#46 President Joe Biden

Lerxst1992 said:

static111 said:

mace1229 said:

static111 said:

The Juggler said:

static111 said:

The Juggler said:

static111 said:

Great news this president kills people too…glad he’s got it in him. Hope 20 years of collateral damage was worth it.

You don't support killing one of the guys responsible for 9/11?

I don't support killing.  Eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind and all of that.  Surely those wars have killed enough people to get justice for the 2,994 victims and then some.  Not to mention the fact that this didn't happen in a vacuum of hate for Americans.  There were many moves(read: Blunders) in the Middle East up to 9/11 that led to the anti-american sentiment in the region, including the 1953 CIA backed coup in Iran, The US, Russia proxy war in Afghanistan where we trained and supplied arms to many Muhjahideen that later became al qaida, generally using the entire area as if we own the oil and backing whatever side in any conflict that will favor us.  And now we are still doing the same thing, the questionable legality of toppling Libya and the awful aftermmath, Supporting the war in Yemen, backing MBS and the Saudis.  All the while we still haven't seen all of the connections between 9/11 and the Saudis due to our special relationship with them.  I see this as nothing more than a timed killing to promote some US jingoism at a time when our public support of our current proxy war is flagging.

You didn't support the killing of Osama either then?

No I did not support that or the way it was done, I am not a fan of state sanctioned extra judicial killings against civilians or foreigners, and wayyyyyyy back when I did not support the invasion and occupation of Iraq or Afghanistan. There was a minute during september-oct 2001 where I got swept up in a patriotic fervor like everyone else, but luckily I pulled my head out of my star spangled ass long enough to not do something stupid like join the service and rush off to kill Afghani civilians and instead joined local anti war movements.

What do you suggest then? Let terrorists go unpunished and free to commit more world crimes? Or risk the lives of even more military and civilians to make sure all are taken alive and sent to trial?

Interesting you bring up the lives of civilians when our state sanctioned terrorist actions have taken far more civilian lives than any leader of any terrorist group involved with 9/11.

A good place to start would be to stop trying to dominate other countries by toppling governments and backing regimes that are friendly to us  but unfriendly to their own people and see where that goes as far as lowering the incidents of terrorism.  Most of the countries involved in terrorism have some grievance against the US and it's past policies and contrary to government and mass media opinion, they don't just hate us because " america is the most exceptional country in all the world and they are jeoulus and we are infidels"  We have a long history of depleting countries of their resources and backing brutal right wing governments to continue to keep the resources flowing to us. 

If the so called terrorist is not directly engaged in an act of terror and has no weapon I would say that you should at least try to take them in to face justice before just deciding that killing them is justice, when in fact that is really more a form of vengence and completely unrelated to any sense of justice. Of course then you involve getting boots on the ground in a sovereign country again.

 Coming back to the 300,000+ civilians killed in the aftermath of 9/11.  How does that number not bring justice to the 2994 people killed on 9/11?  Are all those lives lost the fault of the 19  mostly Saudi attackers who were orchestrated by OBL and al-Zawahiri?  Are you suggesting that one american life is worth more than 121 civilian lives in the middle east?  Or are you suggesting that one incident claiming 2994 lives justifies 20 years of  a failed war and that we shouldn't look at our contributions to the staggering middle eastern death toll as acts of terrorism against the region that are destined to continue the status quo?

Here we are again invading a sovereign country via an unmanned aerial vehicle and killing an unarmed man while we hold an entire countries resources hostage in the name of future crime.  I'm sure it is all their fault.  Also I find it dubious that the use of 2 hellfire missiles didn't lead to any collateral damage especially since this news was delivered by the same government that just a year ago claimed no civilians were killed in an airstrike against ISIS-K when in fact only civilians were killed and 7 were children.

It's not as simple to me as killing the bad man, as that does not provide justice, which is a very necessary component of peace in a just society.  Violence begets violence begets....No wonder people think it's ok to stand their ground for french fries over here.

To refer to al-Zawahiri as unarmed is just a bit misleading? This photo is for dramatic purposes only, as I am referring to the death and hatred he initiated with his words and actions. He decided to initiate a war against America and the taliban leadership protected him. Perhaps it was his responsibility to consider the  121/1 ratio before he initiated the 9/11 wars by attacking my city.

You attack unarmed American civilians then refuse to cooperate with the investigation, you are requesting hell on earth for your people.  

mace1229 said:

static111 said:

mace1229 said:

static111 said:

The Juggler said:

static111 said:

The Juggler said:

static111 said:

Great news this president kills people too…glad he’s got it in him. Hope 20 years of collateral damage was worth it.

You don't support killing one of the guys responsible for 9/11?

I don't support killing.  Eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind and all of that.  Surely those wars have killed enough people to get justice for the 2,994 victims and then some.  Not to mention the fact that this didn't happen in a vacuum of hate for Americans.  There were many moves(read: Blunders) in the Middle East up to 9/11 that led to the anti-american sentiment in the region, including the 1953 CIA backed coup in Iran, The US, Russia proxy war in Afghanistan where we trained and supplied arms to many Muhjahideen that later became al qaida, generally using the entire area as if we own the oil and backing whatever side in any conflict that will favor us.  And now we are still doing the same thing, the questionable legality of toppling Libya and the awful aftermmath, Supporting the war in Yemen, backing MBS and the Saudis.  All the while we still haven't seen all of the connections between 9/11 and the Saudis due to our special relationship with them.  I see this as nothing more than a timed killing to promote some US jingoism at a time when our public support of our current proxy war is flagging.

You didn't support the killing of Osama either then?

No I did not support that or the way it was done, I am not a fan of state sanctioned extra judicial killings against civilians or foreigners, and wayyyyyyy back when I did not support the invasion and occupation of Iraq or Afghanistan. There was a minute during september-oct 2001 where I got swept up in a patriotic fervor like everyone else, but luckily I pulled my head out of my star spangled ass long enough to not do something stupid like join the service and rush off to kill Afghani civilians and instead joined local anti war movements.

What do you suggest then? Let terrorists go unpunished and free to commit more world crimes? Or risk the lives of even more military and civilians to make sure all are taken alive and sent to trial?

Interesting you bring up the lives of civilians when our state sanctioned terrorist actions have taken far more civilian lives than any leader of any terrorist group involved with 9/11.

A good place to start would be to stop trying to dominate other countries by toppling governments and backing regimes that are friendly to us  but unfriendly to their own people and see where that goes as far as lowering the incidents of terrorism.  Most of the countries involved in terrorism have some grievance against the US and it's past policies and contrary to government and mass media opinion, they don't just hate us because " america is the most exceptional country in all the world and they are jeoulus and we are infidels"  We have a long history of depleting countries of their resources and backing brutal right wing governments to continue to keep the resources flowing to us. 

If the so called terrorist is not directly engaged in an act of terror and has no weapon I would say that you should at least try to take them in to face justice before just deciding that killing them is justice, when in fact that is really more a form of vengence and completely unrelated to any sense of justice. Of course then you involve getting boots on the ground in a sovereign country again.

 Coming back to the 300,000+ civilians killed in the aftermath of 9/11.  How does that number not bring justice to the 2994 people killed on 9/11?  Are all those lives lost the fault of the 19  mostly Saudi attackers who were orchestrated by OBL and al-Zawahiri?  Are you suggesting that one american life is worth more than 121 civilian lives in the middle east?  Or are you suggesting that one incident claiming 2994 lives justifies 20 years of  a failed war and that we shouldn't look at our contributions to the staggering middle eastern death toll as acts of terrorism against the region that are destined to continue the status quo?

Here we are again invading a sovereign country via an unmanned aerial vehicle and killing an unarmed man while we hold an entire countries resources hostage in the name of future crime.  I'm sure it is all their fault.  Also I find it dubious that the use of 2 hellfire missiles didn't lead to any collateral damage especially since this news was delivered by the same government that just a year ago claimed no civilians were killed in an airstrike against ISIS-K when in fact only civilians were killed and 7 were children.

It's not as simple to me as killing the bad man, as that does not provide justice, which is a very necessary component of peace in a just society.  Violence begets violence begets....No wonder people think it's ok to stand their ground for french fries over here.

I’m not understanding your argument. I said that strikes like this will help prevent civilian deaths. Sending armed forces in to try to capture him alive will almost certainly lead to casualties on both sides, including civilians. So if you’re trying to minimize civilian casualties, why are you against taking out a known terrorist leader? 

We’ve definitely made mistakes with air and drone strikes. But the design behind them is to minimize casualties other than the identified target. This was a successful use of a drone strike. There was zero collateral damage. But you’d rather forces go in, risk their lives, probably lose a few, kill others involved, including the kids that pick up a rifle, just so they can take this guy alive? I’m okay with they way this one turned out.

Lerxst1992 said:

static111 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

static111 said:

mace1229 said:

static111 said:

The Juggler said:

static111 said:

The Juggler said:

static111 said:

Great news this president kills people too…glad he’s got it in him. Hope 20 years of collateral damage was worth it.

You don't support killing one of the guys responsible for 9/11?

I don't support killing.  Eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind and all of that.  Surely those wars have killed enough people to get justice for the 2,994 victims and then some.  Not to mention the fact that this didn't happen in a vacuum of hate for Americans.  There were many moves(read: Blunders) in the Middle East up to 9/11 that led to the anti-american sentiment in the region, including the 1953 CIA backed coup in Iran, The US, Russia proxy war in Afghanistan where we trained and supplied arms to many Muhjahideen that later became al qaida, generally using the entire area as if we own the oil and backing whatever side in any conflict that will favor us.  And now we are still doing the same thing, the questionable legality of toppling Libya and the awful aftermmath, Supporting the war in Yemen, backing MBS and the Saudis.  All the while we still haven't seen all of the connections between 9/11 and the Saudis due to our special relationship with them.  I see this as nothing more than a timed killing to promote some US jingoism at a time when our public support of our current proxy war is flagging.

You didn't support the killing of Osama either then?

No I did not support that or the way it was done, I am not a fan of state sanctioned extra judicial killings against civilians or foreigners, and wayyyyyyy back when I did not support the invasion and occupation of Iraq or Afghanistan. There was a minute during september-oct 2001 where I got swept up in a patriotic fervor like everyone else, but luckily I pulled my head out of my star spangled ass long enough to not do something stupid like join the service and rush off to kill Afghani civilians and instead joined local anti war movements.

What do you suggest then? Let terrorists go unpunished and free to commit more world crimes? Or risk the lives of even more military and civilians to make sure all are taken alive and sent to trial?

Interesting you bring up the lives of civilians when our state sanctioned terrorist actions have taken far more civilian lives than any leader of any terrorist group involved with 9/11.

A good place to start would be to stop trying to dominate other countries by toppling governments and backing regimes that are friendly to us  but unfriendly to their own people and see where that goes as far as lowering the incidents of terrorism.  Most of the countries involved in terrorism have some grievance against the US and it's past policies and contrary to government and mass media opinion, they don't just hate us because " america is the most exceptional country in all the world and they are jeoulus and we are infidels"  We have a long history of depleting countries of their resources and backing brutal right wing governments to continue to keep the resources flowing to us. 

If the so called terrorist is not directly engaged in an act of terror and has no weapon I would say that you should at least try to take them in to face justice before just deciding that killing them is justice, when in fact that is really more a form of vengence and completely unrelated to any sense of justice. Of course then you involve getting boots on the ground in a sovereign country again.

 Coming back to the 300,000+ civilians killed in the aftermath of 9/11.  How does that number not bring justice to the 2994 people killed on 9/11?  Are all those lives lost the fault of the 19  mostly Saudi attackers who were orchestrated by OBL and al-Zawahiri?  Are you suggesting that one american life is worth more than 121 civilian lives in the middle east?  Or are you suggesting that one incident claiming 2994 lives justifies 20 years of  a failed war and that we shouldn't look at our contributions to the staggering middle eastern death toll as acts of terrorism against the region that are destined to continue the status quo?

Here we are again invading a sovereign country via an unmanned aerial vehicle and killing an unarmed man while we hold an entire countries resources hostage in the name of future crime.  I'm sure it is all their fault.  Also I find it dubious that the use of 2 hellfire missiles didn't lead to any collateral damage especially since this news was delivered by the same government that just a year ago claimed no civilians were killed in an airstrike against ISIS-K when in fact only civilians were killed and 7 were children.

It's not as simple to me as killing the bad man, as that does not provide justice, which is a very necessary component of peace in a just society.  Violence begets violence begets....No wonder people think it's ok to stand their ground for french fries over here.

To refer to al-Zawahiri as unarmed is just a bit misleading? This photo is for dramatic purposes only, as I am referring to the death and hatred he initiated with his words and actions. He decided to initiate a war against America and the taliban leadership protected him. Perhaps it was his responsibility to consider the  121/1 ratio before he initiated the 9/11 wars by attacking my city.

You attack unarmed American civilians then refuse to cooperate with the investigation, you are requesting hell on earth for your people.  

So you think our response and the killing of 300,000 plus civilians was totally justified and has no basis in history or our foreign policy failures in the region?  By your logic any strike against the USA based on past geopolitical outcomes is also justified.  So who is more justified here?  I'm sure that killing and fucking around in the middle east will lead to no further problems here in the USA and if it does, well it is obviously all their fault.

Edit: to add that Al Z was an Egyptian and I would assume that would mean that the Egyptians are his people and to my knowledge Egypt escaped the 9/11 wars pretty unscathed.  Or are you suggesting that his people still need to pay a price of hell on earth?

The majority of the 300k casualties, almost 90%, was in Iraq, a war I did not support at that time, nor any time since. That war was the unfortunate result of a murderous, aggressive and anti American leader in that region. Is any war justified? No. But when a country provokes the US, it is taking a dangerous risk. Regarding Afghanistan, they directly supported the people responsible for 9/11, which was unprovoked, as OBLs justification was entirely absurd. To call 9/11 “a strike” is a complete misrepresentation. 9/11 was the execution of defenseless American civilians. Would you punch a lion? Well, the world now know what happens when you choose to do so. 

Lerxst1992 said:

how thoroughly was your “checking” 

static111 said:

Was al-Zawahiri legally charged with a crime? 
 Was anyone charged and tried for any crime involving 9/11? 
 Did the killing of al-Zawahiri or for that matter OBL make the world a safer place?  
Did the killing of al-Zawahiri make the US safer in any measurable way?
Have any outside organizations not funded by the US or it's subsidiaries been able to verify that there was in fact no collateral damage from 2 hellfire missiles?

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

Was al-Zawahiri legally charged with a crime? 
 Was anyone charged and tried for any crime involving 9/11? 
 Did the killing of al-Zawahiri or for that matter OBL make the world a safer place?  
Did the killing of al-Zawahiri make the US safer in any measurable way?
Have any outside organizations not funded by the US or it's subsidiaries been able to verify that there was in fact no collateral damage from 2 hellfire missiles?

He's not a US citizen nor on US soil.  You are applying rights granted in the Constitution to a terrorist.  I don't view it the same way, where the judicial system needs to try him in absentia and find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

Was al-Zawahiri legally charged with a crime? 
 Was anyone charged and tried for any crime involving 9/11? 
 Did the killing of al-Zawahiri or for that matter OBL make the world a safer place?  
Did the killing of al-Zawahiri make the US safer in any measurable way?
Have any outside organizations not funded by the US or it's subsidiaries been able to verify that there was in fact no collateral damage from 2 hellfire missiles?

He's not a US citizen nor on US soil.  You are applying rights granted in the Constitution to a terrorist.  I don't view it the same way, where the judicial system needs to try him in absentia and find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 

If we are saying that he is a terrorist because he orchestrated the 9/11 attacks with OBL that killed nearly 3000 US civilians, does that not make any of our heads of state that orchestrated the retaliatory killing of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan during our ill conceived "wars" terrorists as well?  Which would of course as Tbergs stated justify western heads of state or military leaders to be targeted by drones for the killings of civilians.

killing leads to killing leads to killing

I am not trying to make the case that 9/11 was not a tragedy or that al-Z wasn't a criminal or a leader of a terrorist organization, I'm trying to make the case that any of the standards used to justify his killing could be used to justify the killing of any leaders on the western side responsible for civilian deaths prior to or after 9/11, or going forward anyone deemed by the state as a terrorist for any reason.  The term terrorist is politically loaded as is the use of justifying extra judicial killing in the name of defending against terrorists.  Could a future democratically elected leader of the united states deem dissidents or political enemies terrorists and use this as justification for taking them out?  It could if we normalize morally detached drone killings.

Going back to the question has anyone been tried or convicted of any crimes involving 9/11?  I'm pretty sure the answer is no.  With trials come exploration and evidence.  It is easier for a government to cover their ineptness by killing anyone that could be tried, and presumably have to deal with evidence presented in court, than potentially bringing sid evidence to the table that perhaps they were completely inept, SA had more involvement than we know, or further proof that 9/11 was used as a way to massively restrict rights and open up untold surveillance power.  If we don't try anyone, we don't know the real motives of the perpatrators, what went wrong in our response and what governmental and military missteps took place before during and after.

Gern Blansten said:

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

Was al-Zawahiri legally charged with a crime? 
 Was anyone charged and tried for any crime involving 9/11? 
 Did the killing of al-Zawahiri or for that matter OBL make the world a safer place?  
Did the killing of al-Zawahiri make the US safer in any measurable way?
Have any outside organizations not funded by the US or it's subsidiaries been able to verify that there was in fact no collateral damage from 2 hellfire missiles?

He's not a US citizen nor on US soil.  You are applying rights granted in the Constitution to a terrorist.  I don't view it the same way, where the judicial system needs to try him in absentia and find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 

If we are saying that he is a terrorist because he orchestrated the 9/11 attacks with OBL that killed nearly 3000 US civilians, does that not make any of our heads of state that orchestrated the retaliatory killing of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan during our ill conceived "wars" terrorists as well?  Which would of course as Tbergs stated justify western heads of state or military leaders to be targeted by drones for the killings of civilians.

killing leads to killing leads to killing

I am not trying to make the case that 9/11 was not a tragedy or that al-Z wasn't a criminal or a leader of a terrorist organization, I'm trying to make the case that any of the standards used to justify his killing could be used to justify the killing of any leaders on the western side responsible for civilian deaths prior to or after 9/11, or going forward anyone deemed by the state as a terrorist for any reason.  The term terrorist is politically loaded as is the use of justifying extra judicial killing in the name of defending against terrorists.  Could a future democratically elected leader of the united states deem dissidents or political enemies terrorists and use this as justification for taking them out?  It could if we normalize morally detached drone killings.

Going back to the question has anyone been tried or convicted of any crimes involving 9/11?  I'm pretty sure the answer is no.  With trials come exploration and evidence.  It is easier for a government to cover their ineptness by killing anyone that could be tried, and presumably have to deal with evidence presented in court, than potentially bringing sid evidence to the table that perhaps they were completely inept, SA had more involvement than we know, or further proof that 9/11 was used as a way to massively restrict rights and open up untold surveillance power.  If we don't try anyone, we don't know the real motives of the perpatrators, what went wrong in our response and what governmental and military missteps took place before during and after.

uh....yeah. KSM for starters

tbergs said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

how thoroughly was your “checking” 

I think he means Saudi Arabia.

I have huge issues with teh Iraq war, but no issues with a successful drone strike to take out someone involved in 9/11.  I don't care that it's extra judicial.  It would be different if this guy was in our control or in control of an ally, but he wasn't and he sure wasn't going to be extradited.  

Yes, I mean SA. If the US was seeking justice what we did wasn't even an eye for an eye justice, but a fucked up vendetta against only a select few. Yeah, we sure made them pay and I will lose no sleep over the deaths of terrorists, but the US also isn't doing anyone a favor by killing anyone with these drone strikes. New leaders step in all the time and can be even worse than their predecessor (see USA). We can easily justify it because the majority of the US population views this favorably. Internationally? Meh, we don't really care, and most likely neither do most other countries, except the likes of OBL and Al Z are the result of years of US manipulation in the middle east. We can cheer today, but 20 years from now someone else may be using this moment as their motivation for the next 9/11 style vengeance. Justice is a bitch like that. It's a lot easier to take it hard and fast then go through the motions, but wouldn't we want the same if we were on the other end? I mean, can't some other leader/group justify a drone strike on Bush, Obama or Trump? They authorized attacks that killed plenty of innocent lives all in the name of freedom.