Is it possible that those who chose to fight were/are fighting what they see as an invasion of their soil nothing more?

Many of the Germans who were fighting to protect the motherland at the end of WW2 probably felt the same way, but if they were too stupid to realize the evil that their government had done, that is their problem, not ours.

it was their problem. how many survivors do still exist who fought to protect the Vaterland? quel naïveté or is it just stupidity from your side mentioning "too stupid to realise"?

now waiting patiently for intelligent remarks like "one or two millions is much less than the alleged six million killed in concentration camps".

The "alleged" six million? Your true colors seem to be coming out again.

By the way, if you can stop defending the Fatherland long enough to read "Hitler's Willing Executioners", you might stop with the denials and finally get the education that you are always bragging about.

The same thing?  How are they the same?  

How are they the same? I said so in my original post.

Lack of concrete evidence makes for a poor reason to invade any country given the collateral damages & financial hardships that will surely follow.

Iraq was a lack of evidence, although evidence was attempted to be gathered, only to be thwarted by the Saddam regime.

But Afghanistan?  What lack of evidence?  You think everyone is wrong, including the Taliban government, and BIn Laden was not there?  That is a pretty far stretch for anyone to make.   

And to say the two conflicts are the same, well, you might as well say they are the same because there are Burger Kings and Subways for the troops in both places.  

Is it possible that those who chose to fight were/are fighting what they see as an invasion of their soil nothing more?

Many of the Germans who were fighting to protect the motherland at the end of WW2 probably felt the same way, but if they were too stupid to realize the evil that their government had done, that is their problem, not ours.

it was their problem. how many survivors do still exist who fought to protect the Vaterland? quel naïveté or is it just stupidity from your side mentioning "too stupid to realise"?

now waiting patiently for intelligent remarks like "one or two millions is much less than the alleged six million killed in concentration camps".

The "alleged" six million? Your true colors seem to be coming out again.

By the way, if you can stop defending the Fatherland long enough to read "Hitler's Willing Executioners", you might stop with the denials and finally get the education that you are always bragging about.

It could be placed by his bedside to be easily accessible for nightly reading - enabling him to have a warm fuzzy feeling as he drifts off to sleep.

Iraq was a lack of evidence, although evidence was attempted to be gathered, only to be thwarted by the Saddam regime.

But Afghanistan? What lack of evidence? You think everyone is wrong, including the Taliban government, and BIn Laden was not there? That is a pretty far stretch for anyone to make.

Iraq threw out the weapons inspectors or they never would have been attacked and we had video of the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. There was plenty of evidence about both situations.

 nowadays there are millions too stupid to realise what evil crimes their government has committed in Viet Nam, Iraq and Afghanistan. besides those stupid ones there are those who keep on whining yada yada yada yakety yak "thousands of dead" but forget the 1½ million dead (most probably more) in the above mentioned countries. 

now waiting patiently for intelligent remarks like "one or two millions is much less than the alleged six million killed in concentration camps".

Sorry, but lumping together Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan together holds no more credence than lumping Afghanistan with WWII or the American War for Independence.  Each conflict has its own dynamics and circumstances.  

Do you really not realize that there are thousands of examples of other laws and discourse that will completely dispute your rationale? That is why we do nothing but go in circles and no one ever changes their minds.

You would compare WWII Germany with a country accused of what?

Allowing training camps for terrorists. Taking away rights from women. Harboring fugitives that killed thousands of innocent civilians.

Should I go on?

Please show me the law that allows for pre emptive strikes on any country not at war or committed an act of war against the US (for example).

These training camps for former freedom fighters now called terrorists where well funded by the US goberment some years back (Read ghost wars)

are you aware of that?

Taking away the rights of women...hmmmmm....How about the US government supporting one of those former freedom fighters now called terrorists to get back in the seat so he can do what was it again.....throwing acid in the face of unveiled women and such? His name is Hekmatyar,

you can Kwookle it if you like to know.

If you agree 9/11 was an act of war then those killed are to be called collateral damage.

If you believe 9/11 was not an act of war then the attacks on Afghanistan are unlawful and therefore those that died on 9/11 can be called innocent victims.

Harboring fugitives that killed thousands of innocent people is another rather confusing comment.

Please continue with the list of countries that are harboring or have been harboring people that were responsible for killing innocent people UG.

How about operation Paperclip that moved German scientist that were responsible for designing WMD during WW2 whilst in Germany to the US?

How about the UK that was harboring former PM Thaksin who is responsible for a few thousand dead people during his war on drugs?

How about the country that harbored Idi Amin?

On a sidenote, wasn't that the country where most of the hijackers of 9/11 came from?

How about Israel which harbors people that are responsible for killing thousands of innocent people or should they be called collateral damage when shot in the head?

BL has never been held responsible for the 9/11 attacks at least when looking at the most wanted list from the FBI. There has never been published any proof that the attacks of 9/11 were planned from Afghanistan by BL.

The only evidence they have is the confession of this raghead that he planned it after being waterboarded a few (183) times.

If any of you have any other evidence please provide.

I am just asking questions alright?

On another sidenote the recent offensive to free the "City" of Marjah from those nasty ragheaded different looking than we (US) people, I will show you a picture of this city of alleged 80.000.

8 years into the search for BL and the fight against terror, the mighty strongest military power in the world has not been able to defeat a few goat herders armed with AK 47's.

I end with a quote from Kissinger:

Military men are “dumb, stupid animals to be used” as pawns for foreign policy.

Have a nice day!

Alex

And another mistake here:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle7063184.ece

Do you really not realize that there are thousands of examples of other laws and discourse that will completely dispute your rationale? That is why we do nothing but go in circles and no one ever changes their minds.

You would compare WWII Germany with a country accused of what?

Allowing training camps for terrorists. Taking away rights from women. Harboring fugitives that killed thousands of innocent civilians.

Should I go on?

Please show me the law that allows for pre emptive strikes on any country not at war or committed an act of war against the US (for example).

These training camps for former freedom fighters now called terrorists where well funded by the US goberment some years back (Read ghost wars)

are you aware of that?

Taking away the rights of women...hmmmmm....How about the US government supporting one of those former freedom fighters now called terrorists to get back in the seat so he can do what was it again.....throwing acid in the face of unveiled women and such? His name is Hekmatyar,

you can Kwookle it if you like to know.

If you agree 9/11 was an act of war then those killed are to be called collateral damage.

If you believe 9/11 was not an act of war then the attacks on Afghanistan are unlawful and therefore those that died on 9/11 can be called innocent victims.

Harboring fugitives that killed thousands of innocent people is another rather confusing comment.

Please continue with the list of countries that are harboring or have been harboring people that were responsible for killing innocent people UG.

How about operation Paperclip that moved German scientist that were responsible for designing WMD during WW2 whilst in Germany to the US?

How about the UK that was harboring former PM Thaksin who is responsible for a few thousand dead people during his war on drugs?

How about the country that harbored Idi Amin?

On a sidenote, wasn't that the country where most of the hijackers of 9/11 came from?

How about Israel which harbors people that are responsible for killing thousands of innocent people or should they be called collateral damage when shot in the head?

BL has never been held responsible for the 9/11 attacks at least when looking at the most wanted list from the FBI. There has never been published any proof that the attacks of 9/11 were planned from Afghanistan by BL.

The only evidence they have is the confession of this raghead that he planned it after being waterboarded a few (183) times.

If any of you have any other evidence please provide.

I am just asking questions alright?

On another sidenote the recent offensive to free the "City" of Marjah from those nasty ragheaded different looking than we (US) people, I will show you a picture of this city of alleged 80.000.

8 years into the search for BL and the fight against terror, the mighty strongest military power in the world has not been able to defeat a few goat herders armed with AK 47's.

I end with a quote from Kissinger:

Military men are “dumb, stupid animals to be used” as pawns for foreign policy.

Have a nice day!

Alex

Let's be clear about something. The attack on 9/11 was an act of war, however the civilians killed were not 'collateral damage'. Collateral damage by definition is the unintentional damage to civil property and civilian casualties, caused by military operation. The damage caused and lives lost on 9/11 were intentional.

Of course.

I think that someone is trying bore us to death by repeating the same old lies that have been refuted over and over again. No wonder they hide this forum.

Let's be clear about something. The attack on 9/11 was an act of war, however the civilians killed were not 'collateral damage'. Collateral damage by definition is the unintentional damage to civil property and civilian casualties, caused by military operation. The damage caused and lives lost on 9/11 were intentional.

Correct!

Alex,

In my most humble opinion, you keep throwing in specious facts which have absolutely nothing to do with Afghanistan.  Just what does Saudi Arabia giving refuge to Idi Amin have to do with anything on this thread? What does the US taking in Nazi scientists have to do with it?  And Thaksin going to the UK?  Isn't that really quite a reach, even for you?  You might as well bring in slavery in the US, the CIA involvement in Chile, and all those Larry the Cable Guy Movies (that had to have been a CIA plot to destroy the minds of the public.)

I will grant you that the US government has done many things in the past which did not peg high on the morality meter.  But it makes no sense to throw those things in, along with what you perceive to be evils of other nations, to try and justify your position on Afghanistan.  Either the specific facts justify the invasion or not, not whether something else happened somewhere else 70 years ago.

And while I am at it, where do you get your "facts" that bin Laden had nothing to do with the attack?  Right after the attacks, the Pentagon reported that bin Laden said the damage exceeded his most "optimistic calculations" (and he said this at a dinner in Afghanistan).  In 2004, he admitted that he planned the attacks and they were carried out at his order.  This admission was broadcast on Al Jazeerah, not a US agency.  What else do you need to convince you that BL and AQ were behind the attacks?  Or is BL part of this vast conspiracy you have created in your head? 

Alex,

In my most humble opinion, you keep throwing in specious facts which have absolutely nothing to do with Afghanistan. Just what does Saudi Arabia giving refuge to Idi Amin have to do with anything on this thread? What does the US taking in Nazi scientists have to do with it? And Thaksin going to the UK? Isn't that really quite a reach, even for you? You might as well bring in slavery in the US, the CIA involvement in Chile, and all those Larry the Cable Guy Movies (that had to have been a CIA plot to destroy the minds of the public.)

Exactly right, and it not just Alex, it is Flying and Harcourt as well. Post after post of the same immaterial nonsense and then they pretend that they have made some sort of point.

That is why there no sense in trying to respond to their posts logically (unless you are a moderator, so they can't just keep filibustering about nothing). The truth is that they will do everything possible to ignore any real issue. If you pit ANY of them against Ventura Law in a real debate with rules, they would last about 5 seconds and then scuttle home crying.

It really is too bad that free speech even includes pathological liars, wack jobs and the utterly clueless.

now waiting patiently for intelligent remarks like "one or two millions is much less than the alleged six million killed in concentration camps".

Alleged? You do not believe that there were approximately 6 million (5.9 million) Jews murdered during Hitler's reign? Additionally there were millions of others murdered, not just Jews. We know because the Nazis kept records of the murders, medical experiments, etc. You know don't you Naam? Why say alleged?

Like I told him, his comments are welcome because he always ends up putting his foot in his mouth. It truly is a wonder coming from someone so loaded down with university degrees.

And while I am at it, where do you get your "facts" that bin Laden had nothing to do with the attack? Right after the attacks, the Pentagon reported that bin Laden said the damage exceeded his most "optimistic calculations" (and he said this at a dinner in Afghanistan). In 2004, he admitted that he planned the attacks and they were carried out at his order. This admission was broadcast on Al Jazeerah, not a US agency. What else do you need to convince you that BL and AQ were behind the attacks? Or is BL part of this vast conspiracy you have created in your head?

I saw that video of the dinner where Osama said he hadn't expected it to collapse.

I think Alex is refering to the FBI's wanted poster of bin Laden where it makes no mention of 9/11, only:

CAUTION

USAMA BIN LADEN IS WANTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE AUGUST 7, 1998, BOMBINGS OF THE UNITED STATES EMBASSIES IN DAR ES SALAAM, TANZANIA, AND NAIROBI, KENYA. THESE ATTACKS KILLED OVER 200 PEOPLE. IN ADDITION, BIN LADEN IS A SUSPECT IN OTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

now waiting patiently for intelligent remarks like "one or two millions is much less than the alleged six million killed in concentration camps".

Alleged? You do not believe that there were approximately 6 million (5.9 million) Jews murdered during Hitler's reign? Additionally there were millions of others murdered, not just Jews. We know because the Nazis kept records of the murders, medical experiments, etc. You know don't you Naam? Why say alleged?

Like I told him, his comments are welcome because he always ends up putting his foot in his mouth. It truly is a wonder coming from someone so loaded down with university degrees.

Agreed. Even the educated are subject to syndromes ranging from severe inferiority complexes leading to race-hatred, to crippling mental illness;Ted Kaczynski for instance.

Bonobo, when others come up with the statement that Afghanistan was/are harboring people that killed innocent people as one of the reasons for the bombing and the invasion, to me mentioning other countries that do the same thing is the same. And you are right to say that it are silly arguments that's why I mentioned them therefore mentioning that Afghanistan was invaded and bombed because they harbored terrorist

is not a valid reason to mention as there are plenty of other countries that are doing the same and are not invaded and bombed.

As I said many times I am not trying to justify the 9/11 or any other attack by people with bad intentions and that is for both sides.

To me shooting some students in the head as reported is an act of terror as well. I can understand that a lone survivor whose family is killed by such "mistakes" does not have to be pushed very hard to blow him or herself up and killing a few soldiers with him/her.

These drone attacks where more than often innocent bystanders are killed and property is destroyed is making a lot of people very very angry and creates a breeding ground for people that want to do something bad in return. It is a never ending story if we continue such policy.

Try to place yourself in their position, generations of Aghans have not seen anything else than bombings and killings and foreigners invading their country. What would you do if your family was killed by mistake? Accept the 2000 Dollar per member as compensation and live a happy life?

And it is likely the same for the family members that lost a loved one as a result of 9/11 what would they say is a just compensation?

The only difference is that they live in a place where they are not confronted daily with the results of war.

To me it would be much more constructive if all or most of that money being wasted on these wars would be used for the better.

Therefore I like to know what is so important in that country that justifies the spending of that money and the loss of life and property. I do not believe it is the hunt for some people that are said to continue planning attacks from Afghanistan on the US alone.

It has been reported that they had BL in the crosshairs twice I believe, why did they had to ask for permission to shoot or bomb him and why was permission not given? If I was a soldier and the objective of my mission was to find BL and either kill him or capture him I would not ask

for permission as it was already given by the objective.

The Taliban twice offered to capture BL and hand him over to the court when evidence of his involvement was shown. It was non negotiable Bush said. I indeed point to the FBI site where his involvement in 9/11 is not mentioned as a reason to capture him if there is such evidence, why not include it? Can I send an e-mail to the FBI and ask them about it?

All you are doing is trying to justify repeated posts that have almost nothing to do with the topic that they are about. Do you really think that no one notices that you and your comrades have almost nothing to say about the actual topics at hand. You just post a lot of filler, mud slinging, ancient history and nutty conspiracy theories.

Deleted by author.

Can I send an e-mail to the FBI and ask them about it?

I have sent an e-mail to the FBI and told them to expect your e-mail with some questions.

You may now proceed.

You've made your point rather well.

Bonobo, when others come up with the statement that Afghanistan was/are harboring people that killed innocent people as one of the reasons for the bombing and the invasion, to me mentioning other countries that do the same thing is the same. And you are right to say that it are silly arguments that's why I mentioned them therefore mentioning that Afghanistan was invaded and bombed because they harbored terrorist

is not a valid reason to mention as there are plenty of other countries that are doing the same and are not invaded and bombed.

As I said many times I am not trying to justify the 9/11 or any other attack by people with bad intentions and that is for both sides.

To me shooting some students in the head as reported is an act of terror as well. I can understand that a lone survivor whose family is killed by such "mistakes" does not have to be pushed very hard to blow him or herself up and killing a few soldiers with him/her.

These drone attacks where more than often innocent bystanders are killed and property is destroyed is making a lot of people very very angry and creates a breeding ground for people that want to do something bad in return. It is a never ending story if we continue such policy.

Try to place yourself in their position, generations of Aghans have not seen anything else than bombings and killings and foreigners invading their country. What would you do if your family was killed by mistake? Accept the 2000 Dollar per member as compensation and live a happy life?

And it is likely the same for the family members that lost a loved one as a result of 9/11 what would they say is a just compensation?

The only difference is that they live in a place where they are not confronted daily with the results of war.

To me it would be much more constructive if all or most of that money being wasted on these wars would be used for the better.

Therefore I like to know what is so important in that country that justifies the spending of that money and the loss of life and property. I do not believe it is the hunt for some people that are said to continue planning attacks from Afghanistan on the US alone.

It has been reported that they had BL in the crosshairs twice I believe, why did they had to ask for permission to shoot or bomb him and why was permission not given? If I was a soldier and the objective of my mission was to find BL and either kill him or capture him I would not ask

for permission as it was already given by the objective.

The Taliban twice offered to capture BL and hand him over to the court when evidence of his involvement was shown. It was non negotiable Bush said. I indeed point to the FBI site where his involvement in 9/11 is not mentioned as a reason to capture him if there is such evidence, why not include it? Can I send an e-mail to the FBI and ask them about it?

I happen to disagree with your contentions.  What we did with Nazi scientists, what Israel has done, what the UK did with Thaksin, all of that mean nothing with respect to the NATO forces and Afghanistan.  If we error in one area, that does not mean we need to error again in another circumstance.  To point out that we sat on our butts during the genocides in Burundi and Rwanda does not mean that we should also have sat on our butts in Bosnia. 

If I was an Afghani citizen, as you wrote, I probably would have fought the NATO forces.  So what is your point?  If I was a German in 1942, I wold have fought the Allied forces, too.

The Clinton administration did have the opportunity to get bin laden.  Why they didn't, I am not sure to this date.  Then the BUsh administration, trying to keep our footprint smaller, refused to allow the 101st or a Marine Amphibious Unit to close off Tora Bora when bin Laden was on the run.  Bin Laden had already made his goodbyes and was ready to die, but to his surprise, there was a way to get out.  So if you are referring to those as when he was in the crosshairs, yes, that is true.  But once again, how do mistakes in the past trump doing things right in the future?

Thank you Chuck for your effort in contacting the FBI, could you give me an e-mail address where my question can be send to?

Anyway I always try to see the things from different angles so I was trying to find a reason as to why people commit act's of terror and sacrifice their and others lives. Why was the 9/11 act of terror committed on US soil by Islamic terrorist? Could it be that they see the act's of month long carpet bombing and sending cruise missiles that kill innocent as act's of terror?

For example the CIA attempted to kill the Hezbollah spiritual leader, Sheikh Fadlallah, by using a car bomb to blow up a building near a Beirut mosque that killed over 80 people. The CIA must have known that some innocent people would die as well. Do we see that as an act of terror? I am sure the relatives of the innocent that died were not too happy about that and perhaps believe it was an act of terror?

Why is it that if we throw bombs in areas where innocent people die we do not see that as an act of terror but if another person does the same to "us" it is called terrorism?

Please remember this is outside the box and posting a picture with looney as a reply to my post is a bit errrrrrrrr, inside the box.

Thank you Chuck for your effort in contacting the FBI, could you give me an e-mail address where my question can be send to?

I am always happy to please a liberal. The opportunity doesn't present itself too often.

http://www.fbi.gov/contactus.htm

Just tell them chuckd sent you.

For example the CIA attempted to kill the Hezbollah spiritual leader, Sheikh Fadlallah, by using a car bomb to blow up a building near a Beirut mosque that killed over 80 people. The CIA must have known that some innocent people would die as well. Do we see that as an act of terror? I am sure the relatives of the innocent that died were not too happy about that and perhaps believe it was an act of terror.

Now that you are happy, let me ask a few questions.

Please tell us in which town in New Zealand the CIA was convicted by a jury of the attempted assassination of Sheikh Mohammad Hussein Fadl allah. The only reference I can find to the CIA involvement says the involvement was "alleged" or that it was "believed by some to be the work of the......CIA"

If my memory serves me correctly, weren't there some rather hard feelings between the Christians and Hezbollah in Lebanon at that time? Are you 100% certain the unknown and yet to be caught perpetrator could not have been a Lebanese Christian upset with Hezbollah?

Your statement is rather emphatic and seems to lay rather clear blame at the feet of the CIA. I'm simply wondering how you managed to cut through the haze and come up with such a clear decision.

Here is what Wiki says about it...

________________________________________________________

Assassination attempt

On 8 March 1985, a car bomb equivalent to 440 lb (200 kg) of dynamite exploded 9–45 metres[8][9] from his house in Beirut, Lebanon. The blast destroyed a 7 story apartment building, a cinema, killed 80 people and wounded 256. The attack was timed to go off as worshippers were leaving Friday Prayers. Most of the dead were girls and women, who had been leaving the mosque, though the ferocity of the blast "burned babies in their beds," "killed a bride buying her trousseau," and "blew away three children as they walked home from the mosque." It also "devastated the main street of the densely populated" West Beirut suburb.[10][11] but Fadl-Allāh escaped injury. One of his bodyguards at the time was Imad Mughniyeh, who was later assassinated in a car-bombing in February 2008.[12]

The assassination attempt was believed by some to have been the work of Israel, or of the CIA, as a response to the Hezbollah bombings of the American embassy and of American and French peacekeeping headquarters in Beirut in October, 1983.[11]

________________________________________________________

You are scatter shooting again.

Ok Chuck I forgot to mention alleged to cover my ass.

But I see no response on my other question. Could it be that the other side (those that want to blow "us" up) see us as terrorist?

Would that be possible when judging some of our actions in some country's?

A definition of terror:

1. Intense, overpowering fear. See Synonyms at fear.

2. One that instills intense fear

3. The ability to instill intense fear

4. Violence committed or threatened by a group to intimidate or coerce a population, as for military or political purposes.

You are doing nothing but making excuses and trying to justify the actions of mass murderers.

Charles Manson killed Sharon Tate for the same reason that terrorists kill us. It is all society's fault MAAAN.

I think you fail to see what the question is UG.

Definition of Terrorism

"the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."

-- U.S. Department of Defense publication

Can we be seen as terrorists when reading the above definition?

That is why the question is important if these invasions and other act's of using or threats of using force are lawful or not. Now two commissions have said that for example the invasion of Iraq had no legal standing. Similar investigations are being held over the Afghan issue and I tried to show that when reading some of the legal stuff I posted and links provided the invasion of Afghanistan could be considered unlawful. Will anyone be prosecuted for that, I believe not. Is it important to study the history of Islamic terrorism, yes I think it is. Is it important to study our interventions throughout history so we might better understand why we are targeted? Or do we just believe the government propaganda saying they hate us because of our freedom and democracy. If these people that hate us hate us because of our interventions and the resulting killing of innocent people should we therefore not partly blame government actions and policy for making us insecure?

You are doing nothing but making excuses and trying to justify the actions of mass murderers.

Charles Manson killed Sharon Tate for the same reason that terrorists kill us. It is all society's fault MAAAN.

I saw the question. You remind me of someone. Now what was his name?

How many points can I earn?

Just click on the painting.