Pearl Harbor was a military attack, one military targeting another military target. 9/11 was terrorists attacking a CIVILIAN target with the purposes of inflicting as many CIVILIAN casualties as possible. There is a huge difference. The US does not intentionally target civilians. this is true of any government with any respect for human life.
So THAT'S why they crashed a plane into the Pentagon!
Although all of your statements were way over the edge, this last statement shows your view of the world most clearly.
Cmon here's a challenge...refute them with facts, if you can.
Quote:
If you equate Pearl Harbor and 9/11, you are on the fringe IMO.p
George Bush himself said that 9-11 was the Pearl Harbor of the 21st Century...he wrote that in his journal on the night of 9-11-2001! The original PNAC plan called for a major event like a "new Pearl Harbor, if their plans and aims were to accepted by the American public. Hence 9-11. They allowed it to happen, at the very least.
It was known by the US govt. in 1941 that Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked.....and they let it happen in order to enter WW2. American public opinion was very anti-involvement in WW2, and an outrage like Pearl Harbor was needed in order to swing public opinion to favor entry into the war. Ditto 9-11 regarding the war against terror and the war against the Iraqis.
Quote:
Pearl Harbor was a military attack, one military targeting another military target. 9/11 was terrorists attacking a CIVILIAN target with the purposes of inflicting as many CIVILIAN casualties as possible.
Whoever told you that garbage? "Shock and Awe" targeted civilian facilities and essential infrastructure, like bridges, power stations, sewage plants, and government buildings, (of course avoiding the Oil Ministry at all costs). Cluster bombs were dropped in residential areas by the thousand, kids are picking those things up daily and getting killed or maimed (they look just like toys or UN food packages). The bombing was pretty indiscrimiinate and those people who lost (10 thousand +) family members will never believe that a bomb dropped by an F117 is more legitimate and humane than a bomb courtesy of al qaida or hamas. They both kill innocents using explosives, end of story.
Quote:
There is a huge difference. The US does not intentionally target civilians. this is true of any government with any respect for human life.
Its so easy to say that! We can claim till we're blue in the face that "the US military does not target civilians". The reality is a 180º of that statement, but the harsh reality is seldom presented to the people, because the reality is unacceptable, and the media are pussies. In instances where we haven't bombed civilian targets ourselves, we have paid some party to do the dirty work. Try your claim on the people of Vietnam, Cambodia, Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan, Sudan, etc
Larry Rolirad put it like this: What if the United States was invaded by a foreign military force? What if another country didn't like our leader and they used their superior army, navy, and air force to invade our country to remove him? What if another country invaded us because we have 1,000,000 times the stockpiles of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons as all the other countries in the world combined? How do you think Americans would react if we were occupied by a foreign military? I know exactly how *I* would react....I would find all the weapons at my disposal and use them to the greatest effect.
\t
Our country is guilty of invading two foreign countries in the past two and a half years. Does anyone expect that the citizens of those countries should just lie down and not strike back? A great many Americans would strike back at any foreign military presence in the United States. They would call it patriotism. And they would be right. US citizens would not tolerate being occupied by a foreign country.
I believe it is the height of arrogance for US citizens to expect other invaded countries to be totally submissive to their invaders.
If our country was invaded, the foreign force would be met with force from millions of Americans. We would use every opportunity to strike back at them. If you are honest with yourself you would admit that you would be one of our country's defenders. And you would use deadly force to protect your country. So how can anyone believe that certain segments of the Iraqi population would not fight back against us ? the invading military?
If we wouldn't give up, we should not expect militants in Iraq or Afghanistan to just give up. That's foolhardy. The Bush regime knew this, but they never said a word about the actual effort that we would have to invest to hold these occupied territories.
They never told American citizens that there would be large numbers of troop casualties. They were being dishonest. They lied by omission. And their lies are not about the meaning of the word "is", or whether someone had a private, consensual sexual affair. Their lies led to an unnecessary war, and the deaths of 550+ US soldiers to date, after one year, and thousands of innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq.
If lying about a private sexual matter between consenting adults is an impeachable offense, then lying to lead America into an illegitimate war causing the deaths of hundreds of our service men and women is not only an impeachable offense, but it is also traitorous.
The Bush regime certainly knew of the propensity for massive resistance from the Iraqi people. But they chose to keep it all a secret. They knew that if they were honest with the American people that we would have denounced Bush's plans for war.
Bush lied to us. Powell lied to us. Rumsfeld lied to us. They choose instead to continue to milk the fear and the wave of patriotism from the 9-11-01 attacks to manipulate people. The Bush regime is the most dishonest administration in our country's history.
I know a great number of you will misunderstand the intent of the above, and call me a traitor or some other knee-jerk derogatory remark. Some will say I am a terrorist sympathizer, which I am definitely not. All I am asking is to put yourselves in the Iraqi and Afghan's shoes.
That much empathy may be impossible for some.
Quote:
The fact that the majority of the Iraqi army abandoned ship before the actual fighting shows that the message from this government that this war was not against the Iraqi people but against the leaders, shows they heard the message.
BS! The majority of Iraq's army abandoned ship because they knew that in a conventional battlefield situation, they were outclassed in every dapartment. But they weren't stupid enough to fight the Americans on Bush's terms, and allowed themselves to get into a situation like the Highway of Death in Gulf War 1: they decided to level the playing field by using guerilla tactics. It is slower for sure, but painful and ongoing, and will not stop.
Quote:
Are you saying that Iraq never attacked anyone? Tell me you are not saying that.
Yes they did. They attacked Iran, on Reagan's watch, and approval.
Um, what do I say to that spin, here is an article that says it better than I could.
You call Haiti a working democracy? Wow, you should move there then. It is a lovely place.
Anyway, I would hardly call saving a man's life supporting a coup. They could have easily left him there to be dismembered instead of saving him to make trouble for the US later.
Didn't say Lybia didn't have WMD programs. I am saying that to say tha Gulf War 2 was the reason for his sudden disclosure is redic and out of touch with Lybia's other moves . No spin either.
Never said haiti was a "working" democracy. But that doesn't matter. Aristide was the popularly elected president. Therefore we had no right to aide in the removal of him. Saving his life? You must believe everything that comes out the Bush admin mouths.
Didn't say Lybia didn't have WMD programs. I am saying that to say tha Gulf War 2 was the reason for his sudden disclosure is redic and out of touch with Lybia's other moves . No spin either.
Never said haiti was a "working" democracy. But that doesn't matter. Aristide was the popularly elected president. Therefore we had no right to aide in the removal of him. Saving his life? You must believe everything that comes out the Bush admin mouths.
You must believe everything that comes out of the DNC's mouths. No wait the democratic black caucus.
Comments
Originally posted by NaplesX
Pearl Harbor was a military attack, one military targeting another military target. 9/11 was terrorists attacking a CIVILIAN target with the purposes of inflicting as many CIVILIAN casualties as possible. There is a huge difference. The US does not intentionally target civilians. this is true of any government with any respect for human life.
So THAT'S why they crashed a plane into the Pentagon!
Originally posted by NaplesX
Although all of your statements were way over the edge, this last statement shows your view of the world most clearly.
Cmon here's a challenge...refute them with facts, if you can.
Quote:
If you equate Pearl Harbor and 9/11, you are on the fringe IMO.p
George Bush himself said that 9-11 was the Pearl Harbor of the 21st Century...he wrote that in his journal on the night of 9-11-2001! The original PNAC plan called for a major event like a "new Pearl Harbor, if their plans and aims were to accepted by the American public. Hence 9-11. They allowed it to happen, at the very least.
It was known by the US govt. in 1941 that Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked.....and they let it happen in order to enter WW2. American public opinion was very anti-involvement in WW2, and an outrage like Pearl Harbor was needed in order to swing public opinion to favor entry into the war. Ditto 9-11 regarding the war against terror and the war against the Iraqis.
Quote:
Pearl Harbor was a military attack, one military targeting another military target. 9/11 was terrorists attacking a CIVILIAN target with the purposes of inflicting as many CIVILIAN casualties as possible.
Whoever told you that garbage? "Shock and Awe" targeted civilian facilities and essential infrastructure, like bridges, power stations, sewage plants, and government buildings, (of course avoiding the Oil Ministry at all costs). Cluster bombs were dropped in residential areas by the thousand, kids are picking those things up daily and getting killed or maimed (they look just like toys or UN food packages). The bombing was pretty indiscrimiinate and those people who lost (10 thousand +) family members will never believe that a bomb dropped by an F117 is more legitimate and humane than a bomb courtesy of al qaida or hamas. They both kill innocents using explosives, end of story.
Quote:
There is a huge difference. The US does not intentionally target civilians. this is true of any government with any respect for human life.
Its so easy to say that! We can claim till we're blue in the face that "the US military does not target civilians". The reality is a 180º of that statement, but the harsh reality is seldom presented to the people, because the reality is unacceptable, and the media are pussies. In instances where we haven't bombed civilian targets ourselves, we have paid some party to do the dirty work. Try your claim on the people of Vietnam, Cambodia, Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan, Sudan, etc
Larry Rolirad put it like this: What if the United States was invaded by a foreign military force? What if another country didn't like our leader and they used their superior army, navy, and air force to invade our country to remove him? What if another country invaded us because we have 1,000,000 times the stockpiles of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons as all the other countries in the world combined? How do you think Americans would react if we were occupied by a foreign military? I know exactly how *I* would react....I would find all the weapons at my disposal and use them to the greatest effect.
\t
Our country is guilty of invading two foreign countries in the past two and a half years. Does anyone expect that the citizens of those countries should just lie down and not strike back? A great many Americans would strike back at any foreign military presence in the United States. They would call it patriotism. And they would be right. US citizens would not tolerate being occupied by a foreign country.
I believe it is the height of arrogance for US citizens to expect other invaded countries to be totally submissive to their invaders.
If our country was invaded, the foreign force would be met with force from millions of Americans. We would use every opportunity to strike back at them. If you are honest with yourself you would admit that you would be one of our country's defenders. And you would use deadly force to protect your country. So how can anyone believe that certain segments of the Iraqi population would not fight back against us ? the invading military?
If we wouldn't give up, we should not expect militants in Iraq or Afghanistan to just give up. That's foolhardy. The Bush regime knew this, but they never said a word about the actual effort that we would have to invest to hold these occupied territories.
They never told American citizens that there would be large numbers of troop casualties. They were being dishonest. They lied by omission. And their lies are not about the meaning of the word "is", or whether someone had a private, consensual sexual affair. Their lies led to an unnecessary war, and the deaths of 550+ US soldiers to date, after one year, and thousands of innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq.
If lying about a private sexual matter between consenting adults is an impeachable offense, then lying to lead America into an illegitimate war causing the deaths of hundreds of our service men and women is not only an impeachable offense, but it is also traitorous.
The Bush regime certainly knew of the propensity for massive resistance from the Iraqi people. But they chose to keep it all a secret. They knew that if they were honest with the American people that we would have denounced Bush's plans for war.
Bush lied to us. Powell lied to us. Rumsfeld lied to us. They choose instead to continue to milk the fear and the wave of patriotism from the 9-11-01 attacks to manipulate people. The Bush regime is the most dishonest administration in our country's history.
I know a great number of you will misunderstand the intent of the above, and call me a traitor or some other knee-jerk derogatory remark. Some will say I am a terrorist sympathizer, which I am definitely not. All I am asking is to put yourselves in the Iraqi and Afghan's shoes.
That much empathy may be impossible for some.
Quote:
The fact that the majority of the Iraqi army abandoned ship before the actual fighting shows that the message from this government that this war was not against the Iraqi people but against the leaders, shows they heard the message.
BS! The majority of Iraq's army abandoned ship because they knew that in a conventional battlefield situation, they were outclassed in every dapartment. But they weren't stupid enough to fight the Americans on Bush's terms, and allowed themselves to get into a situation like the Highway of Death in Gulf War 1: they decided to level the playing field by using guerilla tactics. It is slower for sure, but painful and ongoing, and will not stop.
Quote:
Are you saying that Iraq never attacked anyone? Tell me you are not saying that.
Yes they did. They attacked Iran, on Reagan's watch, and approval.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Sorta like how Libya had no WMD programs, Huh?
Um, what do I say to that spin, here is an article that says it better than I could.
You call Haiti a working democracy? Wow, you should move there then. It is a lovely place.
Anyway, I would hardly call saving a man's life supporting a coup. They could have easily left him there to be dismembered instead of saving him to make trouble for the US later.
Didn't say Lybia didn't have WMD programs. I am saying that to say tha Gulf War 2 was the reason for his sudden disclosure is redic and out of touch with Lybia's other moves . No spin either.
Never said haiti was a "working" democracy. But that doesn't matter. Aristide was the popularly elected president. Therefore we had no right to aide in the removal of him. Saving his life? You must believe everything that comes out the Bush admin mouths.
Originally posted by Sondjata
Didn't say Lybia didn't have WMD programs. I am saying that to say tha Gulf War 2 was the reason for his sudden disclosure is redic and out of touch with Lybia's other moves . No spin either.
Never said haiti was a "working" democracy. But that doesn't matter. Aristide was the popularly elected president. Therefore we had no right to aide in the removal of him. Saving his life? You must believe everything that comes out the Bush admin mouths.
You must believe everything that comes out of the DNC's mouths. No wait the democratic black caucus.