we didnt have time to present them with everything they required, have them analyze it, and have us wait for them to accept it or not. war had already started.
we didnt have time to present them with everything they required, have them analyze it, and have us wait for them to accept it or not. war had already started.
This is like debating with a member of the flat Earth society.
this is your holy grail? your PROOF? world socialist website. this is one op ed piece by some random asshole internet writer that sourced NOTHING. bravo. sorry, you're going to have to do better then that
No matter whatever is posted here, the US keeps infiltrating, influincing, and in worst cases, going to war in foreign territories.
It´s a fact.
I respect the us army for going to war against hitler, but ever since almost everything they´ve done is one big pile of shit, especially Iraq and Vietnam. And what they´ve done in latin america is history. And you can´t deny history. What´s done is done, but continuing to do it is what earns usa more enemies (threatening and non-threatening).
The romans, english, ..... every power in history has ended. And people will still live in this world.
and I already said that I understand America has enemies. and achieving so called peace isn't as cut and dry as you think. I do however we are much more on that path now, then we were under Bush.
and I already said that I understand America has enemies. and achieving so called peace isn't as cut and dry as you think. I do however we are much more on that path now, then we were under Bush.
it's about WHY you have enemies
I understand the why. and there will always be a why, even when we fix it. like just today, Obama is in the middle east...... "Obama calls for new beginning between US, Muslims"...we'll still have enemies.
like you buddy Osama. he wants to kill us because "we" are fighting Islamic law in Pakistan.
this is your holy grail? your PROOF? world socialist website. this is one op ed piece by some random asshole internet writer that sourced NOTHING. bravo. sorry, you're going to have to do better then that
So you got as far as reading the title and the webpage address? Well done.
Nevermind the fact that his sources were: '...Insider accounts published in the British, French and Indian media...'Newsweek'...'Jane’s International Security'...the 'Washington Post'...an account published[..]in the Wall Street Journal, written by Robert McFarlane, former national security adviser in the Reagan administration...The BBC...The Guardian newspaper...[and]a book [..]entitled Bin Laden, the Forbidden Truth, written by Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie. Brisard is a former French secret service agent, author of a previous report on bin Laden’s Al Qaeda network, and former director of strategy for the French corporation Vivendi, while Dasquie is an investigative journalist.
war was brought to our shores. many Americans saw it first hand. thousands of New Yorkers watched 250 people jump to their death from WTC alone. bodies in the street dying. that said, the war in Afghanistan is justified...in Iraq, not so much..and there are very loud anti voices being heard. and thankfully, today we have a withdrawal date set.
no one supports war unless we are attacked. and thats what happened.
how about not at all.
you think the events of 9/11 was a war???
yes absolutely. you dont?
clearly i dont.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
how is 9/11 NOT an act of war? what do you consider it?
an act of terrorism. all of which do not become the impetus for war.
wow you are amazingly confused. an act of terrorism is an act of war. ESPECIALLY considering the size and scale of the act itself on 9/11
no i am not amazingly confused. i can separate the two. unless the act of terrorism is state sanctioned which i do not believe 9/11 to have been then it is not an act of war the fact that war was declared on terrorism makes me laugh almost as much as when your government declared war on drugs.
and do not think for one minute that i am condoning or belittling the events of 9/11.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
no i am not amazingly confused. i can separate the two. unless the act of terrorism is state sanctioned which i do not believe 9/11 to have been then it is not an act of war the fact that war was declared on terrorism makes me laugh almost as much as when your government declared war on drugs.
and do not think for one minute that i am condoning or belittling the events of 9/11.
an act of war doesnt have to be declared or committed by a government or state. regardless of that, the Taliban, the government of Afghanistan at the time, certainly sanctioned the act by allowing el queda to operate freely in its country. hope you are less confused now
An act by one nation intended to initiate or provoke a war with another nation; an act considered sufficient cause for war.
according to the US Military Dictionary
let's see - afghanistan really wanted to goto war with the US ... so, they let all these guys fly a plane into some towers so they can then be taken out of power, see their homes get bombed and watch as a foreign country occupies their country and installs a puppet gov't ...
An act by one nation intended to initiate or provoke a war with another nation; an act considered sufficient cause for war.
according to the US Military Dictionary
let's see - afghanistan really wanted to goto war with the US ... so, they let all these guys fly a plane into some towers so they can then be taken out of power, see their homes get bombed and watch as a foreign country occupies their country and installs a puppet gov't ...
yes, thats correct. if they wanted to avoid that, they would not have let OBL and his organization set up shop in their country. pretty simple really
no i am not amazingly confused. i can separate the two. unless the act of terrorism is state sanctioned which i do not believe 9/11 to have been then it is not an act of war the fact that war was declared on terrorism makes me laugh almost as much as when your government declared war on drugs.
and do not think for one minute that i am condoning or belittling the events of 9/11.
an act of war doesnt have to be declared or committed by a government or state. regardless of that, the Taliban, the government of Afghanistan at the time, certainly sanctioned the act by allowing el queda to operate freely in its country. hope you are less confused now
So the U.S has 'sanctioned' war on Cuba by allowing Cuban terrorists to reside within it's borders?
An act by one nation intended to initiate or provoke a war with another nation; an act considered sufficient cause for war.
according to the US Military Dictionary
let's see - afghanistan really wanted to goto war with the US ... so, they let all these guys fly a plane into some towers so they can then be taken out of power, see their homes get bombed and watch as a foreign country occupies their country and installs a puppet gov't ...
yes, thats correct. if they wanted to avoid that, they would not have let OBL and his organization set up shop in their country. pretty simple really
well clearly the taliban are the stupidest people in the world as they gained absolutely nothing from the entire fiasco ... :roll:
well clearly the taliban are the stupidest people in the world as they gained absolutely nothing from the entire fiasco ... :roll:
true, they aren't very bright for taking us on. but are you surprised by their arrogance? they honestly thought they could defeat us. while they do live on in remote regions, they could have easily avoided the US invading their country had barred OSL and el queda from their country to begin with.
true, they aren't very bright for taking us on. but are you surprised by their arrogance? they honestly thought they could defeat us. while they do live on in remote regions, they could have easily avoided the US invading their country had barred OSL and el queda from their country to begin with.
how can you defeat a country when you are waging war on home soil? let's just say for discussion's sake that the taliban thought they could win a battle from a US invasion, let's just say one of the poorest countries in the world truly believed they could defeat the richest and most military advanced country in the world - what does any ruling party think they'll gain from having their country bombed to shits?
true, they aren't very bright for taking us on. but are you surprised by their arrogance? they honestly thought they could defeat us. while they do live on in remote regions, they could have easily avoided the US invading their country had barred OSL and el queda from their country to begin with.
how can you defeat a country when you are waging war on home soil? let's just say for discussion's sake that the taliban thought they could win a battle from a US invasion, let's just say one of the poorest countries in the world truly believed they could defeat the richest and most military advanced country in the world - what does any ruling party think they'll gain from having their country bombed to shits?
like I said, the Taliban weren't too bright by allowing el queda and OSL a home base.
well clearly the taliban are the stupidest people in the world as they gained absolutely nothing from the entire fiasco ... :roll:
true, they aren't very bright for taking us on. but are you surprised by their arrogance? they honestly thought they could defeat us. while they do live on in remote regions, they could have easily avoided the US invading their country had barred OSL and el queda from their country to begin with.
The Taliban didn't take you on. Al Queda took you on. They're not the same thing.
By yiur definition America has waged war on half the world by using it's proxy terrorists the C.I.A. Therefore, according to your logic your cities should be carpet bombed.
well clearly the taliban are the stupidest people in the world as they gained absolutely nothing from the entire fiasco ... :roll:
true, they aren't very bright for taking us on. but are you surprised by their arrogance? they honestly thought they could defeat us. while they do live on in remote regions, they could have easily avoided the US invading their country had barred OSL and el queda from their country to begin with.
The Taliban didn't take you on. Al Queda took you on. They're not the same thing.
why is this so hard to comprehend for you? the Taliban allowed al queda to thrive in their country. therefore became the same enemy.
By yiur definition America has waged war on half the world by using it's proxy terrorists the C.I.A. Therefore, according to your logic your cities should be carpet bombed.
why is this so hard to comprehend for you? the Taliban allowed al queda to thrive in their country. therefore became the same enemy.
So do you agree that according to your logic America is a legitimate target for attack seeing as your harbour known terrorists?
really - at this point ... reading what has been posted - you just have to move on to another subject i think ... you can only base discussions with people if there is at least some common ground of understanding ...
So Luis Posada Carriles isn't a terrorist then? Blowing up an airliner and killing 73 people doesn't make him a terrorist? Or is it just that he once worked for the CIA so therefore he's one of the good guys?
why is this so hard to comprehend for you? the Taliban allowed al queda to thrive in their country. therefore became the same enemy.
So do you agree that according to your logic America is a legitimate target for attack seeing as your harbour known terrorists?
really - at this point ... reading what has been posted - you just have to move on to another subject i think ... you can only base discussions with people if there is at least some common ground of understanding ...
where is the confusion? I'll be happy to clear it up for you
So Luis Posada Carriles isn't a terrorist then? Blowing up an airliner and killing 73 people doesn't make him a terrorist? Or is just that he once worked for the CIA so therefore he's one of the good guys?
we already went over this. Venezuela has a reason to consider America a target. besides the fact that their president is a fucking wackjob, they aren't that stupid to fight a war over this guy.
Comments
Bullshit.
The evidence proves that the U.S government and neo-cons had been planning a war in Afghanistan for years prior to 9/11/ - http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov20 ... -n20.shtml -
This is like debating with a member of the flat Earth society.
excellent and very typical comeback. what a joke
this is your holy grail? your PROOF? world socialist website. this is one op ed piece by some random asshole internet writer that sourced NOTHING. bravo. sorry, you're going to have to do better then that
It´s a fact.
I respect the us army for going to war against hitler, but ever since almost everything they´ve done is one big pile of shit, especially Iraq and Vietnam. And what they´ve done in latin america is history. And you can´t deny history. What´s done is done, but continuing to do it is what earns usa more enemies (threatening and non-threatening).
The romans, english, ..... every power in history has ended. And people will still live in this world.
it's about WHY you have enemies
I understand the why. and there will always be a why, even when we fix it. like just today, Obama is in the middle east...... "Obama calls for new beginning between US, Muslims"...we'll still have enemies.
like you buddy Osama. he wants to kill us because "we" are fighting Islamic law in Pakistan.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/0 ... n.message/
actually Pakistan is fighting them. why doesnt OBL focus his hatred towards them? and is the brutal Islamic law that he wants perfectly ok to allow?
So you got as far as reading the title and the webpage address? Well done.
Nevermind the fact that his sources were: '...Insider accounts published in the British, French and Indian media...'Newsweek'...'Jane’s International Security'...the 'Washington Post'...an account published[..]in the Wall Street Journal, written by Robert McFarlane, former national security adviser in the Reagan administration...The BBC...The Guardian newspaper...[and]a book [..]entitled Bin Laden, the Forbidden Truth, written by Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie. Brisard is a former French secret service agent, author of a previous report on bin Laden’s Al Qaeda network, and former director of strategy for the French corporation Vivendi, while Dasquie is an investigative journalist.
clearly i dont.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
how is 9/11 NOT an act of war? what do you consider it?
an act of terrorism. all of which do not become the impetus for war. nor do i consdier them necessarily an act of war.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
wow you are amazingly confused. an act of terrorism is an act of war. ESPECIALLY considering the size and scale of the act itself on 9/11
no i am not amazingly confused. i can separate the two. unless the act of terrorism is state sanctioned which i do not believe 9/11 to have been then it is not an act of war the fact that war was declared on terrorism makes me laugh almost as much as when your government declared war on drugs.
and do not think for one minute that i am condoning or belittling the events of 9/11.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
an act of war doesnt have to be declared or committed by a government or state. regardless of that, the Taliban, the government of Afghanistan at the time, certainly sanctioned the act by allowing el queda to operate freely in its country. hope you are less confused now
according to the US Military Dictionary
let's see - afghanistan really wanted to goto war with the US ... so, they let all these guys fly a plane into some towers so they can then be taken out of power, see their homes get bombed and watch as a foreign country occupies their country and installs a puppet gov't ...
yes, thats correct. if they wanted to avoid that, they would not have let OBL and his organization set up shop in their country. pretty simple really
So the U.S has 'sanctioned' war on Cuba by allowing Cuban terrorists to reside within it's borders?
...and it just goes on...and on... :roll:
what does? seriously, give it up already. your moral high ground act is laughable.
well clearly the taliban are the stupidest people in the world as they gained absolutely nothing from the entire fiasco ... :roll:
true, they aren't very bright for taking us on. but are you surprised by their arrogance? they honestly thought they could defeat us. while they do live on in remote regions, they could have easily avoided the US invading their country had barred OSL and el queda from their country to begin with.
how can you defeat a country when you are waging war on home soil? let's just say for discussion's sake that the taliban thought they could win a battle from a US invasion, let's just say one of the poorest countries in the world truly believed they could defeat the richest and most military advanced country in the world - what does any ruling party think they'll gain from having their country bombed to shits?
like I said, the Taliban weren't too bright by allowing el queda and OSL a home base.
The Taliban didn't take you on. Al Queda took you on. They're not the same thing.
By yiur definition America has waged war on half the world by using it's proxy terrorists the C.I.A. Therefore, according to your logic your cities should be carpet bombed.
why is this so hard to comprehend for you? the Taliban allowed al queda to thrive in their country. therefore became the same enemy.
something you'd just love to see happen I'm sure
So do you agree that according to your logic America is a legitimate target for attack seeing as your harbour known terrorists?
America does not harbor terrorists
really - at this point ... reading what has been posted - you just have to move on to another subject i think ... you can only base discussions with people if there is at least some common ground of understanding ...
So Luis Posada Carriles isn't a terrorist then? Blowing up an airliner and killing 73 people doesn't make him a terrorist? Or is it just that he once worked for the CIA so therefore he's one of the good guys?
where is the confusion? I'll be happy to clear it up for you
we already went over this. Venezuela has a reason to consider America a target. besides the fact that their president is a fucking wackjob, they aren't that stupid to fight a war over this guy.