sharkman Posted January 4, 2012 Report Posted January 4, 2012 (edited) Yes, "occupy" seems an inaccurate term. Also, bin Laden was enemies with the Saudi government. They exiled him. He also had big plans following 9/11 to wage war against and topple the Saudi regime, and many al-Qaeda attacks occurred in S.A. with this goal: http://www.twq.com/08spring/docs/08spring_riedel.pdf You don't seem to understand my viewpoint, so debating with you is frustrating. My argument in brief: I don't condone the attacks, and the victims didn't deserve their fate (though someone more heartless than me could argue some killed in the Pentagon "deserved" it). I think bin Laden et al. were/are religious nutjobs. They're obviously very intelligent, but their specific religious ideology is illogical and immoral. At the same time, the US & the West were asking for trouble...and they got it. In other words, they had it coming. That doesn't mean they deserved it, it means they were asking for it. Also, just because they are religious fanatics doesn't automatically mean their beefs with US foreign policy are illogical, which seems to be your argument. If ie: your innocent family was killed in an airstrike by a foreign country, you probably also wouldn't be sympathetic that is was "just collateral damage", and you'd probably be PO'd too. The question shouldn't be "why did 9/11 happen?", but rather "why did it take this long to occur?". Again, I'm not saying I condone it, I'm saying I understand why it could happen. I'm sympathetic to some of their grievances, but completely disagree with their murderous tactics. Maybe if they copied Gandhi's satyagraha tactics of non-violent disobedience they could have got further and with much less blood on both sides. Same goes with the Palestinians. No, I understand you, at least now I think. I've read carefully this post. First off, you were fine with the term occupy. You quoted it verbatim, and now that it's been proven Osama was wrong to claim occupation(wrong too with his opinions of women, gays, christians, jews, etc) you still think his beefs, coming from a complete nutbar, were right. His mind, which was screwed up on all of the above, somehow was crystal clear on the US. I just don't buy that. I never will. Especially when the solution he comes up with is to murder as many Americans as he can and attempt to throw their economy into the trash heap. BTW, if my family was killed by a foreign airstrike, I wouldn't become a mass murderer. At any rate, I will again attempt to make this my last post on the issue. When you say that they were asking for it I would agree with the idea of blow back, but not this. This is an insane rabid dog that will bite humans until you shoot it dead. Trying to understand why the rabid dog did what he did is not useful. At any rate, these plots happen all the time, so maybe we are trying to decide the meaning of the word 'is'. I think the attack occurred because a weakened CIA saw the warning signs and didn't follow up with due diligence, or something to that effect. Hopefully they are successful in stopping all future plots. Edited January 4, 2012 by sharkman Quote
bud Posted January 4, 2012 Report Posted January 4, 2012 (edited) BTW, if my family was killed by a foreign airstrike, I wouldn't become a mass murderer. did you support bombing campaigns and other military actions that resulted in the deaths of more than 3000 innocent civilians? Edited January 4, 2012 by bud Quote http://whoprofits.org/
Moonlight Graham Posted January 4, 2012 Report Posted January 4, 2012 it must be a difficult position to hold when you break it down like this. Most people that feel the US had it coming really can't justify why past a certain point, and it's revealed for what it was, plain old anti-American sentiment. Which is just another form of racism. What a ridiculous comment based on your own speculation. Thanks for dragging the debate down to the kindergarten level. You can't comprehend in your brain that people disagree with you, so you call them anti-American racists or whatever the heck. If I criticize the US government it doesn't mean I'm anti-American, it means I'm anti stupid policy. If I criticize the Canadian government it doesn't mean I'm anti-Canadian, it means I'm anti stupid policy. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 4, 2012 Report Posted January 4, 2012 ...If I criticize the US government it doesn't mean I'm anti-American, it means I'm anti stupid policy. If I criticize the Canadian government it doesn't mean I'm anti-Canadian, it means I'm anti stupid policy. Maybe you don't realize that it is possible to criticize government policies without feeling that it was asking for or deserved to have citizens murdered by terrorists. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
cybercoma Posted January 4, 2012 Report Posted January 4, 2012 Yes, "occupy" seems an inaccurate term. Also, bin Laden was enemies with the Saudi government. They exiled him. He also had big plans following 9/11 to wage war against and topple the Saudi regime, and many al-Qaeda attacks occurred in S.A. with this goal: http://www.twq.com/08spring/docs/08spring_riedel.pdf You don't seem to understand my viewpoint, so debating with you is frustrating. My argument in brief: I don't condone the attacks, and the victims didn't deserve their fate (though someone more heartless than me could argue some killed in the Pentagon "deserved" it). I think bin Laden et al. were/are religious nutjobs. They're obviously very intelligent, but their specific religious ideology is illogical and immoral. At the same time, the US & the West were asking for trouble...and they got it. In other words, they had it coming. That doesn't mean they deserved it, it means they were asking for it. Also, just because they are religious fanatics doesn't automatically mean their beefs with US foreign policy are illogical, which seems to be your argument. If ie: your innocent family was killed in an airstrike by a foreign country, you probably also wouldn't be sympathetic that is was "just collateral damage", and you'd probably be PO'd too. The question shouldn't be "why did 9/11 happen?", but rather "why did it take this long to occur?". Again, I'm not saying I condone it, I'm saying I understand why it could happen. I'm sympathetic to some of their grievances, but completely disagree with their murderous tactics. Maybe if they copied Gandhi's satyagraha tactics of non-violent disobedience they could have got further and with much less blood on both sides. Same goes with the Palestinians. ..and those pesky Tibetans. Oh wait. Quote
cybercoma Posted January 4, 2012 Report Posted January 4, 2012 No, I understand... ...you still think [Osama's] beefs ... were right. MG didn't say that. He said it was all too predictable that the United States' foreign policy would incite this kind of violence. He didn't say it was right. Quote
sharkman Posted January 4, 2012 Report Posted January 4, 2012 (edited) What a ridiculous comment based on your own speculation. Thanks for dragging the debate down to the kindergarten level. You can't comprehend in your brain that people disagree with you, so you call them anti-American racists or whatever the heck. If I criticize the US government it doesn't mean I'm anti-American, it means I'm anti stupid policy. If I criticize the Canadian government it doesn't mean I'm anti-Canadian, it means I'm anti stupid policy. You assume too little of yourself. I would suggest that you can articulate your views in this matter quite well, and are not of those I would label anti-American, at least based on this discussion. I do not know your views that well so I wouldn't know if you had said some racist things. Edited January 4, 2012 by sharkman Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 5, 2012 Report Posted January 5, 2012 MG didn't say that. He said it was all too predictable that the United States' foreign policy would incite this kind of violence. He didn't say it was right. No..he didn't say that. He said the US "deserved it" and "had it coming". So that means there must be Japanese terrorists just waiting to pounce on Newark NJ. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Moonlight Graham Posted January 5, 2012 Report Posted January 5, 2012 You assume too little of yourself. I would suggest that you can articulate your views in this matter quite well, and are not of those I would label anti-American, at least based on this discussion. I do not know your views that well so I wouldn't know if you had said some racist things. Well thank you then. Debate over I guess. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
Guest Peeves Posted January 10, 2012 Report Posted January 10, 2012 What a ridiculous comment based on your own speculation. Thanks for dragging the debate down to the kindergarten level. You can't comprehend in your brain that people disagree with you, so you call them anti-American racists or whatever the heck. If I criticize the US government it doesn't mean I'm anti-American, it means I'm anti stupid policy. If I criticize the Canadian government it doesn't mean I'm anti-Canadian, it means I'm anti stupid policy. Criticizm is one thing, any one or thing must be open to such, however you go beyond criticizing a government Your comment suggests an attack on civilian targets by terrorists are justified ignoring the innocent victims. Quote
Moonlight Graham Posted January 12, 2012 Report Posted January 12, 2012 Criticizm is one thing, any one or thing must be open to such, however you go beyond criticizing a government Your comment suggests an attack on civilian targets by terrorists are justified ignoring the innocent victims. I never did such a thing. Re-read the thread, and the last 2 pages specifically. "Had it coming" is different than "deserved it". Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
Guest American Woman Posted January 13, 2012 Report Posted January 13, 2012 I never did such a thing. Re-read the thread, and the last 2 pages specifically. "Had it coming" is different than "deserved it". From the Cambridge Dictionary: had it coming (to you) Definition If someone had it coming, something bad happened to them which they deserved (Definition of had it coming (to you) from the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary & Thesaurus © Cambridge University Press) Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 13, 2012 Report Posted January 13, 2012 From the Cambridge Dictionary: had it coming (to you) Definition If someone had it coming, something bad happened to them which they deserved (Definition of had it coming (to you) from the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary & Thesaurus © Cambridge University Press) Right...3,000 people from many nations going about their business just "had it coming". Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Moonlight Graham Posted January 13, 2012 Report Posted January 13, 2012 From the Cambridge Dictionary: had it coming (to you) Definition If someone had it coming, something bad happened to them which they deserved Well played, AW! So I will have to slightly revise my argument, which was: My argument in brief: I don't condone the attacks, and the victims didn't deserve their fate (though someone more heartless than me could argue some killed in the Pentagon "deserved" it). I think bin Laden et al. were/are religious nutjobs. They're obviously very intelligent, but their specific religious ideology is illogical and immoral. At the same time, the US & the West were asking for trouble...and they got it. In other words, they had it coming. That doesn't mean they deserved it, it means they were asking for it. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
Guest American Woman Posted January 13, 2012 Report Posted January 13, 2012 Well played, AW! So I will have to slightly revise my argument, which was: In other words, they had it coming. That doesn't mean they deserved it, it means they were asking for it. From the Free Dictionary: ask for it if you say that someone who gets hurt or punished was asking for it, you mean that they deserved what happened to them Cambridge Idioms Dictionary, 2nd ed. Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2006. Reproduced with permission. Quote
sharkman Posted January 13, 2012 Report Posted January 13, 2012 Well played, AW! So I will have to slightly revise my argument, which was: You really are asking for the disdain you are getting for your stubborn refusal to see what you're saying. Quote
Moonlight Graham Posted January 13, 2012 Report Posted January 13, 2012 From the Free Dictionary: ask for it if you say that someone who gets hurt or punished was asking for it, you mean that they deserved what happened to them Cambridge Idioms Dictionary, 2nd ed. Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2006. Reproduced with permission. Sorry, no dice on this one. You must have had to dig hard for that one. I googled 'ask for it definition' & here's all the results I found on the 1st page, then I googled 'asking for it definition' and posted I believe all results on the 1st page also. All are consistent with my meaning. ask for it - persist with actions or an attitude despite the probability that it will cause trouble; "He is asking for trouble with his behavior" ask for vb (preposition) 2. (intr) Informal to behave in a provocative manner that is regarded as inviting (trouble) Idiom12. ask for it, to risk or invite trouble, danger, punishment, etc., by persisting in some action or manner: He was asking for it by his abusive remarks. Idioms:ask for it/trouble Informal To persist in an action despite the likelihood that it will result in difficulty or punishment. Ask For It - To provoke an unwanted action. 'Leaving your wallet visible on the car seat is just asking for it' be asking for something to behave in a way that makes it likely that a particular unpleasant thing will happen to youShe’s asking for trouble speaking to people like that. be asking for it: Anyone who drives while they’re drunk is just asking for it. and my favorite... be asking for it/troubleDefinition to be behaving stupidly in a way that is likely to cause problems for you Drinking alcohol before driving is really asking for trouble. I'm not surprised she lost her job - she was really asking for it. (Definition of be asking for it/trouble from the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary & Thesaurus © Cambridge University Press) Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
Guest American Woman Posted January 13, 2012 Report Posted January 13, 2012 (edited) Didn't have to dig at all. It came from the Cambridge Idioms Dictionary, 2nd ed. Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2006. This is the first definition I came across, from "Idioms"Glossary: ask for it Definition: Invite or deserve an attack; invite trouble; persist in an action despite the likelihood that it will result in difficulty or punishment; do something that is sure to get one in trouble. Explanation: If you say that someone who gets hurt or punished was asking for it, you mean that they deserved what happened to them. Examples: "When you called him a thief, you really asked for it. That made him mad." "Picking a fight with a football player was really asking for it." Note the definition/explanation says "deserve." Note that all of the examples involve the person involved "asking for it." But after coming across that, I wanted to stick with the Cambridge dictionary, so that's what I searched for and and the definition I posted came up. So keep using "asking for it" and you know people will justifiably believe that you are saying that they deserved it, me included. Even the Cambridge Idioms Dictionary from Cambridge University says so. If you still insist on using the expression after what I've shown you, you mean "deserved it" as far as I'm concerned. If you don't mean that, you would make sure that what you are saying clearly says otherwise; you wouldn't be saying something that leaves not only so much ambiguity, but according to Cambridge University, says exactly what you claim not to be saying. Edited to add: I can only assume that you believe Daniel Pearl "asked for it" too; that anyone who has met death at the hands of the terrorists "asked for it," and I find that disgusting beyond words. Edited January 13, 2012 by American Woman Quote
cybercoma Posted January 13, 2012 Report Posted January 13, 2012 and my favorite... I was wondering why AW switched dictionaries. haha Quote
cybercoma Posted January 13, 2012 Report Posted January 13, 2012 Who gives a crap what that specific dictionary says. It's a bad choice of words either way. It should be abundantly clear, however, what he means after he posted several definitions from multiple sources. Going back to the Cambridge Idiom Dictionary is meaningless. As you can see from all the other sources, the idiom dictionary is the only one that suggests the actions are "deserved" rather than "invited." It's quite obvious that MG is saying that the terrorist attacks are a "foreseeable response," as reprehensible as it is, to US foreign policy. Quote
GostHacked Posted January 13, 2012 Report Posted January 13, 2012 It's called BLOWBACK. Actions taken by the USA previous to 9/11 in other countries were a factor into the why the attack on the USA happened. Quote
Smallc Posted January 13, 2012 Report Posted January 13, 2012 The US, at least in part, brought the terror attacks upon themselves. How is that even controversial? US actions around the world have drawn the ire of many groups. That can't be denied even. Does that mean that the terror attacks were right, or deserved (especially by the direct targets of the attacks)? No, but it simply means that US actions around the world resulted in a backlash. The 9/11 terror attacks were part of that backlash. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 13, 2012 Report Posted January 13, 2012 The US, at least in part, brought the terror attacks upon themselves. How is that even controversial? US actions around the world have drawn the ire of many groups. That can't be denied even. Yes it can be....still waiting for terror attacks from Japan, Germany, Chile, Granada, Cuba, Serbia, and Italy..among others. We did get a terrorist attempt from Canada (Millennium Bomber)! Does that mean that the terror attacks were right, or deserved (especially by the direct targets of the attacks)? No, but it simply means that US actions around the world resulted in a backlash. The 9/11 terror attacks were part of that backlash. Sorry...that is inconsistent. If the premeditated killings were not "right", then the US did not necessarily cause them by itself. The circumstances are much more complex and using such logic, Canada should have been attacked by now as well. There have been attacks in the US completely unrelated to foreign policy. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
cybercoma Posted January 13, 2012 Report Posted January 13, 2012 (edited) If the premeditated killings were not "right", then the US did not necessarily cause them by itself. Nobody even suggested that. You seem have a difficult time understanding arguments. And, this sentence is an illogical if-then statement. Edited January 13, 2012 by cybercoma Quote
Guest American Woman Posted January 13, 2012 Report Posted January 13, 2012 I was wondering why AW switched dictionaries. haha Switched dictionaries? Both definitions were from Cambridge. Read much? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.