The US does the right thing, look at those soldiers that have been tried already for the abuse scandel. The US has made mistakes, but our mistakes are right in the front page for everyone to read. That is because of the major liberal bias in the media. Extreme Leftist Liberals* hate America and want it to fail. The likes of the ACLU are not looking out for our rights as citizens, they are out to undermind every action of the United States Gov't at every opportunity.

* aka : Plutocrats, most are so out of the mainstream they cant even make a right hand turn.

A-fuckin-men!!!!!

Of course not, the murder was wrong, I'm telling you that right now. But you can still be "not innocent" and not deserve death at the same time.

the only way i could see the citizens killed in 9/11 as not innocent is if they themselves were approving of the "collateral damage" that occurs in foreign wars. as far as collateral damage in general, the accepted level of collateral damage the military will accept is so small, that sometimes it seems almost petty. said term didnt even exist in ww2 (dresden). im not saying that collateral damage is acceptable regardless of the consequences, just that some will inevitably happen when targets of important military significane are deemed vital to save lives in the long run. when evaluating military strikes against targets in civilian areas, laser guided bombs (accurate to within an 8' diameter circle) were developed for said purpose. i dont see how the world trade center was a viable military target.

Sutherlands, Brien, or whoever else thinks the WTC victims were not "innocent", what were these people guilty of? Either you are innocent, or guilty. You say they are not innocent, so they must be guilty, but what is it that they are guilty of?

No. You've got it backwards. The deaths of Iraqi civilians are NOT justified, just as the deaths of American civilians on 9/11 were not justified. The concept of "colateral damage" is insane. That's the point.



Strange. I didn't get that implication at all. Try reading.



Colaboration. I'd continue, but I think I've belabored the point.

Strange. I didn't get that implication at all. Try reading.

ITs actually quite simple, its part of american speech. When you make an implication it usually doesn't spell things out, if you read something incorrectly you might miss that.

So the civilians were guilty of collaboration? Guilty (according to the dictionary as "responsible for or chargeable with a reprehensible act")? Are you saying it is wrong to work for fortune 500 companies or military contractors or something of that sort? I do not believe there is anything wrong with what the WTC victims were doing, therefore they were guilty of nothing. However, if this was a reprehensible act, what is the sentence for it? If these people were not criminals, which they were not, there should be no downplaying what the terrorists did and saying "we should have expected it because the WTC victims were evil bastards".

He's saying that the WTC are responsible for collaboration, because they were helping to make missles and other "bad products". What their "sentence" should be is not something I'm going to go into, but the point is that they are helping to build products that hurt people.


Let me say that again.

The article says that they are guilty, but not necessarily deserving of death, because they are helping to make products that hurt people.

This reminds me of the great gun debate. It's like saying the manufacturer of a weapon is guilty when it's used to kill someone. I'm not big on assault weapons, but still, it's our right to own certain weapons, and as an avid hunter I own several. However, I am not pedantic enough to claim that its the fault of the gun manufacturer's fault when a murderer commits a heinous crime with a gun. And how many people that worked in the WTC were janitors or secretaries that were innocent. But hey, if you want slander their names and use them to further your political agenda, why, go right ahead.

Do you even READ the thread???? You stupid moron, listen.

And as for "the great gun debate" this is not the same as guns. When has a missle ever been used to get us food? But yes, I, along with everyone else who is trying to make you less ignorant, am furthuring my politcal agenda right here. So please, tell me which agenda that is. I'd love to hear it.

Um, you logic is also somewhat flawed. There is a million different technologies that go into creating a missile, and 99 percent of which all have non-violent uses somewhere else. So where is the line drawn? Is it just the final assembler of the missile components that get the blame and are "not innocent"?

In addition, lack of innocence implies guilt, and guilt implies deserving of some kind of punishment. Therefore if he effectively said they were guilty and didn't qualify it with some statment like, "but they didn't deserve to die", the logical conclusion is that he feels that the punishment was deserved.

It's not MY logic, and I don't believe that that's a logical conclusion at all, as I didn't come to it with my thought process.

You wrote it, and didn't quote anyone, so who's logic is it? So then what is your thought process when the following statment is presented to you.

(In the context of talking about the people who were killed in the WTC) "Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent?"

The punishment was death. The writer implies guilt. It doesn't matter how you want to sidestep the issue, the writer made this statment as part of a cause and effect argument to the effect that if you work in the "technocratic" society you shouldn't be suprised when terrorists kill you. Oh, and if you're a bystander who is also killed, well you were close enough. This is not the rationale of a man who is trying to start a debate on the US foreign policy, he uses inflammitory rhetoric to get people to listen to his radical blather. With regard to foreign policy, what woud he have us do? (this is not with respect to Iraq necessarily, but in general) simply sit on the sidelines and let parts of the world have at each other like we did in the early parts of WWII? He simply throws out these cause and effect situations but givs no worthwhile solution to the issue. Everything can be denounced as having bad consequences, but simply naming the problem does nothing if you have no constructive way to better it.

In response to Churchill's response, yes it was bad to impose sanctions on Iraq that led to the death's of civilians, but what was the other option? Had they had massive amounts of capital, they would have started up their weapons programs. Had we have went in and deposed Saddam in the 90's, then he would have been bitching about how we invaded another country. He makes it sound like the military of today takes no discretion in dealing with civilian casualties which is simply not the case. When was the last time we carpetbombed parts of Iraq and Afghanistan? Why is it that Clinton bawked at killing Osama in the 90's? Because we didn't want to risk civilian lives. The point is that we take special caution to reduce at all costs the deaths of innocent civilians. Are some still killed? Yes, but even when we have the chance to kill someone who is in control of the very war we were fighting we still erred on the side of caution. So are you telling me by considering the WTC a military target due to the CIA office in it, they were simply doing the same? He consideres it a simple tit for tat situation whereas we kill civilians during military exercises and therefore they do the same. It is hardly that black and white.

I'm not drawing the line here, I'm not saying who is "innocent" and who is "guilty". If I was, I would draw the line at whoever makes a product that does not help mankind. Thus the missle, out. Gasoline, in... etc. If that is the logic you are trying to say is flawed, that is my response. If not, what are you pointing to?

As for "Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent?" I still don't see how you would get that they deserved death out of that.

"if you work in the 'technocratic' society you shouldn't be surprised when terrorists kill you." I would agree. If you were supplying guns to the US, I would expect the terrorists to try to stop you.

As for bystanders, I don't agree with that, and I don't think Churchill would either.