USA planned the invasion of Afghanistan MONTHS before 9/11

garric said:
Because Bin Laden attacked the USA via 9/11. I can't believe you'r asking these kinds of questions.
Did you read the first post in this thread? Or even the title?:confused:

Watch conspiracy videos much?
What is a conspiracy theory is that these remote cave-dwellers in Afghanistan managed to pull off a strike on America with military precision and also manage to defy the laws of physics in the process.

I've had enough of this thread. I can't debate people who take every anti-American conspiracy theory as absolute truth.
In other words, you can't debate what El Presidente has decreed to be true...
 
El_Machinae said:
Are you actually advocating the invasion of North Korea?
No...:confused:
 
Well then there's no point saying that they should have invaded North Korea first, instead of Afghanistan - if their contention is that both contain evil regimes in need of toppling.

You can understand that it's not possible to do both. And you don't actually feel that North Korea would have been a superior choice.

To defeat that line of argument you'd need to show that they weren't evil regimes in need of toppling. And since you seem to feel that, you should just show your points.
 
El_Machinae said:
Well then there's no point saying that they should have invaded North Korea first, instead of Afghanistan - if their contention is that both contain evil regimes in need of toppling.

You can understand that it's not possible to do both. And you don't actually feel that North Korea would have been a superior choice.

To defeat that line of argument you'd need to show that they weren't evil regimes in need of toppling. And since you seem to feel that, you should just show your points.
No, I am saying it is a pointless waste of resources and human life to invade any country for the sake "toppling an evil regime." Take one down, another will rise in its place. We CANNOT be involved in perpetual war.

People are responsible for their own country's affairs...
 
El_Machinae said:
You believe in a "Just War", if I'm correct.

I believe a Just War can be preemptive, can't it?

A "just war" on a nation cannot be based upon the interests of the personal gain of any other nation.
 
Naw, I get that. I'm pretty solid on what a Just War is - self-defense.

I'm just pointing out it can be preemptive, right?
 
El_Machinae said:
Naw, I get that. I'm pretty solid on what a Just War is - self-defense.

I'm just pointing out it can be preemptive, right?
In order to launch a "preemptive" war there needs to first be proof that the other nation has committed some type of wrong that makes war the only feasible solution.
 
By direct comparison, then, to kill another person preemptively requires proof that person has committed some type of wrong that makes killing him is the only feasible solution.
 
El_Machinae said:
By direct comparison, then, to kill another person preemptively requires proof that person has committed some type of wrong that makes killing him is the only feasible solution.
Yes, such as killing an innocent human being...
 
Inqvisitor said:
Yes, such as killing an innocent human being...

This putative creature you describe has never been spotted.

But, it seems that killing should be the solution of last resort, even when dealing with someone who is not innocent.
 
El_Machinae said:
This putative creature you describe has never been spotted.

But, it seems that killing should be the solution of last resort, even when dealing with someone who is not innocent.
Only when it is necessary for the welfare of the people. A murderer is in nearly all cases.

But that is a separate topic. A sovereign in communion with the Catholic teaching on capital punishment is endowed with the power to execute such judgment on his own citizens who have committed such crimes. A sovereign is not allowed to invade another country killing thousands on both sides in order to destabilize the nation as part of imperialist and economic agendas...
 
Inqvisitor said:
What is a conspiracy theory is that these remote cave-dwellers in Afghanistan managed to pull off a strike on America with military precision and also manage to defy the laws of physics in the process.

What? If you're going to base it off of a conspiracy theory at least show some proof.

Inqvisitor said:
Yes, such as killing an innocent human being...

The same way you advocate in taking arms against illegal immigrants?

Inqvisitor said:
No, I am saying it is a pointless waste of resources and human life to invade any country for the sake "toppling an evil regime." Take one down, another will rise in its place. We CANNOT be involved in perpetual war.

People are responsible for their own country's affairs...

Help out your fellow man?

When good men do nothing, evil flourishes?
 
blackheart said:
What? If you're going to base it off of a conspiracy theory at least show some proof.
There are numerous reasons which demonstrate why the 9/11 attacks could not have been physically possible as Bush and his regime have proclaimed them to be. I believe there may have been a thread on this, or maybe I will start a new one....

The same way you advocate in taking arms against illegal immigrants?

Illegal militant invader ≠ Innocent

Help out your fellow man?

When good men do nothing, evil flourishes?
Invading their nation does not help them...
 
Xenocrates said:
Good post Zulu.

The next question is:

'why did they want to invade Afghanistan?'

The letters O, I and L may only give you three points in scrabble.......

But who's O, I and L did they want, perhaps all of it?

Afgnanistan is not an oil rich country. Find some other theory to fit your anti-Bush sentiments.
 
Illegal militant invader ≠ Innocent

I thought so. However, your own words were killing someone should only be done "Only when it is necessary for the welfare of the people. "

Ergo. Illegal invaders do not need to be killed, since it is not necessary for the welfare of the people
 
El_Machinae said:
I thought so. However, your own words were killing someone should only be done "Only when it is necessary for the welfare of the people. "

Ergo. Illegal invaders do not need to be killed, since it is not necessary for the welfare of the people
If they stop invading and return home. But otherwise they are enemy combatants, and a defensive war is a just war...
 
Inqvisitor said:
There are numerous reasons which demonstrate why the 9/11 attacks could not have been physically possible as Bush and his regime have proclaimed them to be. I believe there may have been a thread on this, or maybe I will start a new one....

And then I can pull up numerous reasons that refute yours.

Illegal militant invader ≠ Innocent

If they stop invading and return home. But otherwise they are enemy combatants, and a defensive war is a just war...

How hypocritical of you. I don't see an invasion happening, you're making it up and then trying to support killing illegal immigrants with fabricated lies.

Inqvistor said:
Invading their nation does not help them...

Freeing people from oppression is a good start, unless you don't want that.
 
Top Bottom