Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Sorry I missed this post earlier.
If I was forced to choose between the two, yes. Mostly because I'm completely unwilling to participate in or provide material support for a struggle against the United States. I wouldn't have those same reservations about resisting a corrupt Middle Eastern leader. Saddam's Iraq was also much weaker than the United States.my point is you would rather have had saddam husseins troops on the holy soil than the americans.
One possibility but not a certainty.that's what would have happened had we not intervened in 1989-1990.
Sure they did. But as with al-Qa'idah and 9/11, the US government was ultimately responsible for the attack.so the US govt brought the 9/11 attacks on its people but japan's govt didn't bring hiroshima on its?
So the wrongness or rightness of an act has nothing to do with the act and everything to do with what happens to occur afterward?well, yeah, he did.
'Do the ends justify the means?'
'The goal was to...'
Sorry; that isn't a direct answer to the question I asked.
yes. the ends justified the means, as lives were saved..
They said this where?Yeah, he did. He said saving some people to save the lives of a far larger number is acceptable.
So 9/11 would have been justified had it successfully prevented any post-2001 US wars in the Muslim world?
except they knew it wouldn't.
Doesn't matter even if we assumed that this was true. If hypothetical situations can be used in defense of Hiroshima and Nagasaki then they can be used here as well.
Not even remotely apt comparison.
So explain why it isn't apt.
If you can't support your claims with evidence, just say so. The amount that I have to read for classes doesn't give me much time to read for the sake of researching your arguments for you.
If you're too lazy to go to a library that's your problem not mine.
I'm not lazy. But you are being a douchebag for no reason.
What do you want to bet that they would still find some justification for attacking the west.
Others have achieved the samebin laden hit the towers because he knew we'd respond with war.
Please produce a statement of his that substantiates this claim.
why? do you think bin laden is stupid enough to think we would give in to him and pull out of the middle east?
No, I'm just tired of people speaking with zero knowledge of the facts but a lot of opinion.
Because I have no interest in baseless assumptions about the motives of actors. If you can give support for it then I'll have to take it into consideration.
What I think about him doesn't matter.
then why does it matter what you think about Truman? why guess about Truman's motives?
I'm not. We know that the targets were chosen to maximize the psychological effects of the terrorism based on the Target Committee's own statements:
It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released.
Atomic Bomb: Decision -- Target Committee, May 10-11, 1945
Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.[1
they were dropped to save american lives first and foremost. they incidentally saved japanese lives.
I see no reason to believe that they saved Japanese lives.
That is immaterial. Almost every unbiased report has presented empirical data that the bombs saved lives. The Japanese anti invasion plans are well documented, the spears are in museums, that is a fact. You may "believe" whatever you wish but the the rest of the world doesn't care what you believe.
(unless you think there was some big secret American plan to raid the Middle East, and if that's the case, there isn't any use talking to you anyway).
'my point is you would rather have had saddam husseins troops on the holy soil than the americans. that's what would have happened had we not intervened in 1989-1990. so the US govt brought the 9/11 attacks on its people but japan's govt didn't bring hiroshima on its?
So Japan deserved Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the aforementioned firebombing and America deserved 9/11?
No, Japan didn't "deserve" any of them. They earned them.
That is the price that unfortunately has to be paid when you attack a neutral power that is bigger and more powerful than you are
. The deaths of the Japanese civilians was a neccessary evil
. The level of technology in WWII was not sufficient to prevent widespread casualties.
Seems to me radical Islam is at war with the west as a whole.
(unless you think there was some big secret American plan to raid the Middle East, and if that's the case, there isn't any use talking to you anyway).
...You'll recall that the US invaded Iraq in 2003 and cited reasons mostly unrelated to 9/11 ('weapons of mass destruction.') A big secret American plan to raid the Middle East? No, but the US has invaded other countries there since 9/11.
Others have achieved the samePlease produce a statement of his that substantiates this claim.
why? do you think bin laden is stupid enough to think we would give in to him and pull out of the middle east?
VietNam
Korea
Mogadishu...
Americans go away if you keep killing them
(unless you think there was some big secret American plan to raid the Middle East, and if that's the case, there isn't any use talking to you anyway).
...You'll recall that the US invaded Iraq in 2003 and cited reasons mostly unrelated to 9/11 ('weapons of mass destruction.') A big secret American plan to raid the Middle East? No, but the US has invaded other countries there since 9/11.
Last time I checked, Iraq is a single country, but to get back to your comparison, you'd have to believe 9/11 made an American invasion of Iraq less likely. That doesn't seem like a very logical conclusion.
(unless you think there was some big secret American plan to raid the Middle East, and if that's the case, there isn't any use talking to you anyway).
...You'll recall that the US invaded Iraq in 2003 and cited reasons mostly unrelated to 9/11 ('weapons of mass destruction.') A big secret American plan to raid the Middle East? No, but the US has invaded other countries there since 9/11.
Last time I checked, Iraq is a single country, but to get back to your comparison, you'd have to believe 9/11 made an American invasion of Iraq less likely. That doesn't seem like a very logical conclusion.
