Well because the character limit this board has I can't show you what I was going to say so instead I've found an artical that reflects my points and views on this stupid "war on terriorism" and also please read this artical before you even consider giving you're points on this topic. The website is http://www.socialistworker.org/394Pages/394_05_DavidPotorti.shtml

I know these ideas may seem overwleming intimidating or just confusing if you have never been exposed to stuff like this. But don't worry I know my first time being introduced to radical ideas and social justice issues I just did not get it. If you're curious about these ideas or perspectives that we'll never learn about in our schoools or on that other great source of utter ---- and stupidity (m)TV here are a couple of alternative news websites to get you started:

Akpress.org
Progressive.org
zmag.org

Peace, Love , Unity

Well, the text makes some good points, but some others are IMO a little too "left". I mean, I am always careful when being confronted with socialist media, because they are mostly propagandistic...

(anti war section)That is another crock of bull from a lets all be friends dumb ---. Why dont some people fuss at the kind of evil who attack other countries for no reason, because of their own stupidity, and their own ignorance. For people who opose justice are no better than the murderers who should and shall recieve punishment for their crimes.

[quote:73733f91bf]FIRST OF all, the government never asked us how we felt. I don’t think it would have been hard to include us in a dialogue on some level.[/quote:73733f91bf]

Actually since all major network polls were over 90%-95% approval rating, someone agreed. Yes I read about how the article thinks if we had been told about the civilian casualties (in which somehow these peoples """intellegence""" got which are so much higher than the rest of the sane people == we would think otherwise. Guess what, they're wrong. I can give a rats --- about those people, most of the civilians believe the same ---- anyways; but I do not condone a direct attack on them. If they choose to live within a mile of a military base then they're stupid.

The bottom line is the same as with the death penalty, if you do stupid ---- you're going to be punished. So these idiots should get real with reality.

Well facts also show that most people living in Afganistan are not against America. If you could read clearly it said the he went to Afganistan in December and met with Afgan civilians so I guess you're wrong most civlians wanted Americans to come in and help there country. But by bombing it is not the answer if we spend 6 millions dollars on bombing and killing innocent children mothers fathers why we could use that money to give them food, education, money, houses, heath care and jobs. And like we did Japan help them out until they become stable. Look at Japan it's one of the most productive countries in the world and the screen you're reading all this is probably from Japan (most likly)! The media and goverment shows you only what they would like you to see they never show the children with one leg or no arms because of a cluster bomb nailing his house. And by you giving a rats --- is why innocent children, mothers, fathers are dying daily but of it's no big deal right because it's not happening to you. Also most civilians die because of a stray cluster bomb or some other device exploding not because of them living close to a military base. Also we would not be dropping bombs one mile from a base cluster bombs (ones we are dropping in Afganistan) go way past one mile so would'nt that destroy the base? Also bombs have been known to hit refugee camps the place we send civilians to get care. Also Afganistan has a ruff terain making it hard for civilans to get to safty and most of them are not healthy enough to care for them selves and get out of harms way. And also since we have bombed Afganistan there have been almost 4,000 deaths to innocent civilans and how many Taliban members have we killed I know one thing it's not a massive amount. I also look at it this way take school for instance there is a sub and there is that one kid who always causes trouble (you know this kid) and the next day the teacher comes back and punishes the entire class. Well how doe's this even connect with this topic well because of the Taliban innocent children (i hate to see children killed) mothers and fathers should be killed because if the stupid acts of the Taliban. Also people betray people in the middle east to be hateful but actully they are some of the most loving caring people on this planet. And the media is betraying muslims or people of other religons to be some sort of hate group but if you actully studied these religons you would see that it teaches love, peace and many other wonderful things. Don't allow a couple of CNN corspondents allow you to think that these are hateful people on the prowl to kill every who is not of there religon or decent. I know this from experience I have a muslim friend his family decends from Saudia Arabia he is one of the greatest friends I've got to know his family is wonerful they also are very nice and caring. I wish more people would stop jumping to a conclusion about them and actully get to know more people of other cultures so they could further educate them selves instead of relying on what a couple of filthy corperations who only show what the goverment wants them to and make it look like people from the middle east are filthy killers. Don't allow a few of these Taliban idiots lead you into thinking that they did this in the name of there religon because the many religons that i've studied and are popular mostly in the middle east do not teach hate.

Peace, Love, Unity

First off you are right, Japan has done extremly well; we used 2 nuclear bombs on them when they attacked us.

Maybe you should think about the fact that our main objective is to destroy the evil taliban government, and others like them; casualties are bad but necessary to ensure freedoms survival.

Anyone who thinks that military action is never necessary is stupid. What would have happened in world war two if hitler would have won? Today would we all wake up hoping to live another day, hoping to get to eat. I have read many books on the subject, if we had not stopped him what would the world be like now? Now look today, some civilians are dieing, some of our people are dieing; that is terrible, but imagine what could happen if we do nothing. We have to take action, because if Evil takes over the world so much worse could happen.

[quote:9db3dd881f]that is terrible, but imagine what could happen if we do nothing. We have to take action, because if Evil takes over the world so much worse could happen.[/quote:9db3dd881f]
JWB, you don't understand. Nobody wants to do nothing!! But some people in the world don't believe that war can solve all problems, they search for other solutions (And I do not only point at socialists or pacifists).

[quote:9db3dd881f]Anyone who thinks that military action is never necessary is stupid. What would have happened in world war two if hitler would have won?[/quote:9db3dd881f]
And what if Hitler never had become Reichspräsident? What if the majority of the German population had not been for Hitler and the war, in 1933 and later? What if the Germans hadn't been so extremely humilated by the unfair treaty of Versailles? What if the Weimar Republic had been accepted by the majority?
The Second World War didn't start with the invasion of Poland and it should have been prevented much earlier...

[quote:9db3dd881f]Maybe you should think about the fact that our main objective is to destroy the evil taliban government, and others like them; casualties are bad but necessary to ensure freedoms survival.[/quote:9db3dd881f]
Yes? I thought the main objective is/was to punish those who are to be blamed for the 9/11-attacks?

[quote:9db3dd881f]First off you are right, Japan has done extremly well; we used 2 nuclear bombs on them when they attacked us.[/quote:9db3dd881f]
And you advocate the use of the 2 nuclear bombs and the killing of thousands of civilians?

[quote:9db3dd881f]Why dont some people fuss at the kind of evil who attack other countries for no reason, because of their own stupidity, and their own ignorance.[/quote:9db3dd881f]
Nobody attacks someone else for no reason. Mostly the reasons are neither easy to be understood nor are they to be accepted, but they definitely exist! People don't go crazy over night and decide to attack others..
And as long as the US is not willing to see that, terrorism cannot be defeated.

[quote:9db3dd881f]For people who opose justice are no better than the murderers who should and shall recieve punishment for their crimes.[/quote:9db3dd881f]
So you define what justice means and everybody who opposes your form of justice is -according to the definition- "no better than the murderers", i.e. is also a criminal and needs to be punished. Is that your version of "democracy" and "pluralism"?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
that is terrible, but imagine what could happen if we do nothing. We have to take action, because if Evil takes over the world so much worse could happen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


JWB, you don't understand. Nobody wants to do nothing!! But some people in the world don't believe that war can solve all problems, they search for other solutions (And I do not only point at socialists or pacifists).

[color=red:ef041be9aa]I haven't heard one good idea, lets all be friends has failed over and over again.[/color:ef041be9aa]


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone who thinks that military action is never necessary is stupid. What would have happened in world war two if hitler would have won?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And what if Hitler never had become Reichspräsident? What if the majority of the German population had not been for Hitler and the war, in 1933 and later? What if the Germans hadn't been so extremely humilated by the unfair treaty of Versailles? What if the Weimar Republic had been accepted by the majority?
The Second World War didn't start with the invasion of Poland and it should have been prevented much earlier...

[color=red:ef041be9aa]What if, are you saying that we shouldnt have taken military action? Should we have not? I think you must agree we did the right thing.[/color:ef041be9aa]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe you should think about the fact that our main objective is to destroy the evil taliban government, and others like them; casualties are bad but necessary to ensure freedoms survival.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Yes? I thought the main objective is/was to punish those who are to be blamed for the 9/11-attacks?
[color=red:ef041be9aa]Our main objective is to assure that anything similar will happen in the future, punishment is a sideaffect welcomed by many Americans.[/color:ef041be9aa]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First off you are right, Japan has done extremly well; we used 2 nuclear bombs on them when they attacked us.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And you advocate the use of the 2 nuclear bombs and the killing of thousands of civilians?
[color=red:ef041be9aa]Im sorry for the lives that were lost, but even in your own words it turned out for the better, it was necessary for us to win.[/color:ef041be9aa]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why dont some people fuss at the kind of evil who attack other countries for no reason, because of their own stupidity, and their own ignorance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Nobody attacks someone else for no reason. Mostly the reasons are neither easy to be understood nor are they to be accepted, but they definitely exist! People don't go crazy over night and decide to attack others..
And as long as the US is not willing to see that, terrorism cannot be defeated.
[color=red:ef041be9aa]There reason is that we dont believe like them, and we dont spoon feed the rich -------s. Their government has enough money to support the people, it fails, we should install a new one for them FORCEFULLY.[/color:ef041be9aa]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For people who opose justice are no better than the murderers who should and shall recieve punishment for their crimes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So you define what justice means and everybody who opposes your form of justice is -according to the definition- "no better than the murderers", i.e. is also a criminal and needs to be punished. Is that your version of "democracy" and "pluralism"?
[color=red:ef041be9aa]Those who oppose justice have the same idealism as those who commit a crime and expect no punishment. People who dont believe justice should be served should live somewhere that Justice isn't served. If you have a real way of justice, not reward them by feeding them for bombing us crap, the let's hear it.[/color:ef041be9aa]

[quote:909c89cc5e]I haven't heard one good idea, lets all be friends has failed over and over again.[/quote:909c89cc5e]

Next time do your homework and you can clearly see that bombing has not work either in the past. We have terrorized this "axis of evil" before the Bush aministration and it obviously has not stoped hate

[quote:909c89cc5e]Our main objective is to assure that anything similar will happen in the future, punishment is a sideaffect welcomed by many Americans.[/quote:909c89cc5e]

Another victim lost to corperate and goverment brainwasing welcomed by many americans ha not me. I don't want to be a war hero. Becaused it is welcomed by others justifys it as an okay thing. There are alternatives to war and if you think war is a justfied than think about all the children you kill put who cares its not happening to me. And like the topic says this is not a war for justices this is a political war for gas and other such things. And like I said before we have tried bombing did it work no how many times have we tried as you say lets be a friend idea I don't recall a time...

[quote:909c89cc5e]Im sorry for the lives that were lost, but even in your own words it turned out for the better, it was necessary for us to win[/quote:909c89cc5e]

Sorry does'nt bring back the dead sorry does not bring back the ones still dying because of radiation felt by the atomic bombs. It turned out for the better I don't get this innocent civilans being killed is better than using alternative methods to war? It was necessary for us to win but by droping bombs is not the way to do it if we helped the country and gave thim proper care than innocent people would not die and at the same time we could help them rebuild...

[quote:909c89cc5e]There reason is that we dont believe like them, and we dont spoon feed the rich -------s. Their government has enough money to support the people, it fails, we should install a new one for them FORCEFULLY.[/quote:909c89cc5e]

Everything must not be done forcefully infact nothing should be. You can rebuild a country with out weapons and war. It's not a hard concept to understand. And actully we do spoon feed the rich. I don't see the poor getting any benifits do you and because they are underclass they should not get proper care they are still citizens in my book and anyone who is should get proper care!


[quote:909c89cc5e]Those who oppose justice have the same idealism as those who commit a crime and expect no punishment. People who dont believe justice should be served should live somewhere that Justice isn't served. If you have a real way of justice, not reward them by feeding them for bombing us crap, the let's hear it.[/quote:909c89cc5e]


I oppose justice I oppose they way it works it self I oppose the people running are justice system so I am commiting a crime and should expect some type of punishment. I just oppose it in diffrent ways like protesting for instance but still it seems my first amendment rights get taken way when I protest for human rights etc.... And also we would not have war if we did reward each other and gave each other the respect each and ever human/animal deserves and found other ways to war!

Great sites check it out are you might be missing out!

http://www.warresisters.com
http://www.foodnotbombs.net


Peace, Love, Unity

this thread only started yesterday, so i can't feel too bad for coming in late, but i do apologize for my tardiness :).
ok, the atomic bomb. do u agree w/what happened at pearl harbor? i'm not sayin u would, i'm just wonderin. truman had to make a decision. 2 bombs were ready, and japan wasn't surrendering. you suggested we try other means. what other means were ready? we could have invaded... that would have cost as many American and Japanese lives as were taken in the bombs. however, truman was able to protect his own citizens by the droppin of the bomb. let me say this...i don't agree w/the second bomb bein dropped so soon after the first. it was orginally scheduled to be dropped 5 days later, but was dropped 3 days later due to predicted poor weather. i think the should have waited longer, but, american planes did drop pamphlets over nagasaki to warn them of impending atomic attack. however, they citizens did not believe it bc they had not heard of the first attack bc the government withheld that information.

someone said hitler coulda been stopped before. thats true, the treat of versailles really did a number on Germany. however, wilson came to the conference w/a 14 pt plan very similar to Lincoln's reconstruction policy. however, he was outvoted 2 to one on every point but the League of Nations. Which was then rejected by our congress. our Pres. tried very hard to prevent the treaty of versailles from turnin out like it did. then, we were so busy concentrating on the great depression, that we couldn't really pay hitler his due. there were many circumstances that led to his power. i'm not sayin that its the same case w/osama, i'm just letting everyone kno that it was no the US's fault that hitler came into power.

"Bill O’Reilly was trying to compare bin Laden to Hitler. His argument was, Weren’t the German people responsible for Hitler? In other words, ordinary Afghans are responsible for the Taliban--if they didn’t like the Taliban, why didn’t they overthrow them? So they deserve to get bombed.

"That argument is just crazy. Afghanistan is a devastated country that has already been bombed back to the Stone Age. People can’t even eat. How could they have overthrown the Taliban?

"I suppose if you take this kind of logic to its extreme, we’re "responsible" for George Bush and the actions of our government. So does that mean that our people deserved to get attacked on September 11? Of course not."

um, i'd just like to point out that this guys point is absurd. why would we be responsible for what a terrorist group from afghanistan did to our country? the point bill o'reilly was makin that the ppl coulda stopped this man from comin into power. what does that have to do w/an attack on our country?

"Instead, it seems like the media have turned against us. It’s as if they want to put people in their place--make us march in lockstep behind whatever position the government takes. They’re supposed to be on our side, but they’re not."
um, the media, is supposed to be on their own side. they represent their own ideas, and their own veiws. if u'd like to tell ppl what u think, start ur own media production agency. they will always tell u what they want u to kno in the tone they want u to kno it.

"I think the September 11 attacks are being used as an excuse for the military campaign. Seeking justice has nothing to do with this war--it’s irrelevant."
seekin justice has everything to do with it. if this group attacks our country and nothin is done..what message r we sending to them? we are, in essence, telling them that attackin the heart of america, and killing and destroying thousands of lives, is alright. i've seen this in family relationships. if a son is out of line, and the only consequence or punishment is a little talk where the father tells him he was out of line, the son then catches on. he understands that he can pretty much do whatever he wants if he's willing to sit through a half hour lecture. there has to be a punishment. we have to let the taliban kno that we WILL NOT tolerate that kind of behavior. we have to give them tangible evidence and retaliation that clearly communicates that this cannot happen again.

So by us attacking and killing OVER 4000 innocent people is alright. We have alternative methods to war lets use them bring the world closer bring us unity love peace everything we need by bombing in the past and now has done absoulty nothing. You see one side Taliban considered it okay for them to attack American you see it as an okay thing to attack Afganistan killing children leaving the straving with one arm. If we did not have hate we would not have killing! We would not have war so stop dropping bombs and love and unite and spread it!!!

Peace, Love, Unity

I personally feel that 2 bombs were not justice enough, we should have bombed them til there was no Japan left, ---- japs, cant stand what they did to our people, and the interment camps we put their 1st generation people in was totally justified, as we could not know who we were fighting...but they sent weather ballons with bombs attached, and it killed 4 people as they left church one sunday morning, the first 4 people to loose their lives on US soil until now...The scientists said we should not use it...but they had no objections of using it against hitler when they knew fellow Jews were being murdered...hmmmm makes me wonder if the scientists had hidden motives for making the bomb....

then they also sent some over hit a power line and almost caused a nuclear meltdown by only about 4 hours was it stopped.


Peace is great, I am never for violence, but when a butt whipping is in order, I am ready, and willing for it, I will go for it if I was called up, I hate to go, but I am a proud American.

Bin Laden was trained by our tax dollars, and we put him there, the USA let Hitler get into power because we were in Isolationlism, and we did nothing, Wilson was screwed over because of the 2 European Mofo's and thus causing us to say "To hell with yall, we will worry about ourselves"

Wars will be fought as long as 2 people are alive, and I personally want to be ready until I am the only person alive...

I am never willing to kill, or fight anyone. I'm sure not willing to be a war hero. I'm not going to go fight and kill millions of innocent people because I was called to. I will go to jail or go threw whatever else I must haft to. But killing someone no not me. Am I being un patriotic yes in your eyes but a true patriot in my opinion is someone who does not kill, who does not opress, someone who helps others when in need. Someone who fights against wars and violence. Two bombs was not enough are you insane. Millions of people died becaue of "just two bombs" people are still dying because of the radiation felt by the bomb! Because a leader or leaders attacks are country it is okay to attack them killing HUMAN BEINGS! I don't justify what they did as right and I sure don't justify what we did was right. But what was really wrong was dropping bombs on a country that still has children they did not make it past the age of 1 mothers fathers brothers and sisters all died! What I am trying to say your wrong if your proud of war. Your wrong if you think we should of dropped more bombs on innocent civilians. If you want peace than don't controdict your self we have other methods they dont take phsical force and we need to fight so those methods can be used its time to stop the killing time to stop the hate time to find an alternative method to war time we stop greed its time we all get along are else you could become the next victim to war!

Peace, Love, Unity

oh, cut the bull. i'm sorry, WW2 happened bc we weren't willing to fight. until pearl harbor, we tried our hardest to stay out of it, thereby killing more ppl. if the USA had come into the war sooner, the war woulda been shorter, and, more than likely, less live woulda been lost. u can talk about peace and love and unity all u want, and those are great goals, but the reality is that some leaders, dictators, or kings, will not be willing to negotiate. many of these ppl are not exactly right in the head and cannot be reasoned with. their simply comes a time when the leaders of this country must stand up for what our founding fathers believed in, and fight for our country. if ur so set on peace and love and unity, go buy a freakin island and start ur own government. that will never happen here. we will not put our heads in the sand and pretend that if we don't see what's goin on around us, its not really happening. this is reality.

But you cannot compare the situation during WW2 with today's situation!

1. The German and the Japanese population (the very majority) were advocating the war! So the US and the other allies fought against a whole country, against the complete people.
In this war, the US did not fight against a people or at least a country, but only against the Taliban and Al Qaida. The Media and the government stressed this over and over again.
And nevertheless, about 4000(!!) Afghan civilians have been killed. At the beginning, you carefully attacked some military bases with hyper intelligent missiles, who could hit the --- of a camel standing in a tent (quotation by someone of the Bush Administration). But then you used more and more inprecise weapons such as ordinary bombs or Daisy Cutters. And the times of surgical operations were over. Everyday, there were news about homes, hospitals, UN-buildings and even your own soldiers being hit.

2. The problem today is mostly an international one. Its international terrorism. You cannot solve this problem by bombing down one single country. And you cannot solve this problem by catching some single criminals. If you use violence to combat international terrorism, you will improve the situation only for a short period. But some time later, the situation is getting even worse! Isn't that something we should have learned during the last years?? Were terrorists willing to do such horrofic deeds (9/11) 10 years ago? I'm at least sceptical..
Violent reactions to violence will only cause more violence. I know, you don't believe this, and I know, you cannot hear this argument anymore, but it is still right. Look for example at Israel: The Israelis have decided to make very brutal politics towards Palestinian terrorists (e.g. liquidations, destroying houses etc.) and did the situation get better?? NO! The combats are as violent as seldom been before. Think about it, just one moment..

3. Today, in a globalized world, in a world of great international cooperation and partly even international unity, you cannot do something which is completely against the will of all other states. But that's exactly what is happening now. The current, aggressive foreign policy of the US loses more and more advocaters around the world, esp. in Europe, and if you keep on doing then you will probably lose the European support. Other states are to follow. And in the end, the USA is alone. Do you really want that? A new kind of isolationism?

Are founding fathers did not ask for war if you read the are bill of rights it teaches nothing but oppertunity, equality and many other great things. War advocates equality?

I am sorry, I feel the US does too much, they are in everyone's business, I agree with your definition of Patriotism, helping to the point, but fighting for the rights that so many has already died defending....

The Founders of the Nation wanted us to defend this great nation, and I personally feel they would have done worst that what we have....

The radiation from the 2 atomic bombs ar egone, as the half life of the radiation were not as great as the radiation produced from a Nuclear Power plant, example in Chernobyl, they are still getting over the inncident...and very poorly at that, they still send the chilkdren to America for 6 weeks to get into un polluted air , radiation pollution that is...

OK anti-war people:

What should we be doing instead of bombing them? Feeding them?

Should we have let the taliban remain in control? If so we also have to pay tax to bring food in to feed their citizens, should we do that to?

What could we do that requires NO military action? If we hadn't taken action already to run the Taliban away?

the bill of rights was written for individual rights, what does that have to do w/war? when the declaration of independence was written, those men knew they would go to war. to gain our independence, we HAD to go to war. there is no way some little peace talk about love and unity would achieve our status as an independent country. if our founding fathers were pacifists, do u really think they'd provide ways to go to war in the constitution? they allowed the president to send troops for 60 days (i'm pretty sure thats the time frame) and afterwards, if congress hadn't issued a declaration of war, the troops would hafta come back.
i honestly think we do get involved in more than we should, however, there does come a time, when u can no longer ignore what's goin on, and u gotta step in and stand up for what is right.

Due to the stupid character thing I'm making to two post!

Part One

I believe two moral judgments can be made about the present "war": The September 11 attack constitutes a crime against humanity and cannot be justified, and the bombing of Afghanistan is also a crime, which cannot be justified.
And yet, voices across the political spectrum, including many on the left, have described this as a "just war." One longtime advocate of peace, Richard Falk, wrote in The Nation that this is "the first truly just war since World War II." Robert Kuttner, another consistent supporter of social justice, declared in The American Prospect that only people on the extreme left could believe this is not a just war.

I have puzzled over this. How can a war be truly just when it involves the daily killing of civilians, when it causes hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children to leave their homes to escape the bombs, when it may not find those who planned the September 11 attacks, and when it will multiply the ranks of people who are angry enough at this country to become terrorists themselves?

This war amounts to a gross violation of human rights, and it will produce the exact opposite of what is wanted: It will not end terrorism; it will proliferate terrorism.

I believe that the progressive supporters of the war have confused a "just cause" with a "just war." There are unjust causes, such as the attempt of the United States to establish its power in Vietnam, or to dominate Panama or Grenada, or to subvert the government of Nicaragua. And a cause may be just--getting North Korea to withdraw from South Korea, getting Saddam Hussein to withdraw from Kuwait, or ending terrorism--but it does not follow that going to war on behalf of that cause, with the inevitable mayhem that follows, is just.

The stories of the effects of our bombing are beginning to come through, in bits and pieces. Just eighteen days into the bombing, The New York Times reported: "American forces have mistakenly hit a residential area in Kabul." Twice, U.S. planes bombed Red Cross warehouses, and a Red Cross spokesman said: "Now we've got 55,000 people without that food or blankets, with nothing at all."

An Afghan elementary school-teacher told a Washington Post reporter at the Pakistan border: "When the bombs fell near my house and my babies started crying, I had no choice but to run away."

A New York Times report: "The Pentagon acknowledged that a Navy F/A-18 dropped a 1,000-pound bomb on Sunday near what officials called a center for the elderly. . . . The United Nations said the building was a military hospital. . . . Several hours later, a Navy F-14 dropped two 500-pound bombs on a residential area northwest of Kabul." A U.N. official told a New York Times reporter that an American bombing raid on the city of Herat had used cluster bombs, which spread deadly "bomblets" over an area of twenty football fields. This, the Times reporter wrote,"was the latest of a growing number of accounts of American bombs going astray and causing civilian casualties."

An A.P. reporter was brought to Karam, a small mountain village hit by American bombs, and saw houses reduced to rubble. "In the hospital in Jalalabad, twenty-five miles to the east, doctors treated what they said were twenty-three victims of bombing at Karam, one a child barely two months old, swathed in bloody bandages," according to the account. "Another child, neighbors said, was in the hospital because the bombing raid had killed her entire family. At least eighteen fresh graves were scattered around the village."

The city of Kandahar, attacked for seventeen straight days, was reported to be a ghost town, with more than half of its 500,000 people fleeing the bombs. The city's electrical grid had been knocked out. The city was deprived of water, since the electrical pumps could not operate. A sixty-year-old farmer told the A.P. reporter, "We left in fear of our lives. Every day and every night, we hear the roaring and roaring of planes, we see the smoke, the fire. . . . I curse them both--the Taliban and America."

A New York Times report from Pakistan two weeks into the bombing campaign told of wounded civilians coming across the border. "Every half-hour or so throughout the day, someone was brought across on a stretcher. . . . Most were bomb victims, missing limbs or punctured by shrapnel. . . . A young boy, his head and one leg wrapped in bloodied bandages, clung to his father's back as the old man trudged back to Afghanistan."

That was only a few weeks into the bombing, and the result had already been to frighten hundreds of thousands of Afghans into abandoning their homes and taking to the dangerous, mine-strewn roads. The "war against terrorism" has become a war against innocent men, women, and children, who are in no way responsible for the terrorist attack on New York.

And yet there are those who say this is a "just war."

Terrorism and war have something in common. They both involve the killing of innocent people to achieve what the killers believe is a good end. I can see an immediate objection to this equation: They (the terrorists) deliberately kill innocent people; we (the war makers) aim at "military targets," and civilians are killed by accident, as "collateral damage."

Is it really an accident when civilians die under our bombs? Even if you grant that the intention is not to kill civilians, if they nevertheless become victims, again and again and again, can that be called an accident? If the deaths of civilians are inevitable in bombing, it may not be deliberate, but it is not an accident, and the bombers cannot be considered innocent. They are committing murder as surely as are the terrorists.

The absurdity of claiming innocence in such cases becomes apparent when the death tolls from "collateral damage" reach figures far greater than the lists of the dead from even the most awful act of terrorism. Thus, the "collateral damage" in the Gulf War caused more people to die--hundreds of thousands, if you include the victims of our sanctions policy--than the very deliberate terrorist attack of September 11. The total of those who have died in Israel from Palestinian terrorist bombs is somewhere under 1,000. The number of dead from "collateral damage" in the bombing of Beirut during Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982 was roughly 6,000.

We must not match the death lists--it is an ugly exercise--as if one atrocity is worse than another. No killing of innocents, whether deliberate or "accidental," can be justified. My argument is that when children die at the hands of terrorists, or--whether intended or not--as a result of bombs dropped from airplanes, terrorism and war become equally unpardonable.

Let's talk about "military targets." The phrase is so loose that President Truman, after the nuclear bomb obliterated the population of Hiroshima, could say: "The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians."

What we are hearing now from our political leaders is, "We are targeting military objectives. We are trying to avoid killing civilians. But that will happen, and we regret it." Shall the American people take moral comfort from the thought that we are bombing only "military targets"?

The reality is that the term "military" covers all sorts of targets that include civilian populations. When our bombers deliberately destroy, as they did in the war against Iraq, the electrical infrastructure, thus making water purification and sewage treatment plants inoperable and leading to epidemic waterborne diseases, the deaths of children and other civilians cannot be called accidental.

Recall that in the midst of the Gulf War, the U.S. military bombed an air raid shelter, killing 400 to 500 men, women, and children who were huddled to escape bombs. The claim was that it was a military target, housing a communications center, but reporters going through the ruins immediately afterward said there was no sign of anything like that.

I suggest that the history of bombing--and no one has bombed more than this nation--is a history of endless atrocities, all calmly explained by deceptive and deadly language like "accident," "military targets," and "collateral damage."

Indeed, in both World War II and in Vietnam, the historical record shows that there was a deliberate decision to target civilians in order to destroy the morale of the enemy--hence the firebombing of Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo, the B-52s over Hanoi, the jet bombers over peaceful villages in the Vietnam countryside. When some argue that we can engage in "limited military action" without "an excessive use of force," they are ignoring the history of bombing. The momentum of war rides roughshod over limits.

The moral equation in Afghanistan is clear. Civilian casualties are certain. The outcome is uncertain. No one knows what this bombing will accomplish--whether it will lead to the capture of Osama Bin Laden (perhaps), or the end of the Taliban (possibly), or a democratic Afghanistan (very unlikely), or an end to terrorism (almost certainly not).

[NOTE: MAKE SURE THAT YOU READ PART 1]
Part 2

And meanwhile, we are terrorizing the population (not the terrorists, they are not easily terrorized). Hundreds of thousands are packing their belongings and their children onto carts and leaving their homes to make dangerous journeys to places they think might be more safe.

Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a "war against terrorism."

We might examine the idea of pacifism in the light of what is going on right now. I have never used the word "pacifist" to describe myself, because it suggests something absolute, and I am suspicious of absolutes. I want to leave openings for unpredictable possibilities. There might be situations (and even such strong pacifists as Gandhi and Martin Luther King believed this) when a small, focused act of violence against a monstrous, immediate evil would be justified.

In war, however, the proportion of means to ends is very, very different. War, by its nature, is unfocused, indiscriminate, and especially in our time when the technology is so murderous, inevitably involves the deaths of large numbers of people and the suffering of even more. Even in the "small wars" (Iran vs. Iraq, the Nigerian war, the Afghan war), a million people die. Even in a "tiny" war like the one we waged in Panama, a thousand or more die.

Scott Simon of NPR wrote a commentary in The Wall Street Journal on October 11 entitled, "Even Pacifists Must Support This War." He tried to use the pacifist acceptance of self-defense, which approves a focused resistance to an immediate attacker, to justify this war, which he claims is "self-defense." But the term "self-defense" does not apply when you drop bombs all over a country and kill lots of people other than your attacker. And it doesn't apply when there is no likelihood that it will achieve its desired end.

Pacifism, which I define as a rejection of war, rests on a very powerful logic. In war, the means--indiscriminate killing--are immediate and certain; the ends, however desirable, are distant and uncertain.

Pacifism does not mean "appeasement." That word is often hurled at those who condemn the present war on Afghanistan, and it is accompanied by references to Churchill, Chamberlain, Munich. World War II analogies are conveniently summoned forth when there is a need to justify a war, however irrelevant to a particular situation. At the suggestion that we withdraw from Vietnam, or not make war on Iraq, the word "appeasement" was bandied about. The glow of the "good war" has repeatedly been used to obscure the nature of all the bad wars we have fought since 1945.

Let's examine that analogy. Czechoslovakia was handed to the voracious Hitler to "appease" him. Germany was an aggressive nation expanding its power, and to help it in its expansion was not wise. But today we do not face an expansionist power that demands to be appeased. We ourselves are the expansionist power--troops in Saudi Arabia, bombings of Iraq, military bases all over the world, naval vessels on every sea--and that, along with Israel's expansion into the West Bank and Gaza Strip, has aroused anger.

It was wrong to give up Czechoslovakia to appease Hitler. It is not wrong to withdraw our military from the Middle East, or for Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories, because there is no right to be there. That is not appeasement. That is justice.

Opposing the bombing of Afghanistan does not constitute "giving in to terrorism" or "appeasement." It asks that other means be found than war to solve the problems that confront us. King and Gandhi both believed in action--nonviolent direct action, which is more powerful and certainly more morally defensible than war.

To reject war is not to "turn the other cheek," as pacifism has been caricatured. It is, in the present instance, to act in ways that do not imitate the terrorists.

The United States could have treated the September 11 attack as a horrific criminal act that calls for apprehending the culprits, using every device of intelligence and investigation possible. It could have gone to the United Nations to enlist the aid of other countries in the pursuit and apprehension of the terrorists.

There was also the avenue of negotiations. (And let's not hear: "What? Negotiate with those monsters?" The United States negotiated with--indeed, brought into power and kept in power--some of the most monstrous governments in the world.) Before Bush ordered in the bombers, the Taliban offered to put bin Laden on trial. This was ignored. After ten days of air attacks, when the Taliban called for a halt to the bombing and said they would be willing to talk about handing bin Laden to a third country for trial, the headline the next day in The New York Times read: "President Rejects Offer by Taliban for Negotiations," and Bush was quoted as saying: "When I said no negotiations, I meant no negotiations."

That is the behavior of someone hellbent on war. There were similar rejections of negotiating possibilities at the start of the Korean War, the war in Vietnam, the Gulf War, and the bombing of Yugoslavia. The result was an immense loss of life and incalculable human suffering.

International police work and negotiations were--still are--alternatives to war. But let's not deceive ourselves; even if we succeeded in apprehending bin Laden or, as is unlikely, destroying the entire Al Qaeda network, that would not end the threat of terrorism, which has potential recruits far beyond Al Qaeda.

To get at the roots of terrorism is complicated. Dropping bombs is simple. It is an old response to what everyone acknowledges is a very new situation. At the core of unspeakable and unjustifiable acts of terrorism are justified grievances felt by millions of people who would not themselves engage in terrorism but from whose ranks terrorists spring.

Those grievances are of two kinds: the existence of profound misery-- hunger, illness--in much of the world, contrasted to the wealth and luxury of the West, especially the United States; and the presence of American military power everywhere in the world, propping up oppressive regimes and repeatedly intervening with force to maintain U.S. hegemony.

This suggests actions that not only deal with the long-term problem of terrorism but are in themselves just.

Instead of using two planes a day to drop food on Afghanistan and 100 planes to drop bombs (which have been making it difficult for the trucks of the international agencies to bring in food), use 102 planes to bring food.

Take the money allocated for our huge military machine and use it to combat starvation and disease around the world. One-third of our military budget would annually provide clean water and sanitation facilities for the billion people in the world who have none.

Withdraw troops from Saudi Arabia, because their presence near the holy shrines of Mecca and Medina angers not just bin Laden (we need not care about angering him) but huge numbers of Arabs who are not terrorists.

Stop the cruel sanctions on Iraq, which are killing more than a thousand children every week without doing anything to weaken Saddam Hussein's tyrannical hold over the country.

Insist that Israel withdraw from the occupied territories, something that many Israelis also think is right, and which will make Israel more secure than it is now.

In short, let us pull back from being a military superpower, and become a humanitarian superpower.

Let us be a more modest nation. We will then be more secure. The modest nations of the world don't face the threat of terrorism.

Such a fundamental change in foreign policy is hardly to be expected. It would threaten too many interests: the power of political leaders, the ambitions of the military, the corporations that profit from the nation's enormous military commitments.

Change will come, as at other times in our history, only when American citizens-- becoming better informed, having second thoughts after the first instinctive support for official policy--demand it. That change in citizen opinion, especially if it coincides with a pragmatic decision by the government that its violence isn't working, could bring about a retreat from the military solution.

It might also be a first step in the rethinking of our nation's role in the world. Such a rethinking contains the promise, for Americans, of genuine security, and for people elsewhere, the beginning of hope.

Peace, Love, Unity

Whats all this hibberish jibberish.. My gosh I have to read a whole book. Ill read it later tonight when I get home, the question was CONFUSED YOUTH. What can we do that will work?

Why cant you answer the question in your own words, a reasonable answer in a paragraph, maybe because you dont have one.

If you dont then maybe you shouldn't critizie our current tactics; Scroll up to read my questions /|\

Sometimes it takes more than a paragraph to get something through someones head. Also all your questions are answered if you would read it. I have my opinions and I can say things in my own words and I know what they are and if you asked me in general public I could answer them well thought out. Also by showing you something that someone else has written often times helps prove a point that I can't make because personally I'm not a good writer or speaker but also I read it before posting it so that I can make sure all the points and views given are something I agree with other wise I would not post it. And sometimes the things you say are nothing but jibberish!

JWB you said that I should not critizise our current tatics I think I should be able to I know what my beliefs are and I have a right ti critizise anything I like. I'm not critizising anything if I don't know what I'm talking about but indeed I do. If you watch American History X towords the end of the movie he says something after he writes the paper (don't know word for word) but when writing about something you should always use a quote because they have already said it better than you so steal it and then share it with someone else.

Well first off cutting off the heads of these terrorist groups does what?
Nothing. All it does is stir the pot of anger. People are still mad and there will still be attacks right? So what do we do?

War is a combustible and unpredictable thing, and warmakers rarely calculate the potential consequences of their actions. "The men who have embarked on wars in this century repeatedly, almost exclusively, substituted their interests, desires, and preconceptions for accurate assessments of the most likely possibilities once they began," historian Gabriel Kolko wrote in "Century of War: Politics, Conflicts, and Society Since 1914" (New Press, 1994).

"Returning hate for hate multiplies hate," Martin Luther King Jr. wrote. "Violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction."

We get to the root of the problem. Terrorist don't grow on trees as some may believe. Thet aren't spontaneous beings that pop out of the wood work. The sooner we realize this the faster we will move to relief this problem.

These people are brought into hate at a very early age. They have no understanding except for what they are taught from men who have misplaced their own angers toward the world. The solution is simple. We need to help these people. THats it. Although you are going to say its not our responsibility right. We have our own problems right. Well these terrorist problems will continue until we addresss the problem at the root. Thats all we can do. WE can't sure this problem with quick temporary rememdy. Sad to say we have a problem. A big problem and there is only one way to fix it. For one I don't think we shoulds be on the sides of either Isereal or palistine. This just fuels a fire of hatred and predjudice on us. Its tru there are about 3 million Isrealis and 250Million Islamics. We put the lives of a few million in front of 250. So forget about Isereal all together? No but we shouldn't support their massacres anymore than the PLO's. We have problems of our own right now. THe economy is in a state of emergency. The idea of new budget stimulus has been passed around without proof shown. We are approaching the national legal deficit limit at the end of this month. 5.9trillion dollars. With Bush planning to persuade congress into raising it what can we do? How can we help when we need help?

In Greek mythology, Hercules was the super-power of his day, but when he faced his most dangerous foe, the multi-headed Hydra which – like the terrorist networks of today – grew two new heads every time one was cut off – he had to build a coalition. Uncharacteristically he teamed up with an ally because it was the only way he could prevail.

I know what the anwser isn't and that is the killing of innocent people in name of our vengence. We aren't a vigilante nation and we shouldn't act that way. We can't run up in other countries without a reaction. We need to get to the bottom of fixing the problems at home. And start a campaign of help. We are going to spend 256 billion dollars this year on military on top of the 56billion for homeland security. Do we need more security? Or do we need to iradicate the problem at the root? Just 2 years ago we were out of the red and now look at us in 5.9 trillion in debt. Where has all this money gone?
I've given the solution now we need to find a solution to the new problems at hand..:redsmoker

Got a few in there for you buddy:off:

Well did you know?....

That their are Muslim schools teaching young people to hate Gentials.

We feed Iraq with food, during Desert Storm, he took it and Sold it and bought weapons with it

We continue to give money to the enemy we so wish to go away.



War is not cool, but I say we need to get it over with, the terrorists will never go away, they want us dead, and we want them dead, so until every person on earth dies, there will be terrorism.

They talk like this "War on Terrorism" will go on for like 20 years or more..

The more freedoms we give up for security, is more we wil never get back

Its not the fault of the people that their leaders are poor in judgment and those are the people that the seed of hate is planted. So true maybe we have wasted money on the effort. Maybe we need to take alternate routes in making sure these funds aren't wasted on arms and killing. A lot of these arms bought were from the U.S. not particularly our goverment but arms manufacturers. Easily finding a middle man to sell them.


So true is will be a long fought war and the end may never come. Killing isn't the anwser though and never is. Just a simple solution us folks at home find so easily to say without experience or knowledge of brutaly murdering men,woman, and children.

[quote:5060e3ce2f="ConfusedYouth"]
Well because the character limit this board has I can't show you what I was going to say so instead I've found an artical that reflects my points and views on this stupid "war on terriorism" [/quote:5060e3ce2f]
Thanks for posting these URLs. Especially the articles on the first page confirmed my theories pertaining Dumbya's true intentions. It just sickens me to think that we have such a corrupt and right out dirty government headed by a dipstick who wasn't even elected.

[quote:8df5bd9f52="JWB"]
casualties are bad but necessary to ensure freedoms survival.[/quote:8df5bd9f52]
You are such a hypocrite! Freedom's survival my arse. The government is giving other countries the illusion of being free while taking over the reigns themselves over there. And becak home, they're pissing on the bill of rights and restricting everyone's freedom left and right. Did you know that the government could be spying on what you do online right now without ever telling you? Or how about their ability to serach your house whenever they feel like it with only telling you afterwards if you're lucky? Oh yeah, that is so in the intrest of your freedom isn't it.

[quote:1399a8498a="VBallAngel4377"]
"I suppose if you take this kind of logic to its extreme, we’re "responsible" for George Bush and the actions of our government. So does that mean that our people deserved to get attacked on September 11? Of course not."
[/quote:1399a8498a]
Actually yes we are responsible for Dumbya and his actions. The citizens of this country elected the presidents who put the supreme court justices in place who then chose Bush over Al Gore, the real winner.
In many other ways the majority of US citizens are the culprits as they have refused to see that they are being severly brainwashed and misled by the government and the media conglomerates everyday. If people woke up and decided to install a new government right here then we could all truly be proud of ourselves.
I agree that that has really not much to do with the attacks, not directly anyways. The hate towards the USA started much earlier, way before Dumbya stole the election. I don't think any population has ever tryly been in favor of our imperalistic poncing about.

[quote:31b73c5343="VBallAngel4377"]
their simply comes a time when the leaders of this country must stand up for what our founding fathers believed in[/quote:31b73c5343]
True, but that's not what Dumbya and his merry men are doing. Some of the original values as set down in the bill of rights and the constitutions are freedom, equality and justice. What's happening now clearly is not any of that. Freedom? Ha! As soon as the US government steps in that one's gone! Equality? Nope! The US government is openly discriminating against foreigners and even proud of it, what a sick joke. Justice? No way Pedro! How is it just to destroy and thereby provoke even more violence?!

I usually keep out of political discussions because I'm such an idiot...but...

Technically...we do not elect the president. We may have think we are, but in actuality, we aren't.

.::Enter the electoral college::.

Every state has reps in the electoral college. These reps are supposed to represent the choice of that state for president (if I remember correctly). What we're voting for is who we want our reps in the electoral college to vote for. Now the persons chosen to represent us in the electoral college do not necessarily have to vote for the person who got the most votes in one state. It's up to each individual rep to decide wether or not they want to listen to popular opinion.

An example: Say in California, Gore gets 45% of the vote, Bush 43%, and miscellaneous others the rest. The reps for that Cali area would vote for Gore. BUT if some chose to ignore the opinion of the people, they would vote for Bush.

Bush won the electoral college vote, which is what mattered the most because the winner of that vote becomes president, while Gore won the overall popularity vote. Which is why the electoral college has recently become an issue.

So the American people didn't elect Bush. The electoral college did. It's not EVERYONE's fault that he's president. Everyone is NOT reponsible for this.

I know this has nothing to do with the war, but I just thought I'd mention this.

I'll go back to my mindless posts now. :D I'm probably off-topic anyway.

Ok, DUH, I know about the electoral college, and no, they did not elect Bush either. I repeat: He was [b:04856d48f9]CHOSEN[/b:04856d48f9] by the Supreme Court. There were more votes for Gore in Floridda and therefore the electoral votes belonged to Gore. Seeing as those would have put him ahead he was the actual elected president. The supreme court however was staffed with biased arshead Republicans and therefore Dumbya was chosen instead of Gore, the real winner.

Sorry about that...I just had to get that in.

There is no way that anyone would have been able to predict the actions of the supreme court. You can't really tell what people will do when the time actually comes.

Anyway, regardless of my last post...I do agree that we are responsible. Practically everyone in the country was crying out for vengence, and if anyone had spoken out against it, they would've probably been beaten up for having a different idea of what we should do. The president saw this opportunity (or maybe those closest to him) and took it.

What's the whole reason for continuing all this now? I forget. I think we stopped looking for Osama bin Laden, but I'm not sure. Get rid of the Taliban? That's a bit hard to do, isn't it? No matter how many roaches you squish, you'll never be rid of them completely. If we had found Osama, what would we have done? He wouldn't have been able to have had a fair trial anywhere. So we're most likely going to string him up as an example to other terrorists. Mmm. Yes. Didn't the Ku Klux Klan/lynch mobs use a similar approach? Didn't work, did it?

We're no better than the terrorists themselves right now. Don't you think that we're causing terror over there? Sure, we're trying to "free" people, but we're doing it by bombing and shooting up their cities. We also tried to compensate by dropping food. Mmmm. That'll work. "Sorry we accidentally bombed your whole family out of existence, but hey! Here's some pizza to make up for it." We wonder why others hate us so much and think we're stupid.

Okay. That's it for me. I lost my train of thought and interest in what I was saying. My bursts of intelligence (however puny they might be) never come at the right time. Usually they're never on topic either.

this war may not serve justice and deffinately is putting a strain on our freedoms but the war does serve a purpose.and that is to get rid of the al-queda and anyone that supports them.they are the enemy ,they killed civilians and the innocent,they are murderers.and if nothing is done they will kill again and again.its sad that other innocent people have to die in this war but it is war.
we at least don't intentionally target civilians like the lunatics did on 9-11.
and as far as i am concerned we kill the al-queda to the man. every last one of them.they are a disease on humanity.

[quote:3e10bc0ed2="Neg"]
But you cannot compare the situation during WW2 with today's situation!

1. The German and the Japanese population (the very majority) were advocating the war! So the US and the other allies fought against a whole country, against the complete people.
In this war, the US did not fight against a people or at least a country, but only against the Taliban and Al Qaida. The Media and the government stressed this over and over again.
And nevertheless, about 4000(!!) Afghan civilians have been killed. At the beginning, you carefully attacked some military bases with hyper intelligent missiles, who could hit the --- of a camel standing in a tent (quotation by someone of the Bush Administration). But then you used more and more inprecise weapons such as ordinary bombs or Daisy Cutters. And the times of surgical operations were over. Everyday, there were news about homes, hospitals, UN-buildings and even your own soldiers being hit.

2. The problem today is mostly an international one. Its international terrorism. You cannot solve this problem by bombing down one single country. And you cannot solve this problem by catching some single criminals. If you use violence to combat international terrorism, you will improve the situation only for a short period. But some time later, the situation is getting even worse! Isn't that something we should have learned during the last years?? Were terrorists willing to do such horrofic deeds (9/11) 10 years ago? I'm at least sceptical..
Violent reactions to violence will only cause more violence. I know, you don't believe this, and I know, you cannot hear this argument anymore, but it is still right. Look for example at Israel: The Israelis have decided to make very brutal politics towards Palestinian terrorists (e.g. liquidations, destroying houses etc.) and did the situation get better?? NO! The combats are as violent as seldom been before. Think about it, just one moment..

3. Today, in a globalized world, in a world of great international cooperation and partly even international unity, you cannot do something which is completely against the will of all other states. But that's exactly what is happening now. The current, aggressive foreign policy of the US loses more and more advocaters around the world, esp. in Europe, and if you keep on doing then you will probably lose the European support. Other states are to follow. And in the end, the USA is alone. Do you really want that? A new kind of isolationism? [/quote:3e10bc0ed2]*claps* Word.

[quote:ef1a53edbb="seeker of truth"]
this war may not serve justice and deffinately is putting a strain on our freedoms but the war does serve a purpose.and that is to get rid of the al-queda and anyone that supports them.[/quote:ef1a53edbb]:rolleyes: The purpose of the war is NOT to get rid of the Al-Quaida. If you believe that, you're not very bright. Not saying that I'm too bright either, but that's another story. The US started this war because their PRIDE got dented. "Hot ----, will you look at that. Some of those brown-skinned mofos actually fought back. Heh. We gotta go to war now, can't let anyone f**k with us and not bleed because of it."

[quote:ef1a53edbb="seeker of truth"]
they are the enemy ,they killed civilians and the innocent,they are murderers.and if nothing is done they will kill again and again.its sad that other innocent people have to die in this war but it is war.[/quote:ef1a53edbb]I'm pretty sure you didn't care less about the terrorist actions that went down in Russia a few years ago, and that still plagues that country. I'm pretty sure you don't care about what happens to the Palestinians by your ally Israel.

You get hit ONE time and you blow bigger than Hiroshima. What about Russia? You didn't wage a war for them. Not for them.

[quote:ef1a53edbb="seeker of truth"]
we at least don't intentionally target civilians like the lunatics did on 9-11.[/quote:ef1a53edbb]If you were as pissed off at the US as they are, you would. Don't deny it. Hit them where it hurts.

Besides, they wanted to ruin the American dollar. Where better to screw Americans over than ramming two commercial jets into the WTC?

[quote:ef1a53edbb="seeker of truth"]
and as far as i am concerned we kill the al-queda to the man. every last one of them.they are a disease on humanity. [/quote:ef1a53edbb]bin Laden is a killer, yes. So is your government and your mentality. Hypocrite. :mad:

first of all call me a hypocrite because i say that all al-quada should die!fine i am a hypocrite!

second call me a hypocrite because the u.s. has ACCIDENTLY killed innocent people in this war. like i said it is sad that other innocents have to die in this war! but name one war were an innocent person did not die.if we sit on our hands and do nothing. how many more would have to die ?the al-quada are willing to kill themselves for their cause , how long would it be before they would have detonated a nuke in the U.S. how long would it be before they committed genocide? what i'm trying to say is that maybe we ACCIDENTLY killed afghan civilians but the numbers are far less than what would have happened if we simply did nothing. so for thinking of the lesser of two evils you call me a hypocrite? well then i guess i am a hypocrite.
is afghanastan better now or was it better before the war?its better now!its always been a battle torn country.at least now the afghans have a little more freedom.
and we DID NOT start this war they did. they are the ones that crashed the planes into the WTC
and as far as israel and palestine is concerned . i like neither they both are guilty and i DO NOT consider israel as an ally they are a thorn in our side .the palistians are terrorizing the israelies and vice versa. arafat is an idiot and so is sharon!!!
and i must say this i do not like the fact that innocent people die but it's the way this world is , i don't wish bad things on innocent people . i do wish the world was different but it is not.:(
i am sorry i have offended you with the truth:(
but i must say you were right on the fact that i am not that bright but there isn't a human out there that is.after all people are stupid.....

[quote:5654655cd0="seeker of truth"]
second call me a hypocrite because the u.s. has ACCIDENTLY killed innocent people in this war. like i said it is sad that other innocents have to die in this war! but name one war were an innocent person did not die.if we sit on our hands and do nothing. how many more would have to die?[/quote:5654655cd0]To be honest... the number of casualties would be kinda the same as how many mini-Osamas you're gonna have running around the world pretty soon, ramming new jets into new tall buildings.
[quote:5654655cd0="seeker of truth"]
the al-quada are willing to kill themselves for their cause , how long would it be before they would have detonated a nuke in the U.S. how long would it be before they committed genocide?[/quote:5654655cd0]Aren't your soldiers willing to die fighting for what they believe in? You're not THAT much different.

[quote:5654655cd0="seeker of truth"]
what i'm trying to say is that maybe we ACCIDENTLY killed afghan civilians but the numbers are far less than what would have happened if we simply did nothing.[/quote:5654655cd0]Explain.

[quote:5654655cd0="seeker of truth"]
so for thinking of the lesser of two evils you call me a hypocrite? well then i guess i am a hypocrite.
is afghanastan better now or was it better before the war?its better now!its always been a battle torn country.at least now the afghans have a little more freedom.[/quote:5654655cd0]Not while the US is around. You can't have 'freedom' while the US is around.

[quote:5654655cd0="seeker of truth"]
and we DID NOT start this war they did. they are the ones that crashed the planes into the WTC[/quote:5654655cd0]You DID start this war MANY years ago. You know why Osama bin Laden is pissed at you? Because your government and your country is CONSTANTLY butting in other people's business. You're NO world-police, you have no right to butt in wherever you please, or because you think "it's for the good of the world".

[quote:5654655cd0="seeker of truth"]
and as far as israel and palestine is concerned . i like neither they both are guilty and i DO NOT consider israel as an ally they are a thorn in our side .the palistians are terrorizing the israelies and vice versa. arafat is an idiot and so is sharon!!![/quote:5654655cd0]Not idiots. Just a bit blinded by their 'causes'.

[quote:5654655cd0="seeker of truth"]
and i must say this i do not like the fact that innocent people die but it's the way this world is , i don't wish bad things on innocent people . i do wish the world was different but it is not.:([/quote:5654655cd0]And this war is supposed to make everything better, yes?

[quote:5654655cd0="seeker of truth"]
i am sorry i have offended you with the truth:( [/quote:5654655cd0]The truth can be shaped into suiting individual opinions. Like yours and many others.

[quote:5654655cd0="seeker of truth"]
but i must say you were right on the fact that i am not that bright but there isn't a human out there that is.after all people are stupid..... [/quote:5654655cd0]Yeah, I agree. Einstein sucked wet butt.

*L* obviously we are both stubborn on this subject. i am usually pretty opened minded but on this issue i will not change my opinion. the war must be fought whether it is justice or not. the al-quada are murderers , rapists and drug dealers. they are a threat to mankind. if they got there hands on a nuke!where all doomed.they need to be taken out.

The United States armed forces are murders. We are terriorist. And your very wrong al-quada has made money from selling diamonds on the black market because they are easier to smuggle than drugs so drug dealers I dont think so. Your a threat to mankind everytime you drive a car whats your point. If the United States starts nuking we are doomed. War is stupid. We must help Afanganistan not bomb them. We must give them living wages, jobs, homes, running water, everything we take for granted. This is the only way we will find peace it worked in Japan why the hell should we not try it now.

[quote:ea4de39f0b="seeker of truth"]
*L* obviously we are both stubborn on this subject.[/quote:ea4de39f0b]Yeah, I'm kinda stubborn... but discussing things like this helps to expand my horizon, yanno? :)

[quote:ea4de39f0b="seeker of truth"]
i am usually pretty opened minded but on this issue i will not change my opinion. the war must be fought whether it is justice or not.[/quote:ea4de39f0b]"The war must be fought whether it is justice or not." Did you hear how terrible that sounds? The world doesn't need this war... what it needs, is frigging peace. And if you NUKE the Afghans... f**k Armageddon, that's gonna be Hell.

[quote:ea4de39f0b="seeker of truth"]
the al-quada are murderers , rapists and drug dealers. they are a threat to mankind. if they got there hands on a nuke!where all doomed.they need to be taken out. [/quote:ea4de39f0b]Yeah, cuz you'll most likely nuke them first. :rolleyes:

[quote:5d04345ba0] The purpose of the war is NOT to get rid of the Al-Quaida. If you believe that, you're not very bright. Not saying that I'm too bright either, but that's another story. The US started this war because their PRIDE got dented. "Hot ----, will you look at that. Some of those brown-skinned mofos actually fought back. Heh. We gotta go to war now, can't let anyone f**k with us and not bleed because of it."[/quote:5d04345ba0]

---- straight! And they weren't fighting back, they initiated it.

[quote:ae87543b38="JWB"]


---- straight! And they weren't fighting back, they initiated it. [/quote:ae87543b38]Haven't the US been involved in the suppression of Muslim countries? Haven't the US been butting in places you should've stayed far away from? The Al-Quaida initiated THIS, yes. But you're responsible for almost everything that lead up to this point. The anger and hatred that the actions of the US have been feeding this people is something we can't deny. The US has done alot bull---- they deserve to be hated for.

What goes around, comes around. Don't think that the US can spew out missiles and soldiers and pour them into "enemy territory" without getting some ---- back.

[quote:a177357bf6="ConfusedYouth"]
The United States armed forces are murders. We are terriorist. And your very wrong al-quada has made money from selling diamonds on the black market because they are easier to smuggle than drugs so drug dealers I dont think so. Your a threat to mankind everytime you drive a car whats your point. If the United States starts nuking we are doomed. War is stupid. We must help Afanganistan not bomb them. We must give them living wages, jobs, homes, running water, everything we take for granted. This is the only way we will find peace it worked in Japan why the hell should we not try it now. [/quote:a177357bf6]I agree. :)

[quote:d572e56957="Anaclerion"]
discussing things like this helps to expand my horizon, yanno? :) [/quote:d572e56957]
well, i do agree with you on that:) and i do agree that no one should ever use nukes.