Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Me and Me · 03-31-2003, 08:11 PM

This is not my logic it is the logic of the bush regime. They are attacking countries on the pretext of past support for terrorism, and bush has said numerous times that any country that harbors or funds terrorist organisations is a terrorist nation.

Has the U.S. supported terrorist organisations? YES

Has the U.S. harbored and still does harbor terrorist organisations? YES

So when the U.S. says that ALL nations that support terrorists are terrorists themselves, that also includes the U.S. So if you believe that countries should be attacked just because some people in that country support terrorism, if you accept this false logic, than you yourself are condoning and justify the attack on a terrorist nation on sept 11.

I do NOT (hear that moderators?) support that logic at all, bush and his regime are the ones that support attacking terrorist nations.

spurly · 03-31-2003, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Me and Me
This is not my logic it is the logic of the bush regime. They are attacking countries on the pretext of past support for terrorism, and bush has said numerous times that any country that harbors or funds terrorist organisations is a terrorist nation.

Has the U.S. supported terrorist organisations? YES

Has the U.S. harbored and still does harbor terrorist organisations? YES

So when the U.S. says that ALL nations that support terrorists are terrorists themselves, that also includes the U.S. So if you believe that countries should be attacked just because some people in that country support terrorism, if you accept this false logic, than you yourself are condoning and justify the attack on a terrorist nation on sept 11.

I do NOT (hear that moderators?) support that logic at all, bush and his regime are the ones that support attacking terrorist nations.

I think one of the big differences is that we as a nation are trying to rid ourselves of terrorists. We are not paying people to blow themselves up in suicide missions like the current leader of Iraq does. We don't condone it, we try to root it out.

Kevin

lunachick · 03-31-2003, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by spurly
I think one of the big differences is that we as a nation are trying to rid ourselves of terrorists.

LOL!

But you ARE terrorists. ROFLMAO. It's just semantics, Kevin. Just semantics.

Me and Me · 03-31-2003, 08:20 PM

The suicide missions against U.S. soldiers isn't terrorism.

The U.S. has long supported govts, like alot that are allies, that employ with full knowledge of the U.S. terrorist tactics upon civillians. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey, etc. The U.S. doesn't try to weed out the KKK which is a terrorist organisation, and doesn't try to weed out terrorist organisations in Miami, some members of these organisations are wanted in some latin american countries, and some have spent jail time(very little) for committing terrorist acts. The U.S. allows these orgnisations to exist and influence the U.S. govt.

Jesse · 03-31-2003, 08:20 PM

lunachick:
But you ARE terrorists. ROFLMAO. It's just semantics, Kevin. Just semantics.

The US does not intentionally target civilians--that's what "terrorism" means.

Me and Me · 03-31-2003, 08:26 PM

"Doesn't intentionally target civillians"

This phrase implies that U.S. does the opposite, it kills civillians on accident, which is false.

A B-52 bomber drops bombs on an area, they are dropping bombs that everyone knows that a certain amount of civillians will be killed, therefore to say that dropping bombs on a city isn't "intentionally" targeting civillians is not true.

Also don't forget the terrorist organisations that operate within the U.S. that I already mentioned.

Jesse · 03-31-2003, 08:34 PM

Would you say that even if we make it a point to only target military areas, if there's the slightest possibility that we will miss or the weapons will malfunction and civilians will die as a result, that counts as "intentionally targeting civilians"? Of course you're free to use words in any way you like, but that seems to be a pretty weird use of language. Every time I drive a car I am exposing pedestrians to a higher risk of being killed by me than if I had just stayed home, but would you say that means I am intentionally targeting pedestrians?

Me and Me · 03-31-2003, 08:39 PM

A vehicle is used for transportation, a bomb is built and used only to destroy things.

Warwick · 03-31-2003, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Me and Me
A B-52 bomber drops bombs on an area, they are dropping bombs that everyone knows that a certain amount of civillians will be killed, therefore to say that dropping bombs on a city isn't "intentionally" targeting civillians is not true.

The US is targeting military targets, not civillians. You are describing collateral damage which means that those civilians are accidently killed.

What could the US gain by targeting the very civilian population that it is trying to win over?

Jesse · 03-31-2003, 08:52 PM

Me and Me:
A vehicle is used for transportation, a bomb is built and used only to destroy things.

I don't see how that makes a difference. Look, the whole notion of "targeting" something implies that you intended for your weapon to hit a particular target, the notion that one could "target" something that was not the intended target seems like an obvious contradiction in terms. But if the only reason you think driving a car is not "targeting pedestrians" is because a car is not built as a weapon, would you say that a hunter trying to shoot a deer is targeting civilians? Is all use of weaponry "targeting civilians" by your standards?

03-31-2003, 08:11 PM	#1
Me and Me Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: California Posts: 600	Does the logic of the U.S. justify sept 11?? This is not my logic it is the logic of the bush regime. They are attacking countries on the pretext of past support for terrorism, and bush has said numerous times that any country that harbors or funds terrorist organisations is a terrorist nation. Has the U.S. supported terrorist organisations? YES Has the U.S. harbored and still does harbor terrorist organisations? YES So when the U.S. says that ALL nations that support terrorists are terrorists themselves, that also includes the U.S. So if you believe that countries should be attacked just because some people in that country support terrorism, if you accept this false logic, than you yourself are condoning and justify the attack on a terrorist nation on sept 11. I do NOT (hear that moderators?) support that logic at all, bush and his regime are the ones that support attacking terrorist nations.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-31-2003, 08:20 PM	#4
Me and Me Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: California Posts: 600	The suicide missions against U.S. soldiers isn't terrorism. The U.S. has long supported govts, like alot that are allies, that employ with full knowledge of the U.S. terrorist tactics upon civillians. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey, etc. The U.S. doesn't try to weed out the KKK which is a terrorist organisation, and doesn't try to weed out terrorist organisations in Miami, some members of these organisations are wanted in some latin american countries, and some have spent jail time(very little) for committing terrorist acts. The U.S. allows these orgnisations to exist and influence the U.S. govt.

03-31-2003, 08:20 PM	#5
Jesse Moderator - Science Discussions Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Providence, RI, USA Posts: 9,908	lunachick: But you ARE terrorists. ROFLMAO. It's just semantics, Kevin. Just semantics. The US does not intentionally target civilians--that's what "terrorism" means.

03-31-2003, 08:26 PM	#6
Me and Me Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: California Posts: 600	"Doesn't intentionally target civillians" This phrase implies that U.S. does the opposite, it kills civillians on accident, which is false. A B-52 bomber drops bombs on an area, they are dropping bombs that everyone knows that a certain amount of civillians will be killed, therefore to say that dropping bombs on a city isn't "intentionally" targeting civillians is not true. Also don't forget the terrorist organisations that operate within the U.S. that I already mentioned.

03-31-2003, 08:34 PM	#7
Jesse Moderator - Science Discussions Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Providence, RI, USA Posts: 9,908	Would you say that even if we make it a point to only target military areas, if there's the slightest possibility that we will miss or the weapons will malfunction and civilians will die as a result, that counts as "intentionally targeting civilians"? Of course you're free to use words in any way you like, but that seems to be a pretty weird use of language. Every time I drive a car I am exposing pedestrians to a higher risk of being killed by me than if I had just stayed home, but would you say that means I am intentionally targeting pedestrians?

03-31-2003, 08:39 PM	#8
Me and Me Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: California Posts: 600	A vehicle is used for transportation, a bomb is built and used only to destroy things.

03-31-2003, 08:52 PM	#10
Jesse Moderator - Science Discussions Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Providence, RI, USA Posts: 9,908	Me and Me: A vehicle is used for transportation, a bomb is built and used only to destroy things. I don't see how that makes a difference. Look, the whole notion of "targeting" something implies that you intended for your weapon to hit a particular target, the notion that one could "target" something that was not the intended target seems like an obvious contradiction in terms. But if the only reason you think driving a car is not "targeting pedestrians" is because a car is not built as a weapon, would you say that a hunter trying to shoot a deer is targeting civilians? Is all use of weaponry "targeting civilians" by your standards?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.