• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

100 protesters burn American flag outside U.S. embassy in London

Maybe I'm just grumpy, but I guess I am no better, either, cuz I agree with councilman.
When Japan had that earthquake...we were there, helping. Didn't matter that they killed so many at Pearl Harbor.

Today's generation of Japanese citizens had little or nothing to do with Pearl Harbor. Maybe it would've helped your case more to talk about Japanese Reconstruction in the aftermath of WWII.

The USA doesn't hold grudges.
Some do. And obviously most radical muslims are in that category.

I wouldn't really call it holding grudges as much as they embrace a nihilistic worldview that hates everything that they are not. Also a "grudge" implies that some misdeed was done in the past...I think a lot of radical Muslims perceive that they are still being screwed over by the West at present (whether or not that perception is true is a different discussion).

And anyone that IS muslim has the stink of radicals hanging on their burqa's just like christians have the stink of Falwell's/Baker's/InsertPreacherNameHere on their prayer books.

Unfair characterization of both Christians and Muslims, not sure if you really mean this or you're just exaggerating.
 
Guess where the OP stopped? ...

"A small group of Muslims staged a counter-demonstration nearby, holding up placards reading 'Muslims Against Extremism' and 'If You Want Sharia, Move To Saudi'.
Abdul Sallam, 41, who was waving a sign that read 'Keep The Silence', travelled down to London from his home in Glasgow to show the strength of his feelings.
He said: 'I'm a Muslim. What they're doing is bringing shame on all Muslims.This is not part of the teachings of Islam.
'Islam is all about peace, but what they want to do is hate other people... "

Bigots on either side don't want his message heard.

The counter protest would be relvant if they could personally stop the violence these others are screaming about.

One group is very willing to kill people and are even saying they will, and the other group is saying "Please don't"

You have to take a threat seriously when it is coming from somebody that is capable of the violence and perfectly willing to commit it.
 
The counter protest would be relvant if they could personally stop the violence these others are screaming about.

One group is very willing to kill people and are even saying they will, and the other group is saying "Please don't"

You have to take a threat seriously when it is coming from somebody that is capable of the violence and perfectly willing to commit it.

Sorry, I just don't see the difference between what that small group did, and what this small group did:

Florida preacher burns Koran in bizarre 'trial and execution' in front of a crowd of ... 30 people

Read more: Florida preacher Terry Jones burns Koran in bizarre 'trial and execution' in front of a crowd of ... 30 people | Mail Online
 
Has Terry Jones or any of his followers or any followers of his beliefs killed any Muslims?

Have any of that small group that burned the flag killed any Americans?

Again, I see no difference.
 
Well, if there's a squeak in your brake pads, you take it to the mechanic.

It's called "preventative maintenance". I'd say this looks like a good place to start.
 
Well, if there's a squeak in your brake pads, you take it to the mechanic.

It's called "preventative maintenance". I'd say this looks like a good place to start.

What do you suggest we do with Terry Jones and his followers?
 
That is a conflation that liberals promoted to bash Bush with at the time. Iraq didn't have anything to do with the events of 9/11, however he was involved in supporting terrorist in that region, and that coupled with his constant refusal to comply with UN edicts, finally led to his bluff being called, and the people are better off for it.

An honest reading of history would probably serve you well friend.

I never was blaming Bush and the GOP specifically for invading Iraq. Why are you making this into some sort of partisan argument? Both Dems and Repubs are responsible.

I stand by my opinion, as I did at the start of the war, that we invaded Iraq with some very weak reasons that were based mostly on speculation, and that full country occupation was not justified.

My other opinion is that we should have hammered Afghanistan from the start.


And maybe if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump its ass when it hoped. Hindsight armchair quaterbacking is one of the things that increased the divide we see today in politics.

J-mac, so you’re saying this is all hindsight? Think again. I have opposed this war in Iraq from day 1 in 2002. And I'm not the only one (because apparently you had to be some sort of magical future predicting genius in 2002 to oppose the Iraq war and realize it was a BAD IDEA).

High ranking members of our own military opposed this war as well, often very loudly and bluntly too, citing many of the same reasons I did above – weak connection, will be costly, not worth it – in 2002. Not 2011, but in 2002, from the very beginning.

But who cares about the Military thinks? What would they know anyways?



What a dichotomy you offer here, on the one hand you say that a larger response to Afghanistan would have been better, and on the other you question why we have to have large endeavors....Which is it?
Obviously I’m referencing the fact that we created two full blown wars when we should have just put all of our force into a single target that actually made sense to attack, perhaps which may have resulted in a shorter occupation and cheaper war.

Two full blown wars > cost than one full blown war.

Are you seriously trying to come in here with a "conservative" lean, and spout dem talking points from 2003?

J-Mac – So let me get this straight; if someone says that we invaded Iraq with weak reasons, that there were weak connections between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, and that the war in that country was unjustifiable, they cannot possibly be conservative in their political lean?

Please explain how this makes any rational sense at all. I'm all ears.
 
Last edited:
Being a conservative your 9/11 is markedly obtuse and 2 dimensional. :p

still waiting for your explanation.

Sorry, been busy with something really important; my fantasy football team. :D Anyway, what I meant is, I can remember and commemorate the anniversary of 9-11 without being conflicted as to whether we had it coming or not. Personally, I'd never post something on 9-11 that would diminish the significance of what happened to the US that day by trying to focus attention and sympathy elsewhere. I'm sorry, but I believe we have the right to be angry about what happened and I think it's unnecessary hyperbole to compare a written expression of anger to actual acts of terrorism.

Edit: oh, I included SE's comment because I'm sure my explanation falls exactly into his description of obtuse and 2 dimensional and I couldn't be more delighted that I can condemn what happened without reservation.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, been busy with something really important; my fantasy football team. :D Anyway, what I meant is, I can remember and commemorate the anniversary of 9-11 without being conflicted as to whether we had it coming or not. Personally, I'd never post something on 9-11 that would diminish the significance of what happened to the US that day by trying to focus attention and sympathy elsewhere. I'm sorry, but I believe we have the right to be angry about what happened and I think it's unnecessary hyperbole to compare a written expression of anger to actual acts of terrorism.

it was an act of Terrorism against innocent civillians. nobody "had it coming". you bounced into the thread and quoted me after i challenged Enolas comment where she stated that she agreed with Councilman and his theory of perhaps we should've nuked an entire population of people. that is disgusting and commenting on that is not trying to take focus off what happened to those innocent people on 9/11. unless of course you are suggesting that bigoted comments like that should remian unchallenged? it is pointing out that acting like a ****ing savagage and wanting to nuke a whole country because of 9/11 and kill a bunch of innocent civillians makes the Enolas and Councilmans of the world no different than those bastard extremists who were behind 9/11. advocating the murder of any innocent civillians is revolting. surely that's not difficult even for you to understand.

if you care to focus on other posts in this thread rather than just mine then you will see that there are plenty of people who agree with me.

of course people have a right to be angry about what happened. only an idiot would think otherwise. xfactor, you jumped into this thread trying to be a smart ass and deep down your insinuations were aimed at the fact that i'm not an American so 9/11 couldn't possibly mean the same to me as it would you.

once again you are incorrect. surely you are not that ignorant that you think 9/11 has only affected Americans?
 
it was an act of Terrorism against innocent civillians. nobody "had it coming". you bounced into the thread and quoted me after i challenged Enolas comment where she stated that she agreed with Councilman and his theory of perhaps we should've nuked an entire population of people. that is disgusting and commenting on that is not trying to take focus off what happened to those innocent people on 9/11. unless of course you are suggesting that bigoted comments like that should remian unchallenged? it is pointing out that acting like a ****ing savagage and wanting to nuke a whole country because of 9/11 and kill a bunch of innocent civillians makes the Enolas and Councilmans of the world no different than those bastard extremists who were behind 9/11. advocating the murder of any innocent civillians is revolting. surely that's not difficult even for you to understand.
Whether or not you were trying to divert focus away from what occurred in the US on 9-11 does not alter that you seemed to suggest we should feel worse about what happens elsewhere to people who "live 9-11 every single ****ing day" (or something along those lines). It's just alway interesting to me when you demonstrate just who earns your hysterical outrage. What I do know is that there is a difference between murder and war and that 9-11 was an act of war, as well as an act of terrorism. Obviously you do not understand there's a difference between "the Enolas and Councilmans of the world" and the people who plan and/or carry out actual acts of terrorism. I tell you, I am far more concerned about the latter. Your condemnation of comments here sure seem unbalanced as compared to actually condemning what occurred on 9-11.

if you care to focus on other posts in this thread rather than just mine then you will see that there are plenty of people who agree with me.
Which goes to exactly what I said. We are not unified enough for you to be speaking in terms of "our 9-11". Each of us sees what happened according our perspective and your perspective is, clearly, far different than mine.

Of course people have a right to be angry about what happened. only an idiot would think otherwise.
Well....:mrgreen:

Yeah. So long as the expressions of anger are no more than what you deem to be acceptable.

xfactor, you jumped into this thread trying to be a smart ass and deep down your insinuations were aimed at the fact that i'm not an American so 9/11 couldn't possibly mean the same to me as it would you.
Actually, I wasn't thinking that, but now that you mention it, would it be wrong to say that those of us in the US are more impacted by what happened on 9-11 than those who aren't? Just as those in New York, Washington DC and Pennsylvania were impacted more that those of us living in other states.

once again you are incorrect. surely you are not that ignorant that you think 9/11 has only affected Americans?
I'm definitely not ignorant enough to accept your false dichotomy. It's not all or nothing. If I say it affected Americans more, I'm NOT saying others were not also significantly affected. I remember many expressions of sympathy and support for the US from nations all around the world and I appreciated them (and still do). Even more so I deeply appreciate those of our allies who actually stood and even fought along side us in the conflicts in Iran and Afghanistan.
 
Last edited:
Whether or not you were trying to divert focus away from what occurred in the US on 9-11 does not alter that you seemed to suggest we should feel worse about what happens elsewhere to people who "live 9-11 every single ****ing day" (or something along those lines). It's just alway interesting to me when you demonstrate just who earns your hysterical outrage. What I do know is that there is a difference between murder and war and that 9-11 was an act of war, as well as an act of terrorism. Obviously you do not understand there's a difference between "the Enolas and Councilmans of the world" and the people who plan and/or carry out actual acts of terrorism. I tell you, I am far more concerned about the latter. Your condemnation of comments here sure seem unbalanced as compared to actually condemning what occurred on 9-11. .

boomark it and remember it, i'm sick of repeating it.

anyone that advocates the slaughter and targeting of innocent victims is a psychopath. advocating to nuke an entire population of people because of the actions of the 9/11 Terrorists is repulsive.
got it? good.

Which goes to exactly what I said. We are not unified enough for you to be speaking in terms of "our 9-11". Each of us sees what happened according our perspective and your perspective is, clearly, far different than mine. .

my perspective is that innocent people were targeted by Terrorists on 9/11. it was a horrifying event. the loss of their lives is significant.

if you feel differently that's up to you.



Well....:mrgreen:


Actually, I wasn't thinking that, but now that you mention it, would it be wrong to say that those of us in the US are more impacted by what happened on 9-11 than those who aren't?

I'm definitely not ignorant enough to accept your false dichotomy. It's not all or nothing. If I say it affected Americans more, I'm NOT saying others were not also significantly affected. I remember many expressions of sympathy and support for the US from nations all around the world and I appreciated them (and still do). Even more so I deeply appreciate those of our allies who actually stood and even fought along side us in the conflicts in Iran and Afghanistan.

then perhaps you should shut your stupid ignorant mouth and quit "selectively" quoting people who have said exactly what many others in the thread have said that you have chosen to ignore when you have no clue how the events of 9/11 have affected them then.
 
boomark it and remember it, i'm sick of repeating it.

anyone that advocates the slaughter and targeting of innocent victims is a psychopath. advocating to nuke an entire population of people because of the actions of the 9/11 Terrorists is repulsive.
got it? good.
Awesome, people who target innocent victims are actually just mentally ill. I think the correct term is sociopath. I never buy that terrorists are just "crazy" because insanity is considered an actual defense. I think terrorists are actually just bad people.


my perspective is that innocent people were targeted by Terrorists on 9/11. it was a horrifying event. the loss of their lives is significant.

if you feel differently that's up to you.
Well, it's your perspectives on "horrifying" and "significant" that would probably be where we differ. I won't say the actions of the 9-11 terrorists are no worse than people posting something on an Internet forum.

then perhaps you should shut your stupid ignorant mouth and quit "selectively" quoting people who have said exactly what many others in the thread have said that you have chosen to ignore when you have no clue how the events of 9/11 have affected them then.
What are you talking about? Your comment that I replied to was, like, one of the very first in this thread and, therefore, the first one to express something I wanted to reply to, so I did.
 
Last edited:
This perspective appears recently manufactured.

seriously. **** you.

i lost someone in the 2002 Bali bombings (which you have probably never heard about because it was 88 Australians not Americans) that were killed and your ignorant ass wouldn't count them as anything worthy because they were not born with a red white and blue stripe on their ass.

their deaths were a direct result of my Countries support of the U.S. war on terror and the support we continue to offer as a result of 9/11. they were targeted purely because of that support and because they were Australians. that happened in 2002 so the perspective is clearly not recently manufactured. you're just a troll. this thread is evident of that.

you think because someone is critical of American foreign policy in some areas that autmoatically gives you the right to call them unamerican and haters. you are so full of ****. it's called having a ****ing brain and using it and thinking for yourself. every day i see plenty of posts here from Americans being critical of their Country. the way some of you speak about your President is disgraceful. all the birth certificate crap and obama is a muslim crap etc, just disgusting. perhaps they are the haters or is it only Americans who are allowed to be critical of their government and support the victims of 9/11?



you are disgusting. nothing but a slimy pathetic troll.
 
seriously. **** you.
If you really meant this, you would have circumvented the word censor. :D

i lost someone in the 2002 Bali bombings (which you have probably never heard about because it was 88 Australians not Americans) that were killed and your ignorant ass wouldn't count them as anything worthy because they were not born with a red white and blue stripe on their ass.

their deaths were a direct result of my Countries support of the U.S. war on terror and the support we continue to offer as a result of 9/11. they were targeted purely because of that support and because they were Australians. that happened in 2002 so the perspective is clearly not recently manufactured. you're just a troll. this thread is evident of that.
Australia is, indeed, an awesome ally to the US, sincerely, one of our best, but I'm confused, who or what are you faulting for the bombing?

you think because someone is critical of American foreign policy in some areas that autmoatically gives you the right to call them unamerican and haters. you are so full of ****. it's called having a ****ing brain and using it and thinking for yourself. every day i see plenty of posts here from Americans being critical of their Country. the way some of you speak about your President is disgraceful. all the birth certificate crap and obama is a muslim crap etc, just disgusting. perhaps they are the haters or is it only Americans who are allowed to be critical of their government and support the victims of 9/11?
Are you talking to somebody else here? I haven't done any of this.



you are disgusting. nothing but a slimy pathetic troll.
:D
 
Last edited:
Australia is, indeed, an awesome ally to the US, sincerely, one of our best, but I'm confused, who or what are you faulting for the bombing?

you're always confused. my previous response was in reply to your trolling comment about my perspective being "recently manufactured". classy.

the ones responsible for the Bali Bombings were obviously the terrorists that organised and carried out the attacks against innocent people. people who were not combatants, people who were just having a holiday, minding their own business, going about their day to day activities just like the victims of 9/11.
 
As I have said before there is no room in this world for Radical Muslims and all they do and want to do is cause trouble and kill not just us but other Muslims.
It's sad to say but the only way to defeat them and end their reign of terror has nothing to do with with talking or treaties.
It's all about fighting fire with fire.



I don't see why we should go after the thousands of Muslims who are just like everybody else who are just trying to make it from one day to the next just because of what a few ****heads do.
 
you think because someone is critical of American foreign policy in some areas that autmoatically gives you the right to call them unamerican and haters.

You mention Australia was targeted in the Bali bombings because it was allied with the U.S. in the War on Terror. I noticed you failed to mention there was another reason Australia was allegedly targeted, and that had absolutely nothing to do with the United States:

Australia was warned about its participation [in the war] in Afghanistan and its ignoble contribution to the separation of East Timor [from Indonesia]. But it ignored this warning until it was awakened by the echoes of explosions in Bali.

Full transcript of 'Osama bin Laden tape'
 
it was an act of Terrorism against innocent civillians. nobody "had it coming". you bounced into the thread and quoted me after i challenged Enolas comment where she stated that she agreed with Councilman and his theory of perhaps we should've nuked an entire population of people. that is disgusting and commenting on that is not trying to take focus off what happened to those innocent people on 9/11. unless of course you are suggesting that bigoted comments like that should remian unchallenged? it is pointing out that acting like a ****ing savagage and wanting to nuke a whole country because of 9/11 and kill a bunch of innocent civillians makes the Enolas and Councilmans of the world no different than those bastard extremists who were behind 9/11. advocating the murder of any innocent civillians is revolting. surely that's not difficult even for you to understand.

if you care to focus on other posts in this thread rather than just mine then you will see that there are plenty of people who agree with me.

of course people have a right to be angry about what happened. only an idiot would think otherwise. xfactor, you jumped into this thread trying to be a smart ass and deep down your insinuations were aimed at the fact that i'm not an American so 9/11 couldn't possibly mean the same to me as it would you.

once again you are incorrect. surely you are not that ignorant that you think 9/11 has only affected Americans?

You are absolutely correct Serenity, it is wrong for anyone to kill innocent civilians, no matter how it is justified or what flag is flown by the ones that do it. We in fact let a great opportunity pass us by after 9/11. At that time the whole world was with us condemning the horrible tragedy we suffered that day. We squandered that good will by invading and killing many more innocent civilians than we lost in two countries that never attacked the US, rather than enlisting the support of the world to condemn and seek out terrorists around the world. As the conservative Rand Corp determined in their report commissioned by the Pentagon, that resulted only in creating more terrorists and more hatred of America.

Bin Laden said we would be defeated not on the battlefield but financially by trying to fight futile wars, and we seem determined to prove him correct, IMO.

I admire you for defending innocent civilians everywhere. :peace
 
Last edited:
You mention Australia was targeted in the Bali bombings because it was allied with the U.S. in the War on Terror. I noticed you failed to mention there was another reason Australia was allegedly targeted, and that had absolutely nothing to do with the United States:

the ADF deployed military personnel to Timor to help with East Timor's transition to independence from Indonesia in 1999. i assume that would have made many people unhappy and no doubt would be a contributing factor to why we were targeted. the 2002 bombing remains the deadliest act of terrorism ever directed at Australians.

fact remains, Australians were targeted because of their fight against the Mujahideen and their role in the war in Afghanistan. there is documented statements from those involved confirming this.

not sure what point you are actually trying to make here. whether our support for the U.S. war on terrorism was 50% the reason, or 10% the reason or 99% the reason for the attacks, what difference does it make?
 
You are absolutely correct Serenity, it is wrong for anyone to kill innocent civilians, no matter how it is justified or what flag is flown by the ones that do it. We in fact let a great opportunity pass us by after 9/11. At that time the whole world was with us condemning the horrible tragedy we suffered that day. We squandered that good will by invading and killing many more innocent civilians than we lost in two countries that never attacked the US, rather than enlisting the support of the world to condemn and seek out terrorists around the world. As the conservative Rand Corp determined in their report commissioned by the Pentagon, that resulted only in creating more terrorists and more hatred of America.
You reference the Rand Corp's conclusions like its Gospel. I haven't been on this forum for a few years, but you were citing the same report like 2 years ago when I was more active here. What if this Conservative think tank had said the opposite? Would you still agree with them? I highly doubt it. You're singling out one RAND report for political reasons, not reasonable intellectual ones. You don't follow the Rand because of its validity, you just singled out this one report because it had conclusions that are expedient to you

Catawba said:
Bin Laden said we would be defeated not on the battlefield but financially by trying to fight futile wars, and we seem determined to prove him correct, IMO.

So what exactly would your alternatives had been? Just send a couple guys to Afghanistan and Saudia Arabia to try and kill Osama Bin Laden and the other terrorists? Guess what? Bush did that and it failed horribly. We should've sent more troops into Afghanistan in 2001, not less. The problem wasn't that we were spending too much money to start with, it's that guys like Rummy wanted the wars to be cheap, quick, and with little manpower. That mentality turned out to cost us dearly in the long-run, but I think yours could've had even worse results

Maybe we shouldn't have invaded Iraq in retrospect, but one thing people like you will never admit is that we won. Iraq was a political and battlefield defeat for Al Qaeda, and the representative government there will only benefit our positions in the Middle East in the years to come

Catawba said:
I admire you for defending innocent civilians everywhere. :peace
Civilians were dieing in droves before the United States entered Iraq or Afghanistan, so to blame the US for civilian deaths there is like saying cops are responsible for gang warfare if cops start arresting ring leaders
 
You reference the Rand Corp's conclusions like its Gospel. I haven't been on this forum for a few years, but you were citing the same report like 2 years ago when I was more active here. What if this Conservative think tank had said the opposite? Would you still agree with them? I highly doubt it. You're singling out one RAND report for political reasons, not reasonable intellectual ones. You don't follow the Rand because of its validity, you just singled out this one report because it had conclusions that are expedient to you

I reference the Rand report because it is the most in-depth analysis of the war on terror that I am aware of.

So what exactly would your alternatives had been? Just send a couple guys to Afghanistan and Saudia Arabia to try and kill Osama Bin Laden and the other terrorists? Guess what? Bush did that and it failed horribly. We should've sent more troops into Afghanistan in 2001, not less. The problem wasn't that we were spending too much money to start with, it's that guys like Rummy wanted the wars to be cheap, quick, and with little manpower. That mentality turned out to cost us dearly in the long-run, but I think yours could've had even worse results

The alternative would have been what the Rand Corp recommended, using an approach with the world's intelligence agencies and forces with as small of a military footprint as possible, thereby killing less innocent civilians. And I would not have diverted most of our resources for a war on behalf of big oil in Iraq.

Maybe we shouldn't have invaded Iraq in retrospect, but one thing people like you will never admit is that we won. Iraq was a political and battlefield defeat for Al Qaeda, and the representative government there will only benefit our positions in the Middle East in the years to come

Before our invasion, we knew that we completely destroyed Iraq's capability to be a threat to the US or its neighbors in the Persian Gulf war followed by ten years of sanctions. We also knew that Saddam and al Qaeda did not get along, and there were few in Iraq before our invasion. Most of the suicide bombers in Iraq were in fact Saudi, just as were those who attacked us on 9/11. Iraq was in fact one of the weakest military forces on the planet at the time of our invasion.


Civilians were dieing in droves before the United States entered Iraq or Afghanistan, so to blame the US for civilian deaths there is like saying cops are responsible for gang warfare if cops start arresting ring leaders.

If you compare the violent death rates before and after our wars, you will see they dramatically increased after our wars.
 
boomark it and remember it, i'm sick of repeating it.

anyone that advocates the slaughter and targeting of innocent victims is a psychopath. advocating to nuke an entire population of people because of the actions of the 9/11 Terrorists is repulsive.
got it? good.



my perspective is that innocent people were targeted by Terrorists on 9/11. it was a horrifying event. the loss of their lives is significant.

if you feel differently that's up to you.







then perhaps you should shut your stupid ignorant mouth and quit "selectively" quoting people who have said exactly what many others in the thread have said that you have chosen to ignore when you have no clue how the events of 9/11 have affected them then.
Are your SHIFT keys broken?
 
Edit: oh, I included SE's comment because I'm sure my explanation falls exactly into his description of obtuse and 2 dimensional and I couldn't be more delighted that I can condemn what happened without reservation.

I took one look at his comment and had me a good chuckle over the delicious irony inherent in somebody offering such a childishly simple-minded comment that so perfectly illustrated the two dimensional thinking of which he was accusing others.
 
Back
Top Bottom