Question!
Hi!
doesn't the logic of pre emptive strikes create the perfect justification for Binladin's attack on the WTC?
guys wait wait...
you got me all wrooong!!
what I meant is that, the whole idea of pre emptive strikes is so stupid and un understandable to the point that, if you want to say that it justifies the war on Iraq, a country that is an enemy that was attacked with no evidences on is involvement with ANY attach against the states, if we are going to accept that the war on Iraq is justified, then we will have to accept that Binladin, who I totally don't agree with, totally don't support, actually did the same thing, he attacked an enemy, But at least he was attacking the actual country that was responsible for the things that were pissing him off!
what I meant to say is that both of these two assumptions are at the same level of stupidity and ignorance.
Stupidity and ignorance? Well.........no. To quote comedian Dana Carvey (Saturday Nite Live) " I only want to know one thing, what is all our oil doing under their sand?"
Arrogance and greed.....yes.
33 Comments
Jheeshhh.....there is no hope for this kid.
...you've been wasting your school money, kiddo. Pay your parents back. You've not learned a thing and I'm loosing hope that you ever will. You're going to be a "what" when you grow up? ....a Perfect example of mediocrity and why we have this problem to begin with.
I would hardly call kicking the biggest dog on the street a pre emptive strike. More like attempted suicide.
Key word; "strike".
Sales point; "defense".
Motivation; "fear" (as in "defense" mechanism).
So no. The logic of pre-emptive strikes does not create the perfect justification because pre-emptive strikes are founded in emotion, not logic.
Sorry, but you did ask a loaded question. I am just so not into blowing stuff up, i guess it's a rational girl thing.
:)
F. in Amsterdam
i operate on the premise that no question is embarrassing and that "blurts" are often the most sincere.
NO.. IT IS NOT JUSTIFIED NO MATTER HOW YOU LOOK AT IT.
Sorry but whomever did the WTC massacre is AN ANIMAL. (I WILL NOT SAY WHOM BECAUSE I'VE HEARD A MILLION DIFFERENT OPINIONS ON IT AND I DON'T WANT MORE ARGUMENTS ON THIS SUBJECT)
However, if you want to argue, please remember first that KILLING UNARMED CIVILIANS IS BANNED IN ISLAM.
with regards.
Hey Jeffrey,
Did you notice something in Majid's blog where he said,
"And that resolution that came out from the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education saying that non-Iraqi students are no longer allowed to study in Iraq, neither depending on their grades nor on their money..."
I found that curious. I guess the Jarrars really are not considered Iraqi even though their mother is. hmmm....I guess too that answers my question that Khalid never answered. He, Khalid I mean, won't be able to vote in the upcoming elections I bet. hmmmm...interesting.....
As for the WTC comment by Khalid, he is just trying to push people's buttons. He knows that gets to a lot of Americans whenever he mentions the WTC.
Connie
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
So Khalid, since Iraq doesn't consider you "Iraqi" does that mean that you won't be able to go to graduate school there in Iraq next year, if you wanted to that is? This is an honest question. I'm really curious.
I don't agree with that either Jeffrey. I think if people want to go to a college or university and they are willing to pay they should be able to go there regardless....then again maybe this Iraqi Education minister guy has a reason...
Connie
well connie, the thing majid talked about is regarding new students, but those who are already in uni are defferent, they will continue to study, but those who were studying for free will have to pay money now.
...wrong Khalid. The real problem is that everyone has you right.
You display the same uneducated bias time and again. There is argument in pre-emptive policy. However, your point is discredited because of your historical bent.
salaam
^^
guys wait wait.
you got me all wrooong!!
what I meant is that, the whole idea of pre emptive strikes is so stupid and un understandable to the point that, if you want to say that it justifies the war on Iraq, a country that is an enemy that was attacked with no evidences on is involvement with ANY attach against the states, if we are going to accept that the war on Iraq is justified, then we will have to accept that Binladin, who I totally don't agree with, totally don't support, actually did the same thing, he attacked an enemy, that's all. what I meant to say is that both of these two assumptions are at the same level of stupidity and ignorance.
dont you think?
You're right... Bin Ladin attacked us. He actually declared war on us before. So, shouldn't we have attacked him sooner, instead of waiting? Pre-emptive strikes are needed in certain cases, because if you wait for a second WTC attack, it will be much worse than in the past. The USA couldn't afford to have that kind of a hit to the economy etc.
You know I was watching SpaceShipOne, the Ansari X prize winner, as it blasted out of the earth's atmosphere and when the camera showed the earth from a distance enveloped in a black sky with the sun in the foreground, I thought to myself, "What are we all doing? We are so insignificant. Our stupid ideologies, stupid religions, stupid politics, mean nothing. We are all, ALL of us, so completely stupid." From that perspective, the perspective of space, all our wars and politics mean nothing.
So to answer your question Khalid: Yes, I think all of this is soooo ridiculous because it means nothing...in the grand scheme of the universe...it all means nothing...
But on an different note...how cool was SpaceShipOne?? That was awesome!!
Connie
Some American links about the call-the-cops-number-attack:
Where are the Boeing that "hit" Pentagong?.
Hunt the Boeing! And test your perceptions!.
An Attempt to Uncover the Truth About September 11th, 2001.
Transcription of the movie "In Plane Site".
Letsroll911.org Forums.
Physics911.org.
The Mysteries of 9/11.
Government insider says Bush authorized 911 attacks.
Saddamists Americans are self-forbidden to click the links. They only are allowed to say two words: "Conspiracy Theory".
Aquele abraço!
Alvaro Frota
Khalid
gotcha. pre-emptive strikes are a pain.
;)
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Alvaro!
For the love of GOD! Will you shut the FUCK UP!!!????
Connie
yeah, Alvaro is expelling entirely too much GAS! I'm tired of all his "links" and cuttin' and pastin'....he may as well be fartin' in the wind cuz whatever he says don't make a damn bit of difference. Its all nonsense!
"physics911" MY ASS!! Real scientic there Alvaro!
Connie
I just re-read your post Khalid. You've changed it from the original. Now you are saying you do agree with Bin Laden? You put "But at least he was attacking the actual country that was responsible for the things that were pissing him off!" and then you added "Stupidity and ignorance? Well.........no."....
so my question to you is are you now agreeing with Bin Laden? I would have to counter your above statement about Bin Laden attacking the actual country that he was pissed off at. If you are basing Bin Laden's pre-emptive strike off of being "pissed off" then Bush got the "actual country" that HE was pissed off at, considering Saddam Hussein authorized an assassination attempt on George H.W. Bush.
You are confusing me Khalid....
Connie
Connie
Please refrain from swearing. If you are allowed to comment here, then so is Alvaro.
"Jheeshhh.....there is no hope for this kid."
"You've not learned a thing and I'm loosing (sic) hope that you ever will. "
"There is argument in pre-emptive policy. However, your point is discredited because of your historical bent."
All being comments from "Anonymous". Instead of impressing us with a name and a snazzy dissection of WHY Khalid is supposedly so ignorant and, um, bent, you resort to entirely useless (and un-funny!) namecalling.
You bore me.
Please go away.
Connie --
On Alvaro's post and links. (Actually, this applies to your buffoon friend as well.)
I personally do not believe in the 911 conspiracy theories. However, unlike yourself, I took the time to read what Alvaro posted. Actually there is some interesting stuff there, although hardly conclusive, and mostly circumstancial.
However, I took the time to LOOK.
Instead of throwing a fit, tell us *why* you believe that the theories are wrong. We can only benefit from a discussion of these matters. Not to mention that one might be inclined to give more weight to your opinions in future ...
On another note, I agree that the immensity of the Universe tends to make human concerns, um, small.
Jeffrey --
For somebody who supposedly spends his time analysing source material and, ha ha, teaching English, your comprehension skills leave me decidedly unimpressed. Care to take a minute off from your "Alvaro - FedEx - rope" fantasy, and explain the correlation between these two statements?
"Aligning yourself with Bin Laden and his throat-slitting, murdering terrorists is both figuratively and literally a dead end."
"... we will have to accept that Binladin, who I totally don't agree with, totally don't support, actually did the same thing, he attacked an enemy ..."
with emphasis on
"Aligning yourself with Bin Laden" and "... Binladin, who I totally don't agree with, totally don't support ..."
HUH ?
It looks like the Mad Prof has blown another gasket, and is back to spew his disconnected ramblings on the boards. Did you get around to taking my true or false test, by the way? It doesn't look like it.
I have to hand it to the man, though, he takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin', that's for sure.
Basically, if I understand Khalid correctly, he is making the argument that the logic and justifications that bin Laden and Bush used are essentially the same, and driven by the same arrogance and greed. The rationale behind the two philosophies are that rampant violence is justified, on the flimsiest of pretexts, as long as one believes that it will lead to a "good" (read: good for the side attacking) outcome, eventually.
A genuine pre-emptive war I can understand, and even agree with. (Watch the hordes of clueless bumbling trolls leap out on this statement, ever eager to show their ignorance) But on the comparison of bin Laden's actions and Bush's actions I agree with Khalid: they are both in the same class of ignorance, arrogance and stupidity.
Bruno:
Basically, if I understand Khalid correctly, he is making the argument that the logic and justifications that bin Laden and Bush used are essentially the same, and driven by the same arrogance and greed.
But on the comparison of bin Laden's actions and Bush's actions I agree with Khalid: they are both in the same class of ignorance, arrogance and stupidity.
Conclusion: they was able to made a deal, in the best interests of both: the call-the-cops-number-false-flag.
A very profitable deall for both, off course. One wined a dictatorship over the Americans and the other wined "whole war" to be foght in Iraq.
Saddan had nothing to do with deal. As American led Saddan's war against Iran, Saddan's occupation of Kuwait and the sanctions of UN was flattened Iraq, the nation of the Iraqis (and the oil, of course) was only the premium of that deal.
As we Brazilians said: O Iraque foi o laranja da situaç?o...
Is simply like that...
Alvaro Frota
....Ummhmm... pissing contest again, eh!
Cruising through the blogosphere this evening we actually find some very hopeful events taking place. Mohammed at ITM gives us an interesting view of Muqty and his militia. Chrenkoffs 12th round of good news from Iraq is out. Zeyad has a new post... Required reading for those "resistance" romantics. Alaa at the Mesopotamian writes about Sdar as well.
Instead of equating one action of the two...that you know is going to cause people to "blow" at you.
Perhaps a more productive approach, Khalid, might well be a discussion of how we came to this point. What brought these two indiviuals to such extreme actions? And how to resolve those issues.
I took a peek at some of your links, Alvaro. In some cases very interesing... typical fringe agenda material but so what. You have every right to say and believe as you please. It might give you a little more credibility if you would skip the anti-american attitude...if I can make a suggestion, of course.
Bruno.....Bruno... you are even attacking anonymous. Slow down, man. Go read Nuerotic Iraqi Wife's latest.... "I said no, zey surely dont give a damn,lol......" She'll give you good a laugh. The girls a jem....wonderful enthusiasm. To bad we don't have about 50 mil more like her.
Khalids initial input was not the same as it is now.
...the mediocrity statement from anon was very fitting. Khalid just seems to rub on people the wrong way. This impression, my impression, comes from his audience and the feedback given to him. Comparing this to other individuals where we see honest reflection, concern, condolences...expressions of hope, happiness and empathy. Where we see intelligent, thoughtful, involved political and economic discussions..for the most part people honestly trying to make a difference.....
Here..well....
Partisan Hack 101
...One other thing.
Damn good show Afghanistan. Well done mates..
Even the most jaded cannot hide from encouragment.
Partisan Hack 101
"Perhaps a more productive approach, Khalid, might well be a discussion of how we came to this point. What brought these two indiviuals to such extreme actions? And how to resolve those issues."
Yes! This is what I'm talking about!
If one examines the whys of the conflicts, one realises that even bin Laden had his reasons ... and that those reasons might be enough to cause even American citizens to consider similar actions to him, given that the situation were reversed.
But, would they be right?
Alvaro --
I agree with you that the Neo conservatives had stood to gain a virtual carte blanche to do whatever they wanted as a result of 9-11. They even alluded to needing a similar disaster in their famous "Pearl Harbour" statement. However, the evidence is simply too great that bin Laden carried out the attacks, not least his admitting and indeed, trumpeting the fact.
The links that you provided contain much interesting speculation, but are a little light on hard fact. Indeed, some of the material is contradictory ... for example, the question is raised as to how a few men with boxcutters were able to gain control of a full airliner, and later the premise is undermined by pointing out how empty the flights were. The horrendously slow response time of the US airforce is perhaps more of an indictment of declining standards than an active conspiracy.
Let me put it to you like this: While Bush and his cronies may have secretly been praying for such an occurrence, the chance that they would have orchestrated it are miniscule. Let us apply simple logic to the problem. Cost / benefit. The risk of exposure of planning and more importantly, keeping secret such a monstrous operation are immense. The number of people involved in a US government version of the attacks would be too many to guarantee silence, particulary given the extreme moral repugnancy of the act. And if the operation were to be leaked ... the consequences would be terminal for the planners.
Additionally, why try to destroy so many targets at once? Would it not have been simpler to crash a single airliner into the White House, at night, when there are less staff ... having a similar political effect without ripping the heart out of one's largest city? Why try to get complicated?
The links you provided do raise many interesting questions. But I feel that they are far from constructing even a rough case that the 911 strikes were orchestrated at the behest of the US government.
.....Good gawd, and can you imagine the competancy level needed from the US gov to accomplish such a task??? This would be astounding.
Who.... Who... give's the US gov this much credit. My gosh, not I.
Alvaro... you may think to much of the US gov. They are no better and have nothing more than people in any Gov.
Some very good thoughts, Bruno.
...there was something mentioned about keeping an eye out earlier. This my well be useless... but, boyintheworld, deciduous, partisan, various anon's............and others to be mentioned later, might help to keep watch.
Anon
This may well be useless but that was a cheap shot 12.15pm last paragaph few days ago.
Mean, smallminded and unacceptable. You ought be ashamed picking on someone with a high emotional iq. Manipulative old arsehole. Show some empathy yourself.
.....that was beautiful
"Mean, smallminded and unacceptable. You ought be ashamed picking on someone with a high emotional iq. Manipulative old arsehole"
I nearly busted a nut... Sounds like Grumpy Old Men.
It may have been a little arseholic... depends upon pov. I'll try for more empathy...difficult at times within specific context. Old...loool... pov as well.. 29 is bloody ancient to some...and a baby to others.
PH101
Post a Comment
<< Home