Well now, Ron Paul even agrees on the reason for 911!

[dre]

Not nearly as ignorant as looking at 7 different dictionaries that corroborate a single point and rejecting them all because a single dictionary says otherwise.

It makes perfect sense if you think about it. Nobody wants to debate the central claim being made here (that foreign policy has consequences AKA "blowback"). That would be absurd. So that leaves them trying to shift the conversation to this useless debate over semantics and the meaning of words. And some people made it easy for them with the choice of words they use.

I warned people where this thread was going.

Yeah well, thats what you get for debating people whos sole reason for being here, is to carry on this bizzaro US vs Canada theme. Just move on and dont waste your time. They will derail EVERY thread if you help them do it.

I think you're mistaking "they had it coming" as "they deserved it." I believe in this context, what he's trying to say is that it was a probabilistic risk, not that they deserved it.

Well "they had it coming" is a really bad choice of words too. Even though its pretty uncontraversial at this point that some US policies were a contributing factor to the emergence of this organization and its alignment against the US/West the people who are responsible for those policies were pretty much un-touched by 911. They're still perfect happy and safe.

Not ONE of the people who got killed on 911 has anything to do any of those policies, as near as I can tell. So the people who may have "had it coming" quite simply are not the people who were in those planes or in those towers.

Besides that, its inflamatory language that doesnt seem contstructive to me.

Coulda saved all of you seven pages of this abject idiocy

Edited January 14, 2012 by dre

[Guest American Woman]

Actually, what I'm seeing here is narrow thinking that seems to think only AMERICANS are behind the planet's ills and everything is a response to them. Other countries are either too dumb or too pure to even attempt such things as a...gasp...false flag operation. Which is either the bigotry of low expectations or a pie-in-the-sky world view. Take your pick.

Yep. That pretty much sums it up.

[eyeball]

Well then, that explains why you deserve to be murdered,

Why? I've never voted for a government that might use the power of the state in a manner that would cause people to hate me. I'm extremely careful about who gets my vote.

but it doesn't explain why this four year old did. Sins of the father, perhaps?

Probably the same thing that explains the deaths of Taliban children.

:angry:

Yes, there's an awful lot to be angry about all right but I'm not it.

[Guest American Woman]

Why? I've never voted for a government that might use the power of the state in a manner that would cause people to hate me. I'm extremely careful about who gets my vote.

What makes you think everyone who died did vote for the government in power? Trust me. You deserve it every bit as much as those you accuse of deserving it.

Probably the same thing that explains the deaths of Taliban children.

The Taliban children have not been targeted. They have not been purposely killed. That is not the goal. Quite the opposite. But then, you already knew that......

Yes, there's an awful lot to be angry about all right but I'm not it.

Personally, I find your holier-than-thou "why? [...] I'm extremely careful about who gets my vote," as you claim everyone else deserved to die because of the actions of their government, to be disgusting beyond the pale. :angry:

[GostHacked]

It's a matter of the USA's foreign policy over the past 30 years that contributed to the increasing posibility that an eventuall terror attack would happen on US soil. The people of a country always seem to be collectively blamed because of whoever is commiting atrocities in their name is their responsibility. There is no way the innocent people who died on 9/11 deserved any of that. But the real shame here is that these people died because of their elected leaders failure to administer a decent foreign policy that would not generate so much angst from people of other nations in which these policies are made up for.

If we look at the USA as a single stand alone entity, then you could say the USA deserved it. But the USA is made up of 350 million people. And there is a small group of them that control the rest of the people and make laws and rules for them to live by. Who ends up suffering the consequences of the elected leaders actions? The people do. No matter if it is domestic or foreign policy. The people do end up seeing the consequences of the domestic policy, but really have no clue as to what the consequences of these foreign policies. That's classified.

In a sense many of us have really no idea of what goes on behind those scenes. All we see are random horrible events around the world that may not seem to be related at all. But start putting things together, and you start to see the bigger picture. You begin to ask more of 'who' instead of 'why'.

The collective 'we' are responsible for the actions of the governments foreign policy. We think we can trust these people to do honourable things in your and your country's name when operating covertly in other nations. And when the results don't turn out as planned, and you get some push back on it in the form of terrorism, one simply should not be surprised. You should be angry. Angry at your government and say, why was this brought upon us? What have you done in our name? Those questions, never really seem to bubble up to the surface. Instead it seems easier to blame some dudes in a cave in a far off land, because they hate you for your freedoms and at the same time you wonder why they hate your freedoms.

[bush_cheney2004]

What makes you think everyone who died did vote for the government in power? Trust me. You deserve it every bit as much as those you accuse of deserving it.

It is quite remarkable how some here choose to ignore the history of imperialism in the region by the very government(s) and heads of state that enjoy tea at 4PM, long before the United States came on scene. In typical fashion, they like to bracket their myopia to the last "30 years". I guess CF-188's dropping bombs on Iraqis was because they deserved it!

[eyeball]

What makes you think everyone who died did vote for the government in power? Trust me. You deserve it every bit as much as those you accuse of deserving it.

I don't, and trust you? Not if my life depended on it I'm afraid.

The Taliban children have not been targeted. They have not been purposely killed. That is not the goal. Quite the opposite. But then, you already knew that......

They still end up just as dead and I'm pretty sure a lot of our nuclear missiles are still aimed at children in different parts the world.

Personally, I find your holier-than-thou "why? [...] I'm extremely careful about who gets my vote," as you claim everyone else deserved to die because of the actions of their government, to be disgusting beyond the pale. :angry:

If I said what I'd really like to say about you sometimes I'd probably be banned.

Mostly you make me want to puke.

[bush_cheney2004]

...If I said what I'd really like to say about you sometimes I'd probably be banned.

Mostly you make me want to puke.

And yet you consistently refuse to take responsibility for the actions of your own government while rationalizing that thousands of Americans and other nationals "deserved it" or "had it coming" because of "blowback". Amazing....

[bud]

The Taliban children have not been targeted. They have not been purposely killed. That is not the goal. Quite the opposite. But then, you already knew that......

your attempt at trying to make a point crashed into a wall when you used the old collateral damage argument in order to try to justify your team's actions. what if the 3000 innocent people who were killed at WTC are also consider collateral damage by the groups responsible for flying the planes into the buildings? it's not like al quaeda knew the people personally. they're also not shy about being honest about their intentions, which is to respond to america's meddling and bullying in the arab world.

it's like continuously poking a stick into a dog and then complain and cry when it finally bites you. then you start beating the dog and say it deserves it.

any side who knows that their actions will lead to the deaths of innocent people but then they go ahead and do it anyway, is responsible for the deaths.

[Guest American Woman]

I don't

Sure sounded like it when you questioned why you deserved to die as much as the 9-11 victims you claim deserved it according to your "vote for their government" rationale. Are you now backpedaling and admitting that you too deserve to be murdered?

They still end up just as dead

By the same token, if you drive too fast for conditions and end up in a head-on collision that results in a death, the person who died is just as dead as the Charles Manson victims. That doesn't make you "the same" as Charles Manson though, does it? And you wouldn't be tried and/or sentenced for first degree murder; you wouldn't be charged with murder at all.

In spite of your best efforts to portray us as "the same," we are not.

and I'm pretty sure a lot of our nuclear missiles are still aimed at children in different parts the world.

And that's the same as actual murder to you? Someone who has pointed a gun at someone is guilty of murder?

If I said what I'd really like to say about you sometimes I'd probably be banned.

Mostly you make me want to puke.

You most likely would be, since saying that I "make you want to puke" is against the rules.

Edited January 14, 2012 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

your attempt at trying to make a point

It wasn't an "attempt;" I made my point. Quite clearly.

crashed into a wall when you used the old collateral damage argument in order to try to justify your team's actions.

You don't even understand the issue I was responding to. Or perhaps you do, and decided to go off on another tangent anyway. At any rate, I'll try to make this as clear as possible for you - I wasn't trying to "justify" anything. I was explaining why there's a difference between premeditated murder - ie: the purposeful targeting and killing of civilians - and the accidental, regretful death of civilians during a military strike.

I have often said that I don't care for the term "collateral damage." They are civilian deaths, and civilian deaths have occurred in all wars, by all nations. That doesn't all nations' government "just like al Qaeda and/or the Taliban." If you think it does, that's your problem, but please don't visit your problem on me and wrongly declare what I am "try[ing]" to do. Thank you in advance.

what if the 3000 innocent people who were killed at WTC are also consider collateral damage by the groups responsible for flying the planes into the buildings?

I'll try to explain this to you. one. more. time.

The 3000 innocent people who were killed at the WTC were the TARGET. They weren't "accidentally" killed. Al Qeada wasn't making a military strike that resulted in the accidental death of innocent civilians. The terrorists didn't hope that the little four year old girl in the plane on her way to Disneyland would survive and go on to enjoy her vacation. There was no chance of that. No hope. And no regret when she died with everyone else. Again. She WAS the target. There was no military target. The deaths were premeditated murder. The civilian deaths were the hope, the desire, the goal.

it's not like al quaeda knew the people personally.

What in the world does THAT have to do with amything??? Good grief.

they're also not shy about being honest about their intentions, which is to respond to america's meddling and bullying in the arab world.

"Meddling" and "bullying?" Care to explain?

it's like continuously poking a stick into a dog and then complain and cry when it finally bites you. then you start beating the dog and say it deserves it.

Actually, no. It's not like that at all.

any side who knows that their actions will lead to the deaths of innocent people but then they go ahead and do it anyway, is responsible for the deaths.

Once again, please explain what "actions" "the US" engaged in that the government "knew" would "lead to the deaths of innocent civilians."

And then admit, by your own standards, that al Qaeda is responsible for all of the deaths that occurred as a result of 9-11 - since they had to have known that "their actions [would] lead to the deaths of innocent people but then [went] ahead and did it anyway." I look forward to your admission.

[waldo]

Not nearly as ignorant as looking at 7 different dictionaries that corroborate a single point and rejecting them all because a single dictionary says otherwise.

It makes perfect sense if you think about it. Nobody wants to debate the central claim being made here (that foreign policy has consequences AKA "blowback"). That would be absurd. So that leaves them trying to shift the conversation to this useless debate over semantics and the meaning of words.

MG went out of his way, several times, to clarify his wording, to explicitly counter the attempts to redefine his words/his intent - apparently, finding a single lone dictionary reference takes precedence over 7 countering dictionary references, numerous clarification offerings and explicit statements countering the attempts to redefine his words/intent.

[Guest Manny]

your attempt at trying to make a point crashed into a wall when you used the old collateral damage argument in order to try to justify your team's actions. what if the 3000 innocent people who were killed at WTC are also consider collateral damage by the groups responsible for flying the planes into the buildings? it's not like al quaeda knew the people personally. they're also not shy about being honest about their intentions, which is to respond to america's meddling and bullying in the arab world.

it's like continuously poking a stick into a dog and then complain and cry when it finally bites you. then you start beating the dog and say it deserves it.

any side who knows that their actions will lead to the deaths of innocent people but then they go ahead and do it anyway, is responsible for the deaths.

Interesting question. If the buildings were empty and the terrorists knew it, would they have crashed the planes anyway?

Possibly. The damage to America went far and beyond the loss of those lives that day.

[cybercoma]

MG went out of his way, several times, to clarify his wording, to explicitly counter the attempts to redefine his words/his intent - apparently, finding a single lone dictionary reference takes precedence over 7 countering dictionary references, numerous clarification offerings and explicit statements countering the attempts to redefine his words/intent.

She's being obtuse. I'm not sure where she gets off telling people what they "really" mean, but he definitely went way out of his way to clarify his point. I guess that's what happens when you argue with trolls that would rather debate what they wish you said, rather than what you're actually saying. The trolls will keep stuffing their strawmen though. They're not interested in having an honest discussion of the issues.

[Guest American Woman]

Interesting question. If the buildings were empty and the terrorists knew it, would they have crashed the planes anyway?

Possibly. The damage to America went far and beyond the loss of those lives that day.

What if the planes were empty too? You think the terrorists would have stolen a couple of planes and flown the empty planes into empty buildings? You think that's even a question that requires any contemplation?

Seems to me that would be the same as saying that suicide bombers might go to an empty building in Israel to blow themselves up.

[Guest Manny]

I don't, and trust you? Not if my life depended on it I'm afraid.

They still end up just as dead and I'm pretty sure a lot of our nuclear missiles are still aimed at children in different parts the world.

If I said what I'd really like to say about you sometimes I'd probably be banned.

Mostly you make me want to puke.

Back to the ignore function?

It's bliss...

[GostHacked]

She's being obtuse. I'm not sure where she gets off telling people what they "really" mean, but he definitely went way out of his way to clarify his point. I guess that's what happens when you argue with trolls that would rather debate what they wish you said, rather than what you're actually saying. The trolls will keep stuffing their strawmen though. They're not interested in having an honest discussion of the issues.

This is a trend as of late with a few posters. Reading comprehension gets to be key after a while. I've misread some posts and make stupid replies, but would we ever get admission from those usuall suspects about their posts? Nope.

What is funny is that my post on the last page .. surpised the usuall suspects have not tried to tear that apart. Maybe they can't.

[eyeball]

Sure sounded like it when you questioned why you deserved to die as much as the 9-11 victims you claim deserved it according to your "vote for their government" rationale. Are you now backpedaling and admitting that you too deserve to be murdered?

Nope, the worst I can be accused of is not doing enough to deter our governments from being such murderous interlopers.

By the same token, if you drive too fast for conditions and end up in a head-on collision that results in a death, the person who died is just as dead as the Charles Manson victims. That doesn't make you "the same" as Charles Manson though, does it? And you wouldn't be tried and/or sentenced for first degree murder; you wouldn't be charged with murder at all.

In spite of your best efforts to portray us as "the same," we are not.

Why did you use the phrase the same token?

And that's the same as actual murder to you? Someone who has pointed a gun at someone is guilty of murder?

No it means you target kids, you said you don't target kids but in fact, millions if not billions are in your sights every day. It's when you pull the trigger or push the button that you cross the line.

You most likely would be, since saying that I "make you want to puke" is against the rules.

What about the same token you found me disgusting with?

[Guest American Woman]

Nope, the worst I can be accused of is not doing enough to deter our governments from being such murderous interlopers.

OMG. Your holier-than-thou attitude as you accuse others of deserving to die is beyond contempt.

Why did you use the phrase the same token?

You truly lack the ability to understand what that means?? Or are you playing dumb to avoid responding - because you can't? Either way, my point is made, and I don't doubt you see it.

No it means you target kids, you said you don't target kids but in fact, millions if not billions are in your sights every day. It's when you pull the trigger or push the button that you cross the line.

No, we don't target kids.

What about the same token you found me disgusting with?

I said that I find your viewpoint on this issue disgusting. Beyond disgusting, actually. Time to stop responding to you again.

Edited January 14, 2012 by American Woman

[eyeball]

OMG. Your holier-than-thou attitude as you accuse others of deserving to die is beyond contempt.

I accused others of deserving to die? That doesn't make any sense.

You truly lack the ability to understand what that means?? Or are you playing dumb to avoid responding - because you can't? Either way, my point is made, and I don't doubt you see it.

I lack the ability to understand you because your points are so god damned silly.

No, we don't target kids.

Then what are they doing in your missiliers sights?

I said that I find your viewpoint on this issue disgusting. Beyond disgusting, actually. Time to stop responding to you again.

I'd probably make you my friend if you did.