMDs. Even so, invading Iraq on the premise that they didn't like Saddam Hussein does not fall under the United Nations' stipulations (http://answers.encyclopedia.com/question/did-charter-united-nations-say-just-war-377693.html) for a 'just war'.

I'll never know what to believe when it comes to reasons for the US military being in Iraq. There are too many theories.

[Midget Pirates]

Pretty sure the war was justified with the threat of WMDs. Even so, invading Iraq on the premise that they didn't like Saddam Hussein does not fall under the United Nations' stipulations (http://answers.encyclopedia.com/question/did-charter-united-nations-say-just-war-377693.html) for a 'just war'.

i'm in agreement with you on the WMD point. the case should've been presented in a way that actually showed how Saddam was a threat.

[jessicalynn-xx]

Saddam Hussein could be considered a threat.

Saddam Hussein was not a threat to the United States?

Maybe. But it was my understanding that he didn't have WMD's to give to Al-Qaeda, and that he had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda or 9/11...

[StrictlyBiznas]

the point that a lot of people are missing is that we started a fucking civil war in THEIR country, and we did the same in vietnam and korea using someone else's country as a battlefield and as collateral to try to attain our own goals. even if we're not trying to harm civilians ourselves, we are indirectly (and in fact i could argue it IS direct in some ways) ruining their lives and putting them at risk of death just because we felt like changing their government. do you think it's only the militias being harmed when a car bomb goes off in a city center? do you think it's not dangerous for them to go outside their homes and walk in the middle of a firefight between americans and iraqis or between iraqis and iraqis? do you think that when the war's over the economy will be fine and everything can go back to normal? most people will be struggling to get jobs and support their families because their company building was bombed or because it was run by the sunni muslims or the old government and we dismantled it. do you think that there's no pressure for iraqi civilians to join certain militias and fight to their death because of loyalty to their families or their religion? most of those people would have never touched an AK-47 in their lives if it weren't for the dire nature of the situation, which we directly caused. and not to mention, a civilian doesn't automatically get to stay out of the fighting just becuase they're a civilian, i bet plenty were drafted in a pretty unorganized way or maybe threatened to be killed for disloyalty, or because they were seen as an enemy by the radicals, if they didn't agree to fight.

here's two things to think about:

-it doesnt matter if we're the ones setting off those car bombs or if we INTENDED to start a civil war in their country. that's what fucking happens when you try to strip down the infrastructure of an entire country in less than 2 months to try to make a new one. saddam hussein's regime may have been terrible to the people, but the country was stable, and when we crudely and violently destabilized their government (and not to mention a major portion of their business), we directly caused chaos. its very much our fault those people died no matter how you look at it. we shouldn't have fucked with their country.

-look at the scale and the numbers. 4,300 american soldiers died, and 3,000 civilians died in the 9/11 attacks (which weren't even orchestrated by anyone in iraq, we just used it as an excuse to do something else in the middle east). however, it is estimated that at LEAST 100,000 iraqis suffered "violent deaths" (death due to combat), and that's probably not even close to the real number considering that's from the Iraq Body Count, which only registers reported deaths (think of how many went unreported in that kind of chaos and disunity.) not only that, but remember this is a civil war. people can not continue to run their businesses and make money for their families. it's dangerous to even go to the market to grab a week's worth of food. the hospitals and healthcare are not just fully occupied, they're backlogged and overflowing so those who need help can't get it. it's been estimated that between 600,000 and 1 million people in iraq suffered deaths indirectly caused by the state of the country during combat. you know how many americans died "indirectly" from the conflict? ZERO, because there was no war on our own homeland and there hasn't been for over 150 years. maybe you guys should be thinking about THAT when you think about whether we're more justified than terrorists -- it doesnt matter whether we're targeting civilians or not, every time we start a war zone in someone else's country (which just happens way too often for trivial reasons) civilians are GOING to die. a LOT of them. and for what, so we can pretentiously spread our "perfect" form of government to people who don't want it/countries that can't handle it? seriously, just TRY to say that's justified and/or that it's not in some ways our fault, i dare you to try to justify that to yourselves.

I can't justify the way the US handles other countries. But I also can't justify a radical group like al-Qaeda crashing a plane into a building full of people. They didn't do that because we were fighting a war in their country.

[alice+interiors]

i'm in agreement with you on the WMD point. the case should've been presented in a way that actually showed how Saddam was a threat.
Agreed. There is middle ground, after all. ;-)

[Midget Pirates]

I read it all - it directly contradicts the memoirs of CIA agents who said they acted on intelligence throughout the Afghanistan operation that Osama bin Laden was critically ill, with multiple complaints, including diabetes and severe kidney failures. I can't see how it would be in the CIA's interests to suggest rumours of bin Laden being ill, should that not be the case.
How are you going to choose between your two regular sources - the intelligence agencies, or the news organisations?

fair point. though i could argue that you trusting the CIA sources on this particular issue but not on stuff like the tapes is kind of the same.

[jessicalynn-xx]

I can't justify the way the US handles other countries. But I also can't justify a radical group like al-Qaeda crashing a plane into a building full of people. They didn't do that because we were fighting a war in their country.

And there's my point. You can't justify either.

[StrictlyBiznas]

And there's my point. You can't justify either.

I never disagreed with you there. But it didn't seem like thats what you were arguing. You were saying that a terrorist attack is the same as a military attack. I disagree with that.

[theguy77]

I can't justify the way the US handles other countries. But I also can't justify a radical group like al-Qaeda crashing a plane into a building full of people. They didn't do that because we were fighting a war in their country.

yes they fucking did. read up on osama bin laden, thats why he hates the US in the first place and probably why he organized something like al-Qaeda, because of our prior interference in the middle east. and guess what, now they all hate us more and are actually JUSTIFIED to target us because of iraq. way to go, america.

[StrictlyBiznas]

yes they fucking did. read up on osama bin laden, thats why he hates the US in the first place and probably why he organized something like al-Qaeda, because of our prior interference in the middle east. and guess what, now they all hate us more and are actually JUSTIFIED to target us because of iraq. way to go, america.

They're not justified to crash a plane into a building full of people.

[mattmatumbo]

And what background do you have to educate us on this subject?

Bam!

And, really it all depends on point of view, to the educated or those who think (like those of us here), no, terrorism and killing in general are appalling. However, to a religious extremist (christians included) it appears to be the only way fight something as big as the US.

[Chris92]

I'm not saying it isn't, but respond yes to this and...well let's just say I doubt our government has stopped putting people on watch lists. And hell, who knows, they might have someone on AP.net even.
/paranoia

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_-nxEYo24kRM/SIsTRfuDlgI/AAAAAAAAAL8/COpTiJ7LhLw/s400/WickedSunshine_UncleSam_WatchingYou _750x900.png

I'm kidding. Mostly.

[saysmydoctor]

Hey look whose back...


Anyway, note:



Therefore making the building a military target, and not comparable to the World Trade Center.
You fucking idiot:

These justifications for the bombing were disputed by the owners of the plant, the Sudanese government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudanese_government), and other governments.

If you're going to quotemine, be more subtle.

[theguy77]

They're not justified to crash a plane into a building full of people.

and we're not justified to fuck up a whole country for personal gain. there is no lesser of the two evils.

[Scrandon]

You fucking idiot:



If you're going to quotemine, be more subtle.

No way, you mean there are to conflicting views about what is going on in a war? No shit genius.

The point is that it was decided to be a military target, not just attacked for the hell of it.

[Scrandon]

and we're not justified to fuck up a whole country for personal gain. there is no lesser of the two evils.

A lot of people would say that the country was pretty fucked up before. The civil war is not a result of invasion, other than the fact that an oppressive dictator was removed.

[loveisdead]

A lot of people would say that the country was pretty fucked up before. The civil war is not a result of invasion, other than the fact that an oppressive dictator was removed.

That's one of the dumbest things I've read in this forum.

[Scrandon]

That's one of the dumbest things I've read in this forum.

Any stable nation would not burst into civil war just because their leader was removed from power.

[loveisdead]

Any stable nation would not burst into civil war just because their leader was removed from power.

Would the civil war had happened in Sadam was not removed from power?

[Scrandon]

Would the civil war had happened in Sadam was not removed from power?

How would I know?

However, it's not necessarily relevant to whether the nation was 'fucked up'. The general public was totally oppressed and abused.

[loveisdead]

How would I know?

However, it's not necessarily relevant to whether the nation was 'fucked up'. The general public was totally oppressed and abused.

I'm not condoning the way the nation was run under Sadam. But we created a civil war there. To think otherwise is ridiculous.

[Scrandon]

I'm not condoning the way the nation was run under Sadam. But we created a civil war there. To think otherwise is ridiculous.
Well to quote myself:

Any stable nation would not burst into civil war just because their leader was removed from power.

[3wotkris]

No form of violence, especially on such a mass scale, can be justified.

If I were in their position, however, I would find it difficult to not want to carry out such acts. The West have proven themselves to be bigger terrorists than the terrorists of the Middle East, I don't think there is any denying that.

[IntoTheSun]

and we're not justified to fuck up a whole country for personal gain. there is no lesser of the two evils.

Well said.

[SomedayTheFire]

A lot of people would say that the country was pretty fucked up before. The civil war is not a result of invasion, other than the fact that an oppressive dictator was removed.
lolololol

[Machu505]

How the fuck has this thread gotten to Iraq?

[whiterussian]

How the fuck has this thread gotten to Iraq?

The initial question is silly, so it strayed off pretty easily.

Seriously, terrorism is not justifiable almost by definition.

Terrorist attack = homicide of civilians to cause a sway of public opinion.

[J.C.]

Any stable nation would not burst into civil war just because their leader was removed from power.

The toppling of a government in power by foreign forces is probably the most opportune time for a civil war to break out.

[whiterussian]

The West have proven themselves to be bigger terrorists than the terrorists of the Middle East, I don't think there is any denying that.

Sure, the US brainwashes kids to send to the middle of crowds to kill themselves and everyone, most of the time randomly.
I mean, what the fuck are you trying to say with that comment. Think before you write. Don't throw that word around.
I'm all for balanced views, but sometimes I lose my cool when I see such unfortunate comments.

[loveisdead]

Sure, the US brainwashes kids to send to the middle of crowds to kill themselves and everyone, most of the time randomly.
I mean, what the fuck are you trying to say with that comment. Think before you write. Don't throw that word around.
I'm all for balanced views, but sometimes I lose my cool when I see such unfortunate comments.

Explain the bolded part to me.

He's saying that America has been the cause of a lot of lives in the middle east. Far more than the middle east has caused America.

[whiterussian]

Explain the bolded part to me.

He's saying that America has been the cause of a lot of lives in the middle east. Far more than the middle east has caused America.


That was referencing most of the suicide bombings that have happened over the years in Iraq, and such.


Call Americans murderers if you want. I can't deny that some US soldiers have killed out of cruelty. But calling the US terrorists is childish poetry or whatever the proper term is. It is NOT the same.

[3wotkris]

Sure, the US brainwashes kids to send to the middle of crowds to kill themselves and everyone, most of the time randomly.
I mean, what the fuck are you trying to say with that comment. Think before you write. Don't throw that word around.
I'm all for balanced views, but sometimes I lose my cool when I see such unfortunate comments.

You do realise that the US and UK launched an unjustified war against Iraq right? (which will be undoubtedly be proven when the inquiry into said war announces its verdict later this year)

Do you know how many Iraqi civilians have been killed in this war? Figures show the answer is somewhere between 95,965 – 104,682, and obviously the majority of that will be the fault of the Western coalition. And that's only the CIVILIANS for Christ's sake.

Can you imagine what it must be like being in the shoes of these Middle Easterners? Like I said, its not justified, but certainly understandable.


The United States Department of Defense defines terrorism as “the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.” source: http://www.terrorism-research.com/

oh shit would you look at that!

[whiterussian]

You do realise that the US and UK launched an unjustified war against Iraq right? (which will be undoubtedly be proven when the inquiry into said war announces its verdict later this year)

Do you know how many Iraqi civilians have been killed in this war? Figures show the answer is somewhere between 95,965 – 104,682, and obviously the majority of that will be the fault of the Western coalition. And that's only the CIVILIANS for Christ's sake.

Can you imagine what it must be like being in the shoes of these Middle Easterners? Like I said, its not justified, but certainly understandable.

No one is asking if it is understandable. No one is dumb and thinks they fight out of fun.

The discussion is whether it is justified, and that is a worthless thing to discuss.

See my last post. And like I said, don't throw a word like terrorism around if you want to actually make a point that others who don't agree with you will listen to.


concerning your edit, I'll remind you you said the US were "bigger terrorists". And by the definition you are trying to take it to, every war in history is terrorism.

And as far as the Iraq war goes, we'll see, and I'm not for it. But I'm glad some one took out Saddam Hussein. Every nation in the world should be ashamed of letting that man stay in power.

[loveisdead]

That was referencing most of the suicide bombings that have happened over the years in Iraq, and such.


Call Americans murderers if you want. I can't deny that some US soldiers have killed out of cruelty. But calling the US terrorists is childish poetry or whatever the proper term is. It is NOT the same.

That doesn't make the suicide bombings random. There's a purpose to them.

[whiterussian]

That doesn't make the suicide bombings random. There's a purpose to them.

I apologize for my wording, I meant to say the civilians killed were random.

[loveisdead]

I apologize for my wording, I meant to say the civilians killed were random.

Oh yeah there's an obvious recklessness to them.

[3wotkris]

No one is asking if it is understandable. No one is dumb and thinks they fight out of fun.

The discussion is whether it is justified, and that is a worthless thing to discuss.

See my last post. And like I said, don't throw a word like terrorism around if you want to actually make a point that others who don't agree with you will listen to.


concerning your edit, I'll remind you you said the US were "bigger terrorists". And by the definition you are trying to take it to, every war in history is terrorism.

And as far as the Iraq war goes, we'll see, and I'm not for it. But I'm glad some one took out Saddam Hussein. Every nation in the world should be ashamed of letting that man stay in power.

Well they are bigger terrorists, more people have been killed in terror attacks caused by or involving the US than any other country in the world.

And that definition is the US government's own definition of terrorism, so maybe not every war, but I'd say most major wars in the past 100 or so years can actually be seen as terrorism.

[whiterussian]

Well they are bigger terrorists, more people have been killed in terror attacks caused by or involving the US than any other country in the world.

And that definition is the US government's own definition of terrorism, so maybe not every war, but I'd say most major wars in the past 100 or so years can actually be seen as terrorism.

The evolution of war to the point of eradicating entire cities is horrid. But the point I'm trying to make is, Middle Eastern terrorism is horrible and is in no way justified, and I seriously believe people should not have to debate something so obvious.

I'll root against American intervention all you like in another thread. These days I'm sort of in the mood of "fuck the world, let's keep out of everything".
BTW I'm Portuguese and American, thus my "let's" in the last sentence.

[3wotkris]

The evolution of war to the point of eradicating entire cities is horrid. But the point I'm trying to make is, Middle Eastern terrorism is horrible and is in no way justified, and I seriously believe people should not have to debate something so obvious.

I'll root against American intervention all you like in another thread. These days I'm sort of in the mood of "fuck the world, let's keep out of everything".
BTW I'm Portuguese and American, thus my "let's" in the last sentence.

Yeah sure thing man, no form of terrorism can be justified.

I too think the US (and the UK) need to act more rationally before intervening in international affairs, the whole world hates us now just because of the silly actions of our governments.

[caveBEAR]

Christ, some of the knee-jerk 'pro-America' comments are skeeving me out more than the people justifying terrorism.

For the record, both are skeeving me out pretty intensely.