Nader Vs. Bill "If We Pull Out Of Afghanistan We Get Another 9/11!" O'Reilly

[skoinkins]

Originally Posted by kstigs

I have no idea what you're talking about. You're going to have to point me to when I chose "certain groups to critique" and "let the groups" I "agree with off with a free pass."

you're like talking to a four year old, AS I POINTED OUT EARLIER you critique our government, and right-winged news sources. even when i pointed out to you all of the lies in the left media you still refuse to speak against them. but i'll let this go, because it's quite apparent you do not absorb much of the information you are given.

[kstigs]

Originally Posted by skoinkins

you're like talking to a four year old, AS I POINTED OUT EARLIER you critique our government, and right-winged news sources. even when i pointed out to you all of the lies in the left media you still refuse to speak against them. but i'll let this go, because it's quite apparent you do not absorb much of the information you are given.

When did I critique our government and right-winged news sources? You're going to have be more specific because I can't find one post in this thread where I did that. All I've done in this thread is dispute the validity of the 9/11 Commission Report. I've also yet to see you point out any lies in the "left media." Please find the posts where any of the things you speak of are done and I'll respond to them; otherwise, I'm going to continue responding in a similar manner. Have a nice day.

[hydrosRheaven]

Originally Posted by Gloom

It equals good ole death and destruction, but then then we don't know the victims, so who cares? Its fine that they get to try out their shiny toys on human lives, to "our" benefit, right?

Any war equates to death and destruction, captain obvious! That doesn't make war synonymous with mindless terrorism. It doesn't mean war is fine, or I do not care. It simply means there is a difference between mindless terrorism and war.

Originally Posted by kstigs

You're right. Just having them doesn't make him a mindless terrorist. The fact that he's used those drones to kill innocent people in foreign countries is what makes him a terrorist.
Perhaps, I went a bit too far with mindless.

First off this started by you proclaiming Osama Bin Ladin is not a mindless terrorist but Obama is. If civilian casualties make Obama a terrorist, the same should hold true for Osama (who you claim is not a terrorist.)

Second, here is the big difference I see. When Obama takes an action, it is against a military organization, the goal is not to kill as many civilians as possible. When civilians do die (as they do in all wars) Obama/USA is remorseful, and trys to avoid it.

When Osama launches an attack, his goal is to kill as many civilians as possible. Osama bin Ladin is a terrorist because his goal is to kill innocent people, and he has no remorse. He is joyous over the spilt blood of innocent men, women, and children. That to me is a mindless terrorist.

[Gloom]

Originally Posted by hydrosRheaven

Any war equates to death and destruction, captain obvious! That doesn't make war synonymous with mindless terrorism. It doesn't mean war is fine, or I do not care. It simply means there is a difference between mindless terrorism and war.

War, mindless terrorism, or just slaughter, what the hell does it matter what we call it, doesn't change anything.

[kstigs]

Originally Posted by hydrosRheaven

First off this started by you proclaiming Osama Bin Ladin is not a mindless terrorist but Obama is. If civilian casualties make Obama a terrorist, the same should hold true for Osama (who you claim is not a terrorist.)

Can you really attribute any civilian deaths to bin Laden? Seriously, show me some evidence linking him to civilian casualties in the last 15 years. Obama is the commander-in-chief of the most powerful fighting force in the world. I'd rather have Obama on my side rather than bin Laden.

Originally Posted by hydrosRheaven

Second, here is the big difference I see. When Obama takes an action, it is against a military organization, the goal is not to kill as many civilians as possible. When civilians do die (as they do in all wars) Obama/USA is remorseful, and trys to avoid it.

When Osama launches an attack, his goal is to kill as many civilians as possible. Osama bin Ladin is a terrorist because his goal is to kill innocent people, and he has no remorse. He is joyous over the spilt blood of innocent men, women, and children. That to me is a mindless terrorist.

Intentions are nice, but results are much better imo. When the US is occupying a country (under command of its leader, which is President Obama), we end up killing thousands of innocents. The same can not be said of bin Laden. A rational man would be way more afraid of Obama than he would be of bin Laden and that is what terrorism is based on: fear. It's all about making your enemy (and perhaps even your people) fear you. I'd say Obama is doing a pretty good job of it with his unmanned drones, mercenaries, etc.

I'm beginning to wonder why you're trying so hard to defend Obama (read: intentions). Are you a registered Democrat or do you just have an emotional attachment to him?

[hydrosRheaven]

Originally Posted by Gloom

War, mindless terrorism, or just slaughter, what the hell does it matter what we call it, doesn't change anything.

So i'm hearing, To kill is to kill is to kill. They end up with a dead person so call it what you want it may as well be terrorism.

To kill in self-defense is inherently different then to murder in cold blood.

Originally Posted by kstigs

Can you really attribute any civilian deaths to bin Laden? Seriously, show me some evidence linking him to civilian casualties in the last 15 years. Obama is the commander-in-chief of the most powerful fighting force in the world. I'd rather have Obama on my side rather than bin Laden.
Intentions are nice, but results are much better imo. When the US occupies a country (by deicision of its leader, which is President Obama), we end up killing thousands of innocents. The same can not be said of bin Laden. A rational man would be way more afraid of Obama than he would be of bin Laden and that is what terrorism is based on: fear. It's all about making your enemy (and perhaps even your people) fear you. I'd say Obama is doing a pretty good job of it with his unmanned drones, mercenaries, etc.
I'm beginning to wonder why you're trying so hard to defend Obama (read: intentions). Are you a registered Democrat or do you just have an emotional attachment to him?

Osama has confessed to these civilian deaths(more like bragged), that's enough for me and any court of law.

Mike Tyson is not a mindless terrorist because he is scary. Osama is a mindless terrorist, because he enjoys killing innocent men, women, and child.

Your logic is stunning, I'm starting to wonder why you are trying so hard to defend Osama. Are you a member of Al-queda or do you just want Osama's bod?

[Gloom]

Originally Posted by hydrosRheaven

So i'm hearing, To kill is to kill is to kill. They end up with a dead person so call it what you want it may as well be terrorism.

To kill in self-defense is inherently different then to murder in cold blood.

Self-defense doesn't include unmanned combat drones, mercenaries, and a heavily armed invasion.

[biG_Green]

i feel like the main reason that 9/11 happened was the US's invovlement with Israel. The terrorist groups seemed to move there anger from the arab/israeli conflict to anger with the US. after 9/11 happened Bush statement on why it happened was "Because they hate freedom." The media tried to play it off as an unprovoked attack, this couldn't be farther from the truth. Ever action has a reaction and 9/11 was no different. And did anyone think of this: The War On Terrorism... You realize War and terrorism go hand in hand, it is an oxymoron.

[hydrosRheaven]

Originally Posted by Gloom

Self-defense doesn't include unmanned combat drones, mercenaries, and a heavily armed invasion.

I was merely pointing out one fallacy in your logic. War vs. terrorism is less black and white then murder vs. self defense, but the fallacy remains. There are acceptable circumstances for war, and there is no such reason for terrorism.

[TheDankery]

Originally Posted by biG_Green

i feel like the main reason that 9/11 happened was the US's invovlement with Israel.

I have to agree with you there; primarily because Bin Laden has been saying that for years.

AFP: US support for Israel led to 9/11: Bin Laden message


By the way, who isn't freaked out by this statement?

"Obama and his administration have sowed new seeds of hatred against America," said at the time the Al-Qaeda leader whose network carried out the 9/11 attacks in the United States.
"Let the American people prepare to harvest the crops of what the leaders of the White House plant in the next years and decades."

So... that's what we get if we don't pull out of Afghanistan.

[Gloom]

Originally Posted by hydrosRheaven

I was merely pointing out one fallacy in your logic. War vs. terrorism is less black and white then murder vs. self defense, but the fallacy remains. There are acceptable circumstances for war, and there is no such reason for terrorism.

Unfortunately, that is not my logic that this war is terrorism, I rather not get caught up in semantics, but I can say this war certainly is terrorizing millions, and the effects will be felt by billions. But that is all fine and dandy, we can wish the consequences away with all our fabricated wealth, right? And for those that died in the process, let the families have the power of lawsuits? That'll make it all better...

[Dronetek]

Originally Posted by TheDankery

So... that's what we get if we don't pull out of Afghanistan.

So, you don't think Osama and the gang would use it as a huge rallying call like they did for Somalia?

[TheDankery]

I don't know. It's very likely. But won't that happen even if we killed Osama and pals today, we accomplished our goals in Afghanistan (I'm still not sure what our goals are there) and left?

Whoever is left over that hates America will rally around Osama & friends' deaths as if they were martyrs; and they would use our current stay there to justify further attacks against the US. It's all just more fodder for these theocratic megalomaniacs in my opinion.

If we leave Afghanistan in ten days or even if we leave in 10 years, the "seeds" Osama is referring to will eventually come to fruit. I see a damned-if-we-do, damned-if-we-don't situation in either case; because either way, billions more will be spent, more innocent people will be killed and fewer American troops will be coming back home safely. I'm just trying to think of the solution with the fewest horrible consequences possible. I don't see a military solution to the problems in that area. It will have to be resolved another way.

[StoneColdChilla]

Gondor has no King. Gondor needs no King!!!!

[skoinkins]

Originally Posted by kstigs

When did I critique our government and right-winged news sources? You're going to have be more specific because I can't find one post in this thread where I did that. All I've done in this thread is dispute the validity of the 9/11 Commission Report. I've also yet to see you point out any lies in the "left media." Please find the posts where any of the things you speak of are done and I'll respond to them; otherwise, I'm going to continue responding in a similar manner. Have a nice day.

i said you do this, and you excuse others, should i start with you portraying ossama as innocent. and reffering to our presidents as terrorists?