Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. GTA Online

      1. The Diamond Casino Heist
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Frontier Pursuits
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    3. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
      2. Events
    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Redemption

    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

    2. GTA 6

    3. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. The Lost and Damned
      2. The Ballad of Gay Tony
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    5. GTA Chinatown Wars

    6. GTA Vice City Stories

    7. GTA Liberty City Stories

    8. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    9. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    10. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    11. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    1. GTA Mods

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Red Dead Mods

    3. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    4. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Rockstar Games

    2. Rockstar Collectors

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    3. Gangs

    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Sign in to follow this  
Svip

Was September 11th really a terroist attack?

Recommended Posts

Svip

Notice: I am well aware of the topic of Osama denying guiltyness of September 11th, but this debate is sort of different.

 

Most people will assume that September 11th, 2001 was a terroist attack on America. Though Osama have denied he was guilty of the attacks, we assume here that he did it.

 

Cause let's face the facts. If September 11th was a terroist attack, then America and Britian are terroist nations.

 

Why? In 1807, Denmark and Britian were at war, in order to low the moral of the Danes, the British bombared Copenhagen and it's civilian pupolation. During the ending of World War II, the British and American bombed civilian German cities constantly. And lastly, America killed thousands of civilian Veitnamies during the Veitnam war.

 

Now, you'd probably say; yeah, but they were at war. There is difference, at war those are not terroist actions, but merely a form of warfare.

 

Once again, prooving me right. Osama bin Laden had two years before September 11th declared war on America during an interview on Sixty minutes.

 

Thus meaning that there were war between him and America, so Osama could always say; "No, I didn't try and take you by surprise, I'd attacked you because we were at war."

 

And following up to my previouse statement; therefore not make September 11th a terroist attack, but merely a form of warfare. But if you want it to be a terroist attack, then both America and Britian must be terroist practice nations too.

 

Whatever you like it to be.

 

You might say; "Yeah, but Osama didn't have a country/nation!" You don't need a nation to have war, you just need an army.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
flitcroft101

I think bush set it up to finish his fathers war on iraq(and catch saddam) and also to get oil. Bush knew if he blamed Bin Laden some other country would comment on it and it would start a war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cran.
You might say; "Yeah, but Osama didn't have a country/nation!" You don't need a nation to have war, you just need an army.

That's a very strong point there. It's almost like you don't need a group to start a fist fight. You only need a few.

 

But maybe is it possible that USA was just waiting for a reason do invade Afganistan? Well maybe Bush isn't that dumb. Yes it is possible when you think about it, in some terms the USA and britian are terrorist countries. They invaded Iraq causing many deaths, and possibly making Iraq worse to live in.

 

What would you prefer, being in a country ruled by a dictator, or being in a society which has many bombings, and possibly more deaths than it did with Saddam under control?

 

So maybe it could both be a form of Warfare or a terrorist attack, but it is really a terrorist attack in our eyes. It's kinda funny in our Western civilisation as we think we are the right, and everyone else is the wrong. But maybe we are the wrong and they are right? It's one of these many questions we ask, and maybe we're about as bad as they are! Invading other countries and what not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lazzo

Svip, the Vietnam war was one of the biggest mistakes in the United States's history. My father was a veteran of that particular conflict and has told me several accounts of what the civilian population would do to U.S. forces there. One such situation was a young Vietnamese boy was near an Army jeep. He looked harmless but while no one was looking he attempted to slip a gernade into the gas-tank with a rubberband wraped around the spoon. The boy was caught my father said and confessed to doing it several times before where jeeps just sort of 'randomly' exploded. He also said that the Viet Cong would employ the use of female snipers in civilians clothing. In all reality there were really no civilians in Vietnam. Civilians by day and Viet Cong by night. Added onto that there was a draft in effect so American forces were drafted into the conflict. Being loyal to their country they served without question. Many of the terrorists now voluntarily join the ranks to wage jihad. No offense but your parallels are completely worthless. Quit trying to demonize every nation you don't like. Its a sill waste of time when you could be doing something productive.

 

About the British bombardment...you forget that it was Admiral Horatio Nelson who ordered this. Reading this also brought a smile to my face. You don't even know your nations history. Denmark was neutral and it wasn't about lowering moral. Nelson had grown tired of the Danes profiting from wartime foregin trade and had heard rumors that the Danes were going to offer up its fleet up to Napoleon. To stay on topic about the Brits, you know why they bombed Hamburg and Dresdan? Did you happen to forget that the Germans bombed the living hell out of almost ever major British city? I can't say that I agree with revenge but it wasn't because they wanted to be nasty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy

I think the reason Americans won't hesitate to call Osama Bin Laden a terrorist, is beacuse the image that 9/11 was an unprovoked attack has been pushed upon us by our own government. We don't discuss what reasons Bin Laden had for attacking us, other than he's evil, we just take it as an unwarranted/unprovoked attack.

 

 

I don't know too much detail about Bin Laden, but I'm sure he had reason for attacking one of the world's biggest super-powers. You wouldn't just organize your own militia, and then plan an ambush attack for several years just because you didn't like a certain country. Like it or not, we were doing something that seemed wrong to Bin Laden, and he waged war on us.

 

 

The word "terrorism" now is thrown around a lot, in my opinion, just for the image that it presents to the American people. They see terrorism as unwarranted, unprovoked attacks, that are done to try to strike fear into the hearts of people. Now days they're labelling everything as terrorism, or terrorists, just to get the American people and most others on their side. Afterall, in this day in age, who would really have the balls to stand-up and say, "Hey, they're not terrorists," when the direct result would be they themselves being accused? You can loosely relate it to the whole "communist" thing of the 50's-70's.

 

 

Terrorism has no definition in my mind, and therefore America, Britain, Osama Bin Laden, who ever, can't be terrorists. Killing people is an act of war, no matter how you put it, and throughout history there has always been unwarranted/unprovoked attacks on behalf of every side. It's war-fare, pure and simple, and using propoganda words like "terrorism" is part of the strategy to create hysteria amongst your own people, and to make sure they don't sway into sympathizing the enemy.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tryst

I do think that 9/11 was indeed a terrorist act, but I would also like to agree that the US and Britian have commited terrorist attacks. Every country has at some point in their history.

 

Terrorist attack

 

n : a surprise attack involving the deliberate use of violence against civilians in the hope of attaining political or religious aims

The atomic bomb droped in both Nigasaki and Hiroshima was aimed to stop the Japaneese and end world war two by proving that we had better weapons was it not? That was a deliberate attack for political needs.

Every other country has made one of these attacks at one point in their history, I'm sure of it (exept for Canada that I know of, yet... duh dun danananana).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lazzo

 

Terrorist attack

 

n : a surprise attack involving the deliberate use of violence against civilians in the hope of attaining political or religious aims

The atomic bomb droped in both Nigasaki and Hiroshima was aimed to stop the Japaneese and end world war two by proving that we had better weapons was it not? That was a deliberate attack for political needs.

Every other country has made one of these attacks at one point in their history, I'm sure of it (exept for Canada that I know of, yet... duh dun danananana).

I was actually going to post that definition. smile.gif

Suprisingly enough, Svip didn't bring that up. Nagasaki & Hiroshima were definate terrorist attacks on behalf of the United States. Oppenheimer and a large amount of government officials, who knew, wanted to see it done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tehhunter

Err, while it may technically be considered a terrorist attack on Japan, it was moreso to save US soldiers' lives. Figures of how high the invasion of the Japanese islands ranged anywhere from 750,000 to 1,000,000 casulties. That is a huge amount of soldiers that were not needed to die for an already dying war, especially one we didn't start.

 

Consider the Atomic Bomb "Plan B" for the US's military strategy. Also, it was more of a scare tactic than anything. We dropped one so that they knew we had the potential. We dropped the second one to make them believe we had more and continuing the war would result in even larger catastrophes.

 

By the way, there is no straight, completely just path in warfare. Someone said this, but I can't remember who:

 

"The point of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his." -WWII era public figure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stained

the bombing of pearl harbor was also a terrorist attack then

and we just bombed them back

 

we dropped bombes in lebanon (i think that was it)

and bin laden just got us back

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Over The Wall

A very interesting argument, Svip. When Osama went on 60 Minutes and "declared" war, we just assumed he was being silly. We did not take his claim of war seriously, therefore labeling September 11th a terrorist attack, rather than an act of war. I'll give you that in his eyes, the day might have been an act of war, but his declaration really wasn't a formal one. One usually doesn't declare war, wait two years, THEN attack a country. Look at it this way-

 

If his declaration was seriously, we would have been in Afghanistan two years earlier than we were. A declaration of war usually is a clear cut deal, and his monologue on an American news show probably doesn't constitute as a legitimate declaration of war, therefore Sept 11 should be labeled as a terrorist attack, rather than an act of war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lazzo

 

Err, while it may technically be considered a terrorist attack on Japan, it was moreso to save US soldiers' lives. Figures of how high the invasion of the Japanese islands ranged anywhere from 750,000 to 1,000,000 casulties. That is a huge amount of soldiers that were not needed to die for an already dying war, especially one we didn't start.

You seem to forget that we didn't actually bomb millitary installations. We focused more on civilian targets in Hiroshima & Nagasaki...not so much millitary installations. That's why many people consider it an atrocity of war. I will agree with you, though, it did save a lot of U.S. troops's lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lumberg

Who ever mentioned that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrorist attacks is a idiot. What makes these terrorists attacks? The two A bombs that were dropped on those two cities were not dropped to show that we had bigger weapons. They were used to make Japan surrender out of the war and the only reason that we used the A bombs was because Japan trains it troops to fight till the very end and many japanese soldiers were ready to die for their country. The A bombs were simply used to bomb Japan to surrender.

 

Now to the subject at hand. I do not agree with alot of the things our president does. Not many good canidates have come along but who ever may get elected is the person I will listen to rather I like him or not. I am very patriotic and I will fight for the USA till the very end and I am ready to be drafted or go to war if it calls for it. I do believe that the 9/11 attacks were terrorist attacks. Alot of you guys just post things like this because you are anti-bush and you will take any chance you can get if you can stand out and state your views. If you guys don't like our president so much then why dont you leave or do something about it because flaming Bush on a place called gtaforums.com won't get you any where.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tehhunter
Who ever mentioned that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrorist attacks is a idiot. What makes these terrorists attacks? The two A bombs that were dropped on those two cities were not dropped to show that we had bigger weapons. They were used to make Japan surrender out of the war and the only reason that we used the A bombs was because Japan trains it troops to fight till the very end and many japanese soldiers were ready to die for their country. The A bombs were simply used to bomb Japan to surrender.

 

Now to the subject at hand. I do not agree with alot of the things our president does. Not many good canidates have come along but who ever may get elected is the person I will listen to rather I like him or not. I am very patriotic and I will fight for the USA till the very end and I am ready to be drafted or go to war if it calls for it. I do believe that the 9/11 attacks were terrorist attacks. Alot of you guys just post things like this because you are anti-bush and you will take any chance you can get if you can stand out and state your views. If you guys don't like our president so much then why dont you leave or do something about it because flaming Bush on a place called gtaforums.com won't get you any where.

I am

-Anti Bush

-Anti the Iraq War

-Pro the Afghanistan War

-Anti Terrorist

-Anti Michael Moore

-Anti Rumsfeld/Cheney (Especially the latter)

 

I do not come on here flaming Bush at all, though anyone in my book who misunderstands sovierenty as "Sovereign Entities" is just... I won't bother.

 

However, I am not your typical flaming liberal. I really don't care about the enviroment, PETA, GreenPeace, etc. I eat red meat and white meat. Doesn't matter to me that the animal was probably in pain when it died.

 

I do not understand why people such as yourself support Bush despite the fact that there is absolutely no reason why we are in Iraq. It went from "He harbors terrorists" to "He has WMDS" to "He opresses Freedom" to nothing. Zip. Nada. No more spoken on it really. Bush changed the subject of his presidency from that to "Social Security Reform" (Which, by the way, will never actually pass).

 

Why would you proudly be willing to die for this? Do you think you will accomplish something. The entire idea of invading another country (i.e. liberating as Bush calls it) to free it is preposterous. Imagine if the Spanish had come over here to liberate us from England's Tyranny. You most certainly wouldn't stand for them remaining in your country for 2 years after 'major fighting' had been declared over (Bush in a flightsuit, anyone?).

 

The point I'm trying to make is that you are willing to die, but you have no real reason why. Please, for your own life, don't just believe that they Iraqis don't know what freedom is and that we must educate them in the ways of freedom; You just can't go from a tyranny to a democracy so quickly. There are reasons the French Revolution took so long, or our own revolution. The people must accomplish it by themselves.

 

That being said, it is noble that you would join the military for this war. Keep in mind, I am in no way generally anti war. Just anti this war. If you ever do get drafted however, best of luck to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ping
Svip, the Vietnam war was one of the biggest mistakes in the United States's history. My father was a veteran of that particular conflict and has told me several accounts of what the civilian population would do to U.S. forces there. One such situation was a young Vietnamese boy was near an Army jeep. He looked harmless but while no one was looking he attempted to slip a gernade into the gas-tank with a rubberband wraped around the spoon. The boy was caught my father said and confessed to doing it several times before where jeeps just sort of 'randomly' exploded. He also said that the Viet Cong would employ the use of female snipers in civilians clothing. In all reality there were really no civilians in Vietnam. Civilians by day and Viet Cong by night. Added onto that there was a draft in effect so American forces were drafted into the conflict. Being loyal to their country they served without question. Many of the terrorists now voluntarily join the ranks to wage jihad. No offense but your parallels are completely worthless. Quit trying to demonize every nation you don't like. Its a sill waste of time when you could be doing something productive.

Exactly what the hell was on the tip of my tongue. People don't know what happened in Vietnam, people fail to understand it. It's the same people who yell "babykillers!!" and spit on the shoes of those who risked their lives, their dignity, and what they believed in to provide them with the very microphone in which they yell complaints on how our American soldiers did/are doing their job.

 

If anyone, including Svip, is really interested in what our American soldiers went through in Vietnam, I suggest reading On Killing, by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman.

 

Anywho, I do admit this is a bit offtopic, but I felt that it important to clear up this issue before any confusion was able to arise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lumberg

Well like I stated in my above post I am not pro-bush. I don't agree with alot of the things bush does. I don't even really like the man, he is for the rich and I am no means rich. I am simply "pro-president". What ever our leaders asks me to do I will do it. I believe that what we are doing in Iraq is good. We are getting rid of one more evil person that does not need to be on this planet. Yes I know that the reason we went over their does not hold up to why we are still there but the fact is, we are there and why pull out just because we dident find WMDs. Saddam Hussein is a bad person, he kills his own citizens and he is like a modern day Hitler in a way. This mad deserves to have his country invaded and I believe what what we have done is good but in no means am I pro-bush. I wanted Karry to win but sadley he did not. I am for who ever wins and I am willing to put my life on the line for Bush simply because I love my country and I am willing to protect my country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
reemah

oh jeez... @ Lumberg

 

 

I am simply "pro-president". What ever our leaders asks me to do I will do it.
Let me ask you the age-old question, if he told you to jump off a cliff for, let's say, Democracy, would you do it? Even though the reasons don't "hold up" ?

 

 

I believe that what we are doing in Iraq is good. We are getting rid of one more evil person that does not need to be on this planet.
You say it as if only one person has been affected... Thousands of people have died in this war and for reasons even you have admitted to "not hold up."

 

 

why pull out just because we dident find WMDs.
Hmm, I dunno, more people dying everyday? Wasting money? No reason to be there? Take a pick.

 

 

Saddam Hussein is a bad person, he kills his own citizens and he is like a modern day Hitler in a way.
And he's been caught already...

 

 

This mad deserves to have his country invaded
The country people deserve to die because of what he did? Say, if Bush did something bad, and another nation thought America deserved to be invaded, what would you think of that? Oh but of course, what am I thinking, Bush would never do anything wrong... rolleyes.gif

 

Sorry for being off topic Svip...

@topic, does it really matter whether 9/11 was a terrorist attack or an attack during a war? It happened, and the world is what it is now, I don't see the point in classifying it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lumberg

 

Let me ask you the age-old question, if he told you to jump off a cliff for, let's say, Democracy, would you do it? Even though the reasons don't "hold up" ?

 

Like I said, I would die for my country.

 

 

You say it as if only one person has been affected... Thousands of people have died in this war and for reasons even you have admitted to "not hold up."

 

They have died because they were willing to fight for the same reason I am. Atleast they would rather go over and fight for what they want instead of staying back and complaining and challenging every thing our president does unlike some people. rolleyes.gif

 

 

Hmm, I dunno, more people dying everyday? Wasting money? No reason to be there? Take a pick.

 

Those people dying every day are fighting for something they believe in. Does the money really matter to you? Does it effect you directly or is that just another reason to complaining about something? There is a reason to be there, to get rid of some one who is killing more people and since peoples lives seem to be so important to you, you should be happy or maybe you just care about your self?

 

 

The country people deserve to die because of what he did? Say, if Bush did something bad, and another nation thought America deserved to be invaded, what would you think of that? Oh but of course, what am I thinking, Bush would never do anything wrong...

 

The people who are being killed over there are realted with the same organization that did the same things Saddam did. If USA was defended the only thing I would think is, wheres the army sign up sheet? Unlike you I am willing to fight for my freedom instead of complaining about the things that are wrong with this country I would rather fight to keep the things that are right with this country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
reemah

 

Let me ask you the age-old question, if he told you to jump off a cliff for, let's say, Democracy, would you do it? Even though the reasons don't "hold up" ?
Like I said, I would die for my country.I find that quite sad. sad.gif

 

 

They have died because they were willing to fight for the same reason I am. Atleast they would rather go over and fight for what they want instead of staying back and complaining and challenging every thing our president does unlike some people.
I'm not talking only about the American Army, I'm talking about the Iraqi people, since most the american soldiers dying there went on their own will, I can't really pity them too much, I'm talking about the tons of innocent (as in, not the militants) Iraqis whose houses were bombed so kindly by America.

 

 

Those people dying every day are fighting for something they believe in.
read what I said above

 

 

Does the money really matter to you?
Actually, yeah, it does. I would love to see the billions of dollars america is spending on this operation spent on something that would help the world out. Maybe help out some of the poor countries, *or* maybe even improve America itself! wow.gif What a concept, fixing your own country before invading others to fix.

 

 

The people who are being killed over there are realted with the same organization that did the same things Saddam did.
No. You're just plain wrong there my friend. Most of the people who have died in the war, had nothing to do with Saddam besides be ruled by him.

 

Again, I'm sorry for going off topic, I'm no longer going to litter this thread, so if you have anything more you'd like to tell, feel free to PM me. smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tryst
Who ever mentioned that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrorist attacks is a idiot. What makes these terrorists attacks? The two A bombs that were dropped on those two cities were not dropped to show that we had bigger weapons. They were used to make Japan surrender out of the war and the only reason that we used the A bombs was because Japan trains it troops to fight till the very end and many japanese soldiers were ready to die for their country. The A bombs were simply used to bomb Japan to surrender.

What makes them terrorist attacks is as the definition I included in my post above, it was a surprise attack against a large population in the hopes of ending a war, political means...

 

They were used, to indeed show that we had bigger weapons. This was the main reason Einstein and pals agreed to make the weapon, to end WWII (after the war Einy and pals also tried to stop the use of nuclear power).

Now yes, it was used to make the Japs surrender but there were other enemies which we knew would eventually attack us. So we killed two birds with one stone, we made Japan surrender using the big guns and it showed to the Nazis that we had the A-Bombs before they did. Though this was a bluff, and we were no where near prepared to make more bombs if the Nazis and Japan didn't surrender.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip

@Lazzo: Oh jeez, for crying out loud, that's true about the bombardment of Copenhagen, now I think about it, I have heard it that way before, my memory slipped. bored.gif

 

Now, let's not get completely offtopic and start rebelling about people wanting to die for their own country, cause if I have to be honest, I don't wanna die for any nation.

 

Oh and if the president told me to jump a cliff, I would give him the finger and drive off in my car... if I had any. But hey, why would the president even care about me?

 

Lastly, it's not an arguement to put America in the better "chair"/(spot)light, but rather to ask the question if September 11th really could be classified as a terroist attack. Shalt we keep it there?

 

Sorry about not mentioning the nuclear bombing of Japan, but, yeah, it slipped my mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kotsudaira
Who ever mentioned that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrorist attacks is a idiot. What makes these terrorists attacks? The two A bombs that were dropped on those two cities were not dropped to show that we had bigger weapons. They were used to make Japan surrender out of the war and the only reason that we used the A bombs was because Japan trains it troops to fight till the very end and many japanese soldiers were ready to die for their country. The A bombs were simply used to bomb Japan to surrender.

What makes them terrorist attacks is as the definition I included in my post above, it was a surprise attack against a large population in the hopes of ending a war, political means...

 

They were used, to indeed show that we had bigger weapons. This was the main reason Einstein and pals agreed to make the weapon, to end WWII (after the war Einy and pals also tried to stop the use of nuclear power).

Now yes, it was used to make the Japs surrender but there were other enemies which we knew would eventually attack us. So we killed two birds with one stone, we made Japan surrender using the big guns and it showed to the Nazis that we had the A-Bombs before they did. Though this was a bluff, and we were no where near prepared to make more bombs if the Nazis and Japan didn't surrender.

I second this arguement. Hiroshima and Nagasaki scared the f*ck out of the Japanese AND the Germans. That's terrorism. The aim is to scare people.

 

 

Kotsudaira leaves his noobish post and runs

 

 

-Kotsudaira

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Blitz'd Skitz

'Terrorism', as Sag points out, is a very rhetorical word.

 

'Terrorism' is something used in most conflicts. Pretty much everyone involved in WW2 made surprise attacks upon ‘innocent’ civilians based on playing with their enemies' heads. It, in my opinion, can be justified. But forget the word ‘terrorism’, which is a word submerged by fifty metres of bullsh*t, and isolate individual acts and their contexts in deciding who has done 'right', and who has done 'wrong'.

 

In the words of Bin Laden:

 

“I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind.

The events that affected my soul in a direct way started in 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the American Sixth Fleet helped them in that. This bombardment began and many were killed and injured and others were terrorised and displaced.

I couldn't forget those moving scenes, blood and severed limbs, women and children sprawled everywhere. Houses destroyed along with their occupants and high rises demolished over their residents, rockets raining down on our home without mercy. “

 

Based on sites that I’ve seen, the US was helping Israel fight against a particular type of Muslim who wants to rid the World of Jews (believe me, some passionately want to do so). One site stated that the reason so many innocents were caught in the conflict was that such Muslims wanted innocents to be killed by the US and Israel (to demonise the two countries), and so mixed themselves within the 'innocent' populations of Palestine and Lebanon.

 

This, if true, means that Bin Laden’s motive was f*cked-up.

 

However, the US seems just a bit too friendly with Israel:

http://www.miftah.org/Display.cfm?DocId=753&CategoryId=4

 

Thus, maybe the US-Israel bond is just a little bit too strong, and maybe the sites above present this matter in a biased and dishonest manner.

 

I doubt that any of us are in the position to make a solid conclusion. There’s too much bullsh*t in the air.

 

Edited by Blitz'd Skitz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip
Who ever mentioned that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrorist attacks is a idiot. What makes these terrorists attacks? The two A bombs that were dropped on those two cities were not dropped to show that we had bigger weapons. They were used to make Japan surrender out of the war and the only reason that we used the A bombs was because Japan trains it troops to fight till the very end and many japanese soldiers were ready to die for their country. The A bombs were simply used to bomb Japan to surrender.

What makes them terrorist attacks is as the definition I included in my post above, it was a surprise attack against a large population in the hopes of ending a war, political means...

 

They were used, to indeed show that we had bigger weapons. This was the main reason Einstein and pals agreed to make the weapon, to end WWII (after the war Einy and pals also tried to stop the use of nuclear power).

Now yes, it was used to make the Japs surrender but there were other enemies which we knew would eventually attack us. So we killed two birds with one stone, we made Japan surrender using the big guns and it showed to the Nazis that we had the A-Bombs before they did. Though this was a bluff, and we were no where near prepared to make more bombs if the Nazis and Japan didn't surrender.

I am not quite sure that the American wanted the Nazist to surrender, they really had nothing to rise from.

 

I think it was more a message to Soviet that now the Americans had nuclear weapons.

 

Stalin did order his men to speed up the production of nuclear weapons, because he saw that the Americans now had them.

 

Though America and Soviet were allies doing the war, didn't it make them accuality friends at any time.

 

But yet, terroist attacks it was. Cause the civilizan Japanese population wasn't solidors, and therefore should not be killed at any rate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lazzo

 

Who ever mentioned that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrorist attacks is a idiot. What makes these terrorists attacks? The two A bombs that were dropped on those two cities were not dropped to show that we had bigger weapons. They were used to make Japan surrender out of the war and the only reason that we used the A bombs was because Japan trains it troops to fight till the very end and many japanese soldiers were ready to die for their country. The A bombs were simply used to bomb Japan to surrender.

Our (United States) atomic bombs killed more civilians in those two cities than several September 11ths. It's what they like to call an atrocity. Now just because we, the United States, are one of the more powerful nations in the world doesn't mean we're uncapable of committing an atrocity. As General_tryst provided earlier, the definition of terrorism is as follows

 

 

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Killing over 100,000 civilians isn't exactly lawful in a wartime situation. That's pretty vague and can be applied to the bombings of both of those cities. Also, I won't agrue that it did save many U.S. lives but the point remains that it killed far to many innocent people. In our eyes, it was just. To Japan, though, it could be considered an act of terrorism.

 

 

Now to the subject at hand. I do not agree with alot of the things our president does. Not many good canidates have come along but who ever may get elected is the person I will listen to rather I like him or not. I am very patriotic and I will fight for the USA till the very end and I am ready to be drafted or go to war if it calls for it. I do believe that the 9/11 attacks were terrorist attacks. Alot of you guys just post things like this because you are anti-bush and you will take any chance you can get if you can stand out and state your views. If you guys don't like our president so much then why dont you leave or do something about it because flaming Bush on a place called gtaforums.com won't get you any where.

Ah, fighting for the United States for a just cause. Unfortunately, in the last 50 years there really hasn't been many just causes. Lets think back: Korea, Vietnam, Kuwaitt (hardly any political gain besides keeping a friendly OPEC nation). I consider myself patriotic. I'm not ignorant about it though and I would never blindly put myself into a situation that may take my life away. Rather than being drafted, I would probably enlist rather than getting sent out first to 'clear the way.' See, blindly following a president does even less for you (in comparison for speaking out against the president). Think about how Congress would be if everyone did what the president wanted to do. Get with it. Having an opinion is better than just following someone. Try being independent for a change.

 

My friend, following blindly and being 'pro-president' are running close together. To follow something that isn't just is a terrible lapse of judgement. I know what you're speaking of though. The bumper stickers that say, "BUSH: NOT MY PRESIDENT," are ridiculous and the people who own them need to simply accept the fact that he won the election and there isn't a damn thing they can do about it. But blindly supporting him, in my opinion, is even worse.

 

 

The country people deserve to die because of what he did?

Did the Kurds deserve to have nerve gas tested on them? Please.

 

 

I'm not talking only about the American Army, I'm talking about the Iraqi people, since most the american soldiers dying there went on their own will, I can't really pity them too much, I'm talking about the tons of innocent (as in, not the militants) Iraqis whose houses were bombed so kindly by America.

Actually, many of the troops there, presently, are reserves (according ot the Army Times). You don't sign a piece of paper when you go into the millitary saying, "I want to go to Iraq, ship me out." And you can't forget to mention the fact that many millitants blowing themselves up to free the Iraqi people from the tyranny of the United States are killing many innocent civilians too. It's a double edged sword. Both sides are killing innocent people. To put the blame on civilian deaths only on the United States is extremely bias.

 

 

No. You're just plain wrong there my friend. Most of the people who have died in the war, had nothing to do with Saddam besides be ruled by him.

Actually, you may be the one who is just plain wrong. They believe many of the millitants are from Syria (or Jordan which also has a Baath party). The Baath party is believed to be connected with the millitants. Saddam was/is a part of the Baath party. Kind of makes sense, eh?

 

 

Now yes, it was used to make the Japs surrender but there were other enemies which we knew would eventually attack us. So we killed two birds with one stone, we made Japan surrender using the big guns and it showed to the Nazis that we had the A-Bombs before they did. Though this was a bluff, and we were no where near prepared to make more bombs if the Nazis and Japan didn't surrender.

Actually, Germany surrendered before Japan. smile.gif

 

@Blitz'd, nicely said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
StewMitch
Now yes, it was used to make the Japs surrender but there were other enemies which we knew would eventually attack us. So we killed two birds with one stone, we made Japan surrender using the big guns and it showed to the Nazis that we had the A-Bombs before they did. Though this was a bluff, and we were no where near prepared to make more bombs if the Nazis and Japan didn't surrender.

Actually, Germany surrendered before Japan. smile.gif

 

@Blitz'd, nicely said.

The bomb was intended to quickly end Japanese involvement in the war. The casualities of a prolonged battle on mainland Japan was unacceptable, thus Truman gave the decision. Yes, it was bad. But the Allies were by no means innocent. Look at the needless slaughter of Dresden. To say that the bombings were needless is naive, Japan refused to surrender even after they were warned of complete destruction. And even then, if it came down to an invasion, the Soviets would *have* to participate and thus would've taken territory. Needless to say, they never did share when it came to administrating occupied teritorries.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
reptilexcq

What US did to Japan is "morally" wrong though. Sure you want to save the American lives...BUT, you don't kill innocent people for the sake of American lives, that is truely immoral however you slice it. You want to kill the Jap soldiers and win the war, not innocent people living in the cities. People that have nothing to do with war. But you're going to say "Oh our American soldiers...they're innocent TOO, we don't want them to die!", yea but they're part of the war, they're supposed to be brave, and fight against the REAL JAP soldiers, not hiding and cowardly dropping bombs killing innocent people. It's funny because US has almost been about saving innocent lives and always praise how brave their men and women are and yet they go out and drop bombs knowing they're killing thousands of innocent. Isn't that considered a pre-meditated murder??? If you're going to be man, fight like a man, that's all i am saying.

 

Throughout history US has not shown they're capable of winning wars on the ground, they have been fighting cowardly in almost EVERY SINGLE WAR!!! That is why they lose in Vietnam cuz they can't hang with the Viet Cong. This tells me they're not good fighting ground war. They rely too much on air and technology war. The real war is ground war and the American have shown they can't hang with the Asian brother who is probably too quick and cunning for them....and today in the the Middle East as you can see....it's a continue trend of the cowardly tactics use by the US. All they did is bombing and fighting a scare war everytime. Bombing and probably killing disregard for innocent lives too...as i have read some reports that innocent people got bombed in certain towns instead of the terrorists.

 

In conclusion, America in the end will be burned and destroyed as predictive in the Bible. For what reason?? For taking innocent lives and for other things too....such as drawing resources away from countries and have masses amount of people starving as a result (see Africa). People always tend to look at the bright side of America, like how they won the war, ect.. and how criminals and terrorists are killing the innocents, but there is a dark side to America too, they TOO kill a lot of innocent people and they created the wars themselves and provoke all the hatred from the muslim and terrorists today. So much to the point that the terrorists would want to cut their heads off (as have been witnessed on tv). Because they hate the American sooo much for what they done. You wonder why what on Earth a human being will be able to cut people's head off and show no mercy at all. That's because terrorists hate Americans so much just as the Americans hate the Jap to the point that they would drop bombs to kill innocent people. If you can see both side, then you'll see where the hatred is coming from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lazzo

 

Throughout history US has not shown they're capable of winning wars on the ground, they have been fighting cowardly in almost EVERY SINGLE WAR!!!  That is why they lose in Vietnam cuz they can't hang with the Viet Cong.  This tells me they're not good fighting ground war.  They rely too much on air and technology war.  The real war is ground war and the American have shown they can't hang with the Asian brother who is probably too quick and cunning for them....and today in the the Middle East as you can see....it's a continue trend of the cowardly tactics use by the US.  All they did is bombing and fighting a scare war everytime.  Bombing and probably killing disregard for innocent lives too...as i have read some reports that innocent people got bombed in certain towns instead of the terrorists.

We killed over a 1,000,000 Vietnamese soldiers. They killed 58,000 of ours. In other words, we kicked the living hell out of them. The problem was that the war was unjust. Psychologically the N.V.A. had the thing won from the beginning. Ho Chi Minh once said to the French, "You can kill ten of my men for every one I kill of yours, yet even at those odds, you will lose and I will win." The N.V.A. and Viet Cong had the heart. Not to mention that South Vietnam had a very corrupt government. We recieved little to no support from them. Millitarily we beat the N.V.A. but psychologically we lost. The latter of the two will always overrule the other. To say that the United States just uses 'scare-tactics' is a pretty f*cking bold statement too. Is that why the N.V.A. had a propoganda radio stations broadcasting 24/7 trying to convince U.S. soldiers to desert? They also killed many South Vietnam innocents too. Hell, the U.S. killed some of their own men thanks to friendly fire. Innocent lives are always taken in war. It comes with it. To act like the U.S. are the only ones (which you may not believe but your post implies that) who do it...is complete ridiculous. End of story. Maybe the U.S. weren't able to hang with their Asian brothers because they were hanging around with some pretty corrupt people. (i.e. Diem.) Maybe you should actually read about the war?

 

 

In conclusion, America in the end will be burned and destroyed as predictive in the Bible. For what reason?? For taking innocent lives and for other things too....such as drawing resources away from countries and have masses amount of people starving as a result (see Africa). People always tend to look at the bright side of America, like how they won the war, ect.. and how criminals and terrorists are killing the innocents, but there is a dark side to America too, they TOO kill a lot of innocent people and they created the wars themselves and provoke all the hatred from the muslim and terrorists today. So much to the point that the terrorists would want to cut their heads off (as have been witnessed on tv). Because they hate the American sooo much for what they done. You wonder why what on Earth a human being will be able to cut people's head off and show no mercy at all. That's because terrorists hate Americans so much just as the Americans hate the Jap to the point that they would drop bombs to kill innocent people. If you can see both side, then you'll see where the hatred is coming from.

This just proves you have a f*cked up point of view on the world, no offense. The Bible thing did it.

Once again, you demonize the United States but what about the rest of the world? The Japanese weren't exactly innocent? Remember how they treated other Asian countries? They sent women into prostitution, killed civilians, etc. No country is innocent. Every country has their dark side. Extremist Muslims don't only hate U.S. citizens (well, they more or less hate the American lifestyle)...they hate Jews and non-Muslims (and probably any other Muslim who doesn't support them) also (id est the world infedel isn't it?). Is that why they (extremists) beheaded Japanese too? And no, the United States don't hate the Japanese either. You have this f*cked up perception believing that this is the case. In fact, I have some Chinese and Japanese friends and I'm from the United States. There is no anti-Japansese tone here nor any anti-Asian tone. You have really absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The bomb was dropped for several reasons. None of which were hate.

 

Sorry about the screwy grammar, bad paragraph structure and the bad spelling. It's late.

Edited by Lazzo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AllDoItTheSame
Err, while it may technically be considered a terrorist attack on Japan, it was moreso to save US soldiers' lives. Figures of how high the invasion of the Japanese islands ranged anywhere from 750,000 to 1,000,000 casulties. That is a huge amount of soldiers that were not needed to die for an already dying war, especially one we didn't start.

You seem to forget that we didn't actually bomb millitary installations. We focused more on civilian targets in Hiroshima & Nagasaki...not so much millitary installations. That's why many people consider it an atrocity of war. I will agree with you, though, it did save a lot of U.S. troops's lives.

Uh correct me if im wrong, but im pretty damn sure that the United States had SEVERAL other targets listed, all of them got crossed off the list due to complications. Several other sites had fewer civilians and more military units, but a lot of them had museums, art galleries, etc. There were also weather complications that forced them to redecide, things like the jet stream made bombing at a high altitude over japan extremely inacurate. So don't try and say the us used terrorism then, because terrorists will do anything to get there message out, and dont seem to be stopped by art and culture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lazzo

 

Err, while it may technically be considered a terrorist attack on Japan, it was moreso to save US soldiers' lives. Figures of how high the invasion of the Japanese islands ranged anywhere from 750,000 to 1,000,000 casulties. That is a huge amount of soldiers that were not needed to die for an already dying war, especially one we didn't start.

You seem to forget that we didn't actually bomb millitary installations. We focused more on civilian targets in Hiroshima & Nagasaki...not so much millitary installations. That's why many people consider it an atrocity of war. I will agree with you, though, it did save a lot of U.S. troops's lives.

Uh correct me if im wrong, but im pretty damn sure that the United States had SEVERAL other targets listed, all of them got crossed off the list due to complications. Several other sites had fewer civilians and more military units, but a lot of them had museums, art galleries, etc. There were also weather complications that forced them to redecide, things like the jet stream made bombing at a high altitude over japan extremely inacurate. So don't try and say the us used terrorism then, because terrorists will do anything to get there message out, and dont seem to be stopped by art and culture.

How does that affect the fact that innocent lives were taken?

 

The targets that were first selected were Kyoto, Hiroshima, Yokohama, Kokura arsenal and Niigata (according to Robert Jungk an Austrian journalist who wrote mostly on issues relating to nuclear weapons (from Wikipedia)). A lot of debating went on during the selection of the targets and Stimson even refused Kyoto because of large amount of temples. I do know that there were several choices on where to bomb. I also knew that weather conditions and cultural reasons affected choices. I don't see where you're going with this though. I never mentioned it being a terrorist attack in that post or any post. I simply said

 

 

To Japan, though, it could be considered an act of terrorism.

So don't say I tried to say something that I never said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lazzo

Eh, double post. Delete please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.