double standards....

[pillen140]

youtube... they only saw clips

 

[pillen140]

It was sad on the news last night they had normal people holding signs that the action doesn't represent them, their city or their country as a whole. It was sad to me that they assumed we would hold the whole country liable for the actions of a few.

Some terror group is trying to claim responsiblity.

I saw this too. the worst part was that it was a 2 second blip on the news.... I feel for those people that are over there that are kind people. I also noticed that it was only about 8 people in that group as opposed to the hundreds scaling the walls of the embassies. they're out numbered at least 100-1.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

youtube... they only saw clips

And if it is on youtube it must be real...

The numbers thing could be decieving. How many Americans would take time out of their day to prance around with a sign written in a language they couldn't read in a similar situation?

 

[armadillon]

Oh by the way, I just found out that "Good Guys Wear Black" starring up and coming actor Chuck Norris just debuted over there.

 

[doorgunner]

Our President was elected promising to get results by "talking reasonably" to our enemies, rather than being a "warmonger"........

Well, for whatever reason (only God and the President know)........he talked nice to them, he bowed to them, he apologized to them....he did everything he could to appease them......


AND THEY TOOK IT AS A SIGN OF WEAKNESS....THAT'S HOW SOME OF THEM THINK...AND.....IT AIN'T GONNA CHANGE!!!!

 

[Brownie Mobile]

so the taliban had nothing to do with it? they're not over there killing people tht had nothing to do with it. iraq maybe if that's what you're tling about, but that's a whole other story.

Actually the taliban absolutely had nothing to do with it, it was Al Qaeda i know they all seem like the same thing but its not, and when you invade the country that houses the Taliban when Al Qaeda is responsible is kind of ridiculous. I believe it wasn't until after the attacks that al qaeda formed a loose alliance with the taliban.

I certainly agree with this once it's corrected.

But also, 3000 people dying is NOT coffee. In the atmosphere of world politics, it is a different ballgame. Finding those responsible might be up there in the priorities, but PREVENTING future occurrences is incredibly difficult!

Answer these questions:

If we didn't take any measures after 9/11, would it be logical to assume a like incident would occur again?

If the home country of the the militant base will not assist in preventing future incidents, how do we proceed?

History seems to prove that if you don't protect what is yours, it gets taken. Yes, it sucks. It would be nice to coexist.
Should we argue with history?

If the militants used proper channels to voice disapproval, would we coexist?

The response to the bumper sticker coexist works like this: we are doing our best to coexist. There are some excellent reasons we are overseas, but there are also some bad.

Do the ends justify the means?

And my final question:

If you agree with the ends, are there any other options to our current means?

I agree its a sticky trap really our response was justified but not in a good way, and yes i agree history would easily repeat itself in this situation. Would we coexist? NEVER. A radical muslims only feelings toward western civilization is hate, its how they were raised how they were brainwashed into thinking, there is no reasoning with radical muslims. As far as radicals are concerned Muslims that live in the US or just in the west in general are their enemies as well. I think the whole situation was very very very delicate, and we chose to go the route of brute force tear everything apart in those countries until we the American people got the satisfaction that we needed, which i think in a lot of peoples heads was just to go and kill some hadjis. Do the ends justify the means? Absolutely not i think the whole time we were in the middle east we forgot what we were there for. We were there to bring down a terrorist organization which we succeeded in. My thoughts are though that if we had not invaded a lot less citizens- women and children would've died. I know that the countries were under oppressive rules but i seriously don't think that would've killed as many as our involvement did, they would've gotten fed up with it and taken care of it themselves (look at Egypt and Libya). IDK i could write 30 more pages but that's all i have to say for now.

 

[88_Eddie]

Actually the taliban absolutely had nothing to do with it, it was Al Qaeda i know they all seem like the same thing but its not, and when you invade the country that houses the Taliban when Al Qaeda is responsible is kind of ridiculous. I believe it wasn't until after the attacks that al qaeda formed a loose alliance with the taliban.

completely wrong^.....go back read your history books starting with the soviet invasion in the 80's.

to explain it quickly, the tabilan took over power in the early 90's, soon after russia left with their tail between their legs. the taliban was the party that took over rule of afghanistan after they brutally killed the president (cut his balls off brutal). the taliban then allowed al aqaeda to use afghanistan as a home base. the taliban allowed 9/11 to be planned in their backyard and they did nothing to stop it.

that is why we went to afghanistan first, we knew osama was there. we were after osama before the 9/11 attacks happened. same goes for iraq, saddam would've been more than willing to let al aqaeda hide in his country while slowly developed nuclear weapons.

people need to stop acting like we went to iraq for oil and because W wanted to be just like his dad. we went to keep an even worse 9/11 from happening again.

 

[AlexW]

completely wrong^.....go back read your history books starting with the soviet invasion in the 80's.

to explain it quickly, the tabilan took over power in the early 90's, soon after russia left with their tail between their legs. the taliban was the party that took over rule of afghanistan after they brutally killed the president (cut his balls off brutal). the taliban then allowed al aqaeda to use afghanistan as a home base. the taliban allowed 9/11 to be planned in their backyard and they did nothing to stop it.

that is why we went to afghanistan first, we knew osama was there. we were after osama before the 9/11 attacks happened. same goes for iraq, saddam would've been more than willing to let al aqaeda hide in his country while slowly developed nuclear weapons.

people need to stop acting like we went to iraq for oil and because W wanted to be just like his dad. we went to keep an even worse 9/11 from happening again.

We were in Afghanistan way before Osama bin Laden was even on the radar. Kind of forgetting who helped the Taliban(Mujahideen actually) send the Soviets packing aren't we. The USA, Pakistan and China. We chose them over the Soviets and we haven't been able to get out of the Middle East since. And why did we back them, most people agree that it was becaus we didn't want the Soviets so close to the natural resources in the Arab Peninsula. This should highlight how difficult it can be to solve these problems even when we know who we are fighting. Even harder when we are up against some shadow group like al qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood, etc.

IMO:Sadams involvement with al qaeda was tenuous. His government was secular, he must have known that al qaeda would eventually turn on him so it's hard to say how much protection he would have given. only as much as benefitted him probably.

 

[tempforce]

i believe that if someone is climbing/breaking into one of our embassies. they are threatening our country. (embassies are considered the nations property inside the host country) thus they can do what they want inside the embassy grounds, including defend them..
the government had been warned of the possible attacks, during the 9/11 anniversary. but yet we didn't reinforce any of our embassies in troubled areas. a dozen 50 cal posted in strategic locations could defend any of our embassies.
anyone climbing over the fences or trying to break through the gates should become an instant target…

let the military do what they are trained to do…
no more police actions. go in get it done, and leave. no rebuilding
leave the remains for a reminder not to mess with the u.s.a.
if there is resources we could use, take them b4 leaving.. to pay for our time effort, expenses and to make them think twice b4 getting aggressive with us..
nuff said..

 

[Andy D]

Send in the drones

 

[nutpantz]

What do you call a country that has killed more civilians than terrorists and even it's own citizens with out a trial all on foreign soil with drone air strikes?
What do you call a country that creates a jail on foreign soil so it can ignore it's own justice system and laws?
What do you call a country that companies employ mercenaries that fire on civilians in foreign countries but never go to trial?

Aggression breeds aggression.

 

[CreepyCrawler]

whoohoo! BW and TC for the win of mercs haha!

 

[CreepyCrawler]

Vice versa? Would we really want another nation coming into ours to exact judgement/punishment/justice?

Believe me, I'm angry too, but unfortunately there's...social strictures. EDIT: "etiquette" was the word I was looking for at the end. Tip of the tongue and all. Hate it when that happens.

if theres bloodshed etiquette is out of the question. personally the only etiquette i see tolerable are the basic rules of engagement. also i wouldnt have a problem with a country trying to get into our country to execute punishment on those responsible for the crimes theyve committed..."try" to get in. the only way a nation has ever landed troops on US soil was the revolutionary war.

 

[nutpantz]

theyve committed..."try" to get in. the only way a nation has ever landed troops on US soil was the revolutionary war.

And the war of 1812..

 

[doorgunner]

and our southern border..........