What I don't get is the hypocrisy of saying an attack on America was right while holding the view that America having a military force is unnecessary - "i see no need for any country to have a standing army".

Anything can be justified. Osama can say he attacked for this, he attacked for that. Just as Diplomat can say we invaded Iraq to help the Kurds.

Trim, if you punch me in the face, am I justified in killing your mother? If I can justify it by skewed moral values, which may be different than yours, then your mother dies.

(As you would say 'You can't act the bully and not expect someone to retaliate')

I never said you shouldn't expect an attack, but it's a very different thing to say that that attack was right.

I can't even wrap my mind around your argument. I'm actually getting mad.

Or how about if you buy up all the copies of the new Doom game so I can't get one, then turn around and sell them on ebay for a profit. Am I justified in killing your family members then?

@dingleberry you retaliate to the same extent if i punch you you punch me back etc, invictus you cant wrap your mind around the fact that you cant go round pissing off other countries/people and when they retaliate thats not justified?

and dingle stop with the stupid analogies you know thats not what im talking about, and i did say the killing of civilians was completely wrong.btw the america army didnt stop you being attack did it?very useful then

My attack on your mother is justified. It may have been wrong to kill a civilian, but my attack is justified, and your mother is just as dead. So you are excusing my actions while paying lip service to the need to protect civilians.

Actually both my analogies are real issues. One is you using force against me and oppressing me (the punch in the face) and the other is you stealing/squandering precious resources (the video game aka oil)

no an attack on me would be justified not the target which is what i keep saying

"btw the america army didnt stop you being attack did it?very useful then"

That's like saying because your friend was killed in a car crash while wearing a seat-belt that seat-belts are useless.

I'd also add that not stopping the 9/11 attacks or the 7/7 attacks was more a failure of intelligence and law enforcement than it was a failure of the military. That's not to say we should stop having those either, or that you can ever stop everything.

As to your insistence that the attacks were justified, but not the targets: fine for the sake of moving the discussion on, let's say you're right, what is our wider point? Should we just let Bin Laden keep doing these things an hope he decides to only attack targets that you happen to find more acceptable? How do we deal with people who do decide to attack civilians? What do we do when their demands aren't things that can be met?

Trim, if you punch me in the face, am I justified in killing your mother? If I can justify it by skewed moral values, which may be different than yours, then your mother dies.

Actually US foreign policy is less "punch your mother" than "rape her, steal everything you own, degrade you with racist language and drop a molotov cocktail on the way out"

Actually US foreign policy is less "punch your mother" than "rape her, steal everything you own, degrade you with racist language and drop a molotov cocktail on the way out"

and when the US does that, everyone is surprised when someone takes a swing at us.

trim101, I was almost sympathetic to your argument and ready to join the debate on your side, but your recent posts have been incredibly hypocritical. If 9/11 was justified because of terrible interventionist foreign policy, then America's retribution was absolutely justified as well. You can argue it one way or the other, backward or forward,but you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Also the idea that if no country had a standing army than there'd be no need for one is absurdly impractical. It's perhaps a wonderful thought, and true in some ways, but it is simply unsustainable. It would be ridiculously easy for one country to raise an army and to exploit and conquer it's neighbours with very little repercussion. No armies is just simply not a sustainable strategy because it is too easily disrupted and exploited; it's a fairy tale.

Of course, just because it's necessary doesn't make it "right", which is where I sympathize with you.

i wasn't being hypocritical at all, first of all an attack was justified not the civilian casulties of 9/11, tbh americas reaction towards afghanistan was in a way fair enough but invading iraq was a lose lose situation as its just forcing more people towards fundalmentalism.Americas interventionist foreign policy got them into this mess i dont see a way out but i sure as hell wasn't being hypocritical.

as for the standing army why not just do what the swiss do, have an army made up of conscripts/militia?call them up when you need them.ok not having a standing army is a bit of a fancyful dream but it still would make alot of sense

"i wasn't being hypocritical at all, first of all an attack was justified not the civilian casulties of 9/11"

That's just stupid.

how?just because you for some reason can't understand something doesn't mean its stupid

wow invictus, I really love how you win arguments not by arguing with supported counterviews, or addressing the subject at all, but just calling your opponent childish names.
what a skilled orator

@trim101 - I'm honestly asking you here, what do you think specifically the United States did that made an attack by Osama Bin Laden justified?

He can't condemn and condone terrorist acts in the same sentence. That's stupid and willfully so.

Sic I do agree with you on Invictus' recent argument tactics. Though to be fair I find them pretty hilarious. It's pretty fun to see "You suck." or "You suck Sicarius" or presumably "You suck ____(person I disagree with)" all by itself in the middle of a discussion. Makes me laugh just about every time! (And I mean that literally, just the idea of someone just suddenly saying "you suck!" and nothing else is really honestly very very funny to me.)

DrOct from my point of view or his, as there could be differing views.Invictus if you don't understand stay out of the thread but i will again repeat what i said: an attack was justified just the target was wrong,why is that so hard for you to understand. i will try an example from the dingle school of analogies, say you beat me up, ok im justified to extract some form of revenge but if i go and beat your mum up as my revenge, that would be an unjustifiable target as i should have just gone and beat you up.

I have read the thread. You're still being stupid.

I never said we shouldn't expect attacks, but that doesn't make them right. It's that kind of dangerous moral relativism which causes so many problems in the world.

It's no use talking to people like you.

hahaha so using my example if you beat me up it wouldnt be right for me to retaliate?

trim, the hypocritical part comes in when you say an attack was justified because of America's foreign policy, but then you don't think an attack was justified by America after they were attacked. If Invictus bullied you, and you think you have the right to retaliate, then why don't you think he then has the retaliate again? You can't expect straight tit for tat, especially when it's difficult to discern which was the first tit and which was the last tat.

Invictus, I have to admit your debating skills have been sub par recently. The ad hominem was funny at the start but you still need to substantiate your arguments.

invictus, are you even reading this? can you really not comprehend the words on the page or are you just being willfully ignorant?
or is it you are so close minded that you cant possibly see any point of view that doesnt coincide with your bullshit nationalism

It's no use talking to people like you.


trim I for one agree with you.
you cant push someone around forever and never expect anything back.
an attack on america was absolutley justified.
supposing that bin laden committed 9/11, he's a CIA tactician anyway. paid and trained by the US government. thats fact, look it up.

what I think trim is trying to say is that countries etc. that have been fucked by the US government have every right to fight back, but stike at the military or the gov, the ones who did it to you, not the people who live here, who had little to do with it?
am I right trim?

anyway americas foreign policy of interventionism and nation-building... ugh. what possible right did america have to invade iraq and kill 100000 civilians?
oil? to boost the securities infrastructure? to flex imperialistic muscles?

natinal security my ass, it's imperialism.
if America wanted to stay safe, they would butt the fuck out of the rest of the worlds business.
why do you think everyone hates us? jealous of our freedom? bullshit! its our constant meddling!

I've come to the point where I've realized that I can't change any of the lefties minds here anymore than they can change mine. Why put the effort into an internet argument that solves nothing and will be ignored by those who honestly believe in the nonsense often posted here?

I think I'll stay to lighthearted posts now. It's too frustrating making cogent arguments anymore when they'll mostly be ignored.

Invictus, fair enough, but I'll be sad to see you leave the arena. You were one of the few who represented the right with logic and coherence.

To be honest, I don't debate because I think I can change my opponent's mind. I debate because it forces me to refine my arguments and points of views so that I can examine my views and change or justify them. It's also refreshing to hear new and different, if sometimes offensive or alien, perspectives. Debate for yourself, as an intellectual exercise, and not necessarily to convert people.

I will take a break. This thread has really gotten me mad.