McGentrix wrote:
That is EXACTLY what the issue was. For you to say that you can debate whether 9-11 was an act of terrorism or not is mind blowing. I can't even begin to describe how stupid that is. It defines terrorism.
Where do I refuse to see the non-combatant dead as being dead? I stated that they are dead as a result other than murder which was originally theorized and the US is directly responsible for those deaths. But I also submit that Saddam is equally responsible for their deaths while you seem to diefy Bin Laden as some sort of hero who is sticking it to the oppressive "US Regime".
Quote: dont you just love conservatives?
accountability is to be used only when it serves their purpose.... and like humpty dumpty, it means only what they say it means, no more, no less.
Whatever.
Quote:again, was the boston tea party terrorism?
No, it wasn't. It was an act of rebellion against a system of taxation. It was not an act to instill fear into a civilian populace. Don't confuse rebellion with terrorism and don't try to use straw men as decoys.
Quote:and i repeat, what is your moral calculus? are you willing to kill one to save two, a million to save a million and one?
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
if one insists that others conform to one's own reality and not take them into account when dealing with others, then you promote an atmosphere where the bin ladens of the world can recruit their foot soldiers who perpetrated what happened on 9/11. it is typical of those with neither imagination or experience to know that their actions have consequences.
if the actions of the al queada were not a rebellion against what the al queada thought was happening to them and their ideas of what the world should be, what was it? you seem to ignore the facts that the al queada meant to drive the infidels out of muslim countries and set up an islamic paradise and struck out at the powers they thought were responsible for preventing it.
one does not have to agree with any of their premises to see that was their motivation. one does not have to agree with their repugnant actions to see why they did it. just as one does not to have to regard the collateral casualties in iraq as the infortunate side effects of war and wave away thousands of needless deaths..
BYW the boston tea party was an attempt at the intimidation of the british tax collectors, who they tarred and feathered that night at the harbor of boston. look it up in the history books. do you know what happens when one is tarred and feathered? the flesh is peeled away from the bone when the tar is pulled off. to those who had it happen to them they certainly did not consider it a mere act of tax revolt, but terrorism. so it depends on the viewpoint of who is tared or does the tarring, as i alluded to earlier.
i understand why you consider me a friend of bin laden, afterall, i understand why he did what he did, and you dont. however, understanding cause and effect does not mean that one sanctions ithe effective actions of violence.
since you just posted that i admire bun laden i dont consider you too objective to debate these issues without ad hominum, so be it.
but if as you say that you are of the belief that "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." Then you are no better than violent, revolutionary marxists, or the bin ladens of the world who adhere to that same slogan as the casus belli of their actions at violent revolution. and terrorism.
so, it appears that you are the one who supports violence, if you agree with the end result, and i would place you in the same camp as bin laden who as misguided with hate as he was, thought the same as you do.
i dont, and that is the difference between us.
