Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveYes and as I said :-
Do you really believe all the crap you write?
1. The term "collateral damage" is used to gloss over the motives for actions and resulting death, injury and destruction.
2. It was not necessary to invade Iraq and there were therefore no "inadvertent" deaths, injuries or destruction. There was no "collateral damage". The motives were also false.
3. In inflicting death, injury and destruction, America has the use of fancy military equipment while the "terrorists" could make use of little other than civilians aeroplanes. There is barely any other difference between the two.
4. Politicians benefit from war (e.g. Bush has personal financial interests) and the soldiers get jobs and money. 9/11 was not about promises of virgins in paradise. See the thread titled "The real reasons why America is targeted" - www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=48715
If you dismiss the death, injury and destruction in Iraq as "collateral damage" then you are the idiot. It has only bred more "terrorism".
- Joined
- 21 Jul 06
- Moves
- 98470
Originally posted by Sambo69No. Much of the 'death, injury and destruction' is collateral damage. And if you dismiss it at all you are an idiot.
If you dismiss the death, injury and destruction in Iraq as "collateral damage" then you are the idiot. It has only bred more "terrorism".
1 edit
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveOn many topics I disagree, but I can at least admit that sambo *cough stang* makes an argument, and sometimes a point. Just typing "Do you really believe all the crap you write" is worthless, and a waste of all our time.
Do you really believe all the crap you write?
I'd take his argument over your "contribution" any day.
It doesn't matter, this thread will get deleted by our wonderful staff of moderators soon.
Originally posted by DraxusThe problem is that there's no point in discussing it with someone who changes facts to suit his own point of view. It's simply ridiculous to think of 9/11 as "collateral damage" irrespective of what happened anywhere else. And anyone who backs it up is as big an idiot as him.
On many topics I disagree, but I can at least admit that sambo *cough stang* makes an argument, and sometimes a point. Just typing "Do you really believe all the crap you write" is worthless, and a waste of all our time.
I'd take his argument over your "contribution" any day.
It doesn't matter, this thread will get deleted by our wonderful staff of moderators soon.
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveI was saying that some may regard 9/11 as collateral damage in much the same way as the avoidable deaths of many more people in Iraq.
The problem is that there's no point in discussing it with someone who changes facts to suit his own point of view. It's simply ridiculous to think of 9/11 as "collateral damage" irrespective of what happened anywhere else. And anyone who backs it up is as big an idiot as him.
Stop dismissing the deaths in Iraq as collateral damage and you'll be part way towards understanding what drives terrorism. Avoid further deaths and you'll minimise further terrorism.
Violence leads to violence.
Originally posted by mrstabbyWhere is the IRA these days?
You couldn't possibly mean... If you kill innocent civilians, other civilians will see the terrorists as freedom fighters?😲 And then the "terrorists" gain more support because someone is fighting for them.
Could the way the UK treated the IRA possibly be used as a model?
Originally posted by davidtravellingSo I mistyped the date, the rest is accurate. And yes, while the British and French have had their hand in the middle east, the US has had their hands in it too...especially when it comes to Saudi Arabia. Did you not read your wikipedia article where it talks about US intervention in Saudi Arabia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_saud
actually Saudi Arabia was renamed in the 1930's when the Sauds took over at that time I believe that the British and France, not the Americans were hegemonic in the Middle East (having mandates in Iraq and Lebanon) but hey, why let accuracy get in the way of a good rant.
Lets all go back to throwing anti american rants at each other.
"...The Saudi monarchy, in contrast, is an ally of the United States....yet the opponents of the regime often accused the US government of backing or "propping up" the "Saudi tyranny".
But hey, why let facts get in the way of good misdirection.