Imagine:

You say it Brother :thumbs:

 

It keeps getting said that we killed more than the terrorists. Let's look at some numbers I got off the websites provided to me:

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/09/07/afghanistan-civilian-deaths-airstrikes

In 2006, America accidentally killed 116 civilians in Afghanistan. Terrorists purposely killed 699.

In 2007, America accidentally killed 321 civilians in Afghanistan. Terrorists purposely killed 1633.

In the first 8 months of 2008, America accidentally killed 119 civilians in Afghanistan. Terrorists purposely killed 367.

By the way, when I say "America", I am actually quoting the numbers from any NATO strike, not just America. So it stands to reason that the numbers are actually lower for us.

That's an inaccurate portrayal of what is going on. In your scenario, it would be more like he sees you coming, and grabs his own family and starts killing them. Then to both avenge your family and stop his from getting killed by him, you kill him. If someone accidentally gets hit with a ricochet bullet, then that is on him.

 

Why is it our job to fight for their country? If they want freedom let them rebel and overthrow their evil dictator.

 

I'm grateful the nations that helped us gain our freedom didn't have this self centered view.

 

I don't care what you think. France helped us because they hated England. This has nothing to do with our interfering with Muslim countries that will hate us no matter what we do.

 

Libertarians love that magical year 1953. It props up all their arguments. Never mind that it was 58 years ago, and that the operation was carried out at the prodding of the UK. We really had no interests there.

 

You mean like we did when we helped dethrone Hussein, and then helped establish a democratic government to elect leaders?

What is driving me insane is not that some people think that we shouldn't have been over there. It's very possible that we should never have been over there in the first place. What is going on though is people are taking their opinions (which may or may not be correct) and then adding an obvious bias in order to sway people.

You might have a valid opinion on our interests in the middle east. I happen to disagree, but that's moot to my point. My point is, no matter what your opinion is, even if it is right, it is wrong to add made up facts in order to sway people to your opinion.

 

They did try to overthrow Saddam, in 1991, and without outside help they failed.

 

You have set up a false moral equivalence and have presented the deaths of civilians as being done with the same purpose of the terrorists. This is a dishonest attempt to justify your position when you have no real ground to stand on.

America is not intentionally killing civilians in any country in the same way terrorists killed civilians on 911. There is no moral equivalence and no comparison to be made.

 

Yup. :thumbsup:

IMAGINE: Being on a plane that morning, and witnessing terrorists taking over this plane, and telling you what they are going to do, and watching them fly the plane right into a building, knowing you are going to die, never to see your loved ones again. Imagine the horror and torture they went through. You can't, but just imagining what they must have heard and felt is a nightmare. And, imagine the people in the buildings, and the terror they felt. There was nothing any of these people did to deserve this.

IMAGINE: Harboring terrorists in your country and seeing them and others pay the price for what they've done. Watch as they warn us about it happening to us again with their videos and statements, and that it is in their plans to do so, and see how as they make these statements how much they hate every soul here, and then look at your children whom they would slay in a heartbeat. All who harbor these know the potential for themselves to be attacked and that other "innocent" persons could be killed also, yet they harbor them anyhow. These who are harboring terrorists bring the consequences for doing so on themselves and others. They then deserve to pay for it.

IMAGINE: One who is an "American" who cannot see the difference between the two when it is so blatantly obvious that one scenario is completely different than the other. It's just what the political correctness agenda wants as an outcome, and this is their "product."

The thing is in 9-11 these people were murdered. In our fighting against another similar attack, or against terrorists abroad it's called killing. But even if one disagrees with that definition, havensdad is still incorrect and out on a broken limb with his politically correct theory he's been indoctrinated into believing. You really cannot help a person who has been a frog in the kettle, rendering such incapable of making a proper judgment.

 

If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.

 

After the 1991 uprising, Human Rights Watch wrote about the response from govt forces, the sorts of things that would take the starch out of any freedom fighter, if they even survived.

 

So you quote me and then ignore my words you quoted? You set up a false moral equivalent comparing apples and oranges. And do not pretend to know what I "would say". You can claim it is not a war if you like. You have the right to be as wrong as you want. I am ok with that.

 

Apples and oranges. Iraq was an established nation already with a homicidal dictator already intact. You keep talking about protecting "our" best interest when in fact we (the US and OTHER nations) were trying to protect the interests of innocent Iraqis and the rest of the world.

...and I know the next tired line will be "they never found wmd's"

 

Drive by shooters don't intentionally kill non-combatants thus there is no moral equivalence, just sloppy shooting. In the bad old days the Mob only killed their intended victim.