9/11

[divineseraph]

lordstar

mazuac

divineseraph

Disaster? A weak disaster. 9/11 was nothing compared to what we have done. We are terrorists too.

*sigh* Seraph? Must EVERYTHING be an argument with you? You know what's funny? Why can't you, for once, like... add insight instead of making a crude comment. Last time I checked, this was a Christian, CHRISTIAN, guild. Meaning, as in, Christian can find refuge here.

Hah! But that's not the case here >_> Is it? The poster says something that is awesome and you just HAVE to bring it down! God, this is what me and a few other people were talking about! Christian Guilds are being overrun and destroyed by people like you! If you want to make an argument, take it up in the debate, here at LEAST try to be respectful of what a person has said. Or, no, I take that back. At least try to add to the conversation of the topic instead of turning into a huge debate!

divineseraph makes a good point (who btw didn't say 9/11 wasn't tragic in any way shape or form)

I expected better from you mazuac
really though
"people like you"
how disappointing

Exactly. It was tragic. But in comparison to other events, even events we have caused ourselves (as a country) it wasn't as tragic or devastating in terms of lives lost.  

[But Be Respectful]

divineseraph

gatetrek

divineseraph

gatetrek

Quote:

disaster? A weak disaster. 9/11 was nothing compared to what we have done. We are terrorists too.

How are we terrorists? We don't go into someone's country and bomb them for their religious beliefs. We didn't even bomb the Soviet Union during the communist days. Therefore I ask again, how are we terrorists?

And who is "we" anyways? Is it "we" as in America? or "we" as in Christians? I'll admit, us Christians have done some pretty awful things in the past (i.e. the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades). And yes, they do hold a certain amount of comparison to the acts of Al Qaida and the Taliban, for they too were based on religious beliefs.

9/11 not a disaster? tell that to the hundred of thousands who died. tell that to their families. tell that to the soldiers who are fighting today as a result of it. Not a disaster. For heaven's sake its the worst disaster since the Atomic Bomb attacks on the Japanese (which btw was a retaliation and the quickest/less costs in life way to end the war). I bet that every person will remember exactly what they were doing when they found out about 9/11 for the rest of their lives. I sure will.

In the future, back up your statements with AT LEAST a little more detail. Preferably, with verifiable facts too.

We as America. Look at Japan- Hiroshima and Nagasaki were purely terrorist attacks. How is terrorism defined? It is the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

We dropped a bomb in the center of civilian cities. On bridges in the center of town. Not on a military base. Our goal was to kill as many japanese civilians as possible. Why? To coerce the japanese leaders into surrender with violence an threats. And no, this was not the easiest way. Negotiations with the USSR were underfoot and Japan was on the verge of surrender. Their military force was non-existent. For the last few weeks before the bombs, pilots reported it like being on vacation- there was no resistance.

We are, historically speaking, terrorists. And Hiroshima and Nagasaki were barely the tip of the iceberg. We annihilated Dresden, hundreds of villages in Vietnam and dozens of cities in japan with conventional weaponry. We've killed millions of civilians. And don't tell me that Al Queda is not in a time of war- They are fighting Isreal. We are supplying Isreal with weaponry. After, of course, initially giving Al Queda weaponry to fight puppet-wars with us against the "communists". We, basically, use them one decade, then help their enemies the next. Much like Saddam, who we aided with a coup of the Iraqi government and put into power, and even aided in a war with peaceful and soverign nations. (See Iran) and then turned against when he went for a nation we owned oil stocks in (See Kuwait).

And hundreds of thousands? We lost no more than five thousand in 9/11. This is a paltry sum, considering our military actions in the past. We deserve at least another 49 9/11's to be equal to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, let alone the other cities we've decimated. Unless, of course, Japanese lives are less human and hold some sort of lesser value that good ol' American lives. Even then, I would think the japanese aren't worth only 1/50 of an American.

So. 9/11? It was nothing. If you want to be upset about a loss of life, protest the American Military. Which, by the way, killed more civilians in the subsequent bombings of Afghani villages than we lost in 9/11.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki may have been civilian cities, but they were the greatest manufacturers of war supplies in Japan.

The only other option was Operation Downfall, the plan to invade Japan. This would have cost over 100,000 lives on the American side alone, not to mention Japan's men, in the first month. PM me if you want to talk more about this; I won't be on for a week tho. I did a report on this, so I have more to say than can be discussed here.

Yes, we've killed civilians. Unfortunately, that's part of guerilla warfare. Not only have we done that, but the people we're fighting today have done that too. The problem with this war is not support from the civilians, its that the enemy is so cowardly that they won't come out into the open, so we can't tell the difference between an enemy soldier and a civilian. For all they know, a Middle Eastern family's next door neighbor could be firing rockets off in their backyard.

So I admit, we did lose only a couple thousand people. But does that make their lives lost any less significant? No.

And I'm not saying that the atomic bombings weren't horrendous acts, I'm just saying that it was the lesser of the two evils that could have been chosen.

We have, and they have. We all have. So if you're pissed off about terrorism, remember, you're pissed off at American wartime strategy too. This is my point. Not that America is wrong or Al Queda is right or that japan was right or wrong or anything like this.

When we kill civilians, we are all equally wrong. America too.

It is not the American wartime strategy to kill civilians. We actually try to save as many lives as possible, on both sides. Hence the Hiroshima and Nakasaki bombings. Hence why we don't just end this whole thing with atomic weapons. Hence why we're still over there, trying to keep dictators out of Iraq.

The difference between us and them though, is that when we kill civilians most of the time it's an accident. They actually use civilians as weapons to kill other civilians.

Osama Bin Laden once said "The US loves life. We love death. That is the biggest difference between us (from the History Channel's documentary, Inside 9/11)"

That is the mark of true terrorism.

On the main topic of the post, I also believe that God has worked wonders through the event. Thank you for saying something. I too find it sad that people have to make an argument out of everything. As to that, any more questions towards my posts I ask to be sent in private message. Believe me, I'll respond when I can.  

[divineseraph]

gatetrek

divineseraph

gatetrek

divineseraph

gatetrek

Quote:

disaster? A weak disaster. 9/11 was nothing compared to what we have done. We are terrorists too.

How are we terrorists? We don't go into someone's country and bomb them for their religious beliefs. We didn't even bomb the Soviet Union during the communist days. Therefore I ask again, how are we terrorists?

And who is "we" anyways? Is it "we" as in America? or "we" as in Christians? I'll admit, us Christians have done some pretty awful things in the past (i.e. the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades). And yes, they do hold a certain amount of comparison to the acts of Al Qaida and the Taliban, for they too were based on religious beliefs.

9/11 not a disaster? tell that to the hundred of thousands who died. tell that to their families. tell that to the soldiers who are fighting today as a result of it. Not a disaster. For heaven's sake its the worst disaster since the Atomic Bomb attacks on the Japanese (which btw was a retaliation and the quickest/less costs in life way to end the war). I bet that every person will remember exactly what they were doing when they found out about 9/11 for the rest of their lives. I sure will.

In the future, back up your statements with AT LEAST a little more detail. Preferably, with verifiable facts too.

We as America. Look at Japan- Hiroshima and Nagasaki were purely terrorist attacks. How is terrorism defined? It is the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

We dropped a bomb in the center of civilian cities. On bridges in the center of town. Not on a military base. Our goal was to kill as many japanese civilians as possible. Why? To coerce the japanese leaders into surrender with violence an threats. And no, this was not the easiest way. Negotiations with the USSR were underfoot and Japan was on the verge of surrender. Their military force was non-existent. For the last few weeks before the bombs, pilots reported it like being on vacation- there was no resistance.

We are, historically speaking, terrorists. And Hiroshima and Nagasaki were barely the tip of the iceberg. We annihilated Dresden, hundreds of villages in Vietnam and dozens of cities in japan with conventional weaponry. We've killed millions of civilians. And don't tell me that Al Queda is not in a time of war- They are fighting Isreal. We are supplying Isreal with weaponry. After, of course, initially giving Al Queda weaponry to fight puppet-wars with us against the "communists". We, basically, use them one decade, then help their enemies the next. Much like Saddam, who we aided with a coup of the Iraqi government and put into power, and even aided in a war with peaceful and soverign nations. (See Iran) and then turned against when he went for a nation we owned oil stocks in (See Kuwait).

And hundreds of thousands? We lost no more than five thousand in 9/11. This is a paltry sum, considering our military actions in the past. We deserve at least another 49 9/11's to be equal to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, let alone the other cities we've decimated. Unless, of course, Japanese lives are less human and hold some sort of lesser value that good ol' American lives. Even then, I would think the japanese aren't worth only 1/50 of an American.

So. 9/11? It was nothing. If you want to be upset about a loss of life, protest the American Military. Which, by the way, killed more civilians in the subsequent bombings of Afghani villages than we lost in 9/11.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki may have been civilian cities, but they were the greatest manufacturers of war supplies in Japan.

The only other option was Operation Downfall, the plan to invade Japan. This would have cost over 100,000 lives on the American side alone, not to mention Japan's men, in the first month. PM me if you want to talk more about this; I won't be on for a week tho. I did a report on this, so I have more to say than can be discussed here.

Yes, we've killed civilians. Unfortunately, that's part of guerilla warfare. Not only have we done that, but the people we're fighting today have done that too. The problem with this war is not support from the civilians, its that the enemy is so cowardly that they won't come out into the open, so we can't tell the difference between an enemy soldier and a civilian. For all they know, a Middle Eastern family's next door neighbor could be firing rockets off in their backyard.

So I admit, we did lose only a couple thousand people. But does that make their lives lost any less significant? No.

And I'm not saying that the atomic bombings weren't horrendous acts, I'm just saying that it was the lesser of the two evils that could have been chosen.

We have, and they have. We all have. So if you're pissed off about terrorism, remember, you're pissed off at American wartime strategy too. This is my point. Not that America is wrong or Al Queda is right or that japan was right or wrong or anything like this.

When we kill civilians, we are all equally wrong. America too.

It is not the American wartime strategy to kill civilians. We actually try to save as many lives as possible, on both sides. Hence the Hiroshima and Nakasaki bombings. Hence why we don't just end this whole thing with atomic weapons. Hence why we're still over there, trying to keep dictators out of Iraq.

The difference between us and them though, is that when we kill civilians most of the time it's an accident. They actually use civilians as weapons to kill other civilians.

Osama Bin Laden once said "The US loves life. We love death. That is the biggest difference between us (from the History Channel's documentary, Inside 9/11)"

That is the mark of true terrorism.

On the main topic of the post, I also believe that God has worked wonders through the event. Thank you for saying something. I too find it sad that people have to make an argument out of everything. As to that, any more questions towards my posts I ask to be sent in private message. Believe me, I'll respond when I can.

No, our attacks are well calculated. We know damn well that we will kill civilians. We knew we would terrorize Japan by attacking a civilian city Japan was defenseless. They were in the midst of pulling out of the war effort with the Soviet Union and wouldn't have lasted more than a few weeks anyway. We knew what we were doing.

Don't get me started on dictators in Iraq. Considering, of course, that we aided Saddam in his coupe of the original government to set up his dictatorship, and even aided him in bombing sovereign nations when he went to war with them. (See Iran) We only really had a problem with him when he went for one of the countries we had a hefty oil business in. See Kuwait, see the Gulf War. So saving civilians? Stopping dictators? Bullshit. The real motivation isn't in helping people, it's in profit and control and power in the global economy.

And yes, they do. Which is wrong. But are our greed-driven actions any better? Considering we started literally all of the wars we are now in, I'd say we're the cause of the problems.
Here is, in chronological order, our actions towards these countries.

Palestine- Gave Ossama Bin Laden weaponry to fight the Soviets.
Iraq- We set up Saddam.
Iran- We aided Saddam in bombings.
Iraq- We fought Saddam in Kuwait.
Palestine- We gave Israel weaponry to fight against Palestine.
(Ossama bombs twin towers in retaliation)
Afghanistan- We kill more civilians in out subsequent bombings than died in 9/11
Iraq- Invaded Iraq for God knows what reason, conveniently in the clouded confusion following 9/11.

If you can't see here why to the people living in these places, we look like a bad guy, then you are clouded severely by propaganda and need to come out of your cave. The light may be harsh and glaring, but it sure beats staring at shadows and calling them realities.

And sure, Ossama may have said things. Who cares. He is angry, and rightfully so. We betrayed him, gave weapons to his enemy and killed his people after using him in a puppet war. I'd be pissed too. Of course, this doesn't justify his actions, nor does it justify our murder of the innocent civilians. Especially when the dictators and promoting democracy and freedom and eagles and apple pie is a convenient, easy to follow cover for war profiteering.  

[Tarrou]

gatetrek

The difference between us and them though, is that when we kill civilians most of the time it's an accident. They actually use civilians as weapons to kill other civilians.

Personally, I suspect that when the U.S. kills civilians in this day and age, it's not so much and accident as it is a DoD calculation that to not kill civilians would be inconvenient. After all, can you imagine how many bombs we'd have to not drop if we worried about every civilian that might be in their way? Don't think that the U.S. objects to killing civilians or mourns whatever loss of innocent life it inflicts. To us, it's simply the cost of doing business, and while we try keep it to a sort of minimum, mainly for PR purposes, it won't trouble our sleep.

Incidentally, my above views lead me to reject divineseraph's categorization of U.S. actions as terroristic. As I see it, terrorism is the deliberate targeting of civilians to effect political aims through terror. To the U.S., civilian deaths are merely incidental to some other aim, and are seen as an unavoidable side-effect rather than a primary goal. That does not mean, however, that U.S. 'collateral damage' is less morally egregious than a terrorist attack (they are both equally reprehensible), just of a different kind.

divineseraph

Palestine- Gave Ossama Bin Laden weaponry to fight the Soviets.
Iraq- We set up Saddam.
Iran- We aided Saddam in bombings.
Iraq- We fought Saddam in Kuwait.
Palestine- We gave Israel weaponry to fight against Palestine.
(Ossama bombs twin towers in retaliation)
Afghanistan- We kill more civilians in out subsequent bombings than died in 9/11
Iraq- Invaded Iraq for God knows what reason, conveniently in the clouded confusion following 9/11.

That time-line (or bullet-point list) needs a few corrections.

1. We supported bin Laden and the Mujahideen against the Soviets in Afghanistan.
2. The Iran-Iraq War was a full-scale ground war, not just a series of 'bombings'. Also, while the U.S. threw most of its support behind Iraq, we also supplied arms to Iran (see Iran-Contra affair).
3. We have supplied Israel with weaponry since the 1960's, long before the current Intifada. In addition to the Palestinians, Israel has used U.S. weaponry to fight the Syrians, Egyptians, Lebanese, and Jordanians.
4. The motivation for the September 11th attacks was not only bin Laden's opposition to U.S. support for Israel, but also by the continued presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia following the First Gulf War.

As for bin Laden himself, we never 'betrayed' him. The Afghan mujahideen were largely left to their own devices after the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan. It's hard to argue that the U.S.'s military support for Israel constitutes giving 'weapons to [bin Ladens's] enemy' given that bin Laden has never operated in or immediately around Israel (was an Afghan mujahideen, returned briefly to Saudi Arabia, set up shop in Sudan, returned to Afghanistan circa '96). His hatred of the U.S. is, as far as I know, purely ideological.  

[divineseraph]

It is indeed more complicated than I had implied.

However, it is a tangled mess, and our interference isn't helping anything. We only cause more problems and make more people hate us- Either by aiding their enemies or by killing them directly. It is a terrible idea to think that by continuing to run the world with bombs and threats that we can ever attain peace.  

[Tarrou]

divineseraph

It is indeed more complicated than I had implied.

However, it is a tangled mess, and our interference isn't helping anything. We only cause more problems and make more people hate us- Either by aiding their enemies or by killing them directly. It is a terrible idea to think that by continuing to run the world with bombs and threats that we can ever attain peace.

Never said it would; I'm no more fond of U.S. foreign policy than you are.  

[divineseraph]

I had assumed so- Most people with a knowledge of our military actions are against them.

It was more of a general statement directed at the situation in general. A sum-up of what it all meant and why our foreign policy is wrong.