The Panama Deception

Options
1…34689…14

Comments

  • catefrances
    catefrances Posts: 29,003
    jlew24asu wrote:
    catefrances wrote:
    jlew24asu wrote:
    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
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    catefrances wrote:

    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
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    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 ...
  • VINNY GOOMBA
    VINNY GOOMBA Posts: 1,825
    jlew24asu wrote:

    thats right. the Taliban needed to be removed from power as well. why? so they can not continue to allow groups like el queda to thrive.
    I think we need to remove the Democrats and Republicans from power before we remove any other party in any other country. :)
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    polaris_x wrote:
    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
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    jlew24asu wrote:
    catefrances wrote:

    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?
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    jlew24asu wrote:
    wow you are amazingly confused.

    ...and it just goes on...and on... :roll:
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Byrnzie wrote:
    jlew24asu wrote:
    wow you are amazingly confused.

    ...and it just goes on...and on... :roll:

    what does? seriously, give it up already. your moral high ground act is laughable.
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    jlew24asu wrote:
    polaris_x wrote:
    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:
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    polaris_x wrote:

    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.
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    jlew24asu wrote:
    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?
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    polaris_x wrote:
    jlew24asu wrote:
    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.
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    jlew24asu wrote:
    polaris_x wrote:

    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.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Byrnzie wrote:
    jlew24asu wrote:
    polaris_x wrote:

    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.
    Byrnzie wrote:
    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.

    something you'd just love to see happen I'm sure
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    jlew24asu wrote:
    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?
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Byrnzie wrote:
    jlew24asu wrote:
    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?

    America does not harbor terrorists
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    Byrnzie wrote:
    jlew24asu wrote:
    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 ...
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    edited June 2009
    jlew24asu wrote:
    America does not harbor terrorists

    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?
    Post edited by Byrnzie on
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    polaris_x wrote:
    Byrnzie wrote:
    jlew24asu wrote:
    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
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Byrnzie wrote:
    jlew24asu wrote:
    America does not harbor terrorists

    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.

Categories