Poseidon, I could point out that the US and co. (arguably) aren't much better.
US is great just the media makes it look like shit. And no its not a legitimate target its a civilian target but the terroists dont care what they destroy as long as they kill someone.
ps GB did Dresden so don't look at us.Bubbalo wrote:
The WTC towers were about as valid as Dresden.
You let them. Or how about we talk about the "Highway of Death" in the first Gulf War.
Oh you mean the massive army on an open road that our ground forces may have had to fight? Sorry war is hell, it's best to get it the hell over with. They invaded a sovereign nation and then got their butts bombed, too bad.Bubbalo wrote:
You let them. Or how about we talk about the "Highway of Death" in the first Gulf War.
The WTC was not a military target and we are not fighting a valid military. There is a reason they are called terrorists...
Last edited by The_Fighting_69th (2006-09-04 16:57:03)
The WTC to them are MILITARY targets. To them ANYTHING is a military target. Look, I don't know why people can't understand it, but we need to hit civilian areas. It's not something we like to do, but it is neccesary. Hezbollah even used UN outposts, and civilian areas as weapons posts. Isreal did what they needed to. They destroyed them! I say, kill anything that gives us a problem, it won't bother us anymore.
Yeah - the violence really seems to be petering out now in Iraq. LOLLLOL!Miller wrote:
I say, kill anything that gives us a problem, it won't bother us anymore.
they don't care what kind of target it is, to them as long as they kill as many of us a possiable, it's a target, that does not make it a MILITARY target.
Did negotiation with Saddam ever work? Umm, no. HE killed his own people on a day to day basis, then when the UN (in all their brilliance) decided to say, get rid of your WMD, he just kinda, ya know. Completely ignored them! Even Hitler was once negotiated with, guess what, he terminated any aggreements when he invaded the first country during WWII. There is no dealing with these people. You either kill them, or they kill you.CameronPoe wrote:
Yeah - the violence really seems to be petering out now in Iraq. LOLLLOL!Miller wrote:
I say, kill anything that gives us a problem, it won't bother us anymore.
Last edited by Miller (2006-09-04 17:06:29)
QFTMiller wrote:
Did negotiation with Saddam ever work? Umm, no. HE killed his own people on a day to day basis, then when the UN (in all their brilliance) decided to say, get rid of your WMD, he just kinda, ya know. Completely ignored them! Even Hitler was once negotiated with, guess what, he terminated any aggreements when he invaded the first country during WWII. There is no dealing with these people. You either kill them, or they kill you.CameronPoe wrote:
Yeah - the violence really seems to be petering out now in Iraq. LOLLLOL!Miller wrote:
I say, kill anything that gives us a problem, it won't bother us anymore.
All's fair in love and war
WTF drugs are you on dude? They are so far apart from each other it's not funny.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
So the hospital where Hezzbollah were stationed wasn't a military target and so when Israel hit it, it was terrorism?VspyVspy wrote:
No they weren't military targets, that's why it's called terrorism.
Oh, yes, retreating armies are so very deadly.The_Fighting_69th wrote:
Oh you mean the massive army on an open road that our ground forces may have had to fight?
Well, it's good to hear the holocaust isn't an issue anymore.The_Fighting_69th wrote:
Sorry war is hell, it's best to get it the hell over with.
Thank god for IEDs. Without them you Americans wouldn't lose any soldiers.The_Fighting_69th wrote:
They invaded a sovereign nation and then got their butts bombed, too bad.
More like all sucks in love and war.Redback00 wrote:
All's fair in love and war
1st point... I've noticed alot mentined about the Geneva convention, which America has not ratified, and will not, so no point mentioning it here in relation to the WTC attackscomet241 wrote:
agreed, they were a target. theoretically anything could be a target, but a military target? No. They killed civilians, that was the goal. period. you could argue the buildings were a target, but they were just buildings holding civilian businesses, not legitimate military target or value. taking down those buildings does NOTHING to the economy if you want to argue that was their ultimate goal.SharkyMcshark wrote:
Well, in answer to the question, they were not legitimate MILITARY targets, but as far as a target that could be struck to hurt the US, they were right up there
to give further evidence to what i mean, ill refer you to the two atom bombs dropped on japan. both bombs killed an incredible number of civilians, but the targets were major industrial centers and military bases, not just to kill civilians. targeting the WTC was just to kill civilians for shock value. too bad unlike all the other previous administrations Bush didn't cave after an attack and pull troops out of places. instead we put a 1/4 million troops in places they didnt really want us. OOPS!!!!! strategy backfired.
2nd point.. During WWII factories were bombed and civilians were killed, yet worse still Dresdon was bombed then bombed some more later to kill rescue workers & firemen.
3rd point.. I do believe that the WTC had some sort of military wing inside (offices included, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), United States Secret Service, the Department of Defense) all housed in the WTC
When will people start getting their facts from multiple sources to confirm their authenticity, learn to be inquisitive by nature....
Totally agree, infact it was a point i just made, wish i'd read yours 1stUnOriginalNuttah wrote:
Dug this topic up, missed it first time round.
Yeah, since the attack took out an NSA and CIA office in building 7 then it was an attack on a military target. Shows use of so-called Hezz tactics by America by locating military targets in buildings with civilian office space too, so really people should be calling foul at the US government for locating valid military targets in civilian population centres. Anyone want to say that the CIA isn't a valid military target?
1st of all, you're wrong, and second, what a disgusting, distasteful, hateful comment. Wow. What happened Bubbalo, why are you so angry. You really want American soldiers dead? Or am I dead wrong, and misinterpreting your comment. If so correct me. If not, don't say a word, your almost as bad as the terrorists.Bubbalo wrote:
Thank god for IEDs. Without them you Americans wouldn't lose any soldiers.The_Fighting_69th wrote:
They invaded a sovereign nation and then got their butts bombed, too bad.
Reatreting to defensive positions, than yes. Besides, we bombed the lead cars and then most of the soliders bailed out of the rest, we destroyed them to make them walk.Bubbalo wrote:
Oh, yes, retreating armies are so very deadly.The_Fighting_69th wrote:
Oh you mean the massive army on an open road that our ground forces may have had to fight?Well, it's good to hear the holocaust isn't an issue anymore.The_Fighting_69th wrote:
Sorry war is hell, it's best to get it the hell over with.Thank god for IEDs. Without them you Americans wouldn't lose any soldiers.The_Fighting_69th wrote:
They invaded a sovereign nation and then got their butts bombed, too bad.
I'm not understanding were you are going with this one at all.
This remark just shows what type of person you really are.
The nearest defensive position was Iraq, and Kuwait was the target. Besides which, they'd just abandoned defensive positions, why would they be running to knew ones?The_Fighting_69th wrote:
Reatreting to defensive positions, than yes.
Well, the Holocaust was part of WWII. So really, we should forgive all those Germans who took part in it.The_Fighting_69th wrote:
I'm not understanding were you are going with this one at all.
You're the one arguing that people who invade a country deserve to die.The_Fighting_69th wrote:
This remark just shows what type of person you really are.
Bertie, I thought you knew me! I was responding to his comment. Of course I don't want anyone dead.AlbertWesker[RE wrote:
]1st of all, you're wrong, and second, what a disgusting, distasteful, hateful comment. Wow. What happened Bubbalo, why are you so angry. You really want American soldiers dead?
Well, I'm gonna have to disagree with that: guerilla attacks on soldiers are vastly different to terrorist attacks.AlbertWesker[RE wrote:
]If not, don't say a word, your almost as bad as the terrorists.
I'm still having a hard time trying to figure out where the Holocaust came into this, but no they should not be forgiven becuase they killed civillians, not soliders.
Shorter lines of supply, better dug in positions, I don't know. Nor did the US, would you let an army fighting you move around in the open when you had total air power? In hindsight was it needed, most likely not, but at the time the Iraqis were talking about a battle of the ages.
You don't seem to make a distinction between a county invading for gain and a country invading to free the oppressed as well as clear out WMDs (which may or may not have existed, but that's another topic).
Shorter lines of supply, better dug in positions, I don't know. Nor did the US, would you let an army fighting you move around in the open when you had total air power? In hindsight was it needed, most likely not, but at the time the Iraqis were talking about a battle of the ages.
You don't seem to make a distinction between a county invading for gain and a country invading to free the oppressed as well as clear out WMDs (which may or may not have existed, but that's another topic).
Last edited by The_Fighting_69th (2006-09-04 23:37:06)
That there is a moral distinction. A moral distinction can also be made between a fighting army and a retreating army.The_Fighting_69th wrote:
I'm still having a hard time trying to figure out where the Holocaust came into this, but no they should not be forgiven becuase they killed civillians, not soliders.
Would I let the manuever? No. Would I shoot them in the back as the ran away? Maybe, but then I've never claimed to be perfect.The_Fighting_69th wrote:
Shorter lines of supply, better dug in positions, I don't know. Nor did the US, would you let an army fighting you move around in the open when you had total air power?
Saddam was. The morale of the army was clearly broken.The_Fighting_69th wrote:
In hindsight was it needed, most likely not, but at the time the Iraqis were talking about a battle of the ages.
That assumes I believe the US' reasons were altruistic.The_Fighting_69th wrote:
You don't seem to make a distinction between a county invading for gain and a country invading to free the oppressed as well as clear out WMDs (which may or may not have existed, but that's another topic).
Very true on the moral distinctions.
Sadley the ones who talk big and start wars never seem to actually fight them or suffer in anyway. I know a lot of the Iraqi army didn't want to be there but they didn't have a choice. it would be so much better if the leaders had to fight and not the normal guy trying to make a living.
At the moment, I believe that the US did invade fot the right reasons becuase I have not heard of solid edivence otherwise. If it is proven otherwise, our leadership is as bad as Saddam was in 1991.
Sadley the ones who talk big and start wars never seem to actually fight them or suffer in anyway. I know a lot of the Iraqi army didn't want to be there but they didn't have a choice. it would be so much better if the leaders had to fight and not the normal guy trying to make a living.
At the moment, I believe that the US did invade fot the right reasons becuase I have not heard of solid edivence otherwise. If it is proven otherwise, our leadership is as bad as Saddam was in 1991.
So, the two reasons are:
WMDs: Which were never found. How could the US, with arguably the best intelligence capabilities in the world, get it wrong when everyone else had it right? Answer: The probably didn't.
Freedom/happiness/cuddly bears: So then why Iraq? There are a lot of places a lot worse to live than Iraq, particularly after the no fly zones were enforced.
WMDs: Which were never found. How could the US, with arguably the best intelligence capabilities in the world, get it wrong when everyone else had it right? Answer: The probably didn't.
Freedom/happiness/cuddly bears: So then why Iraq? There are a lot of places a lot worse to live than Iraq, particularly after the no fly zones were enforced.
Ok, we know he had to have them becuase he gassed his own people. We also have decent evidence that what he had left in 2003 we smuggled out of Iraq to Iran or Syria.
You just assume that other countries were right.
There is also a third reason, that was funding of several terrorist groups.
You just assume that other countries were right.
There is also a third reason, that was funding of several terrorist groups.
o god
another topic about the 9-11 conspiracy theory
another topic about the 9-11 conspiracy theory