Do you believe America has gotten even for 9/11?

[Caligirl]

(invading Iraq was stupid I might add)

I wondered if anyone was going to bring that up.

Talking about whether we should "do something" or "sit there" --- is all beside the point since we went to war with a country that had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11.

So on this spectrum:

Attack the attackers -- Do not attack the attackers -- Do not attack the attackers instead attack someone else

... we spent the bulk of our effort on #3.

Which has aided terrorist recruitment, and that should be a lesson in itself.

 

[Article 15]

well, lesseeee we are gonna parse are we??

Parse? How about some reading comprehension on your part, first?

Where in that first post you quoted and asked whether you were "reading it right" was doing "nothing" advocated?

Answer that and we can move on.

 

[tigerbob]

Does our constitution PERMIT war for revenge?

From my reading of it, it does NOT permit war for REVENGE.

(Vengence is mine, sayeth the Lord.) We blaspheme God, if we do horrible things for vengence, in my religious point of view....

If we went to war to protect us further from those that attacked us or went to war with people that were imminently going to attack us....then the constitution gives means for us to do such...

Otherwise war is NOT permitted by our constitution imo....and CERTAINLY NOT for VENGENCE.

So, if 9/11 was a single isolated attack, you are saying (or rather your interpreatation of the constitution means) we should just have let it go, secure in the knowledge that God will punish them eventually? Am I correct in this understanding?

And one follow up question. What if there were a series of, let's say, 4 isolated attacks over a period of' let's say, 6 years. So, one attack every 18 months or so. Let those go as well because each is 'isolated' (at least, until the next one comes)?

At what point would such an unpredictable, irregular series of attacks begin to represent a clear and present danger? Or wouldn't they?

By the interpretation of the constitution you have just described, there would potentially be no consequences to attacking American interests, so long as the attackers left a well-mannered gap between each incident. On the other hand, if a U.S. response prevents a further attack, doesn't that make it retrospectively unconstitutional?

 

[WillowTree]

Parse? How about some reading comprehension on your part, first?

Where in that first post you quoted and asked whether you were "reading it right" was doing "nothing" advocated?

Answer that and we can move on.

you can read as well as I can,, where in Edicts post did he/she advocate doing "something" I read the absence of "something" as "nothing"

 

[midcan5]

A rather odd question given terrorism is a tactic. Do you become your enemy. Did we become the Mafia to fight it or the KKK to fight it.


"The best revenge is to be unlike him who performed the injury." Marcus Aurelius

 

[Sunni Man]

we know what drove them, they are barbaric murderers..

So you are saying they had no motive? It was just a mindless homicidal act?

 

[WillowTree]

So you are saying they had no motive? It was just a mindless homicidal act?

I'm sure they think they had a motive.. any decent human being does not carry out barbaric murderous acts on thousands of people because they think they have a cause..

 

[Sunni Man]

I'm sure they think they had a motive.. any decent human being does not carry out barbaric murderous acts on thousands of people because they think they have a cause..

I wonder what message they were trying to get across by committing this act?

 

[Caligirl]

It would be nice to know why they thought it was a good idea, if it was better defined than 'death to america' or attacking the great satan. Imagine if they thought that attacking the US would, for example, cause a counterstrike that they could use as a recruitment tool. If they thought that attacking the US would cause retailation, which would help them raise money and other support from sympathetic law abiding middle easterners.

If we knew that that was their motive, we might have responded a little differently.

It would be nice to know why they attacked the US. It would be smart, too.

 

[WillowTree]

I wonder what message they were trying to get across by committing this act?

I don't know what they were trying to get across,, what they got across though is that they are murderous barbarians and nothing you can say will change it.. murderous barbarians is what they are, oh and cowards too cause just like the KKK they carry out their acts of murderous barbarianism with their faces covered up.. If what they were doing was honest and noble then there would be no need to hide..

 

[editec]

Am I reading this right???? Are you saying you wouldn't have done a damn thing about 9-11 and the deaths of 3000 innocent people? Really?

Speaking of fools...

 

[WillowTree]

Speaking of fools...

oh,, so you can't tell us what should have been done,, except for maybe "nothing".. I think we got it..DUmmie!

 

[Sunni Man]

Any time a crime is comitted the Police look for the motive.

So far, we have blindly gone after the criminals, but still haven't determined the motive.

 

[tigerbob]

I don't know what they were trying to get across,, what they got across though is that they are murderous barbarians and nothing you can say will change it.. murderous barbarians is what they are, oh and cowards too cause just like the KKK they carry out their acts of murderous barbarianism with their faces covered up.. If what they were doing was honest and noble then there would be no need to hide..

Hiding you face doesn't make you cowardly. Special Forces often have their faces covered.

Committing an act knowing it will mean your death is also not cowardly. Many people view it as the highest form of bravery (I tend to disagree in the case of religious fanaticism)

What makes them cowardly is their decision to knowingly target thousands of unarmed civilians, many of them women and children. Any time anyone singles out an objective of this type merely to draw attention to a perceived cause, it is cowardly, it is reprehensible, and (if you're religious) it's the kind of thing that will guarantee you a front row seat in the hot place.

 

[WillowTree]

Hiding you face doesn't make you cowardly. Special Forces often have their faces covered.

Committing an act knowing it will mean your death is also not cowardly. Many people view it as the highest form of bravery (I tend to disagree in the case of religious fanaticism)

What makes them cowardly is their decision to knowingly target thousands of unarmed civilians, many of them women and children. Any time anyone singles out an objective of this type merely to draw attention to a perceived cause, it is cowardly, it is reprehensible, and (if you're religious) it's the kind of thing that will guarantee you a front row seat in the hot place.

Did you ever read the book "Lone Survivor"?

 

[tigerbob]

Did you ever read the book "Lone Survivor"?

No. What's it about?

 

[editec]

After 9/11 we had the legal and moral right to seek out those who planned and executed the attack on our country. (invading Iraq was stupid I might add)

Allah damned right we did.

Secondly, and more important, we needed to ask the question. Why?

You say that as though you think: "They hate us for our freedoms" isn't explanation enough.

I'm shocked, Sunni. Shocked do you hear me?

What drove these people to committ the attacks?

In six words or less? Any more than that might confuse this reading public.


So it's Pretty damned hard to explain why they hate us for our freedoms when I have to start the explanation back when Churchill decided that the Royal British Navy MUST migrate from coal powered ships to oil powered ships.

And then how many thousand words do I have to expend explaining the outcome of the fall of the Ottoman enpire and the BETRAYAL of the Arab people by the Europeans?

And how many million words do I have to explain to people that the world of Islam is NOT a monolith and that much of what they percieve as a terrorist war on America is really an ongoing war on the current poltical structure of the existing governments in the Islamic world?

And there are simply NOT ENOUGH WORDS to try to unravel the further complications that the existence of Israel adds to this mess.

Let's just stick with the reason they blew down WTC is because those nasty terrorists are jealous of our freedoms, shall I?

It satisfies the stupid, and anyone who could understand whatever I wrote about the real reasons probably already knows those reasons as well as I do.

 

[WillowTree]

No. What's it about?

Navy Seals, in Afghanistan,, How they made the decision (wrong) to let someone live, because of the bigmouthed liberal hypocrites in congress (Murtha).. It will teach us all a little bit about what honor and bravery mean.. it's well worth your time.

 

[Caligirl]

I've been wikipediaing and I had forgotten this:

Messages issued by bin Laden after September 11, 2001 praised the attacks, and explained their motivation while denying any involvement.[93] Bin Laden legitimized the attacks by identifying grievances felt by both mainstream and Islamist Muslims, such as the general perception that the United States was actively oppressing Muslims.[94] Bin Laden asserted that America was massacring Muslims in 'Palestine, Chechnya, Kashmir and Iraq' and that Muslims should retain the 'right to attack in reprisal'. He also claimed the 9/11 attacks were not targeted at women and children, but 'America's icons of military and economic power'

 

[tigerbob]

Navy Seals, in Afghanistan,, How they made the decision (wrong) to let someone live, because of the bigmouthed liberal hypocrites in congress (Murtha).. It will teach us all a little bit about what honor and bravery mean.. it's well worth your time.

Thanks - I'm surfing Amazon for xmas later today anyway so I'll have a look.