The 9-11 Terrorists were heros

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

Think about it. The most common claim that is brought against them is "They are evil, they only killed thousands of civilians because they're evil!". Now think for a second; if your evil, would you DIE to make others miserable? I mean, don't get me wrong, but if they where just evil couldn't there be better ways that WOULDN'T lead to their imminent deaths? Like, I dunno, bomb some pre-school or something? They didn't do it to spread misery, they did it because they thought they where doing the right thing. They where convinced that they where giving their life to destroy what THEY thought was evil, and that makes them hero's. To then turn around and say "ZOMG DEY ARE EVIL LETS HATE DEM!!!" we are doing the EXACT same thing they did. These where good people with convictions, and they died for what they thought was the good of mankind. If you want to hate anyone, hate the people that warped their views in the first place, the people that convinced these men to kill themselves for the "Right cause" when in reality they just sat back, didn't risk their lives, and let all those martyr's kill themselves for nothing more then to further some manipulative rich-boy's political agenda.

Devils Advocate, if that wasn't obvious enough.

[animehater]

Now I know you don't lie when you say your from Cali.

[aviewaskewed]

Let's just start saying any crazy shithead who decides the genocide and destruction of an entire culture or way of life is a hero, that's what you're saying right? So I assume you'd also hold up people like Hitler, Hussein, Pol Pot, Stalin, Kim Jong Il, and any other person or dictator who resorts to murder and scare tactics as a way to spread their beliefs and point. Yes, the current administration does much the same thing by taking the sort of policy of "if you aren't with us, your against us, and perhaps you might like an invasion to go with your wrongness?" but can that really justify the killings that were perpetrated on 9/11? Or as the topic author would have us believe, enshrine these men as heroes simply because they killed for a cause?

I think not, and anyone who does, you frankly make me sick.

[Altarus]

It doesn't matter a damn if they thought they were doing the right thing. You're so open-minded, your brain has fallen out.

[animehater]

At 6/19/07 07:08 PM, Altarus wrote: You're so open-minded, your brain has fallen out.

That's why you should never trust the west coast.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 6/19/07 06:56 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Let's just start saying any crazy shithead who decides the genocide and destruction of an entire culture or way of life is a hero, that's what you're saying right?

I believe the post stated that any Martyr is a hero.

So I assume you'd also hold up people like Hitler, Hussein, Pol Pot, Stalin, Kim Jong Il, and any other person or dictator who resorts to murder and scare tactics as a way to spread their beliefs and point.

Actually, NONE of those people sacraficed themselves for their cause. Not one. Which means they would be the "evil" people who "caused people to give their lives for their own warped political agenda" I referenced to in the post.

Yes, the current administration does much the same thing by taking the sort of policy of "if you aren't with us, your against us, and perhaps you might like an invasion to go with your wrongness?" but can that really justify the killings that were perpetrated on 9/11? Or as the topic author would have us believe, enshrine these men as heroes simply because they killed for a cause?

Yet the U.S government also kills people it views as enemies, yet you don't call them "EVIL". One man's terrorist is another man's Patriot. Do you think the British didn't look at the U.S revolutionaries in the same way we look at the 9/11 bombers, or the that the British didn't see the I.R.A like that? How do you think the Iraqi Civillians that died in operation Shock And Awe would view us if they where still alive? How do you think their families view us?

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 6/19/07 07:08 PM, Altarus wrote: It doesn't matter a damn if they thought they were doing the right thing. You're so open-minded, your brain has fallen out.

"Devils Advocate, if that wasn't obvious enough."

Teh Ohz Noez, someone is encouraging me to think by offering an oppinion I disagree withso that I will offer a logical debate to it! I better call him stupid and glorify my own close-mindedness!

[Altarus]

At 6/19/07 07:09 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Do you think the British didn't look at the U.S revolutionaries in the same way we look at the 9/11 bombers

The Revolution was an organized, civillized and proper revolt. What happened on 9/11 was a bloodthirsty rampage against innocent civillians. No comparison.

[animehater]

At 6/19/07 07:11 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: "Devils Advocate, if that wasn't obvious enough."

Maybe if you weren't saying in an anti american manor no one would bitch. For example, if you said the people who side with them would consider then heroes but since they are our enemy we kinda have to think of them as villians for survivals sake, people would add to it more.

[aviewaskewed]

One man's terrorist is indeed another man's freedom fighter, but you can't use the American Revolution in comparisson here because while yes, the revolution was touched off with a terrorist act or two (the Boston tea party for one, but I don't remember anyone being killed in that) it led to the colonies openly saying to Britain "we will engage you in battle and try to win our freedom" they didn't sail across the sea and blow up parliment or anything.

I can see where your trying to go with this, but there's a point where you have to draw a moral line and say that attacking people who didn't have anything to do with the gripe these guys had and the method in which they chose to carry out their actions cost people who had nothing to do with their cause their lives. So in a very real way, we ARE talking about calling murderers heroes.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 6/19/07 07:12 PM, Altarus wrote:

The Revolution was an organized, civillized and proper revolt. What happened on 9/11 was a bloodthirsty rampage against innocent civillians. No comparison.

But there were ton's of cases of Torries being executed.

[gipper2]

At 6/19/07 07:08 PM, Altarus wrote: It doesn't matter a damn if they thought they were doing the right thing. You're so open-minded, your brain has fallen out.

I beleive that's the definition of a liberal XD

[TheBasics]

I understand what your trying to say, but I don't trust a belief that states that all non'muslims go to hell and that killing us automatically sends you straight to heaven to 100 virgins and shit. I'm sorry but how can you get along with such an ideal, like hmm I think I am going to support the muslims who want to either convert the entire world to their religion or kill them. You might argue "well christian armies also killed people" well let me say this. When christians want to convert people they send missionaries to do that. If you, or anybody wants to view them as "heros" then go ahead its your opinion. But I think your fogetting 3000 CIVILIANS died, not troops, civilians. I think it evil to even consider this a heroic act, aheroic act is when you go on a battlefield and fight your enemy face to face like a man and die or kill for your country and your family. To protect and not to spread extremist beliefs forcibly upon thousands of innocent and unsuspecting people.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 6/19/07 07:17 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: One man's terrorist is indeed another man's freedom fighter, but you can't use the American Revolution in comparisson here because while yes, the revolution was touched off with a terrorist act or two (the Boston tea party for one, but I don't remember anyone being killed in that) it led to the colonies openly saying to Britain "we will engage you in battle and try to win our freedom" they didn't sail across the sea and blow up parliment or anything.

No, it really didn't. There were very few Saratoga's out there. It was mostly a bunch of hide-and-go-shoot tactics on our part, as well as gratuatouse Torry executions. A lot like what's going on now.

I can see where your trying to go with this, but there's a point where you have to draw a moral line and say that attacking people who didn't have anything to do with the gripe these guys had and the method in which they chose to carry out their actions cost people who had nothing to do with their cause their lives. So in a very real way, we ARE talking about calling murderers heroes.

But you leave out the fact that these men have been brainwashed by people like Osama, who simply used it for political gain, to believe that the people they where attacking WHERE enemies, and that the attacks where a step towards goodwill on earth. Besides, the United States has used terrorist attacks to. I am rather interested in hearing your belief on the Civilian bombing raids on german cities in WW2, or us dropping the A-bomb on the Japanese civillians? I was gonna bring that point up in the origional post, but I figured the point of Devil's Advocate is ruined when you bring in to many discussion points at once.

[qaz-qaz]

At 6/19/07 07:23 PM, TheBasics wrote: I understand what your trying to say, but I don't trust a belief that states that all non'muslims go to hell and that killing us automatically sends you straight to heaven to 100 virgins and shit. I'm sorry but how can you get along with such an ideal,

You don't have to believe the ideal, but you can shift your hatred from the people who are tricked into believing it (9/11 terrorists) to the scumbags that go around teaching it for their own gain (Osama Bin Laden).

like hmm I think I am going to support the muslims who want to either convert the entire world to their religion or kill them. You might argue "well christian armies also killed people" well let me say this. When christians want to convert people they send missionaries to do that.

Ummmmm.....Kay..... I don't think they count as "Missionaries" when their armed with swords. Do you not remember the Spanish Inquisition?

If you, or anybody wants to view them as "heros" then go ahead its your opinion. But I think your fogetting 3000 CIVILIANS died, not troops, civilians. I think it evil to even consider this a heroic act, aheroic act is when you go on a battlefield and fight your enemy face to face like a man and die or kill for your country and your family. To protect and not to spread extremist beliefs forcibly upon thousands of innocent and unsuspecting people.

But sometimes it's possible to do greater damage off of the battle field. Once again, Nagasaki anyone?

[animehater]

At 6/19/07 07:26 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Besides, the United States has used terrorist attacks to. I am rather interested in hearing your belief on the Civilian bombing raids on german cities in WW2, or us dropping the A-bomb on the Japanese civillians?

That wasn't really terroist attacks but rather allied bombings. And besides we didn't have smart bombs back then anyway.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 6/19/07 07:41 PM, animehater wrote:

That wasn't really terroist attacks but rather allied bombings. And besides we didn't have smart bombs back then anyway.

But we still bombed civillian targets. And the A-Bombs where the very definition of a terrorist attack. The individual targets had no real importance, the point was to scare people shitless by slaughtering a bunch of people.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 6/19/07 07:38 PM, qaz-qaz wrote:

But sometimes it's possible to do greater damage off of the battle field. Once again, Nagasaki anyone?

I should also add; the terrorists may not have thought they where doing a terrorist attack. Recently, a plot was foiled to blow up JFK airport, as well as a bunch of houses near it. The leader of the attack (not the subservient grunt, the actual leader) said that he hoped to create, and I quote, "Wide-scale Economic failure". So if the leader would think blowing up JFK's oil line would cause economic failure, why wouldn't the 9/11 terrorists? Every single think they attacked served either the government or the military, and while obviously 9/11 had no damaging effects other then terror, I could envision Osama or one of the other Al Quida leaders tricking a bunch of uneducated loyals into thinking that blowing up the Pentagon, White House, and large Military Offices would disable the U.S government and Military.

[TheBasics]

At 6/19/07 07:38 PM, qaz-qaz wrote:

At 6/19/07 07:23 PM, TheBasics wrote:

You don't have to believe the ideal, but you can shift your hatred from the people who are tricked into believing it (9/11 terrorists) to the scumbags that go around teaching it for their own gain (Osama Bin Laden).
Ok if your are stupid enough to get "tricked" into believing killing 3000 people is what God wants and you will go straight to heaven then you have problems. Beliefs or not, you don't normally see Christians crashing planes into building and shit because they think God wants it.

Ummmmm.....Kay..... I don't think they count as "Missionaries" when their armed with swords. Do you not remember the Spanish Inquisition?

Spanish Inquisition was an act of imperialism, not an attempt to spread religion. Thta was only a part of what they wanted to achieve. Their main goal was power and colonies.

But sometimes it's possible to do greater damage off of the battle field. Once again, Nagasaki anyone?

The Americans didn't drop the A-bomb on Nagasaki because Jesus or some religous fanatic told them too. They did it to end WW2 quckly and prevent further bloodshed. Yes hundreds of thousands died, but if they didn't drop the bomb, than MILLIONS would have died.

[animehater]

At 6/19/07 07:44 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: the point was to scare people shitless by slaughtering a bunch of people.

To prevent the slaughter of even more people

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 6/19/07 07:50 PM, TheBasics wrote:

The Americans didn't drop the A-bomb on Nagasaki because Jesus or some religous fanatic told them too. They did it to end WW2 quckly and prevent further bloodshed. Yes hundreds of thousands died, but if they didn't drop the bomb, than MILLIONS would have died.

A) It's still the definition of a Terrorist attack
B) What do you mean, Millions would have died? WW2 was over, the entire Eastern Theater was ours. The only people still remaining was Japan, and they hadn't launched any attacks in a long time.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 6/19/07 07:51 PM, animehater wrote:

To prevent the slaughter of even more people

We slaughtered a bunch of civilians to save the life of a couple of our men. Sounds just like the logic of 9/11.

[TheBasics]

The japanese were prepared to do what ever it takes to protect the main land. The US dominated small islands around Japan, not japan itself. Military estimates said(and if you don't believe me google it) 500k americans would have died invading and taking over japan, and millins more japanese.

[animehater]

At 6/19/07 07:59 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: only people still remaining was Japan, and they hadn't launched any attacks in a long time.

It was a war and we were on the offencive taking back the pacific. Our next move would've been to invade Japan itself causing casualties on both sides with an estimated half milion casualties on our side let alone the japanese. Nuking them was literally the least deadly way.

[qaz-qaz]

At 6/19/07 08:01 PM, TheBasics wrote: The japanese were prepared to do what ever it takes to protect the main land. The US dominated small islands around Japan, not japan itself. Military estimates said(and if you don't believe me google it) 500k americans would have died invading and taking over japan, and millins more japanese.

Can you give me a single reliable source for that? 90,000 Americans died in the entire WW2 conflict with Japan. Europe had already been pacified, and there was nothing left besides Japan. And obviously they weren't ready to do "Whatever it took to protect the mainland", since they GAVE UP AFTER WE BOMBED 2 CITIES.

[qaz-qaz]

At 6/19/07 08:03 PM, animehater wrote:

It was a war and we were on the offencive taking back the pacific. Our next move would've been to invade Japan itself causing casualties on both sides with an estimated half milion casualties on our side let alone the japanese. Nuking them was literally the least deadly way.

No, It wasn't. With the Aid of Russia, France, and Brittain, as well as others, all of us attacking strategic Military locations, Japan would have surrendered. Your listing casualties if we were to Invade Japan like we invaded Europe, actually fighting untill we took the capital, not fighting until they surrendered.

[TheBasics]

At 6/19/07 08:07 PM, qaz-qaz wrote:

At 6/19/07 08:01 PM, TheBasics wrote: The japanese were prepared to do what ever it takes to protect the main land. The US dominated small islands around Japan, not japan itself. Military estimates said(and if you don't believe me google it) 500k americans would have died invading and taking over japan, and millins more japanese.

Can you give me a single reliable source for that? 90,000 Americans died in the entire WW2 conflict with Japan. Europe had already been pacified, and there was nothing left besides Japan. And obviously they weren't ready to do "Whatever it took to protect the mainland", since they GAVE UP AFTER WE BOMBED 2 CITIES.

No shit, but if we HADN'T bombed the two cities we would have faced intense guarilla warfare from the japanese. Because they weren't just going to give up because they lost many batlles in the pacific. These are japanese who were led to believe death is more honarble than surrender. They weren't just going to drop their guns as america flooded troops into japan and say"ZOMG AMERICANS I GIVE UP!". Im not putting americans down Im just saying the japanese are hardy people too.

[qaz-qaz]

At 6/19/07 08:11 PM, TheBasics wrote:

No shit, but if we HADN'T bombed the two cities we would have faced intense guarilla warfare from the japanese. Because they weren't just going to give up because they lost many batlles in the pacific.

Obviously your wrong, since THEY GAVE UP. On one hand your saying "They would never ever give up!" and on the other you're saying "Well, nukes got them to give up".

These are japanese who were led to believe death is more honarble than surrender. They weren't just going to drop their guns as america flooded troops into japan and say"ZOMG AMERICANS I GIVE UP!". Im not putting americans down Im just saying the japanese are hardy people too.

Right. So they would never give up, just like they Gave up countless times in the Sino-Japanese war, and almost officially surrendered before the Chinese completely lost the ability to continue the war?

[TheBasics]

Hmm lets see what would I be more afraid of, gun pointing troops that I can actaully fight face to face or a bunch of nuclear weapons that can wipe out my entire country? Also realize they didn't give up even after the first bomb fell. Its when they realized they couldnn't fight a fair war in which they actually have a chance in winning is when they "gave up" more like forced to give up just on moral principle. As for them surrendering to the chinese? wtf? Japan has a long history of going to mainland china killing a bunch of people and empirializing certain parts. After all that is the reason japan joined the axis in WW2 to gain more land.

[HighlyIllogical]

The best thing that those bastards did was die (and wake us up to come get their terrorist brethren)!