• 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!

Saudi officials were 'supporting' 9/11 hijackers, commission member says

My answer to the question, not necessarily the "correct" answer to the rhetorical question, but my answer is that it doesn't matter in the end, because it did not happen. What is the difference in dying from the bullets of an M-60 machine gun and dying from a thermonuclear device? Not much that I can see. But that's just me. :)

And all governments are involved in spooks and spies, not just ours. But ours is damn good, and in the dope business too, at least certain corrupt individuals within the organization.

The Saudis are just as corrupt as the rest of them. For those not studied, most all the visas possessed by the hijackers were issued in Saudi. Trivia, put part of the official story.

What's the difference between an M-60 machine gun and a thermonuclear device? Sure, whether a person is killed by one or the other, that person is still dead...

...but you're engaging in a classic example of a false equivalency...because M-60 machine guns do not have a very real potential to end human civilization on a global scale. Do you really, truly not get that?
 
What's the difference between an M-60 machine gun and a thermonuclear device? Sure, whether a person is killed by one or the other, that person is still dead...

...but you're engaging in a classic example of a false equivalency...because M-60 machine guns do not have a very real potential to end human civilization on a global scale. Do you really, truly not get that?

Of course I get that GC.

A false equivalency, yet somehow you got the point--dead is dead.

Besides man's nuclear toys, meteors and such can also end civilization, and I know you get that, but I wonder if you've actually considered such a scenario.
 
Of course I get that GC.

A false equivalency, yet somehow you got the point--dead is dead.

Besides man's nuclear toys, meteors and such can also end civilization, and I know you get that, but I wonder if you've actually considered such a scenario.

Yeah, but meteors aren't man-made and man-controlled. Again, you're using a false equivalency.

Most of my career in the Navy was during the Cold War, and now that I look back, I see the very real harm it caused to society to live under the very real threat that the missiles might be flying any day now...and several times, almost did. Whatever can be *reasonably* done to lessen the risk of war is worth it.
 
Back
Top Bottom