Burma Massacre

[Funkmasterr]

I think he's trying to get some proof of the numbers, and there is nothing wrong in asking that.

Of course not, but whether or not Nick's numbers are spot on doesn't make his point any less clear.

True, I am sure that all 700k (keke) were innocent too.

Precisely. But the U.S. is the devil so anything negative said about us, especially by people in countries far superior to us in every sense (like Ireland, for example!) must be true, and should not be contested by anyone.

[Nick]

I am a xenophobic fishbowl thinking motherfucker with a laughably unfounded sense of superiority based on nothing but blind assertions that I myself have to post (no one else will after all!) because they make me feel better about having absolutely no point to make or leg to stand on in any discussion I ever happen to vomit my presence onto.

Yes.

[Keverian FireCry]

I don't agree with him, but that is only half the point. I don't care if his point is clear, I fucking asked him to elaborate, and that is exactly what I expect, not lip from your stupid ass. And trust me, I really don't care if people inferior to me (yourself, for example) don't think i'm worth the time it takes to do anything, because I couldn't possibly give less of a shit about your opinion.

Now back to the point I was making before you got confused and thought I was addressing you, 1- I do question how accurate the numbers are, but I cannot disprove it myself, and nick is just going to make some ridiculous comment about how ignorant it is to question anything he believes in so I'm not going to even bother elaborating on why.

I just like the way nick is making it sound like the U.S. just showed up in Iraq one day, started going house to house and killing innocent people when they answered their door, and that's what pissed the people off fighting us, so we must be getting what we have coming, right? I can only wonder what it is like to live in such a deluded reality, then take it a step further by daring to ever even think of telling someone else they are off base.

This is so far from the point that he was trying to make though. It doesn't matter whether the numbers are correct or whether they were "innocent". His post was simply stating that if you make enough people angry at you (whether they are poor or not and whether their anger is "legitimate" or not) they will find a way to effectively retaliate.

Fuck it...

Frankly...both of you are being so naive and divisive in your responses that there's no point in even trying to encourage reasonable responses from either of you. Why I'd ever try is beyond me...It's VV after all.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Make them mad at us? Are they a bunch of 5th graders? What they need to do is progress beyond their ridiculous, backwards religious backgrounds and join the progressive society many of the rest of us live in. There would be no reason for wars if others could stop acting like animalistic cavemen. We only get 70-90 years here. I don't see why we can't all get along.

[Funkmasterr]

I don't agree with him, but that is only half the point. I don't care if his point is clear, I fucking asked him to elaborate, and that is exactly what I expect, not lip from your stupid ass. And trust me, I really don't care if people inferior to me (yourself, for example) don't think i'm worth the time it takes to do anything, because I couldn't possibly give less of a shit about your opinion.

Now back to the point I was making before you got confused and thought I was addressing you, 1- I do question how accurate the numbers are, but I cannot disprove it myself, and nick is just going to make some ridiculous comment about how ignorant it is to question anything he believes in so I'm not going to even bother elaborating on why.

I just like the way nick is making it sound like the U.S. just showed up in Iraq one day, started going house to house and killing innocent people when they answered their door, and that's what pissed the people off fighting us, so we must be getting what we have coming, right? I can only wonder what it is like to live in such a deluded reality, then take it a step further by daring to ever even think of telling someone else they are off base.

This is so far from the point that he was trying to make though. It doesn't matter whether the numbers are correct or whether they were "innocent". His post was simply stating that if you make enough people angry at you (whether they are poor or not and whether their anger is "legitimate" or not) they will find a way to effectively retaliate.

Fuck it...

Frankly...both of you are being so naive and divisive in your responses that there's no point in even trying to encourage reasonable responses from either of you. Why I'd ever try is beyond me...It's VV after all.

It totally matters if they were innocent, because that is the point he continues to make in this post and many others is how terrible the U.S. is. The point he was trying to make is that we killed innocent people which justified the hatred and response that we got/get from the people we are fighting, and this couldn't be any further from the truth.

If he wasn't trying to say that, he wouldn't have used the words "murder" and "innocent muslims" because by doing so he was implying that we are running around murdering people that were not trying to hurt us, for no reason at all.

So in short, I think you're evaluation of the "point" (emphasis on the quotes) he was trying to make is completely wrong. If we ran around killing innocent people, I would fully expect people to come after us, but the fact of the matter is that we are not running around killing innocent people. We are fighting radical fucking nutjobs and cells of rebels that think they are anything more than just that, and if they (or anyone else) gets mad because we are fighting them, then they are so far out of touch with reality that no one should care what they think.

[Nick]

Sorry, but this is really just comically absurd at this point. Are you actually trying to claim that everyone that's been killed in Iraq since the US led occupation began is guilty of a crime punishable by death?

Surely that's even just a bit too ridiculous for you.

Also, there are 700,000 "terrorist nutjobs" in Iraq? (A country which was being controlled by the dictator Saddam Hussein in the half century leading up to the US led occupation?)

Really?

Edit: Had to highlight this nonsense.

then they are so far out of touch with reality that no one should care what they think.

Except say, the 3000 people that died on 9/11, or the entire American populace that was shit scared after their country was attacked, causing them to start...oh I dunno...a reactionary war in Iraq?


Are you just fakeposting now? This is like trying to teach a fucking chimpanzee how to do Astrophysics.

[Funkmasterr]

Sorry, are you actually trying to claim that everyone that's been killed in Iraq since the US led occupation began is guilty of a crime punishable by death?

Surely that's even just a bit too ridiculous for you.

Of course I'm not dude, for fuck sake. Innocent people die in wars, I wish it was not that way but it is. There has not been a war (I'm not just talking about the U.S.'s wars either) where innocent people were not either killed by accident, or killed on purpose for whatever reason, and this one is no different.

But the fact that there are innocent people dying gives people like you the opportunity to make the situation into something entirely different than it is so you can justify whatever bullshit point you are trying to prove.

[Spang]

What about Burma?

[Nick]

you can justify whatever bullshit point you are trying to prove.

The point being that if you kill innocent people you can expect blowback?

Yeah, that sure is a "bullshit point". I believe the term was invented, ironically enough, by Americans.

Stop being an idiot. You're attempt at the typical moronic Yank chest beating in defiance of the great Satan (the rest of the world) failed. Get the fuck over it. You sound like an extremist.

[Funkmasterr]

Sorry, but this is really just comically absurd at this point. Are you actually trying to claim that everyone that's been killed in Iraq since the US led occupation began is guilty of a crime punishable by death?

Surely that's even just a bit too ridiculous for you.

Also, there are 700,000 "terrorist nutjobs" in Iraq? (A country which was being controlled by the dictator Saddam Hussein in the half century leading up to the US led occupation?)

Really?

Edit: Had to highlight this nonsense.

then they are so far out of touch with reality that no one should care what they think.

Except say, the 3000 people that died on 9/11, or the entire American populace that was shit scared after the event, causing them to start...oh I dunno...a reactionary war in Iraq?


Are you just fakeposting now? This is like trying to teach a fucking chimpanzee how to do Astrophysics.

Seriously dude, I can't even believe you are serious half the time, the shit that you say is not opinion, it is flat out ridiculous, and incorrect and you should really be shut up before some impressionable mind listens to you and thinks that what you are saying is something to do anything but shake your head at.

The innocent people dying in wars are generally killed (at least by civilized people, like our soldiers) on accident. The people that were killed in the 9/11 attacks were innocent people intentionally killed, NOT in a time of war, NOT in a battle zone (or anywhere remotely near one).

These two things could not be any further from the same thing, and the fact that you are trying to compare them and use your statement to insult my intelligence is so beyond pathetic that I can't even believe you're really doing it.

[Nick]

Are you actually naive enough to believe that the people left bereaved by "accidental" (which lets face it isn't accidental in the slightest) Shock and Awe are going to give a flying fuck about that retarded justification coming from the people responsible? "Oh sorry we only killed your child by accident! You see, our bombs aren't able to accurately pinpoint Saddam's palaces enough so we had to just hit and hope, but you understand right? We're giving your children a new way of life!

Oh wait. Still, oopsies eh!"



I'm really not saying anything in the least outlandish here.

[Funkmasterr]

you can justify whatever bullshit point you are trying to prove.

The point being that if you kill innocent people you can expect blowback?

Yeah, that sure is a "bullshit point". I believe the term was invented, ironically enough, by Americans.

Stop being an idiot. You're attempt at the typical moronic Yank chest beating in defiance of the great Satan (the rest of the world) failed. Get the fuck over it. You sound like an extremist.

I could care less what those people believe nick, and neither should anyone else. Casualties of war occur, if they really think they were intentional and that the U.S. military is guilty of war crimes then there are processess to go through to handle such situations.

However, if they are going to use an accident (yes, regardless what you say, they were) as a reason to become a violent militant, then they deserve to also die the most miserable slow death that anyone can possibly imagine.

[Nick]

You do realise how ridiculous that sounds? Seriously? You're being mind meltingly naive.

The more you post this absurd nonsense the more I think you must be some kind of gimmick alt account of some other massively less deranged old timer.

Put yourself in their position, if you can stop yourself from gorging on Gangsta Rap and Twinkies for long enough, and see, even for the tiniest moment, quite how ludicrous you actually sound.

I'll even help you along.

Country A invades Country B, Country B's citizens get killed. Remaining citizens of Country B realise that Country A's reasoning for invasion were ridiculous, and are now left bereaved of their loved ones.

Country B's countrymen see "Army" (That's Al Quaida to you and me) swearing revenge for deaths of innocent children/wives/husbands. Country B's countrymen then see fuckheads like you saying "Well who gives a fuck? They're just random Arabs anyway amirite guys?"

I think you can see where this is going and how this may affect the security of your own country.

Do you actually fail to see this point?

[Boogahz]

Sorry, but this is really just comically absurd at this point. Are you actually trying to claim that everyone that's been killed in Iraq since the US led occupation began is guilty of a crime punishable by death?

You're the one that claimed they were all innocent.

[Funkmasterr]

You do realise how ridiculous that sounds? Seriously? You're being mind meltingly naive.

The more you post this absurd nonsense the more I think you must be some kind of gimmick alt account of some other massively less deranged old timer.

Put yourself in their position, if you can stop yourself from gorging on Gangsta Rap and Twinkies for long enough, and see, even for the tiniest moment, quite how ludicrous you actually sound.

I'll even help you along.

Country A invades Country B, Country B's citizens get killed. Remaining citizens of Country B realise that Country A's reasoning for invasion were ridiculous, and are now left bereaved of their loved ones.

Country B's countrymen see "Army" (That's Al Quaida to you and me) swearing revenge for deaths of innocent children/wives/husbands. Country B's countrymen then see fuckheads like you saying "Well who gives a fuck? They're just random Arabs anyway amirite guys?"

I think you can see where this is going and how this may affect the security of your own country.

Do you actually fail to see this point?

The fact that you try to talk condescending to me is ridiculous dude, please don't treat me like a child because I don't agree with your far-out, narrow minded bullshit.

Lets get a few things clear: We did not "invade" Iraq, not anywhere near all of the people killed were innocent, I never said anything remotely close to "well who gives a fuck? They're just random Arabs anyway amirite guys?", and last but not least, you are the most dangerously stupid person that posts on this message board, hands down.

Let's just say the roles were reversed and Iraq was here fighting, helping us try and set up something that at least somewhat resembles a civilized government, and terrorists, and other crazy militant people that were interested in keeping things the way they always have been so they can continue to terrorize and oppress their people were fighting with the Iraqi soldiers.

Lets say they bombed the Minneapolis area because strategically there were some extremely dangerous people here, and the bombing didn't only magically hurt/kill exactly the area and exactly the people it was supposed to, and someone I know/care about happened to die.

Am I going to be upset about it? Of course I am. Am I going to hear some terrorist talking, that I would have probably wrote off as crazy before this event happened, and let them sell me some dream about allah and getting the people back that did this to me? No.

See the difference is I'm a logical person, I know precisely what these fucking nutjobs are and what their goals are, and nothing could ever make me want to be a part of it. I also know that no matter how devastated I was by the loss of a loved one, that going and fighting against the people that made the screw up, maybe killing some of them, and more than likely dying myself is not going to bring that person back, and will not make me feel any better.

So yes, I can see your point. I know that there are weak minded, crazy fucking people all over the world that would follow the broken logic that you are trying to make me feel like an idiot for not agreeing with, but I also know there are people like myself, who know the difference between right and wrong, and what will help me feel better and what won't, and won't make bad decisions purely out of anger that will most likely end up making things worse for me and for the people that care about me.

Edit: I think I have decided that the fastest way to get me to write off what someone says as idiotic bullshit, and not take them seriously ever again is to post the word "amirite", it is so idiotic, no wonder you use it so much nick.

[Nick]

From start to finish, that was nothing but a lot of errant shite. It really is a pity that crackpots like you have equal voting rights as normal people.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

From start to finish, that was nothing but a lot of errant shite. It really is a pity that crackpots like you have equal voting rights as normal people.

Before anything you ever say has any value.....go live life first. One with responsibility, hard work, struggle, and setbacks. You might to get crackin soon kiddo....or is there no end to mommys money?

[Nick]

Oh please

[Funkmasterr]

From start to finish, that was nothing but a lot of errant shite. It really is a pity that crackpots like you have equal voting rights as normal people.

That's your right to believe, as unfounded as it is.

I would like to point out that every time I don't elaborate on why I believe what I believe, you run your mouth about how I never give reasons for what I think (obviously not true) and when I do try, like I just did in this post - you write it off immediately because I don't just concede the point to you and tell you how all knowing and intelligent you are.

Also, you might want to look up the word "errant" in the dictionary, because nothing I said can fit the definition of that word. Just lookin out for you bro - wouldn't want someone to see improper usage of a word in your post and question your unfailing intelligence.

[Nick]

It's errant in the context of having a brain. I'm sorry I confused you.

The majority of your evenings posting was also "errant" in the "straying" sense (feel free to take your own advice in regards to that whole dictionary joke of an argument) because you preferred to go down the "I'm just the helpless American being made a victim by those bad people everywhere else who think I'm a moron because I refuse to acknowledge that a violent mindless American foreign policy is creating more long term problems than it solves" instead of simply accepting the incredibly obvious and inarguable fact that blowback exists, has existed and will continue to exist.

But whatever makes you sleep at night. You really can't be talked to. Semantics, really? Jesus you weren't even right.

[Funkmasterr]

er·rant
1. deviating from the regular or proper course; erring; straying.
2. journeying or traveling, as a medieval knight in quest of adventure; roving adventurously.
3. moving in an aimless or lightly changing manner: an errant breeze.


So I'm guessing that you are trying to imply that I am deviating from the regular or proper course of thought (your opinion of that, of course, which is incorrect as usual, and my beliefs are far from the norm, bearing in mind that the mostly left wing population of VV is not the norm, or the majority opinion.)

And no where did I say that "blowback" doesn't exist, what I did say is that the logic leading up to this blowback in the situation you are speaking of is broken, and we should not yield to it, you are just making excuses for people acting (or reacting) in an inexcusable fashion.

[Nick]

Why exactly did it take you about a thousand words to admit that blowback exists then, was the pouting just so important?

You would probably do well to take your "majority opinion" polls on an international scale off something other than Fox news.


Edit:

what I did say is that the logic leading up to this blowback in the situation you are speaking of is broken

Yes, you did, and what I'm saying is that that's fucking retarded. For very basic humane reasons, such as if your family was killed by a US fighter pilot when you had done absolutely fuck all to provoke him except live in the country that the US happened to frenziedly start a reactionary war with, and your loved one died because fuckheads like you feel the need to extend their limp dicked national paranoia into countries that were of absolutely no credible threat to them in the first place.

And then you have the nerve to assume that anyone elses logic is broken? Jesus christ.

Oh and please point out where I advocated terrorism and killing innocent Americans you stupid prick.

[Funkmasterr]

I'm finished with this conversation with you, it's annoying me and it's never going to go anywhere because we have never had any small bit of common ground on any political issue.

[Nick]

Awk sure just show me where I advocated terrorism and killing innocent Americans and we'll call it even.

[Fairweather Pure]

I advocate terrorism and killing innocent Americans.

What do I win?!?

[Zaelath]

Make them mad at us? Are they a bunch of 5th graders? What they need to do is progress beyond their ridiculous, backwards religious backgrounds and join the progressive society many of the rest of us live in. There would be no reason for wars if others could stop acting like animalistic cavemen. We only get 70-90 years here. I don't see why we can't all get along.

This is hillarious.

You, as a nation, at a 99% polling level, sure seemed quite ready to bay for the blood of any arab after 3,000 "innocents" were killed, and you think people are childish for being mad about 700,000.

Again, your complete and total lack of empathy astounds me.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Make them mad at us? Are they a bunch of 5th graders? What they need to do is progress beyond their ridiculous, backwards religious backgrounds and join the progressive society many of the rest of us live in. There would be no reason for wars if others could stop acting like animalistic cavemen. We only get 70-90 years here. I don't see why we can't all get along.

This is hillarious.

You, as a nation, at a 99% polling level, sure seemed quite ready to bay for the blood of any arab after 3,000 "innocents" were killed, and you think people are childish for being mad about 700,000.

Again, your complete and total lack of empathy astounds me.

Our outrage was jusitified. We felt that, like you said, after 3000 were taken out in one day in a terrorist attack. We weren't just "mad" at them. Explain to me what we did wrong to them for them to preach hatred toward us? We don't do that toward them. In fact, a year after 9-11 we were chastized daring to mention anything against the poor muslims who have gotten a bad rap.

[Zaelath]

Make them mad at us? Are they a bunch of 5th graders? What they need to do is progress beyond their ridiculous, backwards religious backgrounds and join the progressive society many of the rest of us live in. There would be no reason for wars if others could stop acting like animalistic cavemen. We only get 70-90 years here. I don't see why we can't all get along.

This is hillarious.

You, as a nation, at a 99% polling level, sure seemed quite ready to bay for the blood of any arab after 3,000 "innocents" were killed, and you think people are childish for being mad about 700,000.

Again, your complete and total lack of empathy astounds me.

Our outrage was jusitified. We felt that, like you said, after 3000 were taken out in one day in a terrorist attack. We weren't just "mad" at them. Explain to me what we did wrong to them for them to preach hatred toward us? We don't do that toward them. In fact, a year after 9-11 we were chastized daring to mention anything against the poor muslims who have gotten a bad rap.

As if I can "explain" anything to you, Mid. You are funny though, a massive hypocrite, but funny.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Make them mad at us? Are they a bunch of 5th graders? What they need to do is progress beyond their ridiculous, backwards religious backgrounds and join the progressive society many of the rest of us live in. There would be no reason for wars if others could stop acting like animalistic cavemen. We only get 70-90 years here. I don't see why we can't all get along.

This is hillarious.

You, as a nation, at a 99% polling level, sure seemed quite ready to bay for the blood of any arab after 3,000 "innocents" were killed, and you think people are childish for being mad about 700,000.

Again, your complete and total lack of empathy astounds me.

Our outrage was jusitified. We felt that, like you said, after 3000 were taken out in one day in a terrorist attack. We weren't just "mad" at them. Explain to me what we did wrong to them for them to preach hatred toward us? We don't do that toward them. In fact, a year after 9-11 we were chastized daring to mention anything against the poor muslims who have gotten a bad rap.

As if I can "explain" anything to you, Mid. You are funny though, a massive hypocrite, but funny.

Typical response when you have nothing, nada, zip, zero, zilch.

[Nick]

Do we really need to go into American foreign policy over the last 30 years in the Middle East just so you can continue to deny reality for yet another thread?

I'd put the effort in, but it wouldn't be worth my time, so instead I'm just going to consider you, everyone like you, and everyone who will be like you, a laughably embarrassing stereotypical yank and go play some Grand Theft Auto.

Toodles!

(Ouch, so only 7% of Guantanamo detainees were even picked up by the Yanks? You mean the other 93% were handed over for several thousand dollars each by opportunistic Northern Alliance/Pakistani forces that have, even by American investigations, been proven to be corrupt and in no way legitimate? Dude this war on terror is SO LEGIT STFU!).

Poor morons.

[Zaelath]

As if I can "explain" anything to you, Mid. You are funny though, a massive hypocrite, but funny.

Typical response when you have nothing, nada, zip, zero, zilch.

If you can't see the clear hypocrisy in rushing to war in Afghanistan/Iraq from a terrorist incident killing 3,000 and turning around and calling people religious throwbacks with anger management issues if they're pissed about 700,000, then really, what argument can I make that would penetrate your cloak of anitpathy? nada, zip, zero, zilch is right.

So I'll save my time and just go straight to the laughing.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

As if I can "explain" anything to you, Mid. You are funny though, a massive hypocrite, but funny.

Typical response when you have nothing, nada, zip, zero, zilch.

If you can't see the clear hypocrisy in rushing to war in Afghanistan/Iraq from a terrorist incident killing 3,000 and turning around and calling people religious throwbacks with anger management issues if they're pissed about 700,000, then really, what argument can I make that would penetrate your cloak of anitpathy? nada, zip, zero, zilch is right.

So I'll save my time and just go straight to the laughing.

No, stupid. You don't get off that easy. When did the 700,000 deaths occur from an American attack that justified their anger at us, therefore making it understandable why they planned and executed 9/11?

[Funkmasterr]

Zaelath and nick are just further proving how fucking stupid they are, the sad part is that most of the other people on VV are just as retarded and probably agree with them. They just aren't posting about it for whatever reason.

[Nick]

You're the fucking idiot mate.

[Sylvus]

No, stupid. You don't get off that easy. When did the 700,000 deaths occur from an American attack that justified their anger at us, therefore making it understandable why they planned and executed 9/11?

I think your problem (in this case) comes from incorrectly painting everyone with the same brush. A group of Al Qaeda men were mad at the US for any number of actions the US has taken in the past or policies that the US adopted. While you seem to think they were angry at the US for no reason, I'm sure they feel they were justified. Don't read that as me saying they were right to do it, I think it was a horrible, deplorable act, I can just see enough of the big picture to understand why they felt that they were in the right. When two fundamentally different peoples are both trying to use morality to justify their actions, there is no such thing as a black-and-white "right" and "wrong". The narrow-minded on either side will think that they are right and the other guys are wrong, but it's simply not the case.

Anyhoo, These Al Qaeda men then planned and executed 9/11, which, in turn, led to the "war on terror". From there, we went into Afghanistan, which was the right target. Namely, members of or people in league with Al Qaeda. Then we went into Iraq, a place wholly unrelated to Al Qaeda, 9/11 and terrorism in general. The "700,000 innocent muslims" figure, while possibly inflated, includes in large part people killed in Iraq (correct me if I'm wrong, Nick). Iraqi people. People who had nothing to do with the deaths of the 3000 people lost in NYC.

Nick's original point was a valid one: we have seen what a small group of angry people can do without a single piece of military equipment, as a precedent has been set (on 9/11) by a comparatively small group of (non-Iraqi) people who were angry for whatever reason. Now that "we" are responsible for the deaths of [insert accurate, large number here] people, which includes the deaths of far more innocent people than were killed in 9/11, that's going to incite increasing numbers of people who were not originally mad at us.

Please note that "innocent", in this case, does not necessarily mean sleeping babes in their cribs. It means people who were not responsible for any attacks on our soil, yet were killed as a result of our retaliatory "war on terror". People in Iraq. Say what you want about the Iraq war being justified (I'll disagree, but that's another argument), that's only from your view. From the perspective of Mohammed Q. Sixpack, they were innocent. Combatants, civilians and even people killed by insurgents, the blame is on us because all of this was sparked by (from their p.o.v.) an unprovoked attack. Maybe it would be more easy for you to see if, after 9/11, we'd invaded France. Does that sound like a silly idea? Because France had about as much to do with the 9/11 attacks as Iraq did.

[Sylvus]

Zamtuk and nick are just further proving how fucking stupid they are, the sad part is that most of the other people on VV are just as retarded and probably agree with them. They just aren't posting about it for whatever reason.

When did Zamtuk post in this thread?

[Funkmasterr]

I apologize, I mean zaelath. Corrected it in my post.

[Zaelath]

Zaelath and nick are just further proving how fucking stupid they are, the sad part is that most of the other people on VV are just as retarded and probably agree with them. They just aren't posting about it for whatever reason.

Sweetness, you could out stupid me every day and twice on Sundays, and you still tower over Midnyte intellectually.

As to Midnyte's inability to understand the relationship between cause and effect, I think Sylvus covered it adequately, but yes, I wasn't saying an event that happened subsequently caused something in the past.

Perhaps Midnyte can just go ahead and explain why his "ridiculous, backwards religion" was justified in persuing the crusades?

Nevermind, that's ancient history, perhaps instead he can explain how "causing the deaths" of hundreds of thousands of muslims will make them less likely to attempt terrorist activities against your country instead. Perhaps he thinks you can cow 20% of the world's population

[Funkmasterr]

You guys keep talking about what we are doing antagonizing these fucking nutjobs like they are justified.

Just because people there have died as casualties of war does not make it ok for them to turn to terrorist activities. I'm not saying that they won't do that, but by no means in any stretch of any sane persons imagination is it ok.

Nothing they can do will bring whomever they are upset about back. And yes, in their situation I would still be able to rationalize that and not do something stupid.

What are you suggesting, that we are gonna get "what we have coming" for "killing innocent (el oh el 4 realz) muslims"? If so then I see you as the enemy as well, and that is all I need to know.

If not then you are just pointing out the obvious, cause & effect. I can't say I really see what the point in that is, I mean I could also point out that if you lay down in the path of a stampede you will probably get hurt, and it would be just about as important as the point you are trying to prove.

[Sylvus]

Nothing they can do will bring whomever they are upset about back. And yes, in their situation I would still be able to rationalize that and not do something stupid.

Along those lines, what's the point of us waging a "war on terror" then? Nothing we can do will bring whomever we're upset about back. Again, you're applying the narrow view that what they do is wrong and what we do is right. It's the same thing, albeit on different scales.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Nothing they can do will bring whomever they are upset about back. And yes, in their situation I would still be able to rationalize that and not do something stupid.

Along those lines, what's the point of us waging a "war on terror" then? Nothing we can do will bring whomever we're upset about back. Again, you're applying the narrow view that what they do is wrong and what we do is right. It's the same thing, albeit on different scales.

The war on terror is to hopefully prevent future attacks on our people. What exactly was the attack on 9/11 for again?

[Fash]

Nothing they can do will bring whomever they are upset about back. And yes, in their situation I would still be able to rationalize that and not do something stupid.

Along those lines, what's the point of us waging a "war on terror" then? Nothing we can do will bring whomever we're upset about back. Again, you're applying the narrow view that what they do is wrong and what we do is right. It's the same thing, albeit on different scales.

The war on terror is to hopefully prevent future attacks on our people. What exactly was the attack on 9/11 for again?

If the conspiracy nuts are correct... it was to start the war on terror.

[Funkmasterr]

Nothing they can do will bring whomever they are upset about back. And yes, in their situation I would still be able to rationalize that and not do something stupid.

Along those lines, what's the point of us waging a "war on terror" then? Nothing we can do will bring whomever we're upset about back. Again, you're applying the narrow view that what they do is wrong and what we do is right. It's the same thing, albeit on different scales.

Except it's not a narrow view, what they did was intentionally murder approximately 3k innocent people, at no point have we intentionally killed any innocents over there even if people like nick want to believe that. There is a distinct difference between the two, and pretending like there isn't is not a difference of opinion, it's ignorance.

[Sylvus]

Nothing they can do will bring whomever they are upset about back. And yes, in their situation I would still be able to rationalize that and not do something stupid.

Along those lines, what's the point of us waging a "war on terror" then? Nothing we can do will bring whomever we're upset about back. Again, you're applying the narrow view that what they do is wrong and what we do is right. It's the same thing, albeit on different scales.

The war on terror is to hopefully prevent future attacks on our people. What exactly was the attack on 9/11 for again?

The attack on 9/11 was because Al Qaeda saw us (and Israel) as perpetrators of injustices against Lebanon and Palestine, as well as for the continued presence of US military forces in the Middle East. That's according to statements that Bin Laden made. So, in an effort to get the US to change our policy, and hopefully stop (what he perceived as) the US contribution to the deaths of his people (indirectly or no), 9/11 came about. They targeted the WTC and the Pentagon in an attempt to disrupt (what they perceived as) our economic and military centers.

9/11 happened because one group wanted their people to be safe. The war on terror started because another group wanted their people to be safe. Both of them killed "innocents" on both sides, in turn making each original group more angry at the other. Big picture.

Except it's not a narrow view, what they did was intentionally murder approximately 3k innocent people, at no point have we intentionally killed any innocents over there even if people like nick want to believe that. There is a distinct difference between the two, and pretending like there isn't is not a difference of opinion, it's ignorance.

I'd ask you to read all of the posts that I've made on this page. Who are "they"? Which Iraqis were responsible for the deaths of a single person on American soil, intentional or no? Because we are sure as shit responsible for the deaths of a lot of Iraqis who were on their way to the market or going to work or sitting at home, and to what end? Fighting a war on terror that admittedly should have (and originally) targeted their neighbors? To bring about policy change in Iraq? Surely those of you on the differing opinion side of this have given up on the WMD angle or the thought that Saddam was any threat to America?

If you had the capability of looking at both sides (or three sides, really, since Al Qaeda and Iraq are entirely different entities) objectively, you'd see that pragmatically there is very little difference between them. Al Qaeda doesn't like US policy, they attack us. We don't like Iraq policy, we attack them. Al Qaeda is mad that we're killing their people, they retaliate. We get mad for 9/11, we retaliate. The end doesn't justify the means, but when two ends are the same, the means are a bit of a moot point.

I won't deny that on a visceral level, flying a plane into the WTC makes me angry. But the bottom line is that the number of "innocents" killed on 9/11 pales in comparison to the number of "innocents" whose blood is on our hands, by a couple factors of ten. I'm not saying we're the bad guy, I'm saying that no one is the good guy. I think the losses of lives on both sides are equally as tragic, and it saddens me that we couldn't take the moral high ground in some way and avoid perpetuating the vicious cycle.

[Morgrym]

9/11 was not War, This is War and War is hell. Innocent lives will be lost unless they move the fuck away. Bombs don't care who they blow up as long as they get to go boom. How many of you defended the VC so strongly? Shit happens, if you can't be an athlete, be an athletic supporter.

[Ashur]

Al Qaeda is in Burma?

[Zaelath]

You guys keep talking about what we are doing antagonizing these fucking nutjobs like they are justified.

Just because people there have died as casualties of war does not make it ok for them to turn to terrorist activities. I'm not saying that they won't do that, but by no means in any stretch of any sane persons imagination is it ok.

Terrorism is a matter of perspective. We've been over this before, but I'm sorry, if you have a massive military supremacy over a someone, the only way they can go to war with you is using terrorist tactics. I know you think they should "man up", confront you directly, and be decimated; only lemmings practice this tactic.

Nothing they can do will bring whomever they are upset about back. And yes, in their situation I would still be able to rationalize that and not do something stupid.

So you're saying you should have "sucked up" 9/11 and moved on, cause those 3000 aren't coming back? Well, I wouldn't go that far, but I certainly don't think you should have invaded Afghanistan in a blood rage then moved on to Iraq for no adequately explainable reason.

What are you suggesting, that we are gonna get "what we have coming" for "killing innocent (el oh el 4 realz) muslims"? If so then I see you as the enemy as well, and that is all I need to know.

If not then you are just pointing out the obvious, cause & effect. I can't say I really see what the point in that is, I mean I could also point out that if you lay down in the path of a stampede you will probably get hurt, and it would be just about as important as the point you are trying to prove.

Nah, I don't think it's at all funny for those that don't share your insane theory that, as I understand it, "If you attack the US, we will attack you and your family and whoever happens to be standing around until you realise how fucking cool capitalism is and get on board with Jesus." while at the same time, suggesting that no one has any cause what-so-fucking-ever for retaliating against the US for the things they do overseas. Not only is it illogical, it's bordering on the psychotic.

You can also go for it with your "if you're not with us, you're against us" shit, Mr Bush. But the greater proportion of your own country is not with you on Iraq.

[Zaelath]

Nothing they can do will bring whomever they are upset about back. And yes, in their situation I would still be able to rationalize that and not do something stupid.

Along those lines, what's the point of us waging a "war on terror" then? Nothing we can do will bring whomever we're upset about back. Again, you're applying the narrow view that what they do is wrong and what we do is right. It's the same thing, albeit on different scales.

Except it's not a narrow view, what they did was intentionally murder approximately 3k innocent people, at no point have we intentionally killed any innocents over there even if people like nick want to believe that. There is a distinct difference between the two, and pretending like there isn't is not a difference of opinion, it's ignorance.

That's a wild assumption. Their intent could well have been to cripple your economy by bringing down the WTC, at which point your 3000 murdered compatriots were, in fact, collateral damage.

[Spang]

I think we need a forum dedicated to the war in Iraq.

[Bagar-]

Zaelath and nick are just further proving how fucking stupid they are, the sad part is that most of the other people on VV are just as retarded and probably agree with them. They just aren't posting about it for whatever reason.

Why the fuck would anyone else try to argue with you two dicksock motherfuckers? I've been reading your stupid hypocritical bullshit for three years now, and haven't bothered to post, because no amount of arguing can change you fucktwits into reasonable, logic-bearing human beings. Half the time you assclowns post just for the sake of being contrary, yet you try to convince other people to look at the "big picture" or to see things from your view? Fucking morons. You just post to annoy people, not to actually bring about any level of debate. A debate involves people listening to and at least granting the other side a momentary glance of consideration, countering other individual's points by ackowledging them and giving real evidence that they're either false or inconclusive, or perhaps even granting the otherside is correct and conceding your point. All you morons do is see who can yell the loudest. Often this goes for both sides of the fence, but mostly it's just Funk and Mid.

So yeah, what in the fuck would cause anyone to want to argue with you morons? The saddest thing is that you're both so convinced that you're right, that you'll never, ever look at anything but what you strictly hold to be true and give it chance; you know, perhaps learn something new or take up a new belief, or modify your own. That's the highest level of ignorance I can think of.

Jackass?