1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Why 9/11 is a significant date

Discussion in 'World Politics' started by Dawkinsrocks, Nov 19, 2008.

  1. Dawkinsrocks

    Dawkinsrocks Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2008
    Messages:
    3,329
    Likes Received:
    101
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Earth
    On 9/11 General Augusto Pinochet bombed the presidential palace of the democratically elected Chilean president Salvadore Alende
    .
    Pinochet was backed by the CIA during Nixon's 'reign'.

    Alanade committed suicide and then Chile was run by the despot Pinochet for 17 years in which tens of thousands of innocent Chileans were tortured and killed.

    This invoked worldwide condemnation. Well almost.

    The whitehouse was over the moon.
     
  2. n0spam4me

    n0spam4me Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    Messages:
    291
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    18
    begs the question
    is it coincidence or was it planned by somebody that 9/11 was a special date and therefore the attack on AMERICA should happen on that special date?.
    oh well,
    Question for ALL AMERICANS
    WHY did the worlds greatest military power FAIL to defend even its own HQ?

    or?
     
  3. Dawkinsrocks

    Dawkinsrocks Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2008
    Messages:
    3,329
    Likes Received:
    101
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Earth
    Yes indeed, makes you wonder doesn't it?
     
  4. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    9/11 was the day that President Bush stated we would send soldiers into Saudi Arabia as part of Operation Desert Shield, in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

    A big reason Bin Laden is so mad at the West, and at the Saudi government, was that they allowed Western soldiers on Saudi soil and the holiest places of Islam.
     
  5. Dawkinsrocks

    Dawkinsrocks Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2008
    Messages:
    3,329
    Likes Received:
    101
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Earth
    I suppose that the US supplying arms to Israel to attck Arabs had nothing to do with it.

    Funny how it is OK for the US to attack Afghanistan for assisting those who want to attack America but it is not OK for Arabs to attack America for assisting those who want to attack them.

    It isn't funny.

    It is spectacularly hypocritical.
     
  6. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    Pretty much every war between Israel and the Arab states has come about due to the Arab states refusing the notion that Israel has the right to exist, and then invading. Or setting up for an invasion, and then having Israel launch a preemptive strike.

    The root of the problem is that many states surrounding Israel deny its right to exist. Change roles, what would you do that Israel does not do?

    Further, the United States did not go into Afghan marketplaces and blow themselves up in suicide attacks. The United States does not openly target civilians. Arab states can continue their attacks, but don't be surprised when the US responds.
     
  7. Dawkinsrocks

    Dawkinsrocks Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2008
    Messages:
    3,329
    Likes Received:
    101
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Earth
    Oh I keep forgetting, sending drones (unmanned air bombs) into areas to bomb people is fine.

    Dropping thousands of pounds of cluster bombs is fine

    So long as you don't go into a market place and do it.

    You are unreal.
     
  8. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    When those people are actively killing your soldiers yes. When you have good intel that this is the case, send drones in.

    Depending on what you drop them on, yes.

    What is unreal is the idea that you think the US (or Israel) does not have a right to fight back when attacked.

    I have no doubt you can find an example of a cluster bomb gone bad, but the United States does not openly target civilians, like the extremists do. A big part of the so-called "awakening" in Iraq was because the local population was sick of the extremists killing innocent people. They did not rise up against the US, they rose up against the insurgency, that is pretty telling.

    As a side note, none of this has anything to do with the significance of the date 9/11. I see you successfully hijacked your own thread.
     
  9. Dawkinsrocks

    Dawkinsrocks Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2008
    Messages:
    3,329
    Likes Received:
    101
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Earth
    600,000 Iraqi civilians dead.

    Bombed by the coallition.

    Nuff said.
     
  10. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    You keep citing that number, but it is not accurate. Even anti-war sites put the number around 90,000 civilians dead due to violence.

    That wording means any civilian who died for whatever reason in Iraq, be it a suicide bombing, or an armed robbery, gets counted. That however in no way reflects the number of deaths due to bombings or military action. That number is much much lower.

    But you can think anything you like, do not let facts get in your way.

    Further, your post yet again has no bearing on the importance of the date 9/11. This thread was started by you for that issue, and you immediately drive off a cliff on the road of staying on topic.
     
  11. GenSeneca

    GenSeneca Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    6,245
    Likes Received:
    501
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    ={CaLiCo}= HQ
    Saddam claimed 600,000 died as a result of UN sanctions against his country, he used that as impetus to begin the oil-for-food scandal.... That was more than a decade ago he made that claim and people still regurgitate that number like good little propoganda robots.

    Perhaps you could back up your absurd claims by citing a credible source... or would that be too much to ask?
     
  12. Dawkinsrocks

    Dawkinsrocks Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2008
    Messages:
    3,329
    Likes Received:
    101
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Earth
    Oh, so 90,000 civilians is ok and much worse than the few thousand the other side has killed.

    Oh I forgot, you must not kill in the marketplace.

    You should do it from 30,000 feet and scarper.
     
  13. GenSeneca

    GenSeneca Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    6,245
    Likes Received:
    501
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    ={CaLiCo}= HQ
    Still no source? Can't admit you LIED about the 600,000 number?

    Move along little cow poke... The adults are talking.
     
  14. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    No, its not 90,000 either. As I pointed out the methodology that arrived at that number has little to do with actual bombing or US violence targeted at Iraqi civilians. If a Shiite bomber blows up a marketplace full of Sunni people, you count that in the body count and claim it was caused by the US airstrikes. This is simply not the case.

    Just pointing out how outrageous your "numbers" are.
     
  15. bododie

    bododie New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,639
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    0
    a scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections .. a mere heart of stone. (Charles Darwin)

    In the struggle for survival, the fittest win out at the expense of their rivals because they succeed in adapting themselves best to their environment. (Charles Darwin)
     
Loading...

Share This Page