Discussion in 'The War Room' started by Fawlty, Sep 9, 2019.
Have you been around or eaten any donuts lately? Asking for a friend
So, what exactly has Warren done that is wrong?
I think they are all trying to “steal” each other’s voters... that’s how an election works.
Warren and Sanders have been nothing but cordial and respectful to each other throughout the primary.
I’m sure if/when one drops out, they will endorse the other.
(Also, it’s dank memes that I’m using to up my lounge cred, not getting into dumb arguments.)
Ah. I catch the cut of your gib. I would use a certain *wink*wink* punctuation mark to clarify our mutual understanding, but I don’t want to tempt the wrath of the Shergods.
The side of the innocent people that died on 9/11 due to the US of As war of aggression internationally.
The CIA famously called 9/11 blowback for our actions and I agree with that statement.
Or is being an isolationist only popular when the current president flip flops on the matter?
"Oh I think the WTC and Pentagon are viable targets in the act of war"
So you're 'American' and you see these two places having been viable 'targets' right?
She hasn't dropped out yet and is taking votes from some of your only chance(s) to win.
In an act of war absolutely. The centers of the military and economy make more sense than anywhere else.
Shooting up a mall attacks American consumerism, firebombing a recruiters office targets military reach.
The WTC and the Pentagon? I think people forget that they were more than symbolic.
I mean, between driving the US economy into recession, the casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, the fact veterans of those wars are offing themselves daily and winding up on the streets, the fact we gave up personal freedoms for the Patriot Act and PRISM.
Who won really?
Pentagon, sure. WTC? I dunno, not so valid to me. It's not as if the American or global economy was sanctioning jihadists, you know? i'd say the WTC was almost entirely symbolic, going by what I've heard from jihadists.
So you believe the attacks were justified, then? Sympathize with the terrorists, do ya?
I mean, I hear ya on the rationalization, but again, who's side are you on? Think it's cool those assholes killed 3000 of your countrymen? Justify it, do you? Join them then, and get the fuck out of Western society.
And this is why, you are not a real American.
I've been thinking about something similar.
There's a bias there may already be a name for where people insist that where there is *any* evidence of some position (of whatever strength) and no evidence of the contrary position, the former position is more true/rational.
This holds even when the contrary position has never been adequately investigated.
If you were our enemy, what would you have attacked instead? It's a horrible thing that happened but strategically it makes sense.
I'm not your enemy. And I'm not pointing out that public places like the WTC are viable targets.
From what I've read the attack on the WTC was to cripple the US economy, and that the WTC was seen as an exporter of "economic terrorism"
I don't believe they were justifed, pull your panties out. I believe what the CIA said was accurate. That 9/11 was blowback.
Oh for sure lmao. That's why I want us to quit our dealings with Saudi Arabia. You think those Yemeni rebels aren't biding their time? You think a child who survived the starvation and US bombs isn't going to want revenge? I, as an American, want our country to quit engaging in shit like this, so we don't give the enemies abroad a reason. Again. I quote the CIA. 9/11 was blowback.
Bayesian reasoning does a good job of holding the line there, imo.
You do realize I'm saying viable from their standpoint right? That people who witness children starving under US Sanctions have deemed the US guilty of economic terror.
You should read the stuff Chomsky wrote about 9/11, you seem to be misinterpreting my point. He says it far better than I.
I would've attacked them two big dudes.
Blowback doesn't always overlap with any kind of vengeance (and vengeance sort of "justifies" atrocities - I take you to mean 9/11 was "justified" from the jihadist POV in their own twisted way). Blowback is more like arming Syrian rebels who then get jacked for their weapons by ISIS, or running guns to Pol Pot in Vietnam and him turning them on his own people, or "freedom fighters" of all kinds in South/Central America going apeshit, or the big one that really blew back on us, funding and training OBL and his gang to fight the Soviets.
So blowback is more about unintended consequences (especially "enemy of my enemy" stuff) than it is just desserts.
What do you want him to say? Do you support every retarded thing your country does ? Do you still love your country? If you were at war with the united states and you wanted to strike a hard blow you would be a complete liar if you say you wouldnt target populated areas or powerful symbols. A genetic alpha like you would probably come up with a way to kill 300,000 and we should be glad you arent our enemy
It was our policies that caused it. Everything bad in the world isnt americas fault but there is a lot that is.
Its really complicated because on one hand I agree with @AgonyandIrony and on the other hand am an america loving redneck and thought we should have went full world war 2 on the saudis after the attack.
Living in a powerful empire causes some serious mixed emotions . Its great here but it also sucks. We do a lot of great things but we also cause some really horrible shit to happen in other places far away. I know in the west we tend to think of those poor fuckers as npcs but they are not and at times they get so pissed off at something they lash out. Is this really that hard to grasp ?
You do though. You've essentially said as much.
I understand your point that actions have consequences, but the way you're relaying it, seems gleeful. Like you don't care about the gravity of the consequences to your own countrymen, and just love that America got what was coming to them.
Separate names with a comma.