Hmmm…..N.G.

It is clear that you need for us to be the innocent victims and the ‘good guys’. You are debating with emotion and opinion on this subject and not facts. When I present facts, you turn them around so that you can argue them in an emotional capacity. Fine. Knock yourself out. I just see no purpose in continuing an emotional debate when emotion cannot be reasoned with.

Sounds like we’re the teachers and they’re the students to me. Your words, not mine.

Training someone to use weapons is not a provocation for them to attack you. We did not provoke 9/11 by giving them weapons. And to say how do you expect them to act is proving my parent/child analogy of your thinking to be true.

To compare their thinking that bombing innocent civilians is good to our thinking that protecting the world for their terroism is good is ridiculous. There is evil and good in this world.

No I don’t. You’re just twisting what I say to think that. Don’t and maybe you’ll understand where I’m coming from.

The fact of the matter is we did nothing to provoke 9/11. We were attacked.
Comment by C Storms — May 16, 2006 @ 6:20 am

The fact of the matter is that you are in denial. Our government trained Osama and gave him money and weapons. You wanna ignore that fact, that’s your prerogative. But don’t expect me or everyone one else to be so one sided.

The men who flew the planes and those who planned the attacks are “bad” guys. Our military including our commander in chief are the “good” guys trying to stop such nonsense from happening again.
Comment by C Storms — May 16, 2006 @ 6:20 am

You just validated my earlier post that you need absolutes – 100% pure ‘good’ and ‘bad’ without any realistic grasp at all. That’s your perspective. But it’s all it is. To those people, we were bad and they good. It’s what motivated their actions. It’s why you are an idealist and idealists are always blowing things up for some noble cause swearing that god is on their side. Bunch of delusion.

It doesn’t matter who taught who to do what. You make it sound as if the U.S. is some sort of parent and these radical muslims are helpless little children who have no ability to think for themselves.

Was Hitler a good guy or bad guy? Was the U.S. good or bad for going after him?

The fact of the matter is we did nothing to provoke 9/11. We were attacked. Innocent people were attacked and killed. The men who flew the planes and those who planned the attacks are “bad” guys. Our military including our commander in chief are the “good” guys trying to stop such nonsense from happening again.

Of course it does. You just don’t want to see it. You want someone to be 100% at fault, therefore you can identify the ‘good’ guys and the “bad guys”. A realist would know that here are no such things. Only an idealist would want that clear cut distinction.

So, who’s responsible for the drunk driver killing someone? The driver’s mom who taught him to drive or the bar tender who sold him the drinks?
Comment by C Storms — May 15, 2006 @ 3:00 pm

Not the same. Give me an apple to compare to an apple, and not a pineapple (e.g. – Who is to blame for a drunker driver killing someone who had earlier bought him liquorr that night and then taught him how to drink while driving? That would be comparable. And both would be responisble. Get it yet?).

We aren’t victms as a nation. We lbought, loaded and handed the gun to those who were willing to kill for money, people whom they had no grievances against. Someday, years later, when that have a grievance against us, how exactly do you expect them to react? The way they were taught – with more violence. How are you missing the cause and effect here? It seems so elementary and obvious.

So, who’s responsible for the drunk driver killing someone? The driver’s mom who taught him to drive or the bar tender who sold him the drinks?

They are responsible for their actions. So are we.

Clear?

I don’t believe it’s realistic to reason with lunitics. If they want to kill us, we must stop them before they do.

For the record, I’m a realist. Idealy, everything would be lovie dovey & peaceful as we both wish it were. But it’s not that way in the real world. You’re the idealist.

I was advocating mutual responsibility. But I guess that’s not an option for you?

It was the current administration that ignored reports and allowed the lunatic to attack us.

First of all, it was the Clinton Administration who ignored Al Qaeda which led to them attacking us 9 months into Bush’s first term. Secondly, what would a pacifist like yourself want any administration to do to someone who “might” attack us. Let’s say we did find out before hand and Bush had either killed or arrested the potential murderers. Liberals would be screaming that the U.S. had done so illegally. Pre-emptively. How dare we arrest or kill someone before they commit a crime.

Can you explain why there have been terrorist attacks in Egypt, U.K., France, & Spain. I’m sure it’s either their fault for being allied with the U.S. or it’s our fault somehow. Funny how terrorists never get blamed for thier crimes against humanity. It’s always someone esle’s fault.

Again, it’s all about your and your opinion. Who are you to decide who lives and who dies?

Al Qaeda was a tiny little radical group that the Islamic world dismissed as such. It was the current administration that ignored reports and allowed the lunatic to attack us. It’s not the giant monster you claim it is. If you ever researched anything yuo might know this.

People are going to die. The question is, should they die on our terms for ultimate peace & freedom or on your terms, being killed because they were weak and refused to defend that peace and freedom.
Comment by C Storms — May 15, 2006 @ 12:03 pm

So then it’s about control? You are not Mother Nature. You cannot control other people. You control freaks never seem to get that until you’ve made a mess of everything.

Your logic is fallacious. We weren’t attacked because we were peaceful (see Switzerland, Canada and tens of other industrialized nations who are peaceful and do not get randomly attacked). We were attacked because we taught Osama that the way to solve problems is with violence (we trained him and gave him weapons). That is called karma. We simply got back what we put out there.

You are NOT a realistic. You’re an Idealist. Big difference.

That’s the difference between a realist like me & a pacifist like you.

I understand that some lives will be lost (that’s the way it is) in order to preserve freedom. And, I give my utmost honor & respect to those who are willing to lay down their lives for me.

You would rather not have anyone lay down their lives for our freedom and as a result open us up to be attacked and even taken over by enemies who would surely end up killing people in the process – you would believe we could negotiate with them and solve any disagreements peacefully. That’s an faulty, unrealistic way of looking at the world today and throughout history.

People are going to die. The question is, should they die on our terms for ultimate peace & freedom or on your terms, being killed because they were weak and refused to defend that peace and freedom.

Nope.

Let’s see. Roughly 3,000 lives lost in Trade Tower attack. How many in Afghanistan? 2400 troups in Iraq. Tens of thousands of civilians in Iraq. How many more lives do you want to lose in this decable? When will enough deaths assuage what happened? When will you be happy? Because really, revenge is done for your purpose. Those who are dead cannot be brought back for more spilled blood. Have you ever actually thought this through?