In honor of 9/11

I bet you wouldn't say that if you lost someone in the attack you fucking prick. It holds more bearing because-

1) It was NOT a declared time of war, an obvious attack on civilians.

2) The tsunami happened in over many other countries and was an act of nature, not hate.

Hey while you're at it, hate Spain and the people of Madrid of making such a big deal of their bombings as well!

I pray to God he has mercy on your hate filled soul and your lack of caring about human life.
 
--

I bet you wouldn't say that if you lost someone in the attack you fucking prick. It holds more bearing because-

1) It was NOT a declared time of war, an obvious attack on civilians.

2) The tsunami happened in over many other countries and was an act of nature, not hate.

Hey while you're at it, hate Spain and the people of Madrid of making such a big deal of their bombings as well!

I pray to God he has mercy on your hate filled soul and your lack of caring about human life.

-

ok, 1. If i say 'HEY, IM GONNA RAPE YOUR MOM! and then i rape her, does that make it any more 'ok' then if i just do it while she's sleeping? no sir it doesnt. rape is rape and war crimes are war crimes.

2. The point i was making about the tsunami, which you so ignorantly missed, was that i was comparing the bearing of each incidents loss of life, and hoq quickly we forget those who didnt die on our soil... no one is taking away from the pain and suffering of those who died in 9/11 and there families... but bush's wars have easily cost quadruple the innocent lives of 9/11...

it makes me sick to my stomach that bush is using the memories of these poor new yorkers as an excuse to fight wars for his friends, and taking a ludicrous amount of innocent peoples lives across the world to boot, but hey! They have different colour skin then us! so we really dont have to worry about remembering them.

bottom line... respect the dead make sure there killers are brought to justice, not kept at the head of state for another 4 years...
 
he starts two wars that he has no excuse for, and then gets re-elected? Reality couldnt have called because he's in the salt flats tripping on peyote
 
I'm very sorry to disappoint you. He had excuses for both. Read a newspaper sometime. While Iraq is debatable, Afghanistan is not.

I have class, but I'll be back to drive my point home. Peace.
 
yea, the government is making it kind of obvious now that george bush wants to be a leader, like a king or something
 
"it makes me sick to my stomach that bush is using the memories of these poor new yorkers as an excuse to fight wars for his friends..."

Whereas he could have done nothing an have Al Qaeda still brooding in Afghanistan. Bad, bad, Mr. Bush. Those New Yorkers would have been more pissed if he did nothing. You also seem to neglect the fact that DOING NOTHING PROVES THE TERRORISTS RIGHT. That is true for any situation. By the way, who are these "friends?" Are they the unseen billionaire corporate executive monsters? Spare me. Try to actually come up with reasonable explanation for his actions rather than blaming it on the rich fatcats. Complex issues are not debunked by simple stereotypes.

"and taking a ludicrous amount of innocent peoples lives across the world to boot, but hey! They have different colour skin then us! so we really dont have to worry about remembering them."

Ludicrous? War generates casualties. It is a terrible truth. I don't like to see people die anymore than you. But please define ludicrous. Across the world? I'm calling that a bluff. Name one place outside of the Middle East (or rather Afghanistan and Iraq) that as seen a sizable death toll as a direct result of Bush's actions. Different colored skin? You want to play that strawman stereotype card again? Does Bush also breathe fire and eat babies?

"bottom line... respect the dead make sure there killers are brought to justice, not kept at the head of state for another 4 years..."

Respect the dead by making sure the killers are brought to justice? That sounds kinda familiar....where have I heard this before....oh I remember...IT'S THE ENTIRE BASIS FOR THE "WAR ON TERROR." Use your head.

"he starts two wars that he has no excuse for, and then gets re-elected? Reality couldnt have called because he's in the salt flats tripping on peyote"

Actually reality could have called. You just couldn't hear the phone ringing seeing as your head is plated firmly between your buttocks which prevents you from doing much of anything. Now I remember why I got so tired of NSG by the end of the 2004 election. Its because I mostly ended up debating with people that could never grasp the idea that a situation is complex. Making big decisions encompasses consideration for as many things as possible. Mind you I am not advocating some of the decisions Bush has made nor do I agree with all of them. The problem is you are viewing this through tinted glass. Drop it. You're smarter than that.
 
You make valid points and silly points. But i'm not a politician or an intellect or someone who knows everything about everything, so i wont claim to. I have opinions and biases just like everyone else. I believe that morally and ethically george bush is a monster, and i cant see any sort any stances that he has taken that would overshadow his corruption and idiocy that are consice enough to warrant a second term.

also, a trillion dollar oil industry and a peak oil crisis on the horizon

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2215604490907671840&q=%22peak+oil%252

is more then enough of a reasonable explanation for someone to go to war.

Also, if i was having a political debate with someone, i would be mature enough not to take shallow, childish stabs at them. I'd rather not have a conversation that carries this sort of weight with a child.

b
 
This is what gets me...

This is the typical American response to someone who has said something that is "un-patriotic". Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the basis of America to encourage the principal of freedom? I mean if a person can't state their opinion, doesn't that probe under the right to free speech. What would happen if no one spoke badly about their government? We wouldn't be here today living as freely as we do. I know that every time we make a law censoring or condeming people of what they say or how they express themselves, it hurts our bill of rights that much more. People today have no respect for anyone else's opinion and something needs to be done before we don't have an opinion anymore.
 
i hate how EVERYNONE knew what was happening that morning, but no one said anything to the kids in school. we had no idea what was happening and when i got home, i opened the door to a bunch of people crying and relatives i havent seen in years sitting on my couch watching the news. it pisses me off how they can forget to mention that our country is under attack. and dont say they wanted to keep order in the school, fuck that shit, we have the right to know. school cuts off the outside world.
 
Ok well let's think have secrets of area 52 leaked? Have secrets of what REALLY goes on with intervention in the middle east leaked? Would Nixon have ever been caught cheating if someone hadn't seen them in the hotel? What you don't know is that secrets are kept from you every day and you don't know it. Hell I don't even know it, but they are out there.
 
Well then, What about the mass genocide happening every day in Africa.

What about what happened in Rwanada in the 1990's. This was an act of hate and an undeclared attack. Well over 800,000 people were slaughtered over a period of 90 days. To put things into persepctive of this argument, that is like 2.5 September 11th's happening every day for 90 days. This is in a country the size of New Jersey. Where is the meomorial for the innocent people who were raped, tortured, and beheaded before they died. These people do not recieve any meomorial service. They don't get to talk about what happened on an internet forum. Imagine all the children who have to grow up without parents, if they even make it past the age of 5.

My point was not to deride the victims of the Sept. 11th attacks at all. I was simply trying to show that a life lost is a life lost. It doesn't matter how a person dies. It doesn't matter who they are. It doesn't matter how rich or poor they are. What matters is it was a life. An innocent life lost should be credited with a sense of certainty.
 
So are you actually going to state your examples? Or are you just dandy with continuing to make general statements? You can find news on Google too...I sure am impressed (link doesn't work btw). Oil was A reason for Iraq, not THE reason. There was more than a single reason.

Also, if I was having a political debate with someone (I wouldn't call this a real debate either), I would be mature enough keep consistent with my argument. I'll respect you when you attempt to answer the questions I posed in my last posts. Here is what is still on the table that you have chosen to ignore:

1. You have not explained how there is no excuse/reason for US action in Afghanistan.

2. Who have yet to tell me who are the Bush "friends" you speak of.

3. You have not defined the ludicrous amount of deaths.

4. You have not named a single place outside of Afghanistan or Iraq that as seen a sizable death toll as a direct result of Bush's actions.

5. Finaly, you have not explained the race comment you made.

Good debaters SUPPORT claims with SOMETHING. If you are going to call this childish you had better start acting like an adult first. In other words, put up or shut up.

Bush is a political monster and went to war for oil. That opinion is fine, just explain why. Also explore what other motivations that he could have had for what he did. Also, your oil argument still says nothing about Afghanistan...they don't have an oil industry.

I'm all ears. The floor is yours.
 
I can help him out a little bit.

1. What did happen to Afghanistan? We kill Osama Bin Laden's #2 man every day. (not really answering the question, but performing a general consensus of my opinion.

2. Bush's friends that he is thinking of are Prince Abdallah of Saudi Arabia, Salem Bin Laden (Osama's brother), and Isreali Prime Minister Ariel Sharone. (sp?) I know there's more that was just off the top of my head.

3. Citizen death toll in Iraq is somewhere in the vicinity of 100,000.

http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7967-2004Oct28.html

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2003/12/12/iraq6582.html

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/10/29/62614/814

4. The tsunami, it was obviously George Bush's fault, I mean he created global warming right? Global warming was the obvious cause of the Tsunami. (I like to throw some sarcasm into the debate).

America has a sizeable death toll as a result of Bush's actions.

5. Sorry, you will have to answer this on your own. I didn't see the comment you made.
 
That's completely uncomparable to anything... It really is on a whole other level. I mean Africa is just such a huge country with countless problems and lives being lost of those problems. Many, many genocides aren't even found out about until wayyy after the fact. Plus the loss of life is just unimaginable.
 
Those who lost relatives should be the most pissed off your government killed them.

Thats what they did. The united states government murderd your dad. or your uncle

whatever. and you are defending them

personally i have the balls and loyalty to stand up for my family not try and forget. Your like a fucken 5 year old that thinks the scary things will go away when you close your eyes.

maybe its better they are dead. they wont see what pussys their sons/relatives have become.
 
chicken_little.jpg
 
Thats nice of you but thats not what I really want in any case. I want HIM to answer the questions. I already have answers to those questions as do you. I want him to figure it out. You know how to support something...he hasn't shown me he does. I want him to realize that to have an opinion on anything it needs to well founded and that he can indeed support it. Otherwise you just have judgmental people who really don't have a clue.
 
im canadian

and your all bullshitting back and forth about what the cause was, well guess what, religion again ruins some more lives...yup, THE worst thing to ever happen to mankind
 
1. You have not explained how there is no excuse/reason for US action in Afghanistan.

i'm not sure what kind of syndrome you're working with... but this macho/calling me out thing is abit ridiculous. Take a second and look at your additude... You are misinterpreting every one of my points and putting words in my mouth in so many countless ways that i feel way to exhausted to try and re-explain myself and spell things out for you in a way that you'll understand. US action was nessecary, but the action that took place was shrouded in so many webs of lies and mistruths, it's impossible to look at the civilian death tolls compared to the 9/11 casualties and tell me it's worth it. This coupled with a bully syndrome that seems to be contagious with you, is nothing to me but a poor example of morality and common sense. My original RANT, (which it was, nothing more, nothing less) was that of dissapointment. And without bin laden... i see no justice, no progress, only a pair of sad evangelical children bickering pointlessly.

2. Who have yet to tell me who are the Bush "friends" you speak of.

i think my friend helped me out on that one! Thanks friend!

3. You have not defined the ludicrous amount of deaths.

Also, check death tolls! Kudos friend!

4. You have not named a single place outside of Afghanistan or Iraq that as seen a sizable death toll as a direct result of Bush's actions.

This one, you pulled out of nowhere. hahaha, i believe i said 'across the world' which in my head, means "Across the world"... not "Numerous different places around the world." I meant distance. But if you want to get down to it, bush's actions for katrina ended in a much more sizeable of death toll then was nessecary. Hurricane rita?!?! hitting texas!??! the homeland!?!? a convoy will be there right away! hahaha... what a joke.

5. Finaly, you have not explained the race comment you made.

the race comment was also something you misunderstood. I was reinstating the fact that no one in NA (media etc) pays any sort of the depth of homage to those innocent civilians who died in iraq/afghanistan. especially when the numbers are so heavily favoring the middle easterners when it comes to what should be media worthy... they aren't white people, and thats the only explanation i could come up with to them not being paid attention to... what did they do to not have there lives be warranted remembered and grovelled over like the 9/11 deaths? im not saying its wrong, but show me a balance you fuckers!

"Good debaters SUPPORT claims with SOMETHING. If you are going to call this childish you had better start acting like an adult first. In other words, put up or shut up."

Such a bully! haha, please relax my friend... all this gay marrige is getting you fired up eh!

"Bush is a political monster and went to war for oil. That opinion is fine, just explain why. Also explore what other motivations that he could have had for what he did. Also, your oil argument still says nothing about Afghanistan...they don't have an oil industry."

It'll be a war on alberta next! afghan, iraq, iran, alberta... mark my words.

"I'm all ears. The floor is yours."

ooo i better not mess up then, i really want to astound you and all the 12 year olds on newschoolers with my napoleon-esque syndrome (you're so knowledgeable of this forum, i figure i should follow in your footsteps)

b
 
I misinterpret you because you fail to express yourself in clear fashion. This goes back to elaborating on what you say. If you are not specific, people won't know exactly what you are talking about. Thats your problem, not mine. I fail to see how you are whining about re-explaining yourself...seeing as how you explained little to begin with. I don't even want to know what agony your English teachers must go through. However, you did make some attempt to explain yourself, so I'll let the side comments rest here and put an end to it.

Now for my take on the issues...

1. That is fair enough. I'll respect that argument, though I do not entirely agree with that. US action was necessary and I glad you don't dispute that. I hold the belief that all of the "lies" and "mis-truths" are the first casualty of war. It is expected when a country is at war because they are at odds with another entity. It is to an extent necessary to gain the edge and win the war. It is something that is bound to happen whenever people have conflict. Do I condone all of that mess? Of course not. Am I surprised or alarmed? Not really. I believe that sometimes it is a necessary evil. You address grounds of morality. I firmly believe that the protection of the United States' people comes first. I believe that Bush shares that belief. In turn Bush exercises that in a very external way. As I said before, while it is contestable about the situation in Iraq, Afghanistan is not. I have reason to believe that the only way to combat terrorism is with offence. An example that is testimony to this is Ariel Sharon in Israel. He has done a better job of quelling Palestinian terror attacks than any leader I can think of. Playing defense against terrorism lacks common sense. In essence you are simply waiting for them to come. Seeing as how terrorists play off the element of surprise, it basically translates into waiting for another 9/11. People argue that you can combat terrorism by preparing yourself and taking defensive measures to prevent it. I want to how that is even possible. Did anybody before 9/11 realistically imagine that terrorists would fly commercial jets into buildings? I doubt it. The terrorists only have to succeed once to do damage. The defenders have to succeeded every time. That is not a reasonable expectation.

You see no progress? Afghanistan was the primary nest for Al Qaeda, it isn't anymore. To boot the US toppled a radical fundamentalist government. That by virtue is a degree of success/progress. If you would only be satisfied with bin Laden's capture, I'm afraid you will be waiting a lone time for that satisfaction. Terrorism is an idea, not a physical entity. It is progress if you kill 100 of them, even without the leader. Though rumors suggest he is more of a figurehead now rather than an actual leader. Grated I (and every other non-fundamentalist Muslim person in the world) would love to see bin Laden captured, but it's more likely he will probably end up dying of old-age or pneumonia in a cave someplace. Was the war in Afghanistan necessary? Yes.

Now Iraq is a much more complicated issue. It is likely that Bush when to war there because: he had intelligence that led him to believe that Al Qaeda had some connections to the government, Saddam Hussein was a douchebag and also helped fuel anti-American sediment, the US had economic interests there like oil, to end terrorism Bush believed that a real democracy in the Middle East would provide a foothold to achieving that, it's a good thing to liberate people from a cruel dictator, and other nations implied that it might work. With all of that and probably more buzzing in his head, he went for it. Some of those assumptions (made by multiple governments) turned out to be inaccurate. Iraq has not been as quick a victory as many had hoped for. Though unlike many, I believe it is not a lost cause. It's to soon to judge whether Iraq is/was a success or failure. To much is still on the table to judge either way. Was the war in Iraq necessary? The jury is still out.

2. If you agree with XxXScRAtcHXxX, than I am assuming by friends you mean Bush's allies in the Middle East. Now that I think about this, it seems like a bit of a moot point to me. If Bush's plan furthers both his country and allies abroad, I don't see much of a problem.

3. Until we see some hint of an end, good or bad, I'll keep my judgements about death toll on the back burner. Basically that boils down to: If the lives benefitted outnumber the lives lost, it is justifiable. If it goes the other way, it is ludicrous and unjustifiable. However, seeing as Iraq is not yet on the final stretch (a self supporting democracy) it can't be asserted whether it's worthwhile or not.

4. See my opening paragraph. I'm not going to peruse the Katrina debate because I know (rather 90% sure) you are not serious. I'll let it go unless to want to go there.

5. Also see my opening paragraph. The US has free press and they can report whatever they want. My guess is the omission of some things from the news is part of the ratings game. News sources are run like businesses, but that is another huge debate entirely. If you want to go here, I will.

I'm not a bully. I'm making sure you are knowledgeable and can support what you say. If you can't support your claims people will not listen to you, regardless if you are right or not. I just get sick of seeing kids that go on and on about that same crap but never explain it in any depth. That was true in highschool, it is true in college, and it is true on NS. Lack of foundation supports ignorance. Personally, I'd like less stupid people running around in the world.

As for gay marriage, I'm for civil unions. I can go here too if you wish.
 
While with the title "gay marriage" you have the religious citizens feeling like they are being short-changed. My reasoning behind the matter is this. Marriage is indeed a recognized legal bond, but it is also widely regarded as a religious union throughout the world. Many religions hold homosexuality in a lower regard. Why not allow homosexuals to have the same sort of union, but not call it marriage. Why is that a big deal? Gay couples can get their recognized partnership and the fundamental religious people can keep the sanctity of marriage. What to you think is better? One group happy and the other group very unhappy? Or both groups only slightly unhappy. Life is about compromise. I believe gay civil union is the most logical compromise with the least resistance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top