It's not "our freedoms" they hate ... it's the loss of themselves to pay for that "freedom"
A Better Way to Have Handled 9/11
- Thread starter JBeee
- Start date
It's not "our freedoms" they hate ... it's the loss of themselves to pay for that "freedom"
How so? Because there's a MacDonalds in Karachi? Are they forced at gunpoint to eat KFC? What loss of themselves exactly are they suffering?
Too see Usonians expecting us to feel sorry for them after the last 7 years of hell they've unleashed is actually rather quaint. If a Usonian can't see how the actions of their country on a global scale might be resented by some, that person is truly blind
Now you're doubling it. Frankly, I thought you were more mature....
It's that "I-am-right-and-you-are-bad-if-you-don't-agree-that-i-am-right" attitude that gets rockets, stones, bullets and Boeings fired into the arrogance. Thank you for demonstrating your part in it so well....
Well, many I know bristle when it is suggested that 9-11 wasn't really good enough justification for anything the US did afterwards
There is also a LOT of calling the US a "victim" but in the grand scheme I do believe a popular American term "collateral damage" is MUCH more appropriate- watch the apologists jump on that and my point will be proven, it's funny that the US is just an innocent "victim" in the blind eyes of so many, is all
I won't even touch the possibility of some sort of collusion on ANY level at this point
There is also a LOT of calling the US a "victim" but in the grand scheme I do believe a popular American term "collateral damage" is MUCH more appropriate- watch the apologists jump on that and my point will be proven, it's funny that the US is just an innocent "victim" in the blind eyes of so many, is all
I won't even touch the possibility of some sort of collusion on ANY level at this point
You lost me. 9/11 was collateral damage?
I'm not trying to be obtuse, I really don't get your point.
I'm not trying to be obtuse, I really don't get your point.
"Those attacks were directly related to US forigne policy", not proper english, what you appear to be trying to say is, those attacks were US foreign policy and executed by the USA as a matter of policy. Who else exercises policy if not the originating nation and possibly a close and trusted allie and tradeing partner. Give it up , the sane world has reviewed the evidence and the accused nations and has concluded that the whole official story is a monumental lie. And that brings us to the poor deranged and frieghtened but faithfull specimin who insists that the worlds largest ever terrorist organization could not possibly have commited a self afflicting terrorist act of wanton murderous barbarity especially in the light of thier world class expertise and experiance in the field as demonstrated in several recent and historical zones of conflict. It boggles the mind how people cling to the certainty of civic and social infrastructure and the blind and dumb trust in justice and ethics that do not exist and are not exercised by the allegedly wounded party. We could be wrong but logic and common scence and the evidence say otherwise. Any objective study of the material clearly indicates that the facts and the official seeded story diverge at 180 degrees at speed. It's not you of course and it's not me, it's the axis of evil.
I believe you ITF, it must be frustrating to talk to the blind unreasonable cattle all day. :lol:
Perhaps those countries were attacked for being free, democratic societies.:lol:
