Wars

MilesAway

Bongalong
I said, "The people who actually committed the crimes that killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11 OR ALL DEAD! Seth! The people who are also responsible for these crimes, are NOT in our jurisdiction.

So, what people who killed 3,000 people on 9/11 are still alive, and within our jurisdiction? Did any of the hijackers survive?
So you're saying the masterminds who don't have to commit Hari Kari because of religious,social, and most importantly financial, hierarchy are innocent?
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
So you're saying the masterminds who don't have to commit Hari Kari because of religious,social, and most importantly financial, hierarchy are innocent?
Under what creative, torturous, convoluted train of logic, did you come to that conclusion? It has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. What the fuck does Hari Kari and any hierarchy have to do with a persons innocents?

My comment clearly meant, that all the people who hijacked the planes, flew them into buildings and the ground, that directly killed 3,000 people, ARE ALL DEAD!! And, all those other people indirectly involved in those deaths, are outside of our legal jurisdiction. Nothing more, and nothing less.

So NO! I am not saying that. You are!!
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
So indeed, a hopeless idealistic romantic. I'm more a pragmatic realist.
I think of myself as both.

Sorry, I certainly don't identify with ALL of the people in my country. And, I'm sure that you don't either.
I don't identify with criminals or traitors, no. Aside from them, when the chips are down, we are all Americans first, regardless of other superficial differences. That's how I see it.

I certainly agree that only Congress should be able to declare war. Congress represents ALL of the states, therefore all of the people. If you are going to put someone's children and family members in harms way, then you should definitely get a majority consensus that we should. Not the consensus of one man. Two days after 9/11, in an atmosphere of anger, hatred, ignorance and confusion, we made a stupid decision. And, now every president since, is trying to flex his muscles by doing an end-run around Congress, to gain political brownie points. This authority should be rescinded not replaced or updated. We are responsible for what our representatives do. We put them there.
I agree with most of that. I disagree that going after Al Qaeda using our military was a stupid decision. I rather think that is what the military is for. As far as rescinding the 2001 AUMF, my thoughts are that it takes two. If AQ would like to rescind its declaration of war against the U.S., then I'm all ears.

I'm going to pretend that you didn't say that. But it was a "measured act"! Really Seth? It was a final act of war. And conflating his murder, or where he was murdered, to "JUST ONE SOLDIER", is insensitive, callous, and irreprehensible. You still don't see the real picture here do you? Lets just look at the attack on the IRAQI military base that HOUSED US soldiers. That killed an Iraqi born American interpreter contractor. This incident set off a chain of events that could have caused a war with Iran. There were so many questions that were never answered, or were ignored. What was the objective evidence that proved that the Iraqi Shiite Militia, with close ties to Iran was involved? Or, that Khataib Hezbollah was responsible? This one event set of the chain of other events. Including the murder of Soleimani. The second video is the Washington version for contrast. I tend to believe the version of the story from the people, and officials, who have been there for generations. Rather than from people who don't understand the culture, the language or the people.
What applies to us applies to Iran too. If taking out Soleimani was "final act of war", then so was the rocket attack that killed an American.

These are two very good questions that you should have asked yourself first. The answer would have to be that they didn't! Or, are people now guilty until they can prove themselves innocent? What is the evidence, that Iran wants war? That the Shiite military even attacked the Iraqi camp? That Hezboolah was responsible for the attack? The evidence says that the Iraqi military played no role in the attack. But Washington says that they did. And, we believe them because they say so. Insane! The evidence should be so overwhelming and obvious. Especially before we decided to escalate the violence and kill a top Iranian general, along with other Iranian leaders. Don't you agree? How many lies by the government will it take before people start to question them? Aren't the lives of our "sons" worth a little effort and time to find out the truth? The evidence only points to the extreme Sunni ISIS fighters, NOT to the Iraqi Shiite militia.
Iran wants us out of Iraq, not a war with us.

Our intelligence capabilities are very, very good, and I seriously doubt that those rockets came from ISIS. We have the capability to see exactly where those rockets came from, Shell.

You must have also heard the expression, that "two Wrongs can never make a Right.". Our laws for those responsible for the death of 3,000 people, do not extend beyond our borders. Do/Should we send in troops to arrest/kill anyone that commits a crime against Americans abroad?
First of all, self defense is not a "wrong". And just to clarify, our jurisdiction does not extend beyond our borders, but our laws do.

So what? It is their country!! They have the right to help us or to ignore us. We can't force a country to do what we want. Period. It sets a very dangerous precedence. What if they wanted someone who was a terrorist in their country, but was protected by us as an asylum-seeker? Should they send in their troops to take him back? Or, kill him with their drones?
It would not be necessary. First of all, the U.S. is not in the habit of sheltering terrorists who murder innocent civilians. But if we did let such a person into the country, then the other thing is that this country is subject to the rule of law. Our country affords a country legal means to request that the person be sent back to them to stand trial for the crimes they committed. There would be due process in such a case, and the final decision would be based upon applicable laws.

In short, she won't fight back. And, when she does, its too late. Tulsi does not recognize the true strength of her anger. She is always trying to control it in public. But her friends have seen just how powerful it can be. And, that she should use it, to show just how powerful she truly is. But her religion won't allow it. This really handicapped her during the campaign. She has a glare, that would give a grizzly reason to pause. I have spoken to her by phone and through private emails about this. When she was speaking at a small gathering of business entrepreneurs, she said, "...Fuck That!". It was very effective. But it was also private. I told her, that because you are a woman, you better in some way show some aggressive qualities. This quality is just assumed in men. Especially, in response to all the smear-mongering, Russian plant, and Socialist's attacks, by corporate America, and mainstream media. If not, that her image would always be seen as being passive(feminine) or weak. She could have shown the world just how "badass" she really is. At only 30% effort she ended two campaigns singlehandedly, using only the truth. She was the only candidate who was actually over-qualified to be President.
I totally agree with you that she was the only candidate over-qualified to be President.

I was disgusted with the way the Democratic Party elite and their media drones treated her. Utterly disgusted.

I never thought of her as weak. Quite the opposite. But perhaps you're right. Maybe if she had sort of "turned up the intensity" she might have been noticed by more of the public.

But, because she is a beautiful and gifted woman, she intimates many women(Ana Kasparian). Because she is intelligent, she threatens all the intellectually insecure men. Because she is a female and a woman of color, she won't be liked by misogynists and racial bigots. Because she belongs to a foreign religious sect, she will not be trusted by the people of the more traditional religions. Because she is a senior military combat veteran, she will be disliked by cowards and jealous wannabees. Because she has the gravitas of a polished diplomate with a clear progressive message, she became the single most threat to the MSM, the MIC, and the DNC. So they rigged everything, including her image. I told her that showing her true anger and outrage, is even more effective than showing her true love and passion. If you understand what I mean? And, I am not just talking about being rude and profane. Her true anger would have given depth to her message, empathy and passion. But it would also give depth to her character as a whole. People would line up for miles, just to hear what she had to say next. She was truly the world's last hope for change. But the world, like the rich and powerful, do not want change. I really hope she runs again.
I hope she runs again too. I am disappointed that she chose not to run for reelection to her House seat.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
It would not be necessary. First of all, the U.S. is not in the habit of sheltering terrorists who murder innocent civilians. But if we did let such a person into the country, then the other thing is that this country is subject to the rule of law. Our country affords a country legal means to request that the person be sent back to them to stand trial for the crimes they committed. There would be due process in such a case, and the final decision would be based upon applicable laws.
Firstly, you don't haven't a clue if terrorists are part of the refugees seeking asylum in the US. Both types of domestic terrorists have been expose from refugees seeking asylum in the US. Also, did we avail bin Laden, or Soleimani, of their right to due process? Just more empty rhetoric and double standards. We were sheltering bin Laden's family for Christ sake after 9/11. We sheltered the three Cuban Nationals that tried to assassinate Castro. We provided political asylum for many leaders kicked out of(or fleeing from) their own countries. You are either incredibly naïve, or willfully dismissive of the truth.

What applies to us applies to Iran too. If taking out Soleimani was "final act of war", then so was the rocket attack that killed an American.
Are you simply dismissing the part where there is NO evidence that the rocket attack was from the Shiite militia? And, that the evidence points to ISIS rebels/terrorists. If proven true(like the lie that Assad gassed his people), then America has committed a war crime against Iran. Surely, there are satellite images, verifiable motives, eye witness account, wire intercepts, or some physical evidence? Surely!! Anything but the least intelligent, "It must be them.".

Iran wants us out of Iraq, not a war with us.

Our intelligence capabilities are very, very good, and I seriously doubt that those rockets came from ISIS. We have the capability to see exactly where those rockets came from, Shell.
First of all, self defense is not a "wrong". And just to clarify, our jurisdiction does not extend beyond our borders, but our laws do.
Iran does want us out of Iraq, because of what we are doing there, and doing to the region. But Iraq also wants us out of their country for the same reasons.

Our laws DO NOT EXTEND BEYOND OUR BORDER!!! Show me any US statutory, constitutional, or case law, that is codified in any other country? Are you saying, that if you committed murder in the US, but live in France, that the French government can prosecute you for murder? Because the US laws extend all the way to France? Really? Also, what was the imminent and immediate threat, that existed to justify self-defense? But you are correct, self-defense IS always good, but only WHEN IT IS JUSTIFIED! So, lets see the evidence.

If our intelligence CAPABILITY and resources are so very, very good, then it should have no trouble providing objective, verifiable and tangible evidence to justify our actions. I mean we had tangible evidence to support, that missiles were being deployed by the Russians in Cuba, right? So, what is the evidence that Americans were attacked by Iraqi Shiite militia? Other than our intelligence says so!! What is the evidence that says that ISIS was NOT the ones responsible? What is the evidence that shows an imminent and immediate attack was about to occur on Americans in Iraq? And, what is the evidence that justified the murder of Soleimani, as the only solution?

Never mind. I guess all you need to know, is that America said so, right??

I have always said, that if America can't start a war with Iran, that it have someone else do it for them. Here is my scenario. Israel sees how America got away with murder, and decides to also assassinate a top nuclear scientist in Iran. Who cares about international laws, sovereignty, protocol, or morality!! America did it, therefore so can we. Iran's citizens are now being attacked, and killed by foreign powers. What should they do? If they retaliate and attack Israel, then America will defend Israel(even though they are NOT formal allies), and thus get the war that they want. And, Israel will have the most powerful army as its bitch. And, if they do nothing, more of their people will be killed. I guess the crippling sanctions, blockades, and surrounding their country with US bases just wasn't enough provocation, right?

I really hope Biden can see through this dangerous charade. Tulsi would have easily seen through all this BS, and ended it.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
Firstly, you don't haven't a clue if terrorists are part of the refugees seeking asylum in the US. Both types of domestic terrorists have been expose from refugees seeking asylum in the US. Also, did we avail bin Laden, or Soleimani, of their right to due process? Just more empty rhetoric and double standards. We were sheltering bin Laden's family for Christ sake after 9/11. We sheltered the three Cuban Nationals that tried to assassinate Castro. We provided political asylum for many leaders kicked out of(or fleeing from) their own countries. You are either incredibly naïve, or willfully dismissive of the truth.
Let's not use hostile language with each other.

Bin Laden declared war on us and murdered a lot of Americans. I'm not interested in due process for him.

Are you simply dismissing the part where there is NO evidence that the rocket attack was from the Shiite militia? And, that the evidence points to ISIS rebels/terrorists. If proven true(like the lie that Assad gassed his people), then America has committed a war crime against Iran. Surely, there are satellite images, verifiable motives, eye witness account, wire intercepts, or some physical evidence? Surely!! Anything but the least intelligent, "It must be them.".
Surely, there are satellite images, etc. Typically, we do not make our intelligence capabilities public.

Iran does want us out of Iraq, because of what we are doing there, and doing to the region. But Iraq also wants us out of their country for the same reasons.
Iran wants us out of Iraq because they don't want any competition for influence in Iraq. Nevertheless, I would prefer to be out of both Syria and Iraq. If Iraq wants us to train their people, why not send them to Europe or the U.S. for that?

Our laws DO NOT EXTEND BEYOND OUR BORDER!!! Show me any US statutory, constitutional, or case law, that is codified in any other country? Are you saying, that if you committed murder in the US, but live in France, that the French government can prosecute you for murder? Because the US laws extend all the way to France? Really? Also, what was the imminent and immediate threat, that existed to justify self-defense? But you are correct, self-defense IS always good, but only WHEN IT IS JUSTIFIED! So, lets see the evidence.
What I was referring to are some laws we have regarding terrorism against U.S. citizens abroad.

It is a federal crime to kill or physically assault an American for a terroristic purpose anywhere in the world regardless of the nationality of the terrorist or the means used, 18 U.S.C. 2331, 2332. No matter what the purpose, or where in the world the crime occurs, or the nationality of the offender or the means used, it is a federal crime to kill, beat, or kidnap the President, Members of Congress, members of the U.S. diplomatic corps, any other federal officer or employee including members of the armed forces (or anyone assisting them) because of or during the performance of their duties, 18 U.S.C. 1751, 351, 1114, 111, 1201.A terrorist or anyone else who takes hostages, or commits an act of violence at an international airport, 18 U.S.C. 37, sabotages, 18U.S.C. 32 or hijacks an airplane, 49 U.S.C. 46502, anywhere in the world is subject to federal prosecution and to capital punishment if anyone is killed during the course of the crime, as long as either the offender or one of the victims is an American or the offender is later “found” in the United States.


I have always said, that if America can't start a war with Iran, that it have someone else do it for them. Here is my scenario. Israel sees how America got away with murder, and decides to also assassinate a top nuclear scientist in Iran. Who cares about international laws, sovereignty, protocol, or morality!! America did it, therefore so can we. Iran's citizens are now being attacked, and killed by foreign powers. What should they do? If they retaliate and attack Israel, then America will defend Israel(even though they are NOT formal allies), and thus get the war that they want. And, Israel will have the most powerful army as its bitch. And, if they do nothing, more of their people will be killed. I guess the crippling sanctions, blockades, and surrounding their country with US bases just wasn't enough provocation, right?
I have mixed thoughts about the killing of the Iranian scientist. I think that if Iran retaliates against Israel for the killing of their nuclear scientist, that as far as the U.S. is concerned, Israel should deal with that alone. I don't want the U.S. drawn into a war with Iran that Israel provoked.

But what if Israel didn't do it?

You yourself in our conversations about the rocket attack in Iraq and the killing of Soleimani have demanded to know the evidence against the Shiite militia and Soleimani. So, if you are to be consistent, do you want to see the evidence that Israel carried out that attack? Or you going to simply declare that Israel did it with no evidence?

I don't have any evidence one way or the other, and I don't claim to have it. But consider this ...

What if someone other than Israel did it? What if Iranians did it? What if the Iranian government did it? Who is going to be blamed for it?

So why would the Iranian government kill their own top scientist? Here's a scenario ...

What if the U.S. or Israel had flipped that scientist somehow? What if the Iranians discovered that that top scientist was feeding information on Iran's nuclear program to the U.S. or Israel? Oh sure .... They could arrest him and try him and execute him. But would they want to admit that their top scientist was a traitor? Or would it be better to turn him into a martyr? It would certainly suit their needs better to make him a martyr rather than a traitor in my opinion. And so they kill him out in what looks to be a rural area with no witnesses, show pictures of his shot up car to the media, and blame Israel.

And Iran is not without its own internal disagreements and factions. Just as in the U.S., there are probably hawks and doves. A false flag attack would certainly strengthen the position of the hawks, wouldn't it?

I'm not saying that happened. Maybe Israel did it, OK? But what I am saying is that, if it wasn't Israel, whoever did it could rest assured that Israel would get blamed for it and that the Iranian public and much of the world would believe it too.

I really hope Biden can see through this dangerous charade. Tulsi would have easily seen through all this BS, and ended it.
I hope Biden makes the right decisions as well. I am not optimistic about that, just hopeful.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Bin Laden declared war on us and murdered a lot of Americans. I'm not interested in due process for him.
Bin Laden has been dead for years. But I get it, any individual, group, or religion that declares war on the US, gets killed. Screw due process, or the rule of law. You carry out any threats against us, and we will find you and kill you, as well as anyone else who gets in our way. Screw sovereignty. Our powers, and jurisdiction extends worldwide. And, if you don't cooperate with us, then we will send in our troops to accomplish our mission. Regardless of the consequences, innocent deaths and damages we cause, or the murders we commit. This is pure American fascism, under the guise of justice and self-defense. I get it. We are a country that follow the rules of law, as long as it is us that makes the rules of law.

Iran wants us out of Iraq because they don't want any competition for influence in Iraq. Nevertheless, I would prefer to be out of both Syria and Iraq. If Iraq wants us to train their people, why not send them to Europe or the U.S. for that?
I don't know what that even means! "Competition for influence"? Why would Iraq go to Europe or the US for training, when the US is offering the training there? In either case, Iraq wants the US OUT OF IRAQ, PERIOD!! It may have been a good idea at the time, but it certainly is not now. Other than its oil deposits, what interests do we have for Iraq or its people?

What I was referring to are some laws we have regarding terrorism against U.S. citizens abroad.
These are OUR federal statutes, NOT any other country's. I have no problems with commonsense laws that claim, that it is a federal crime(obviously) to target and kill, torture, injure, etc., any American citizen abroad. Which again is not the point. The point is there is no laws that gives us the right to violate a country's sovereignty, kill/injure/arrest its citizens, destroy its property, occupy its land, and refuse to leave when asked, UNLESS WE ARE AT WAR WITH THE COUNTRY! This law is specifically limited to terrorists using violence against Americans abroad. So, is this law relevant to Americans kidnapped for ransom abroad? What about American Yachts attacked by pirates? Are they also culpable under this statute?

But what if Israel didn't do it?
What if the Shiite Militia didn't do it as well? Lots of excuses but very little evidence. The New York Times said, that an American official and two other intelligence officials confirmed Israel was behind the attack, without giving further details. Shouldn't that be enough evidence for you? Double standards are a bitch when exposed.


Sorry I don't like hypotheticals. They are never real, and always self-serving. I'm more an objective truth kind of person.

'm not saying that happened. Maybe Israel did it, OK? But what I am saying is that, if it wasn't Israel, whoever did it could rest assured that Israel would get blamed for it and that the Iranian public and much of the world would believe it too.
Kinda like, if ISIS or the CIA could have planted the ISIS/Shiite military trucks with rockets mounted, and attacked the Iraqi camp, to draw attention to Iran, right?? Then sent in their forensic teams, confected any incriminating evidence, before the Iraqi team could get there. Oh!! Sorry, the US team actually did that. Why are the forensic team refusing to let the Iraqi team analyze the same evidence? Or, to share their findings? I mean, they used that evidence to accuse their Shiite militia of the attack, and to kill their leader. Shouldn't it at least be provable???
 

MilesAway

Bongalong
Lol, how much due process did Bin Laden show to the victims who he planned to make jump 80 stories to their death? Go on dickhead: why don't you tell us how many rained down on the streets of New York that day ?

You need a brain Shilo ya freak 😬
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
Bin Laden has been dead for years. But I get it, any individual, group, or religion that declares war on the US, gets killed. Screw due process, or the rule of law. You carry out any threats against us, and we will find you and kill you, as well as anyone else who gets in our way. Screw sovereignty. Our powers, and jurisdiction extends worldwide. And, if you don't cooperate with us, then we will send in our troops to accomplish our mission. Regardless of the consequences, innocent deaths and damages we cause, or the murders we commit. This is pure American fascism, under the guise of justice and self-defense. I get it. We are a country that follow the rules of law, as long as it is us that makes the rules of law.
Shell, our initial response to 9/11 - the invasion of Afghanistan and pursuit of bin Laden and Al Qaeda - was supported by the Congress, the U.N., and NATO. The world supported the right of our country to defend itself.

I don't know what that even means! "Competition for influence"? Why would Iraq go to Europe or the US for training, when the US is offering the training there? In either case, Iraq wants the US OUT OF IRAQ, PERIOD!! It may have been a good idea at the time, but it certainly is not now. Other than its oil deposits, what interests do we have for Iraq or its people?
Iran would like Iraq to fully align with them. Iran knows that we played a crucial role in saving Iraq from ISIS. They know that we are assisting Iraq with training of government forces and that we are providing intelligence and lethal support against surviving ISIS cells. This assistance and support of the Iraqi government translates into influence, and Iran wants the U.S. to have no influence in Iraq. Iran wants Iraq to be stable, but not truly self-determining and independent. Iran wants to Iraq to be malleable to their priorities and positions on things. The more that Iran could make Iraq their puppet state, the happier they would be.

To answer your question, there is no reason why Iraq would want to train their troops in Europe or the U.S. as long as the U.S. is willing to do it in Iraq. What I was suggesting was a way to get our troops out of Iraq while still offering our training services to Iraqi government forces.

Our interest in Iraq? Not allowing ISIS to regenerate. Stability. If possible, positive relations. We should not force, but offer an alternative to becoming Iran's puppet state.

These are OUR federal statutes, NOT any other country's. I have no problems with commonsense laws that claim, that it is a federal crime(obviously) to target and kill, torture, injure, etc., any American citizen abroad. Which again is not the point. The point is there is no laws that gives us the right to violate a country's sovereignty, kill/injure/arrest its citizens, destroy its property, occupy its land, and refuse to leave when asked, UNLESS WE ARE AT WAR WITH THE COUNTRY! This law is specifically limited to terrorists using violence against Americans abroad. So, is this law relevant to Americans kidnapped for ransom abroad? What about American Yachts attacked by pirates? Are they also culpable under this statute?
As far as I know, it relates to terrorism.

But what is acceptable and what isn't as far as violating a country's sovereignty to go after international terrorists takes into account something that you are missing. How many countries can you think of whose governments have knowingly sheltered the radical islamic terrorists whose organization attacked us on our soil? I can think of only three. Afghanistan pre-2001, Pakistan, and Iran. I can't think of any in South America, Africa, Europe, or Asia other than those three. Those three nations stand out as being in contempt of the almost universal view that these terrorists should not be protected by a government.

You did not see a worldwide hue and cry when we invaded Afghanistan.

Nor did you see it when we entered Pakistan and killed bin Laden.

Nor did you see it when a U.S.-Israeli operation killed al-Masri, Al Qaeda's #2, in Iran.

The conclusion I draw is that world opinion lies with the belief that sometimes the violation of a country's sovereignty is justifiable. It appears to me that the judgement of the world is that governments can invite that sort of thing by their own bad behavior - behavior that violates the sensibilities and norms of the rest of the world.

The way you frame it sounds as if I think the U.S. may willy-nilly invade anyone. I don't, and you are reminding me again of why I voted for Trump instead of Hillary. Clearly, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both believed that governments that are far weaker militarily than we are should simply obey us, or else we would take them out by force. I never agreed with that, and I never agreed with their criminal actions against Libya and Syria.

What if the Shiite Militia didn't do it as well? Lots of excuses but very little evidence. The New York Times said, that an American official and two other intelligence officials confirmed Israel was behind the attack, without giving further details. Shouldn't that be enough evidence for you? Double standards are a bitch when exposed.
Would you believe a couple of unnamed sources who said that Soleimani and Iran were behind the rocket attack on our troops? You have asked for proof of that. You are right that double standards are a bitch, and I would think you would demand proof before you would believe that Israel killed that scientist in Iran, just as you demand proof that Soleimani was behind attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq.

That would be consistent, wouldn't it?

I'm not saying Israel didn't do it. Maybe they did. They have done it before, and they have motive. What I am saying, however, is that if some other entity did it, they can shift blame to Israel, and everyone will believe it.

Seth
 

Squire

Active member
The US created ISIS by invading Iraq and excluding the Sunnis from the post-Saddam US Iraq. Sunni police and military and government officials were ejected from their jobs and disaffected.

Sunnis were effectively excluded from Iraqi society by the USA. The only option they had was to fight.

Get real Seth. Your kool ade has too much crack in it.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Lol, how much due process did Bin Laden show to the victims who he planned to make jump 80 stories to their death? Go on dickhead: why don't you tell us how many rained down on the streets of New York that day ?

You need a brain Shilo ya freak 😬
And you certainly need a working brain. One that isn't being told what to think, and how to think! Garbage in, and garbage out!! I'll go slow, and highlight in bold.

Around 3,000 American died over 19 years ago. And, all 19 hijackers who were DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THOSE DEATHS ARE DEAD. Those who were indirectly responsible, are19 years older, and either in jail, or in hiding.

Bin Laden and Saddam have been dead for years, so why are we still there? Not only did we create ISIS and Al Qaeda, but our actions are only sustaining them, by making them the victims. People could understand our response rationale after seeing the horrors of 9/11. But not now!! We can never win against any religious ideology. All we can do is fuel it by our actions.

Since 9/11, we have killed thousands of civilian men women and children in the Middle East. 38,480 in Afghanistan. 23,372 in Pakistan. And, 204,575 in Iraq. We are talking about over 500,000 civilian men women and children, being killed by Americans. WHERE WAS THEIR DUE PROCESS, WHEN IT WAS RAINING DOWN DRONE MISSILES AND AIRSTRIKES? So you keep clinging to your own truth, and fake moral outrage and indignation. I am GLAD that my brain doesn't work that way.

https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2018/Human Costs, Nov 8 2018 CoW.pdf

So how long shall we keep fighting for those 3,000 Americans? How many more innocent men women and children, must die for those 3,000 Americans? When will we know if we have won the war on terrorism? Should we stop spending almost 3 Trillion dollars, since 9/11, on this impossible war of ideologies? And, maybe start spending the money on our own urgent domestic needs? Who do you think benefits the most from these prolonged conflicts in the ME? Can you name a domestic issue, that will benefit from this war on terrorism?

So you just keep soaking in corporate America's propaganda like a good company man. Good boy!! Maybe in the next 19 years, you might begin to understand. Maybe not.
 

Squire

Active member
There was absolutely no evidence presented of Bin Laden's involvement in 9/11 attack.

The US had the chance to capture and subject him to trial but chose to murder him instead.

The US did not want Bin Laden to have the opportunity to speak in court.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Bin Laden obviously didn't pay enough due process to what his plans actually meant 🤔
America sent due process to bin Laden’s house.
And what about the half millions innocent men, women and children that have died, without THEIR due process? How many thousands more American sons, daughters, wives, husbands, and friends, need to waste their lives fighting an impossible war with no end in sight? A war that would extend to all parts of the world, and would include thousands of more innocent deaths. And, now we want to incite a war with Iran(blockades, crippling sanctions, murder/assassination's, blocking world bank loans, etc.)? Clearly, neither of you give a shit about any of our domestic issues!


Clearly both you war mongering, blood-lusting, Bolden, Pompeo, Miller, and Trump wannabees, will ever be able to see the link between American interventionism, and the Middle East's mounting civilian death toll. I guess it must be their own fault, for being America's collateral damage, right? It must be their own fault for NOT being Americans, right? It must be Al Qaeda's and ISIS's own fault, for not bending to America's might, right? By avoiding my questions, you two have proven that you don't give a shit about the truth.

You are both bigger cowards than the government. Because you passively enable their actions, out of ignorance and a weird tortuous sense of logic. But I get it, AMERICA, FUCK YEAH!!
 

MilesAway

Bongalong
Osama fucked up, just like Hitler fucked up... Unless he meant to kill the innocents he was hiding behind just like Hitler did 🤔

What was the future of war Hitler mentioned again ? 😬🙄🍿🍔🍔🍔🍔🍔
 

MilesAway

Bongalong
What I'm asking is: did Hitler mean to kill his own people, just like Osama obviously meant to kill his own people?
 
Top