The Events that led to 9/11! - Page 4

johnlocke · 10-06-2007, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deedee

No you are labeling me, I said 3 times that I dont blame America as a nation, but rather it's deceiving and lying government. And let me make myself clear, the American government was lying way before Bush/Cheney, that's the point I'm trying to make.

No, I am calling you on your bullshit.

Your argument is entirely about "hate America first." Your repeated attempts to find "justification" for OBL and Al-Queda support my argument and cast serious doubts as to your claims to "only be pointing out the lies made by the American government."

deedee · 10-06-2007, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnlocke

Nope, I did nothing of the kind. Since my response was a refutation of your claim that OBL and Al-Queda are NOT terrorists, contextually my comments prove my point and deny both your initial claim and your subsequent one (sic-that the US government is a terrorist organization).

OBL and Al-Queda ARE terrorists.
The US government is wrong, but their actions do not rise to the level of terrorism.

Yes they do, and they can as well be labeled as terrorists. You provided the definitions yourself. It's a perfect match for the U.S. government.

Quote:

Terrorists attack to achieve a political end. That is the definition of terrorism:

Doesn't the U.S. attack anyone who is against their interests? To me that's trying to achieve a political end.

Quote:

The use of - or threatened use of - criminal violence against civilians or civilian infrastructure to achieve political ends through fear and intimidation, rather than direct confrontation. ...
www.readycolorado.com/glossary.php

You allready forgot about the sanctions imposed on Iraq in the 90's that not only destroyed the entire infrastucture of Iraq, but also left 1.5 million people in coffins. A genocide. Done by the terrorist U.S. government.

Quote:

Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience (Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d)).
www.asme-iti.org/RAMCAP/Terminology.cfm

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence against people or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to ...
www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/100-20/10020gl.htm

deedee · 10-06-2007, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnlocke

No, I am calling you on your bullshit.

Your argument is entirely about "hate America first." Your repeated attempts to find "justification" for OBL and Al-Queda support my argument and cast serious doubts as to your claims to "only be pointing out the lies made by the American government."

NO, for the 4th time. I love America, I'm an American myself. It's the government though. They deceived the people of America. My argument is 'hate the U.S. government first.'

johnlocke · 10-06-2007, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deedee

Yes they do, and they can as well be labeled as terrorists. You provided the definitions yourself. It's a perfect match for the U.S. government.

Doesn't the U.S. attack anyone who is against their interests? To me that's trying to achieve a political end.

Thanks for proving that you are engaging in "hate America first."

As to the rest of your post try rereading for comprehension:

The use of - or threatened use of - criminal violence against civilians or civilian infrastructure to achieve political ends through fear and intimidation, rather than direct confrontation. ...
www.readycolorado.com/glossary.php

Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience (Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d)).
www.asme-iti.org/RAMCAP/Terminology.cfm

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence against people or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to ...
www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/100-20/10020gl.htm

Since the war in Iraq PROVES that the US uses direct confrontation as a matter of (ill conceived) policy the first definition does not apply.

The second is eliminated because the US government is neither a clandestine group nor is it a sub-national group.

The third definition does not apply because the use of force (in Iraq and Afghanistan) is LAWFUL. It's part of an ill conceived and badly implemented policy but it is LAWFUL.

johnlocke · 10-06-2007, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deedee

NO, for the 4th time. I love America, I'm an American myself. It's the government though. They deceived the people of America. My argument is 'hate the U.S. government first.'

No, your argument is that "the attacks of 9/11 were justified and the continuing actions of OBL and Al-queda are justifiable."

Translation: "America got what it deserved and the actions of terrorists are both right and proper when they attack Americans."

In other words: "Hate America first."

deedee · 10-06-2007, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnlocke

No, your argument is that "the attacks of 9/11 were justified and the continuing actions of OBL and Al-queda are justifiable."

Translation: "America got what it deserved and the actions of terrorists are both right and proper when they attack Americans."

In other words: "Hate America first."

Wrong, for the 4th time. "Hate the American government first"

. I mean you can go and waste your time calling me 'America hater,' but youre wrong. I have facts, you have opinions, that's the difference between you and me.

deedee · 10-06-2007, 01:17 PM

Take a look at the American government, the government of 'peace and freedom':
Greenspan admits Iraq was about oil, as deaths put at 1.2m

Quote:

The man once regarded as the world's most powerful banker has bluntly declared that the Iraq war was 'largely' about oil.

Appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1987 and retired last year after serving four presidents, Alan Greenspan has been the leading Republican economist for a generation and his utterings instantly moved world markets.

In his long-awaited memoir - out tomorrow in the US - Greenspan, 81, who served as chairman of the US Federal Reserve for almost two decades, writes: 'I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.'

In The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World, he is also crystal clear on his opinion of his last two bosses, harshly criticising George W Bush for 'abandoning fiscal constraint' and praising Bill Clinton's anti-deficit policies during the Nineties as 'an act of political courage'. He also speaks of Clinton's sharp and 'curious' mind, and 'old-fashioned' caution about the dangers of debt.

Greenspan's damning comments about the war come as a survey of Iraqis, which was released last week, claims that up to 1.2 million people may have died because of the conflict in Iraq - lending weight to a 2006 survey in the Lancet that reported similarly high levels.

More than one million deaths were already being suggested by anti-war campaigners, but such high counts have consistently been rejected by US and UK officials. The estimates, extrapolated from a sample of 1,461 adults around the country, were collected by a British polling agency, ORB, which asked a random selection of Iraqis how many people living in their household had died as a result of the violence rather than from natural causes.

Previous estimates gave a range between 390,000 and 940,000, the most prominent of which - collected by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and reported in the Lancet in October 2006 - suggested 654,965 deaths.

Although the household survey was carried out by a polling organisation, rather than researchers, it has again raised the spectre that the 2003 invasion has caused a far more substantial death toll than officially acknowledged.

The ORB survey follows an earlier report by the organisation which suggested that one in four Iraqi adults had lost a family member to violence. The latest survey suggests that in Baghdad that number is as high as one in two. If true, these latest figures would suggest the death toll in Iraq now exceeds that of the Rwandan genocide in which about 800,000 died.

The Lancet survey was criticised by some experts and by George Bush and British officials. In private, however, the Ministry of Defence's chief scientific adviser Sir Roy Anderson described it as 'close to best practice'.

johnlocke · 10-06-2007, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deedee

Wrong, for the 4th time. "Hate the American government first"

. I mean you can go and waste your time calling me 'America hater,' but youre wrong. I have facts, you have opinions, that's the difference between you and me.

Actually, no, you have feeble attempts at justification for a loathesome and despicable act that was committed on 9/11. The attack on the WTC was an attack on the American people, not on its government. Your attempts at justifying that attack is prima-facie evidence that you support a "hate America first" basis for your argument.

The difference between you and me is much greater than you claim. I can oppose the administration and still not believe any of your attempts at justification for Al-Queda and OBL.

Inkslinger · 10-06-2007, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnlocke

Actually, no, you have feeble attempts at justification for a loathesome and despicable act that was committed on 9/11. The attack on the WTC was an attack on the American people, not on its government. Your attempts at justifying that attack is prima-facie evidence that you support a "hate America first" basis for your argument.

The difference between you and me is much greater than you claim. I can oppose the administration and still not believe any of your attempts at justification for Al-Queda and OBL.

I have to lean with Dee Dee to an extent on this one...though I don't believe OBL was involved with 9-11 and not that I would say he was justified if he had been but like the Bay of Pigs, OBL was left stranded without U.S. promised support in the Afghanistan mountains only to watch the russians annihilate his troops. That's enough to make a man vengeful, for sure.

I would have to say "Hate the NeoCon government first". Bad for America.

Trojan_Horse · 10-06-2007, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by venus

Before I decided to prove you wrong can you prove your facts.

Prove your facts as stated. Show me links, documents, papers...anything that I can read with some objectivity.

--------------------------
(Q) Is Blackwater a Terrorist Organization.
(A) Blackwater is a Wall St Listed Charity Organization.

Blackwater videos � All you need is a crazy rich guy with a private army