[8-)]
Michael Moore obviously fails grieviously in logical reasoning. The American revolutionaries wanted to throw off the weight of tyranny and unjust taxes. Al Qaeda wants to overthrow the philosophy and personal liberty so they can be dictators. They use our “occupation” of their countries as an excuse to fight us. First, they declared war on us, and second our “occupation” is justified historically. We our their conquerors. I do want to point out to say that according to U.S. law we are in a illegal war because Congress did not explicitly declare war.
Mythology. The Hamiltonians wanted to establish their own empire without a King.
Who is Al Qaeda?
Uhm…
What?
Any war of aggression is immoral. The US has never been in a defensive war in the 20th century.
Hmm…having taken extensive courses in American history in college I must say I disagree with you liberty_student. In fact ,the Hamiltonian comment sounds like a unfounded conspiracy theory. Prove me wrong with credible sources please. 
Al Qaeda…did I spell that wrong or are you just being a hard case?
As with your other comments please explain yourself. I cannot comment on one word responses.
War being immoral or moral is subject to debate. Both sides of the argument can be logically defended. Ultimately, it ends on personal conviction.
Please explain “The US has never been in a defensive war in the 20th century”. Making a statement is rather useless when by itself.
How about Thomas Woods and Tom DiLorenzo? I’m quite certain they would both argue that the Articles of Confederation were superior to the Constitution. Are you familiar with DiLorenzo’s work on Hamilton?
No, I want to know. Who is Al Qaeda? Who is in it? Who leads it? Who funds it? Where are they?
No it isn’t. Aggression is immoral.
The only way to logically [sic] defend aggression, is to argue against order, peace and individualism. I’m pretty sure you will trap yourself in a performative contradiction if you try.
It should be apparent. None of the wars the US were in during the 20th century were defensive. They were all wars of aggression.
The idea of “Al-Qaeda” as some international network of terror is absolutely ridiculous. Its just a nice excuse for the US or any other country to use anytime they want to interevene in other countries affairs and cause more pain and death. Hey we need a reason to go to Somalia…Al-QAEDA is over there! Hey we need to go to Pakistan, HEY LOOK ITS AL-QAEDA! No one ever heard of anything called Al-Qaeda until after 9/11, why? because it doesn’t exist as a group. Are there rebel fighters and miscreants around the world who have in common the hatred of imperialist powers? Yes of course.
The “taliban” are all severely poor tribesmen- they don’t give a godamn about the “American way of life” or American culture, and they certainly don’t hate us “For our freedoms” or some nonsense like that. The idea that they want to control the entire globe is the funniest thing I’ve ever heard, and if you take it seriously you have no critical thinking skills- they just want everyone to leave them alone and do their thing. There is no reason for all the american intervention around the world- there is no just reason for the occupation of ANY country by the US. Occupying afghanistan because the taliban had bin laden is nonsense- Bin Laden didn’t carry out the attacks, whoever controlled the planes did, and they’re dead now.
For some reason no one ever makes the other comparison- if a village in afghanistan is destroyed by American airstrikes- is it ok to invade and occupy the hometown of the American who gave the go-ahead for the airstrike?
Meh. Al Qaeda is an American created term used for ideologically similar but unaffiliated groups and includes whoever Washintgon wants it to include at that moment.
just because its an excuse doesn’t mean its not real. a good portion of your text is made up of non-sequitusr. you make lots of statements i agree with, particularly when you stick to facts, and then you launch of to dubious conclusions from them…
unfortunately some of your facts are incorrect also. ‘Al Qaeda’ terrorist organisation affiliated with Bin Laden were ‘heard about’ prior to 9/11
Nir, are you still believing the TV? [;)]
Cavemen from Afghanistan coming to take away your guitar and your blue jeans?
my roots are in the middle east. 9/11 wasn’t the first time I heard of the lunatic islamic fringe, unlike for many other people.
We won’t know if they are terrorist or revolutionary heroes until the winners write the history later. If the colonist lost the war I’m sure the Brits would have called them terrorist (or whatever word they used back then).
“Al Qaeda does not exist.” Yes. I believe the term is actually Arabic for “toilet”.[:D]
AQ is just another convenient CIA created bogeyman to focus hate on Muslims- effectively a brand new “Emmanuel Goldstein” to replace the failed Russian state bogeymen and to ensure the continued massive funding for the US military state.
"Even the people involved in 9/11 attacks were sons of wealthy and secular Arab families, several of whom lived and studied in the West."
There were no arabs flying planes into the Pentagon or the WTC complex on 911,wealthy or otherwise, simply because no planes flew into buildings that day.
All "evidence of planes flying into buildings, including network and cable TV “live” footage, was faked via crude computer animations, as was all evidence of arab hijackers etc., even the flight records for the alleged planes.
You bin had .Have a nice day!
So you’re familiar with the lunatic islamists, the american interventionists and the zionist fascists. [;)]
Nor I.
haha, i see what you did there [:D]
Thus we came full circle.
Well, the American Revolutionaries never hijacked a civilian airline and crashed it into a British skyscraper, killing everybody onboard.
That’s a bit of a difference…
liberty student. Let me read up on what ou said about Hamilton. I am open minded.AS with war being immoral and your idea that I’ll entrap myself. I think the basis of your logic will make any argument from me entrapment. You believe that anything that is against individualism, etc is immoral. With that in mind you give a very limited definition in which you define your terms/arguments. With that in mind, Ill give an alternate defintion and argue from there. There’s more than one way to skin a cat.
lol-i-pop
on Hamilton:
-
at the Constitution Convention he brought up how the states shouldn’t have sovereignty and the federal “governor” (his term; which became known as President thus his concept wasn’t accepted) and senators should serve for a lifetime. states not having sovereignty thus federal government would have absolute control over entire territory.
-
at first Hamilton wanted the “president” to be a king, but after some other states submitted their plan he pulled back to “governor”.
obviously his ambitions were not picked up. now I’ve heard rumors, but I’m not sure if this is true or not. I’ve heard that he wanted to take an army while John Adams was President and establish an American Empire to the tip of South America and this was if not the main reason, but a reason John Adams dissolved the army. It had been formed for a war happening at the time, but again, I’m not even sure what war it was.
the first two comments I made I’ve confirmed to be true. that last one about the army, I’m not readily sure.
don’t ask me why, but when i read that immediately Shirley Temple singing “Good ship Lolipop” popped into my head…[:P]
and then it fit my perspective on what you responded to, not so much what you said, what you responded to…
all in good fun [:D]