Because we are free! :thumbdown:pmoney25;1066514 wrote: 1. What is the reason why we were attacked on 9/11 and why are we targeted ?
This. America, fuck yeah. Fuck those towelheads. If they don't like us occupying their lands and propping up the dictators that brutalize them, well, that's tough fucking shit because we are going to do it anyway. The answer to their resistance is to print more money and invade more countries. Printing money is bad if you spend it on the welfare state, but it is good if we spend it on bombs and drones and military funerals.fish82;1066578 wrote:Who gives a shit what their reason was? If you don't like our foreign policy, go burn a flag or march down the street with a sandwich board or something.
Wow. Just wow.fish82;1066578 wrote:Who gives a shit what their reason was? If you don't like our foreign policy, go burn a flag or march down the street with a sandwich board or something.
Which of their lands were we "occupying" on 9/11? If you think offing 3000 civilians is "resistance," then you're even dumber than I thought.Cleveland Buck;1066621 wrote:This. America, **** yeah. **** those towelheads. If they don't like us occupying their lands and propping up the dictators that brutalize them, well, that's tough ****ing **** because we are going to do it anyway. The answer to their resistance is to print more money and invade more countries. Printing money is bad if you spend it on the welfare state, but it is good if we spend it on bombs and drones and military funerals.
I know, right? Oh wait..you're right. It's totally cool to off 3000 people just because your government invited us to have a base in your country, and we support another nation that you don't like. My bad. :rolleyes:WebFire;1066645 wrote:Wow. Just wow.
I'm not going to provide the answer to your question as I'm sure CB will definitely handle that duty. But the conservative number for Iraqi civilians deaths is around 66,000. I know that doesn't count because Iraqis aren't people, but maybe that will help give you some perspective. We likely won't see the retaliation for this war for another 20-30 years, but you can bet your ass when it happens the media will be quick to say they attack us because we are free.fish82;1066677 wrote:Which of their lands were we "occupying" on 9/11? If you think offing 3000 civilians is "resistance," then you're even dumber than I thought.
Cleveland Buck;1064560 wrote:No one who has looked at Gingrich's record can claim he is even a little bit conservative or that he is anything but corrupt. The family values thing is a joke too, but that just confirms the ignorance of the electorate.
Gingrich's rise is fueled by one thing and one thing only, the media. Every single Gingrich supporter gets their news from Fox News or Rush Limbaugh, which means Newt's record is never discussed while the only conservative candidate is smeared daily. And then ABC with their shameless effort, hyping a worthless interview with one of Newt's ex-wives just to incite South Carolina voters against the media and boost Newt in that state.
Fox wants anyone but Paul. The liberal media does too, but they would love Newt because Obama would beat him by 20 points. Obama would think his ridiculous regime was getting a mandate he would crush Newt so hard.
Even more wow.fish82;1066677 wrote:I know, right? Oh wait..you're right. It's totally cool to off 3000 people just because your government invited us to have a base in your country, and we support another nation that you don't like. My bad. :rolleyes:
Cool story. Enlighten me what Iraq has to do with 9/11 again?sleeper;1066723 wrote:I'm not going to provide the answer to your question as I'm sure CB will definitely handle that duty. But the conservative number for Iraqi civilians deaths is around 66,000. I know that doesn't count because Iraqis aren't people, but maybe that will help give you some perspective. We likely won't see the retaliation for this war for another 20-30 years, but you can bet your ass when it happens the media will be quick to say they attack us because we are free.
Wow.WebFire;1066737 wrote:Even more wow.
12,000 Afghani citizens dead. Your point is null and void.fish82;1066760 wrote:Cool story. Enlighten me what Iraq has to do with 9/11 again?
I understand the logistics are not there immediatly. Look at Japan. We could not even launch a sustained air assault on the Japanese mainland for 2 1/2 yrs after our involvement in the war began. My point is once the Taliban refused and were maid complicant in the attack we should have geared up for full scale war against them. Utterly deafeating them and leaving after a short occupation.HitsRus;1066006 wrote:Respectfully, I disagree. The US did issue an ultimatum to the Taliban a few weeks after 9/11...and there was a logistical problem...there were no bases nearby from which to launch a full scale attack.
That's after the fact. Try and keep up here...the question was what caused 9/11 to happen. Wanna take another stab at it?sleeper;1066764 wrote:12,000 Afghani citizens dead. Your point is null and void.
Good stuff. They're pissed because we don't pay enough for their oil. That's even dumber than "they hate us cause we're free."Cleveland Buck;1066793 wrote:[video=youtube;udz5_FdoFGU][/video]
Troops stationed in Saudi Arabia? Aid to the Saudi government that they used to brutally oppress their people? Sanctions that starved hundreds of thousands of Iraqis? Raining bombs on Iraq for nearly 10 years? Do you think we were just sitting here minding our own business and they saw our Bill of Rights and decided to attack us?fish82;1066797 wrote:That's after the fact. Try and keep up here...the question was what caused 9/11 to happen. Wanna take another stab at it?
On 9/11, we weren't occupying jack shit.pmoney25;1066799 wrote:Fish- im not sure where you are getting the idea that it was justified what the terrorist. Noone has said that. The arguement is if our foreign policy wasnt so focused on occupation that maybe we would be safe from those attacks. Noone justifies what those terrorists did.
This guy is much better at articulating the point than Paul. Like I said there is a time and a place. He is on C-span which the average American schlub never watches. And he is not campaigning for president.Cleveland Buck;1066793 wrote:[video=youtube;udz5_FdoFGU][/video]
But we have a long history of fucking with events in the middle east that goes back to at least 1953 and we've switched sides a bunch of times and supported various very violent people (Saddam and Bin Laden being at the top of the list of people we helped).fish82;1066806 wrote:On 9/11, we weren't occupying jack shit.
At the request/permission of their government. Perfectly legit. Fail.Cleveland Buck;1066804 wrote:Troops stationed in Saudi Arabia?
How do they "brutally oppress" their people? Yes, they have harsh punishments for crimes. So do a lot of other Muslim nations. Treat women like crap? Check...they all do that. So what do they do, that say, Iran or Syria don't do?Aid to the Saudi government that they used to brutally oppress their people?
Sanctions that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis?
Raining bombs on Iraq for nearly 10 years?
I don't recall saying that. If I did, please point out where. Thanks.Do you think we just sitting here minding our own business and they saw our Bill of Rights and decided to attack us?
pmoney25;1066514 wrote:This is an honest question , actually two.
1. What is the reason why we were attacked on 9/11 and why are we targeted ?
Really you could go back to the first WTC bombing of 1993. Before that we "occupied" the Muslim holy land, the Arabian peninsula, at the invitation of the Saudi government. Ron Paul likes to mention that most of all, since most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis.fish82;1066677 wrote:Which of their lands were we "occupying" on 9/11? If you think offing 3000 civilians is "resistance," then you're even dumber than I thought.
You ever hear of the Barbary Pirates? People have been fucking with the middle east since the dawn of time. The world is a dangerous place if the US wants to commerce in it we are going to have to get our hands dirty to protect our interests.I Wear Pants;1066817 wrote:But we have a long history of fucking with events in the middle east that goes back to at least 1953 and we've switched sides a bunch of times and supported various very violent people (Saddam and Bin Laden being at the top of the list of people we helped).
I realize it just fine..as you said, it's not that hard to figure out. I just happen to be of the opinion that flying heavies into buildings is a bit on the overkill side, and the idea that we should bend our foreign policy to appease these little dickheads is ridiculous.I Wear Pants;1066817 wrote:But we have a long history of ****ing with events in the middle east that goes back to at least 1953 and we've switched sides a bunch of times and supported various very violent people (Saddam and Bin Laden being at the top of the list of people we helped).
No one at all is saying that the people who died in 9/11 deserved it or that it was justified to attack like that. But, at the same time it helps to realize just why people might want to harm the United States.
You seriously didn't understand the point?fish82;1066760 wrote:Cool story. Enlighten me what Iraq has to do with 9/11 again?
I'm merely providing you the framework from your own ignorance. The US won't see the retaliation from this war on terror for many decades. Same with 9/11. I said CB would likely provide an answer to your own specific question.fish82;1066797 wrote:That's after the fact. Try and keep up here...the question was what caused 9/11 to happen. Wanna take another stab at it?