Originally Posted by Wagner

He de-railed a long time ago.

Originally Posted by EKS PYB

Man, he's really way out there...

Originally Posted by Eric5273

I don't actually believe that. I believe they simply don't care. I believe they would bomb an orphanage if they suspected that Osama bin Laden might be there. I don't think they really give a crap about civilian casualties. They are more interested in their political objectives.

And the same can be said for those who committed the 9/11 attacks. How about this for an argument - BTW, this is an argument that is surely going to make your blood boil -- but I will argue that those who committed the 9/11 attacks made every effort to minimize casualties. But before you jump to conclusions, read my points below:

1. The attacks took place prior to 9am, when most people had not gotten to work yet, and the WTC towers were mostly empty. If the attacks had taken place one hour later, or any time later in the day, the death toll would have been 10 times greater.

2. Flight 77 crashed into the one tiny part of the Pentagon that was mostly unoccupied due to renovation. Therefore, very few Pentagon employees were killed or hurt. If they had crashed into any other part of the Pentagon, thousands would have been killed. Here is the flight path:

http://guardian.150m.com/pentagon/flight77path.jpg

As you can see, they clearly made an effort to hit that exact part and did not just crash straight into the nearest or easiest section. Instead they did a crazy 270 degree turn so that they could hit just the right spot.


I would argue that the goal of the 9/11 attacks was simply to terrorize people, and not actually to kill civilians. Thus the term terrorism. The goal was to knock down these buildings and attack the Pentagon, all while minimizing casualties. Does this strategy sound a bit familiar? Remember Shock and Awe? Oh yeah, I guess we did the same thing to the Iraqis. And far more Iraqi civilians were killed during Shock and Awe than Americans were killed on 9/11/01. But with both events, killing civilians was not the goal. The goal was to terrorize them, and in both cases it succeeded.

Again, we are equating similar things. Living in the United States and using the American media as a source for your information, it may be hard to come to grips with these realities, but try stepping outside of your patriotism and looking at these events from a third party point of view.

Originally Posted by Wagner

Apologetic? Are you kidding?

If someone punched you do you apologize for whatever you did that may have offended them?

Originally Posted by Dannyell

Wagner we killed syrian civilians in their own territory & call the mission a success...

& your example is ...

Originally Posted by Wagner

My example of ??? WHAT???

The mission was a success. Terrorist, killed. Is it sad that civilians "may" have died in the process? Of course. Does that mean you don't take out the person who may kill 100's or 1000's of yours? No.