9-11 attacks utterly legal!

[Karlwithak]

Bull ****. yeah America has done some bad things. We all know it. But what did those people in the World Trade Center ever do? They were just doing thier job when some jack ass muslim terrorist flew highjacked planes into them. The planes were full of innocent people too. Their actions were not justified. This attack wasn't on the US military. It was on innocent people. Would it be justified for America to nuke the hell out of the middle east for the 9/11 attacks? **** no. So why would it be ok for them to kill our innocent people? Its not. Lets not forget all the cops and fire fighters we lost also. Of coarse u wouldn't understand what it feels like to have your nation wrongly attacked because u live in Canada, a country which has done nothing as far as war is concerned. The following song describes how Americans feel about 9/11, its not something a candian, or any other citizen of a different nation, would understand.

Brother of Mine - Virgos
As I wake I see the signs that the world's forever changed
If hell on earth could be imagined, it became truth today
Amidst the flames I watched the brave
Sacrificed so lives could be saved
And tears filled my eyes as I watched the world become a grave

I know why you had to go inside
I looked and saw the world change before my eyes
I lift my voice to you
For all you had to do
You're a brother of mine
You're a brother of mine

As the dust settles the ashes fall before the dawn
Our nation watches as the leaders fulfill the reasons they were born
Amidst the pain and anger
A light beacons through all the clouds
A light that shines on the rugged flag and yes
We're united, proud and strong

I know that I'll never understand the loss of life
And I know I saw the world change before my eyes
I lift my voice to you
A new heart beating through
You're a brother of mine
I know my God is true
He will deliver you
You're a brother of mine
You're a brother of mine

We stand on hollowed ground
Where all my brothers lost and found
We're all about the colors of the country you can't kill
The colors of the country you can't kill
We're all about the colors of the country you can't kill

Brother of mine
Brother of mine
Brother of mine
You're a brother of mine

I lift my voice to you
For all that we've been through
You're a brother of mine
I know my God is true
He will deliver you
You're a brother of mine
You're a brother of mine
You're a brother of mine
You're a brother of mine

Brother of mine...

[anintendo_evafan]

I understand what you are trying too say. But violence cannot and IS never justifiable. *sigh* There is too much violence and bloodshed in this world. And all for what? Eye for a ****ing eye?! Listen too yourself! Your insane! Yes the American Government has been commiting attrocities large and small against many countries and innocent peoples who either 1) Refuse to fall under their sway, 2) Refuse too accept democracy, 3) Countries that harbor our political enemies.

Yes America has become the new Inquisition. America my homeland, has many sins too answer for. I love her, but she has become a whore unto the world.

I wish there was more love and laughter in the world. There is far too much violence, hate and grief.

Too justify something as horrible as 9/11...is despicable. Innocent people died...not soldiers...innocents.

Mothers, and fathers, wives and husbands. Brothers and sisters...gone forever.

[The Dude]

I read a different book on this subject known as "Civilization and its Enemies." I forget who the author was and the book itself half the time was giving reasons why to beat up arabs but it had it's moments. It looked at the 9/11 attacks a different way. Rather than a reactionary move or a move to change policy, it portrayed the attacks as fantasy in action. In that the ones who carried out the attack were inacting their fantasy of a handful of Allah's chosen taking down the west. They didn't care about changing the politics of the west. They didn't care about the people who they were involuntarily involving. They just wanted to show the arab world and the world a whole what a few of them could do against the empire of the west.

If they truly wanted to change politics, they wouldn't have stopped after just the towers, if they truly wanted to take notice, they would have continued in bombing normal every day places, such as churches and stores and resteruants and have spread it out into small towns if they truly wanted to affect the people a whole while the two towers act wasn't effective against those who do come from small towns where something like that wouldn't have happened but no, they stopped. They just wanted to show that they could bring down the empire both metaphorically and in essence literally. By destroying one of our symbols.

With that in mind, no, an act like that carried out as a fantasy is not justified. Even if it wasn't an act of fantasy, something like that which was uncalled for isn't justifiable.

Now as for the whole blame America stuff that Chomsky seems to just cream his dusty jeans whenever something bad comes up, that's only part of the picture. We weren't the only ones they had bad dealings with. Also think about this for one second. We may be fighting them now but we weren't the only ones they fought. Muslim fundamentalists had fought against the Soviets, buddhists, each other, europeans, etc. etc. etc. You think that when you're the common denominator against everyone else, it may be you that's got the problem.

Also on the whole "Oh american government is so bad." Yeah I'll agree I'm not a fan and I'd like some changes to be made but to quote the sixteen year old idiots on Myspace "Everyone's doing it." In essence, most if not all governments have had some form of secret meetings and dark dealings with people of questionable nature. Hell, Stalin's track record for genoside lapped hitlers yet people never really think of him when they think of truly wicked people. If you believe that there is a government that has never showed an ounce of corruption, then there's a bridge in Manhattan for sale for ya.

[My Final Heaven]

When did I ever suggest that the 9-11 attacks were a device to change politics? No, I was justifying them as a legitimate military attack against legitimate military targets by suggesting that under UN charters, united states citizens, ALL united states citizens are sponsors and profetiers of terror and as such make themselves legitimate targets of violent military intervention. I.E. to have someone fly a plane into them.

I would like people to actually read what I post rather than try to tell me I said anything about the 9-11 attacks being in someway morally correct. There is no moral right and wrong on the global scale of things, but there is lawful and unlawful, and what I'm saying is that the 9-11 attackers where lawful in thier methods and justified for thier grivances against the U.S. and by extention all it's people.

[The Dude]

Doesn't the UN charter also frown on civilian targets which they clearly were targetting? The WTO is more of a symbol of capitalism rather than military might and if noam chomsky wants to bitch about who's repsonsible well there's as much blood on your hands and his as there is on mine if you want to look at countries profiting on bending other nations over and boning them royally.

So no, this was not a lawful act. If it could have been classified even as such, if they wanted to make it a justified act, then maybe they should have truly asked themselves if what they were going to do would undermine the core values of law and justice which Chomsky so readily claims that the lack of caused this and which the act did undermine. If they wanted to make it a justified act then they would have gone after military sites and targets. No, they did not. They targeted civillians, who regardless of their own ignorances were just trying to live their lives. They did not take into consideration that what they did would undermine justice, fairness, the value of life, (regardless of their own views on life), it was an act meant to show that they could do it. So no, it was not justified.

As for Chomsky, I haven't read much of his stuff granted do to the extreme amount of bitching that comes from his mouth but what I do read, while he does point the finger, he may be right but he rarely offers solutions to the problems.

[Saint]

According to your logic we would be justified in blowing up their schools and homes and places of business, because they harmed us so egregiously. What you're talking about is revenge, pure and simple, regardless of your oversimplification of U.S. policy and history. And revenge is always justified, right?

[My Final Heaven]

Well, here's the difference between me and chomsky. Those are not his oppinions but mine, and merely extrapalations upon the facts which he provided me with. Nothing is true in law, it only breaks down to what can or cannot be proved. And they did attack the pentagon, and I'd like to see a more military target than that anywhere in the world. That's not a symbol but is functionally the command and control center of the U.S's military organization, just as the World Trade center was the Command and control center for the U.S's ecconomic warfare.

I then went on to explain that under UN regulations a country has the right to use force when credible a threat can be established and when diplomatic channels break down, like how about the fact that U.S. has been funding terror all over the world for decades while vetoing all efforts by the UN to stop them? Is that justification enough to establish that the U.S. is a threat to the middle east from the middle easterner's perspective? Yes? Still with me? Probably not, but in for a penny in for a pound.

Good, now under the U.S administrations own policies, anybody who is found to be giving money to terrorists, I.E. Tax payers to the American Government, I.E. everybody (Within the margin of error that you get with a laer guided missile) in the world trade center; would be treated as terrorists themselves. Therefore, UNDER U.S. POLICY 95% of the people killed by the attacks were legitimate military targets.

Stop telling me it's wrong, it's revenge, it's immoral, because of course it is. Tell me, if you can, where my numbers are wrong, and why, not on a theological or on a metaphysical level of what is right and what, after establishing notrightness can be considered wrongness, I'm not intrested, and that's not the issue I'm even talking about because that's been done to death anyway. What I'm talking about is that if you apply U.S. logic to the 9-11 attacks, all U.S. citizens above the age of 18 (As well as citizens of countries directly supporting the U.S, and that means me too) are legitimate military targets to people living anywhere in the world that are under the thumb of a U.S. backed Terrorist government.

That's the issue. Not rightness, Wrongness or what a ****wad I am for suggesting this bull****. This is politics and military reasoning I'm debating, morals and values and revenge are irrelevant to the topic.

[Trav]

I.E. Tax payers to the American Government

Oh shut up please.

Tax payers have to pay to stay in the country. You pay for all the services, you dont pay for ****ing LGBs it's up to the government to decided where their income goes too. Honestly stfu about tax payers contributing to Americas terror regime. People pay money to the US government to live in the country and reep the benefits of being a resident, military weapons are the last thing on their minds. In my country I pay tax to stay here I dont pay my monthly rate thinking about what new Tanks the country is considering buying.

By your logic your taxes or parents taxes go to some form of defense. It's a government decision, it's not the peoples fault. How on earth do they know where their money is going and what the hell can they do about it? Stop sounding like a total juvenile prick and realise how every countries government and taxes work. Honestly you sound so ****ing idiotic.

[Saint]

Oh and I forgot to echo what others have been saying: no matter how bad one entity has done to another, mass murder is never, never, never, never, never justifiable. I don't know how you can even think that let alone go on a half-assed rant about it.

[My Final Heaven]

No, if the U.S. was a theocracy or a dictatorship, you're right, it wouldn't be the people's fault, but it's a democracy, so it IS thier fault. And whether or not it's thier fault, it IS thier money. Are you saying the money you pay in tax isn't your money? If it isn't yours who's is it? It changes hands from you, then to the government, and then to these terrorist states. Is that in dispute then? Is it that the U.S. doesn't actually fund terrorist states? But if you accept that, then by extention, you accept that it's tax money that pays for it, and who's was the tax money if not the tax payer's?

So then, to apply the logic that sponsors of terror are themselves terrorists and that terrorists are legitimate targets for attack... Break my logic down, like I said, point out the flaw in the chain, don't tell me that taxpayers aren't responsible because they have to pay because that is not a relavent point. It does not detract from the fact that thier money in part goes to sponsor terror.

And saint, if you read any of my posts beyond lines 4, you would see that I am not having a philisophical debate here but a legal one, and what you're on about is philosophy, not law. I'm talking about civilians/vs military targets, not people getting killed, because in the end it's all the same, but one of them is legal, and the other is not. I'm saying it was legal, and there are plenty of things that are legal but not right. (Step in The Man for examples cause he's better at that kind of thing)

[Trav]

Here's what will disprove your ideas. Freedom Of Information Act. Go read it. Go ask the people in charge, even then you'll still not accept facts because you have a direct concept in your head.

[My Final Heaven]

Don't really know what you're on about with the Freedom of Information Act. Possibly that the people of the U.S. couldn't know what thier government was doing... possibly that they could if they wanted to, possibly that because they no control over thier tax money thier not at fault, but that's all Bull****. Look, if you are working on a construction site right? And you're just 'doing your job' and you drop a wrench from the top floor and it kills someone on a lower one, who is at fault? You, clearly are liable for the injury you caused. You wouldn't blame the wrench because it fell. It's not your responsibility to have it fall or not fall, it's out of your hands at that point and what it wants to do is it's own decision. Apply the same idea macroscopically. It isn't the U.S. tax payers fault that they sponsor terror, it's thier government's decsision, which for all intents and purposes they put there when they voted. It's worse because the government is not like gravity. Gravity will exsist long after we all fade to dust, but governments come and go.

So yes, there is a direct line between where the money comes from, the tax payers, and where it goes, the terroist states.

Let me put it another way incase you don't like that one.

Let's say you own a house.

Lets say you don't shovel your driveway and the mail man slips on the Ice and breaks is wrist. Who pays his damages. The house owner does, that's who. Not the Ice that made him slip, it's the House owners responsibility to make sure their house is safe, and if you neglected to do something to MAKE it safe, then the house owner is liable.

Macrosize it.

The U.S. government is the responsibility of it's citizens. If they don't actively maintain it, they are liable for the damages it may cause.

[Saint]

Thread name changed, for great justice.

And clarity. To say that it's justifiable sounds like you're defending an abominably large loss of life. Apparently, you're not, so I changed the name.

[My Final Heaven]

If you want, fine. (Facist)

Maybe that's too harsh. I'm sure the FFE ministery of truth will take care of it all though. Make sure I say what I mean, rather than what I write.

This confusion wouldn't occur in the first place if people would actually read what I write though, and I can tell the response that have read it and those that have not, because those that have read it don't get in a knot about morals and they get to the legal aspects of it.

And I was defending an abbominable loss of life as a legitimate military opperation in the same sense that say, WWII was a justifiable military opperation, and strangely, for the same reaons, though turned on it's head.

[Larsa]

I do have to say that all of us to blame is a little true because we live in a DEMocracy. Meaning in what that the prefix DEM means self, put the word together and you get the meaning of the word: self governing. But I do agree that America has gone way too far on stoping people. Why should we stop North Korea from building nuclear weapons when we practicaly make them daily. Shouldn't somebody tell us that we should stop building nuclear weapons or else they'll inflict war on us. This is coming from a lifelong Communist but I think that the Soviet Union was a great country and sholdn't have fallen. They are one of the only countrys that would have been able to stop this dreadful behavior that we have and control us to some degree.

I would like to say that this is m 100th post and I put a lot of hard thinking into it.

[The Man]

I can't be arsed with paragraph-by-paragraph responses to most of this stuff... not enough time. Just a couple of comments:

First of all, the U.S. has routinely bombed targets where innocent civilians were located in nearly all of its recent wars. The casualties thus occurring are regarded as no more than "collateral damage." As I pointed out above, the World Trade Center contained a CIA office, which made it, by the standards the U.S. military applies to targets in other countries, a legitimate intelligence target. The 3,000 civilians who died in the collapse, by that logic, comprised no more than "collateral damage." That's nothing compared to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians who died after the First Gulf War because, for example, their water treatment plants were destroyed.

In short, if the U.S. government does not want harsh standards applied to its own people, perhaps it should stop applying harsh standards to the people of other countries.

Secondly:

Also on the whole "Oh american government is so bad." Yeah I'll agree I'm not a fan and I'd like some changes to be made but to quote the sixteen year old idiots on Myspace "Everyone's doing it." In essence, most if not all governments have had some form of secret meetings and dark dealings with people of questionable nature.

That's precisely why I'm basically an anarchist. If history has taught me anything, it's that human beings are not trustworthy enough to be allowed to wield the kind of power over one another. Of course, I don't have much hope that humans are trustworthy enough to handle real freedom either, but at this point, the less authority given to governments, the better.

[itcouldbesweet]

Originally Posted by My Final Heaven

After many attempts at legal means have been attepted and failed then violence IS justified. And besides, it could hardly be called an eye for an eye, it's more like several millions deaths (The U.S's global killings in thier state sponsored terror) for a chipped fingernail.

Violence is never justified. They slammed 2 planes in our buildings and now we're pouring people into the middle east nonstop. The occupation in places like that has caused a ridiculous backlash of fundamentalist attacks. This occuptation has made the world dangerous not only for Americans, but for everyone. For you to believe violence against thousands of innocent people in retaliation to a sour history is okay imo is pretty damn ignorant. Not everyone in America supports the president. Some people like where they live but don't like how it's run. Killing people is not a deterrent or solution by any means. It doesn't work in law, and it doesn't work for the world.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by LyingEyes

Violence is never justified. They slammed 2 planes in our buildings and now we're pouring people into the middle east nonstop. The occupation in places like that has caused a ridiculous backlash of fundamentalist attacks. This occuptation has made the world dangerous not only for Americans, but for everyone. For you to believe violence against thousands of innocent people in retaliation to a sour history is okay imo is pretty damn ignorant. Not everyone in America supports the president. Some people like where they live but don't like how it's run. Killing people is not a deterrent or solution by any means. It doesn't work in law, and it doesn't work for the world.

Originally Posted by My Final Heaven

I was defending an abbominable loss of life as a legitimate military opperation in the same sense that say, WWII was a justifiable military opperation, and strangely, for the same reaons, though turned on it's head.

[Ryder]

I find it quite ironic how America used to be isolationist and now everyone wants them to mind their own ****ing business.