Was 9/11 justified?

Magos Domina · April 26, 2015, 07:03:54 PM

9/11 Was pretty justified tbh. America had that sort of thing coming. You know what they say about karma and all.

What do you think? If you vote "No" give me a reason other than "muh butt hurt murica"

Mat Cauthon · April 26, 2015, 07:07:19 PM

inb4move

Magos Domina · April 26, 2015, 07:10:23 PM

Quote from: Byrne on April 26, 2015, 07:07:19 PM

inb4move

If they move it then it shows that the staff only welcome opinions that don't conflict with their own.

Not Comms Officer · April 26, 2015, 07:25:11 PM

Cold War was Bad against Worse. As bad as the US was during the Cold War, the Soviet Union was far worse and the US kind of needed to be bad to counter the Soviet Union's worse.

Turkey · April 26, 2015, 07:32:45 PM

Look at those towers. Look how they're dressed, like dirty sluts. Those filthy whores were just asking to be DP'd by some sexually repressed Jihadis.

Not Comms Officer · April 26, 2015, 07:34:03 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on April 26, 2015, 07:32:45 PM

Look at those towers. Look how they're dressed, like dirty sluts. Those filthy whores were just asking to be DP'd by some sexually repressed Jihadis.

They weren't even wearing burqas...

You're right, they deserved to by destroyed!

DAS B00T x2 · April 26, 2015, 07:39:21 PM

The only proper response is lolkiyo

Not Comms Officer · April 26, 2015, 08:31:03 PM

Does Kiyo have any responses to our counterarguments or not?

Tackel · April 26, 2015, 10:06:15 PM

YouTube

big dog · April 27, 2015, 08:26:48 AM

9/11 wasn't justified. Microsoft should have delayed Halo 2 so that Bungie could have finished it.

King pesto · April 27, 2015, 10:13:13 AM

>shitposting in Serious

Mr. Psychologist · April 27, 2015, 11:32:33 AM

Aside from the bait, and the potential arguments of western interventionism causing middle easterners/muslims to retaliate - targeting civilians like that is rarely justified.

Flying one into the pentagon you could argue is justifiable, given that it's a military target belonging to an 'enemy' of the jihadists but then again any and all kuffir are fair game for bombing I doubt anyone could believe that they give two shits whether a bombing is justifiable or not to outsiders.

PSU · April 27, 2015, 11:37:20 AM

But the mods leave a joke topic like this in serious?

Lol this fucking website

challengerX · April 27, 2015, 11:39:10 AM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

challengerX · April 27, 2015, 11:39:48 AM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Mr. Psychologist · April 27, 2015, 11:44:09 AM

Quote from: challengerX on April 27, 2015, 11:39:10 AM

Quote from: Mr Psychologist on April 27, 2015, 11:32:33 AM
targeting civilians like that is rarely justified.
More like never.

Well, that's what I was originally thinking but then no doubt someone would bring up the whole Hiroshima/Nagasaki argument again and start justifying that.

challengerX · April 27, 2015, 11:45:17 AM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Mr. Psychologist · April 27, 2015, 11:47:31 AM

Quote from: PSU on April 27, 2015, 11:37:20 AM

But the mods leave a joke topic like this in serious?

Lol this fucking website

Surely you of all people would know that a controversial opinion =/= a joke.

Looking at the other viewpoint as to why some people might think it's justified (Such as the scumbags who committed the attack) can help to understand how to prevent that from happening again. Simply ignoring the psychology of the enemy isn't going to do anything other than bend over and present for the next one.

Mr. Psychologist · April 27, 2015, 11:48:53 AM

Quote from: challengerX on April 27, 2015, 11:45:17 AM

Quote from: Mr Psychologist on April 27, 2015, 11:44:09 AM
Quote from: challengerX on April 27, 2015, 11:39:10 AM
Quote from: Mr Psychologist on April 27, 2015, 11:32:33 AM
targeting civilians like that is rarely justified.
More like never.
Well, that's what I was originally thinking but then no doubt someone would bring up the whole Hiroshima/Nagasaki argument again and start justifying that.
That wasn't justified.

It was just the least evil option.

Which is a form of justifying it, not in the obvious way but saying why it was done (even as the lesser of two evils) means that choosing that course of action could be justified over the other.

challengerX · April 27, 2015, 11:52:02 AM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

challengerX · April 27, 2015, 11:53:07 AM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Mr. Psychologist · April 27, 2015, 11:54:29 AM

Quote from: challengerX on April 27, 2015, 11:52:02 AM

Quote from: Mr Psychologist on April 27, 2015, 11:48:53 AM
Quote from: challengerX on April 27, 2015, 11:45:17 AM
Quote from: Mr Psychologist on April 27, 2015, 11:44:09 AM
Quote from: challengerX on April 27, 2015, 11:39:10 AM
Quote from: Mr Psychologist on April 27, 2015, 11:32:33 AM
targeting civilians like that is rarely justified.
More like never.
Well, that's what I was originally thinking but then no doubt someone would bring up the whole Hiroshima/Nagasaki argument again and start justifying that.
That wasn't justified.

It was just the least evil option.
Which is a form of justifying it, not in the obvious way but saying why it was done (even as the lesser of two evils) means that choosing that course of action could be justified over the other.
The word "justified" doesn't apply.

It was the "better" option, but you can't really justify killing civvies. Personally I think it should've been dropped on a military target.

It's different ways of using it but yeah, I do agree <.<

You can make excuses/explanations for the killing of civilians as an attempt to justify it but I doubt you could ever actually justify it (Never say never though) And yeah, I'm sure they could have found a target that would have demonstrated it's power just as well without the absurd amounts of collateral damage.

Mr. Psychologist · April 27, 2015, 12:00:04 PM

Quote from: challengerX on April 27, 2015, 11:53:07 AM

Quote from: Mr Psychologist on April 27, 2015, 11:47:31 AM
Quote from: PSU on April 27, 2015, 11:37:20 AM
But the mods leave a joke topic like this in serious?

Lol this fucking website

Surely you of all people would know that a controversial opinion =/= a joke.

Looking at the other viewpoint as to why some people might think it's justified (Such as the scumbags who committed the attack) can help to understand how to prevent that from happening again. Simply ignoring the psychology of the enemy isn't going to do anything other than bend over and present for the next one.
That's bogus. It doesn't matter why, what matters preparing so you can stop them from doing it again.

We had this same discussion over why people would study the nazis >.>

Understanding why something happens, how people are led to believe this evil and why they are predisposed to do so in the first place is key to making sure it never happens again.

I think it does matter why, quite a lot infact. Knowing your enemy is knowing how to defeat them, when you are fighting an ideology it's doubly so. Part of preparing to stop them from doing it again is knowing what to look for in other people.

Take the boston bomber for example, if everyone simply went 'Oh what an evil man, he must have been born a monster and is going to die a monster' rather than going 'Okay, so let's find out what kind of bullshit he ate up that led him to do this atrocity' then the next budding bomber is going to be harder to look for. If you find out that he spoke to this preacher, went to this camp and learned to make bombs from this guy you can then track people through those same networks and apprehend them before they strike.

DAS B00T x2 · April 27, 2015, 12:01:36 PM

Quote from: challengerX on April 27, 2015, 11:52:02 AM

Quote from: Mr Psychologist on April 27, 2015, 11:48:53 AM
Quote from: challengerX on April 27, 2015, 11:45:17 AM
Quote from: Mr Psychologist on April 27, 2015, 11:44:09 AM
Quote from: challengerX on April 27, 2015, 11:39:10 AM
Quote from: Mr Psychologist on April 27, 2015, 11:32:33 AM
targeting civilians like that is rarely justified.
More like never.
Well, that's what I was originally thinking but then no doubt someone would bring up the whole Hiroshima/Nagasaki argument again and start justifying that.
That wasn't justified.

It was just the least evil option.
Which is a form of justifying it, not in the obvious way but saying why it was done (even as the lesser of two evils) means that choosing that course of action could be justified over the other.
The word "justified" doesn't apply.

It was the "better" option, but you can't really justify killing civvies. Personally I think it should've been dropped on a military target.

I explained how the cities were legitimate military targets in the other thread.

Word Wizard · April 27, 2015, 01:03:18 PM

It was justified in the sense that those Muslim martyrs were defending islam slaying some infidels, therefore justified by the Koran, the final, infallible word of Allah (pbuh).

challengerX · April 27, 2015, 01:03:28 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Mr. Psychologist · April 27, 2015, 01:14:51 PM

Quote from: challengerX on April 27, 2015, 01:03:28 PM

Quote from: Mr Psychologist on April 27, 2015, 12:00:04 PM
Quote from: challengerX on April 27, 2015, 11:53:07 AM
Quote from: Mr Psychologist on April 27, 2015, 11:47:31 AM
Quote from: PSU on April 27, 2015, 11:37:20 AM
But the mods leave a joke topic like this in serious?

Lol this fucking website

Surely you of all people would know that a controversial opinion =/= a joke.

Looking at the other viewpoint as to why some people might think it's justified (Such as the scumbags who committed the attack) can help to understand how to prevent that from happening again. Simply ignoring the psychology of the enemy isn't going to do anything other than bend over and present for the next one.
That's bogus. It doesn't matter why, what matters preparing so you can stop them from doing it again.
We had this same discussion over why people would study the nazis >.>

Understanding why something happens, how people are led to believe this evil and why they are predisposed to do so in the first place is key to making sure it never happens again.

I think it does matter why, quite a lot infact. Knowing your enemy is knowing how to defeat them, when you are fighting an ideology it's doubly so. Part of preparing to stop them from doing it again is knowing what to look for in other people.

Take the boston bomber for example, if everyone simply went 'Oh what an evil man, he must have been born a monster and is going to die a monster' rather than going 'Okay, so let's find out what kind of bullshit he ate up that led him to do this atrocity' then the next budding bomber is going to be harder to look for. If you find out that he spoke to this preacher, went to this camp and learned to make bombs from this guy you can then track people through those same networks and apprehend them before they strike.
That's called defending yourself properly. We know they're brainwashed by bullshit preachers.

That doesn't mean we need to study them in depth to understand they're crazy and think they're carrying out the invisible sky man's orders.

And you can't destroy an ideology.

Alright, so how do you propose defending ourselves against the jihadists? <.<

And I know this, but that doesn't mean you can't combat it at all. You just don't fight it with bullets and bombs as you would a conventional enemy.

challengerX · April 27, 2015, 01:24:53 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

gats · April 27, 2015, 01:55:27 PM

yeah it was, america has the power to cripple world economies it was a shame civies had to die but it was necessary

Mr. Psychologist · April 27, 2015, 01:58:37 PM

Quote from: challengerX on April 27, 2015, 01:24:53 PM

Quote from: Mr Psychologist on April 27, 2015, 01:14:51 PM
Quote from: challengerX on April 27, 2015, 01:03:28 PM
Quote from: Mr Psychologist on April 27, 2015, 12:00:04 PM
Quote from: challengerX on April 27, 2015, 11:53:07 AM
Quote from: Mr Psychologist on April 27, 2015, 11:47:31 AM
Quote from: PSU on April 27, 2015, 11:37:20 AM
But the mods leave a joke topic like this in serious?

Lol this fucking website

Surely you of all people would know that a controversial opinion =/= a joke.

Looking at the other viewpoint as to why some people might think it's justified (Such as the scumbags who committed the attack) can help to understand how to prevent that from happening again. Simply ignoring the psychology of the enemy isn't going to do anything other than bend over and present for the next one.
That's bogus. It doesn't matter why, what matters preparing so you can stop them from doing it again.
We had this same discussion over why people would study the nazis >.>

Understanding why something happens, how people are led to believe this evil and why they are predisposed to do so in the first place is key to making sure it never happens again.

I think it does matter why, quite a lot infact. Knowing your enemy is knowing how to defeat them, when you are fighting an ideology it's doubly so. Part of preparing to stop them from doing it again is knowing what to look for in other people.

Take the boston bomber for example, if everyone simply went 'Oh what an evil man, he must have been born a monster and is going to die a monster' rather than going 'Okay, so let's find out what kind of bullshit he ate up that led him to do this atrocity' then the next budding bomber is going to be harder to look for. If you find out that he spoke to this preacher, went to this camp and learned to make bombs from this guy you can then track people through those same networks and apprehend them before they strike.
That's called defending yourself properly. We know they're brainwashed by bullshit preachers.

That doesn't mean we need to study them in depth to understand they're crazy and think they're carrying out the invisible sky man's orders.

And you can't destroy an ideology.
Alright, so how do you propose defending ourselves against the jihadists? <.<

And I know this, but that doesn't mean you can't combat it at all. You just don't fight it with bullets and bombs as you would a conventional enemy.
This is why the NSA exists.

Indeed, and GCHQ too.

How do they know what to look for in the masses of data they sift through?
Aside from the Four Lions who send texts about bombing a boots, the ones who have some semblance of wit about themselves. They have to know what to look for and that involves studying the enemy.

Poll

Was it?

Was 9/11 justified?