Wikileaks reveals identity of Afgan informants

**Myrddraal** · 07-31-2010, 21:14

What? What are you trying to do, provoke me? You have no idea what my opinions are on 9/11, but I'll give you a hint, you're barking up the wrong tree, try something else. What on earth does 9/11 have to do with wikileaks? Are you saying that 9/11 justifies the release of informants details?

**Husar** · 08-01-2010, 01:51

I think he's trying to say that the Afghanistan and Iraq war are justified by 9/11 so we justify the deaths of innocents in those wars by the deaths of innocents in 9/11.

I do however disagree since the deaths of innocents are not the point of the wars and are usually not justified by 9/11 but apologized for by the people causing them, noone goes there and says it's okay to kill a few innocents because of 9/11.

**Hax** · 08-01-2010, 01:55

I think he's trying to say that the Afghanistan and Iraq war are justified by 9/11 so we justify the deaths of innocents in those wars by the deaths of innocents in 9/11.

I think he's being ironic (or trying to at least). How one would connect Iraq and 9/11 is something of a mystery to me.

**Skullheadhq** · 08-01-2010, 09:35

Originally Posted by Hax

How one would connect Iraq and 9/11 is something of a mystery to me.

But yet some stupids did, with devastating consequences.

Originally Posted by Washington Post 2004

President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming [...] We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

The finding challenges a belief held by large numbers of Americans about al Qaeda's ties to Hussein. According to a Harris poll in late April, a plurality of Americans, 49 percent to 36 percent, believe "clear evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda has been found." [....] In September, Cheney said on NBC's "Meet the Press": "If we're successful in Iraq . . . then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

But anyway, back to topic.

**Centurion1** · 08-01-2010, 17:06

And there's the requisite bush bash of the thread.

Carry on everybody.

**Jolt** · 08-01-2010, 18:40

Originally Posted by Hax

I think he's being ironic (or trying to at least). How one would connect Iraq and 9/11 is something of a mystery to me.

**Furunculus** · 08-01-2010, 18:56

ah look, there we go again.

anyone noticed how bush looks like hitler?

................ oops, Godwin alert!

**Ice** · 08-01-2010, 19:02

**Seamus Fermanagh** · 08-03-2010, 00:37

Skully:

One of the regrettable truths of combat is that defeating an opponent often requires you to emulate some of the characteristics of that opponent. We are opposed by an enemy that specifically targets non-combatants in order to generate the highest possible number of casualties for the least use of resources. Setting aside the utter imorality/evil of the 9-11 attacks, it was brilliantly efficient. Resources were stolen from the target and used against that same target with much damage and loss of life resulting. Less than two dozen lives were lost by the attackers and surprisingly little was spent to fund the attack.

The US does not and will not specifically target non-combatants. Regrettably, quite a few of them get killed by the USA as a by-product of attacks on legitimate targets. In addition, some die as a result of mistaken targetting. Each of these lives is a tragic loss, and each tends to make a few enemies. Unfortunately, waging war without such "collateral damage" is virtually impossible.

So, if your argument boils down to "the USA is no better than Al Queda because they both kill the innocent," then I submit that your argument fails to address both the intentions of US violence and the efforts made to minimize the death of the innocent. Asserting a moral equivalence is not justified.

If your argument boils down to "all violence is bad, so just stop it." then I submit that your argument is naive. Violence should not be the first choice for resolving conflict, but if violence is used against you than a violent response is justified. In fact, if one side willingly employes violence and the other does not, the violent ones have a horrific advantage in the conflict.

If your argument is working on a deeper level, I was unable to discern it.