The governments reaction to 9/11

I don't think turning the other cheek is appropriate when so many civilian casualties are inflicted, something HAD to be done. It's just like having multiple predators in the same area, allowing something like that to go will only show the others that you are weak and open to attack, which is not acceptable. None of that even includes the general populace's demands for revenge. The response should have been limited strictly to those responsible for the attack though, instead of using it as an excuse to go rearrange some peoples' countries for them.

Like I said, turning the other cheek takes a lot more strength than lashing out at your attacker. I honestly don't think we would have looked weak if we had done so.

And by your same reasoning, Iraq should attack us back right now 100 fold for all of the civilians of theirs that we've killed.

All that will mean to a predator is that we're not willing to pursue them. Honestly, it's pretty much JUST like predatorial (or even scavenger-like) behavior, meaning they only respond to strength. If they perceive us as unable or unwilling to retaliate, it will only make things worse.

There is nothing wrong with self-defense.

Bringing a predator to justice I agree with.

Bringing a predator to justice by any means necessary I disagree with.

Never said by any means necessary, how would it look if we were to violate the Geneva Conventions while persuing perpetrators who have done the same?

My point is that an aggressive response was pretty much required to dissuade further actions against us from others.

You want agressive? How about we go WW2 and carpet bomb the entire country with a 5000 mile wide 2000 mile long flock of heavy bombers? That would be aggressive enough and we wouldn't need to waste a whole lot of money on training people or deploying them. Plus no one gets truamatized by a war except for anyone hiding out in the countryside that just got obliterated.

Also we could use more efficient ways of stopping Osama. The Japanese called them assassins...I call them the Well Oil'd Killin' Machines.

You want agressive? How about we go WW2 and carpet bomb the entire country with a 5000 mile wide 2000 mile long flock of heavy bombers? That would be aggressive enough and we wouldn't need to waste a whole lot of money on training people or deploying them. Plus no one gets truamatized by a war except for anyone hiding out in the countryside that just got obliterated. Also we could use more efficient ways of stopping Osama. The Japanese called them assassins...I call them the Well Oil'd Killin' Machines.

You should try reading threads before posting in them.

How do you turn every discussion into shit? How?

Tell me how you turn relationships into shit and I'll tell you how I turn discussions into shit.

All that will mean to a predator is that we're not willing to pursue them. Honestly, it's pretty much JUST like predatorial (or even scavenger-like) behavior, meaning they only respond to strength. If they perceive us as unable or unwilling to retaliate, it will only make things worse. There is nothing wrong with self-defense.

Say that to Ghandi. He was completely against fighting. Even as his people were being gunned down, they would not fight. Turned out for the best.

Say that to Ghandi. He was completely against fighting. Even as his people were being gunned down, they would not fight. Turned out for the best.

Ghandi's situation is different, he believed in Civil Disobedience, which works well against establishments that rely upon your cooperation. Yes, it worked for him, but the situations are radically different between the U.S. now and Ghandi's India movements.

First off, nonviolent disobedience is largely just a nonviolent rebellion, which isn't a possibility because the United States would not be rebelling against a governing body, because we're a sovereign nation.

Reasoning with fanatics usually doesn't work out that well, but I'm unsure as to how we've attempted to reason with them thus far. That kind of thing doesn't make the news.

The nation's interest is retaining sovereignty, saving as many of our lives as possible, and deterring any other threats of this type. None of that works if you're being gunned down, bombed, or whatever by fanatics. You'd gain a moral victory, but you'd still be dead. It takes fanatics of your own to find that an acceptable solution. Even the Samurai of Japan had a saying (I forgot where I read it); "Honor is a thin cloak against the chill of the grave."


I'm not saying I don't agree with nonviolent solutions, but there are times where there is no other option. It is always, ALWAYS the last option.

I believe that we should have hunted for Bin laden. But he is probably dead already because he either a) took his own life or b) died of kidney problems. Well i hope he is happy that he got to live out his final moments on earth in a cave somewhere in a pile of his own shit. Now he is in hell wondering what he did wrong, fucktard.

It's not proof that he's still alive, but he's still releasing videos, even though it might not actually be him. He's mentioning current events, so if it IS him, it's not old footage.

Then again, isn't Tupac still releasing music?

It's not proof that he's still alive, but he's still releasing videos, even though it might not actually be him. He's mentioning current events, so if it IS him, it's not old footage. Then again, isn't Tupac still releasing music?

True, but most medical experts have gone on record saying that it would be very hard for him to survive due to the treatments he would need for his crappy kidneys.

I really dont care if he is alive or not, but if he is and we get our hands on him, then justice wont be served. He will be arrested and tried and then put in jail for a few years til he is killed or dies. Seeing him in jail would not be the answer to all those familes. I say put him in the middle of a square or something and anybody that wants to can come up and just takea crack at him. But that is unrealistic so dont mind this post