Justifications for War

[John Scott]

I understand that a lot of people want to bring Lincoln down to size and portray him as anything but a hero, but he was a hero. And the Civil War was a good war. Good war = something that liberals and pacificist don't much care for. Better to just pretend it was about something else, like oil or sex or drugs.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by littleFella

To my knowledge Osama expressed joy after 9/11, but denied involvment.

No, he claimed responsibilty for it several months afterward.

[evilregis]

Osama having worked with the CIA in the past, to the point of having been given an alias so that he could travel into the States, doesn't help.

You can call conspiracy theory to anything you want, but the actions of the government in the past certainly doesn't lend themselves to a whole lot in the way of the trust that they expect.

[littleFella]

Originally Posted by JohnScott

Southnow,

The Civil War was largely about slavery.



http://www.swcivilwar.com/cw_causes.html

I think your post would be more pallatable if you wrote that the American Civil War aka Secession War war largely about economy.

Although only a small share of Northerners favored measures to abolish slavery in the South, the Republicans were able to mobilize popular support among Northerners and Westerns who did not want to compete against slave labor if the system were expanded beyond the South. The Republicans won the support of many ex-Whigs and Northern ex-Democrats concerned about the South's disproportionate influence in the Senate, the Buchanan administration, and the Supreme Court.

Southern secession was triggered by the election of Republican Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln was a moderate in his opposition to slavery. He pledged to do all he could to oppose the expansion of slavery into the territories (thus also preventing the admission of any additional slave states to the Union); but he also said the federal government did not have the power to abolish slavery in the states in which it already existed, and that he would enforce Fugitive Slave Laws.

both quotes from wikipedia

[notepad]

How can a people, how can a nation justify the murders of countless thousands men, women and children in both Afghanistan, Iraq and who knows how many more nations and more dead to come ...based on some broadcasts from a CIA controlled media and one easy-to-fake Osama tape?

Besides, the faked Osama tape came later.






# # #

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by notepad

How can a people, how can a nation justify the murders of countless thousands men, women and children in both Afghanistan, Iraq and who knows how many more nations and more dead to come ...based on some broadcasts from a CIA controlled media and one easy-to-fake Osama tape?

Besides, the faked Osama tape came later.






# # #

One easy to fake Osama tape, and dozens of his friends claiming the same thing?

November 2001, U.S. forces recovered a videotape from a destroyed house in Jalalabad, Afghanistan which showed Osama bin Laden talking to Khaled al-Harbi. In the tape, Osama seems to admit planning the attacks. Translations from the tape include the following lines:

"we calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all...We had notification since the previous Thursday that the event would take place that day. We had finished our work that day and had the radio on...Muhammad (Atta) from the Egyptian family (meaning the Al Qaida Egyptian group), was in charge of the group...The brothers, who conducted the operation, all they knew was that they have a martyrdom operation and we asked each of them to go to America but they didn't know anything about the operation, not even one letter. But they were trained and we did not reveal the operation to them until they are there and just before they boarded the planes."[2]

(http://www.cbc.ca/news/indepth/targe...ranscript.html)

Later Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh were captured. Both were known al Qaida members and both admitted participating in the planning of the attacks. They also indicated bin Laden's direct participation. Mohammed was the principal planner of the attack basing it on the failed Operation Bojinka. Binalshibh may have been picked as a hijacker but, after failing to get into the U.S., worked on financing the operation. Among the details they revealed under interrogation was that the original plan had called for more aircraft but that bin Laden had scaled it down and that bin Laden had attempted to advance the timing of the attacks after events in Israel.

As of 2004, several people including Mohammed, Binalshibh and Mohamed al-Kahtani, the 20th hijacker, were being held by the U.S. as enemy combatants; however, the United States had no one on trial for the attacks. In Germany, Mounir El Motassadeq was convicted of over 3000 counts of accessory to murder for helping finance the hijackers but the verdict was put aside and a new trial scheduled. Abdelghani Mzoudi was acquitted in Germany on the same charges.

[littleFella]

Originally Posted by JohnScott

Good war = something that liberals and pacificist don't much care for. Better to just pretend it was about something else, like oil or sex or drugs.

Roosevelt was a liberal. He did all he could to make the US joind WW2.

[littleFella]

Originally Posted by JohnScott

No, he claimed responsibilty for it several months afterward.

I heard the tape wasn't of such a great quality and it took them a while to "interpret" what he said.

[littleFella]

Originally Posted by JohnScott

(http://www.cbc.ca/news/indepth/targe...ranscript.html)

c'mon John. I can't believe you are quoting a liberal source. Make up your mind

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by littleFella

Roosevelt was a liberal. He did all he could to make the US joind WW2.

Liberals, by definition, do not do war.

[gorillaboy]

Originally Posted by JohnScott

Liberals, by definition, do not do war.

That's not true.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by littleFella

I heard the tape wasn't of such a great quality and it took them a while to "interpret" what he said.

Yes, and it was faked. But for some unknown reason, the entire Al Quidy network has forgotten to deny responsibility or claim that the tapes were faked. Indeed, they claim the tapes are real.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by gorillaboy

That's not true.

Then, please, define liberal.

[littleFella]

Originally Posted by JohnScott

Liberals, by definition, do not do war.

Would that mean that conservatives are those who, by definition, wage war?

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by littleFella

Would that mean that conservatives are those who, by definition, wage war?

Well, the girlie men liberals aren't going to stick up for the victims of tyrants, so who else is going to? Yes, Conservatives wage war. You didn't know that?

[littleFella]

Originally Posted by JohnScott

Then, please, define liberal.
[...]
Well, the girlie men liberals aren't going to stick up for the victims of tyrants, so who else is going to? Yes, Conservatives wage war. You didn't know that?

Some of the worst, and bloodiest conflicts were either joined or initiated by liberals.
The Peasant Revolution in England, The French revolution, the US war of independence, the Russian revolution, the Revolution of 1948 in Europe. Heck, even Hitler was a socialist.
We could go on, back and forth in time. Bloodthirsty Liberals everywhere

Sometimes it takes more courage not to wage war, than to join it.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by littleFella

Some of the worst, and bloodiest conflicts were either joined or initiated by liberals.
The Peasant Revolution in England, The French revolution, the US war of independence, the Russian revolution, the Revolution of 1948 in Europe. Heck, even Hitler was a socialist.
We could go on, back and forth in time. Bloodthirsty Liberals everywhere

Um, hello. We are talking about "Liberal" as it means in current American politics. "Liberals" in Japan are entirely different from "Liberals" in the US. And it has nothing to do with the original meaning of the word "liberal".

[gorillaboy]

Originally Posted by JohnScott

We are talking about "Liberal" as it means in current American politics.

I guess that's true - "in current American politics".